On Apr 6, 9:35 pm, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:

On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now

Robyn Williams: That was Daniel Lieberman who is professor of anthropology
at Harvard talking about 'running man', and we've got a picture there of
human beings or their predecessors on the plains running large distances and
having the skeleton that kind of suits it.
Stephen Munro at the Australian National University in Canberra has a sort
of contrary view of our history. Not necessarily running along plains having
left the forests. Stephen, how do you see us evolving?
Stephen Munro: The problem I have with the endurance running model is
basically the Homo erectus was different to Homo sapiens in some parts of
the skeleton which make it unfavourable for endurance running. For example,
they had very thick bones in the skeleton; both the cranium and the post
cranium were very thick. So I and a number of my colleagues follow some
ideas that have been around for close to half a century now that water
played a more important role in human evolution and that humans are
basically evolved from animals that were well adapted to climbing,
obviously, as we share that with chimps, gorillas and orang-utans, but
humans became better adapted to living near the waterside, so we were able
to forage, not only on land and in trees but also in shallow waters, by
wading but also by foraging underwater, which means swimming and diving.
Robyn Williams: The aquatic ape. I'm reminded of Elaine Morgan and some
wonderful stories. She's been on The Science Show talking about how we've
got various characteristics similar to elephants; we cry and we've got
subcutaneous fat, all sorts of things. Do you have us living as she did in
and under the water or simply wading around close to it?
Stephen Munro: As far as Elaine Morgan's ideas go, I wouldn't say that she
has humans living permanently under the water, I think she certainly would
follow the idea that humans spent time in the water foraging for food. As
far as I'm concerned they spent some part of perhaps every day or some part
of the year foraging in the water for food. So that would be shellfish and
aquatic plants. These are foods that don't swim away from you, you don't
have to chase them, it's just a matter of gathering them, but you have to go
under the water often to collect these things. So not deep water but
probably shallow waters.
Robyn Williams: Rather less energetic than chasing across the Serengeti with
a beast in front of you for kilometres on end, you can simply dive under and
pick it up.
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game.

During the dry season, yes.

This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting.

Fishing too, but so what.

How many tools are needed for a shellfish?

Stupid question. Lots of tools are needed for fishing. And shellfish
are so rare in this habitat that it's absurd to even mention them.

None. Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit.

Motivation for a tool kit? This is such a silly notion. Hominids use
tools as a result of the fact that they evolved consciousness and
intellect. And consciousness and intellect are the result of group/
communal selection (the details of which are explained in my
hypothesis). Tools would be useful in all types of habitat.

How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game? The emphasis is VERY clear.

The emphasis exists only in your imagination.

claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

On Apr 6, 9:35 pm, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:

On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now

Robyn Williams: That was Daniel Lieberman who is professor of anthropology
at Harvard talking about 'running man', and we've got a picture there of
human beings or their predecessors on the plains running large distances and
having the skeleton that kind of suits it.
Stephen Munro at the Australian National University in Canberra has a sort
of contrary view of our history. Not necessarily running along plains having
left the forests. Stephen, how do you see us evolving?
Stephen Munro: The problem I have with the endurance running model is
basically the Homo erectus was different to Homo sapiens in some parts of
the skeleton which make it unfavourable for endurance running. For example,
they had very thick bones in the skeleton; both the cranium and the post
cranium were very thick. So I and a number of my colleagues follow some
ideas that have been around for close to half a century now that water
played a more important role in human evolution and that humans are
basically evolved from animals that were well adapted to climbing,
obviously, as we share that with chimps, gorillas and orang-utans, but
humans became better adapted to living near the waterside, so we were able
to forage, not only on land and in trees but also in shallow waters, by
wading but also by foraging underwater, which means swimming and diving.
Robyn Williams: The aquatic ape. I'm reminded of Elaine Morgan and some
wonderful stories. She's been on The Science Show talking about how we've
got various characteristics similar to elephants; we cry and we've got
subcutaneous fat, all sorts of things. Do you have us living as she did in
and under the water or simply wading around close to it?
Stephen Munro: As far as Elaine Morgan's ideas go, I wouldn't say that she
has humans living permanently under the water, I think she certainly would
follow the idea that humans spent time in the water foraging for food. As
far as I'm concerned they spent some part of perhaps every day or some part
of the year foraging in the water for food. So that would be shellfish and
aquatic plants. These are foods that don't swim away from you, you don't
have to chase them, it's just a matter of gathering them, but you have to go
under the water often to collect these things. So not deep water but
probably shallow waters.
Robyn Williams: Rather less energetic than chasing across the Serengeti with
a beast in front of you for kilometres on end, you can simply dive under and
pick it up.
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example.. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game.

