Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, potential fossil evidence,...

Author Message
RichTravsky...
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:18 pm
 
"C. H. Engelbrecht" wrote:
[quote]
On 4 Okt., 02:31, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Marc Verhaegen wrote:

Fossil penguins: bipedalism, uprightness, bone density, toes,
rockhopping & walking
http://fossilpenguins.wordpress.com/

Yes, some remarkable parallels. Thanks, DD.

We are not penguins.

No one is suggesting we're penguins, that's folly in the wake of
[/quote]
Marc appears to be doing so.

[quote]Darwin's work. What penguins and humans have in common is bipedalism
on a vertical spine. All birds have horisontal spines, except for
penguins, which are aquatic.
The only known modern day fully bipedal mammal with a vertical spine
are humans. To seek evolutionary answers for why that is, we need to
seek out physiological comparisons, and the only one which might be
applicable are penguins, because they are the only known other
instance of bipedalism+vertical spine in the animal kingdom.
[/quote]
Compare a human skeleton with this:

http://www.frozencritters.net/catalog/100_1574.jpg

Note the long flexible neck and short, stubby limbs.

Cormorant:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2444/4012005118_212bca34cd.jpg

Not much different. But note that "vertical spine" and the LONG flexible
neck, suited to look forward whether bipedal or swimming.

Human necks and heads are completely unsuited for a lifestyle like theirs.
If it were, then the foramen magnum would located differently or we'd have
a longer neck.
 
RichTravsky...
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:19 pm
 
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[quote]
Fossil penguins: bipedalism, uprightness, bone density, toes,
rockhopping & walking
http://fossilpenguins.wordpress.com/

Yes, some remarkable parallels. Thanks, DD.

Some netloon:
We are not penguins.

Bats & birds have wings. Our netloon now says that bats are no birds. This
man is simply stupid stupid stupid. He has never heard of Darwin or
convergences apparently. Darwin's theory is based on convergences:
convergences prove that Darwinism is no tautology.
[/quote]
Humans have short stubby limbs Marc? Stupid stupid stupid.

[quote]No one is suggesting we're penguins, that's folly in the wake of
Darwin's work. What penguins and humans have in common is bipedalism
on a vertical spine. All birds have horizontal spines, except for
penguins, which are aquatic.
The only known modern day fully bipedal mammal with a vertical spine
are humans. To seek evolutionary answers for why that is, we need to
seek out physiological comparisons, and the only one which might be
applicable are penguins, because they are the only known other
instance of bipedalism+vertical spine in the animal kingdom.

Yes, obvious, but too difficult for our netloon I'm afraid.[/quote]
 
RichTravsky...
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:20 pm
 
Claudius Denk wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 9:59 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Message-ID: <1164616361.922426.285660 at (no spam) l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
Jim McGinn: "And then consider the fact that A'pith were shorter
and slighter than moden humans and the Sabertoothed lion were even
bigger and more muscular than present day lions. It's a done deal.
The only place A'pith could have survived an attack by a lion is to
get
high in a tree. And considering the lions speed--and this amazing
video leaves no doubt about their speed--we can be fairly certain
that
they never ventured more than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."

"Sabertoothed lion"? Like unicorns and the aquatic ape, there was no
such
animal. Does anyone have a net to throw over this scientific
imposter?

Olsen, other than the one on the top of your head, do you have a point?
[/quote]
That you're wrong again?
 
JTEM...
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:28 pm
 
Psycho, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote] "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
  at around 6,700 years of age:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063
[/quote]
Yes it does say that, but it not only has nothing to do
with Aquatic Ape Theory, it has nothing to do with the
thread you mined this from. In THAT thread you were
WRONGLY claiming that it was Clovis. Because, you
know, you're an idiot.

...which is why you're posting off topic.
 
Lee Olsen...
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:31 am
 
JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:


 "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
  at around 6,700 years of age:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063
[quote]
Yes it does say that,
[/quote]
You idiot, what part of over 10,000 are you too stupid to understand?
The oldest human remains at Marmes are not "around" 6,700 years old.
You can't type out "around" because it doesn't exist.


[quote]but it not only has nothing to do
with Aquatic Ape Theory,
[/quote]
Your post has nothing to do with the AAT, you simply tell
a lot of lies.

[