During the dry season, yes.

Any season. Animals need to drink year round.

This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting.

Fishing too, but so what.

More on hunting than fishing.

How many tools are needed for a shellfish?

Stupid question.  Lots of tools are needed for fishing.  And shellfish
are so rare in this habitat that it's absurd to even mention them.

Not stupid, hard for an aater to answer.

None.  Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit.

Motivation for a tool kit?  This is such a silly notion.  Hominids use
tools as a result of the fact that they evolved consciousness and
intellect.  And consciousness and intellect are the result of group/
communal selection (the details of which are explained in my
hypothesis).  Tools would be useful in all types of habitat.

Not a silly notion. You make a flake tool - why?

What is the motivation?
In terms of processing game, use it to scrap flesh off bone. It's a solution
to a problem.

How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game?  The emphasis is VERY clear.

The emphasis exists only in your imagination.

You mean there are just as many cave paintings showing fishing?

Where?

"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:35 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now
[...]
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example.. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game. This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting. How many tools are needed for a shellfish?
None.  Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit. How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game?  The emphasis is VERY clear.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.  and besides, predators usually drink a bit of water too.

In the AA camp, that makes them aquatic.

(compare to chimp drinking behaviour... sponges and etc.)
The toolkit is relatively recent.  Or at least the stone toolkit.  As
generalists, "we" probably tried to eat just about everything, and
used our new tools to obtain it... and ended up favoring the large
animal meats.  This only accounts for about the last 2.5 million years
of evolution; what were the apiths up to?  Oh, by the way, it is

Since by that time they were indeed modifying tools, evidence is lacking
as to when they developed that skill.

plausible IMHO that shellfish eating required at least some sort of
hammer tool.  And that women may have been the main ones using such a

Hammer tools do not require any modification. Capuchins exhibit this behavior
and have not done anything with them except use them as hammers.

tool.

Ian Tattersall has a nice discussion about stone tools starting on
page 91 of his book "The Monkey in the Mirror."

What was of interest in this post was that the quality of the argument
was improving.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 21, 12:13 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:





"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:35 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now
[...]
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept.....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game. This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting. How many tools are needed for a shellfish?
None.  Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit. How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game?  The emphasis is VERY clear.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.  and besides, predators usually drink a bit of water too.

In the AA camp, that makes them aquatic.

(compare to chimp drinking behaviour... sponges and etc.)
The toolkit is relatively recent.  Or at least the stone toolkit.  As
generalists, "we" probably tried to eat just about everything, and
used our new tools to obtain it... and ended up favoring the large
animal meats.  This only accounts for about the last 2.5 million years
of evolution; what were the apiths up to?  Oh, by the way, it is

Since by that time they were indeed modifying tools, evidence is lacking
as to when they developed that skill.

True... the brain must have been "ready" to develop tools at least a
few generations before they were actually used.  Or made.  I guess we
could speculate for a long time as to which brain-change made tool
modification possible, and what environmental factor made it
necessary.  

(Indeed, that is the real value of sap, when the
discussions are actually productive.)

Communal selection:  See my hypothesis.

On Apr 12, 11:38 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

SF:

What can an amateur say?

That only complete fools base a whole theory on a few ostrich egg shells
found next to homind raemians.

That's a few more ostrich eggs than you have crayfish, wetloon.

I think Lee's response here demostrates that he has a poor
understanding of depositional processes in regards to fossilization.

On Apr 21, 6:37 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"





caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:13 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:35 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now
[...]
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept.....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game. This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting. How many tools are needed for a shellfish?
None.  Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit. How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game?  The emphasis is VERY clear..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.  and besides, predators usually drink a bit of water too.

In the AA camp, that makes them aquatic.

(compare to chimp drinking behaviour... sponges and etc.)
The toolkit is relatively recent.  Or at least the stone toolkit.  As
generalists, "we" probably tried to eat just about everything, and
used our new tools to obtain it... and ended up favoring the large
animal meats.  This only accounts for about the last 2.5 million years
of evolution; what were the apiths up to?  Oh, by the way, it is

Since by that time they were indeed modifying tools, evidence is lacking
as to when they developed that skill.

True... the brain must have been "ready" to develop tools at least a
few generations before they were actually used.  Or made.  I guess we
could speculate for a long time as to which brain-change made tool
modification possible, and what environmental factor made it
necessary.  

Communal selection:  See my hypothesis.

(Indeed, that is the real value of sap, when the
discussions are actually productive.)

Although they would not admit it now, conventional theorists have
assumed that tool using itself explains hominid intellectual
development.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 22, 10:33 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:





On Apr 21, 6:37 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"

caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:13 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:35 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now
[...]
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game. This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting. How many tools are needed for a shellfish?
None.  Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit.. How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game?  The emphasis is VERY clear.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.  and besides, predators usually drink a bit of water too..

In the AA camp, that makes them aquatic.

(compare to chimp drinking behaviour... sponges and etc.)
The toolkit is relatively recent.  Or at least the stone toolkit..  As
generalists, "we" probably tried to eat just about everything, and
used our new tools to obtain it... and ended up favoring the large
animal meats.  This only accounts for about the last 2.5 million years
of evolution; what were the apiths up to?  Oh, by the way, it is

Since by that time they were indeed modifying tools, evidence is lacking
as to when they developed that skill.

True... the brain must have been "ready" to develop tools at least a
few generations before they were actually used.  Or made.  I guess we
could speculate for a long time as to which brain-change made tool
modification possible, and what environmental factor made it
necessary.  

Communal selection:  See my hypothesis.

(Indeed, that is the real value of sap, when the
discussions are actually productive.)

Although they would not admit it now, conventional theorists have
assumed that tool using itself explains hominid intellectual
development.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

  Some do.  Others have other theories.  All of them have to fit the
known fossil record, or get trashed.  It was up until Jane Goodall
that the tool use theory was in vogue.  But hey!  that is a bit of a
misnomer on my part.  It isn't really a "tool use theory" as much as
the concept that the use of tools by humans was our distinctive
feature, our distinguished-from-the-apes feature.

Nowadays, it is
that we have language and a consciousness that can plan the future...
can plan to use tools in the future <grin> or whatever we need.
   Even if "communal selection" provides the answer to why we have
consciousness, you still have to explain what advantage it has over
other forms of communal life, in, say, the bonobos.

And, since
evolution has no forethought, explain how the brain structures
necessary for consciousness evolved BEFORE the actual need for
consciousness.

(Good material in your book?  Your next revision of
your scenario?)

You make no sense here.  

On Apr 22, 4:41 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"





caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:33 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Apr 21, 6:37 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"

caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:13 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:35 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now
[...]
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game. This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting. How many tools are needed for a shellfish?
None.  Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit. How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game?  The emphasis is VERY clear.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.  and besides, predators usually drink a bit of water too.

In the AA camp, that makes them aquatic.

(compare to chimp drinking behaviour... sponges and etc.)
The toolkit is relatively recent.  Or at least the stone toolkit.  As
generalists, "we" probably tried to eat just about everything, and
used our new tools to obtain it... and ended up favoring the large
animal meats.  This only accounts for about the last 2.5 million years
of evolution; what were the apiths up to?  Oh, by the way, it is

Since by that time they were indeed modifying tools, evidence is lacking
as to when they developed that skill.

True... the brain must have been "ready" to develop tools at least a
few generations before they were actually used.  Or made.  I guess we
could speculate for a long time as to which brain-change made tool
modification possible, and what environmental factor made it
necessary.  

Communal selection:  See my hypothesis.

(Indeed, that is the real value of sap, when the
discussions are actually productive.)

Although they would not admit it now, conventional theorists have
assumed that tool using itself explains hominid intellectual
development.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

  Some do.  Others have other theories.  All of them have to fit the
known fossil record, or get trashed.  It was up until Jane Goodall
that the tool use theory was in vogue.  But hey!  that is a bit of a
misnomer on my part.  It isn't really a "tool use theory" as much as
the concept that the use of tools by humans was our distinctive
feature, our distinguished-from-the-apes feature.

It's plainly absurd to suggest that tool usage is our *only*
distinctive feature.

Nowadays, it is
that we have language and a consciousness that can plan the future...
can plan to use tools in the future <grin> or whatever we need.
   Even if "communal selection" provides the answer to why we have
consciousness, you still have to explain what advantage it has over
other forms of communal life, in, say, the bonobos.

You make no sense here.  There is no communal territorialism amongst
bonopos.  Nor is there a selective basis (see my hypothesis) for them
to develop such.

And, since
evolution has no forethought, explain how the brain structures
necessary for consciousness evolved BEFORE the actual need for
consciousness.

I make no such claim.  The LCA (and bonopos) have a limited degree of
consciousness.  Why do you assume that bonopos have no consciousness
at all?

(Good material in your book?  Your next revision of
your scenario?)

No.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 22, 8:14 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:





On Apr 22, 4:41 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"

caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:33 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Apr 21, 6:37 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"

caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:13 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:35 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911..htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now
[...]
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game. This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting. How many tools are needed for a shellfish?
None.  Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit. How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game?  The emphasis is VERY clear.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.  and besides, predators usually drink a bit of water too.

In the AA camp, that makes them aquatic.

(compare to chimp drinking behaviour... sponges and etc.)
The toolkit is relatively recent.  Or at least the stone toolkit.  As
generalists, "we" probably tried to eat just about everything, and
used our new tools to obtain it... and ended up favoring the large
animal meats.  This only accounts for about the last 2.5 million years
of evolution; what were the apiths up to?  Oh, by the way, it is

Since by that time they were indeed modifying tools, evidence is lacking
as to when they developed that skill.

True... the brain must have been "ready" to develop tools at least a
few generations before they were actually used.  Or made.  I guess we
could speculate for a long time as to which brain-change made tool
modification possible, and what environmental factor made it
necessary.  

Communal selection:  See my hypothesis.

(Indeed, that is the real value of sap, when the
discussions are actually productive.)

Although they would not admit it now, conventional theorists have
assumed that tool using itself explains hominid intellectual
development.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

  Some do.  Others have other theories.  All of them have to fit the
known fossil record, or get trashed.  It was up until Jane Goodall
that the tool use theory was in vogue.  But hey!  that is a bit of a
misnomer on my part.  It isn't really a "tool use theory" as much as
the concept that the use of tools by humans was our distinctive
feature, our distinguished-from-the-apes feature.

It's plainly absurd to suggest that tool usage is our *only*
distinctive feature.

I agree.



Nowadays, it is
that we have language and a consciousness that can plan the future...
can plan to use tools in the future <grin> or whatever we need.
   Even if "communal selection" provides the answer to why we have
consciousness, you still have to explain what advantage it has over
other forms of communal life, in, say, the bonobos.

You make no sense here.  There is no communal territorialism amongst
bonopos.  Nor is there a selective basis (see my hypothesis) for them
to develop such.

Oh.  My bad.  You said communal selection before, and not
territorialism.



And, since
evolution has no forethought, explain how the brain structures
necessary for consciousness evolved BEFORE the actual need for
consciousness.

I make no such claim.  The LCA (and bonopos) have a limited degree of
consciousness.  Why do you assume that bonopos have no consciousness
at all?

I don't.  I'll start a new thread on this one after my vacation in
boo'tifull Charleston this weekend...

On Apr 22, 5:31 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"





caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 22, 8:14 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Apr 22, 4:41 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"

caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:33 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Apr 21, 6:37 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"

caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:13 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:35 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now
[...]
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game. This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting. How many tools are needed for a shellfish?
None.  Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit. How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game?  The emphasis is VERY clear.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.  and besides, predators usually drink a bit of water too.

In the AA camp, that makes them aquatic.

(compare to chimp drinking behaviour... sponges and etc.)
The toolkit is relatively recent.  Or at least the stone toolkit.  As
generalists, "we" probably tried to eat just about everything, and
used our new tools to obtain it... and ended up favoring the large
animal meats.  This only accounts for about the last 2.5 million years
of evolution; what were the apiths up to?  Oh, by the way, it is

Since by that time they were indeed modifying tools, evidence is lacking
as to when they developed that skill.

True... the brain must have been "ready" to develop tools at least a
few generations before they were actually used.  Or made.  I guess we
could speculate for a long time as to which brain-change made tool
modification possible, and what environmental factor made it
necessary.  

Communal selection:  See my hypothesis.

(Indeed, that is the real value of sap, when the
discussions are actually productive.)

Although they would not admit it now, conventional theorists have
assumed that tool using itself explains hominid intellectual
development.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

  Some do.  Others have other theories.  All of them have to fit the
known fossil record, or get trashed.  It was up until Jane Goodall
that the tool use theory was in vogue.  But hey!  that is a bit of a
misnomer on my part.  It isn't really a "tool use theory" as much as
the concept that the use of tools by humans was our distinctive
feature, our distinguished-from-the-apes feature.

It's plainly absurd to suggest that tool usage is our *only*
distinctive feature.

I agree.

Nowadays, it is
that we have language and a consciousness that can plan the future....
can plan to use tools in the future <grin> or whatever we need.
   Even if "communal selection" provides the answer to why we have
consciousness, you still have to explain what advantage it has over
other forms of communal life, in, say, the bonobos.

You make no sense here.  There is no communal territorialism amongst
bonopos.  Nor is there a selective basis (see my hypothesis) for them
to develop such.

Oh.  My bad.  You said communal selection before, and not
territorialism.

And, since
evolution has no forethought, explain how the brain structures
necessary for consciousness evolved BEFORE the actual need for
consciousness.

I make no such claim.  The LCA (and bonopos) have a limited degree of
consciousness.  Why do you assume that bonopos have no consciousness
at all?

I don't.  I'll start a new thread on this one after my vacation in
boo'tifull Charleston this weekend...

Have fun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -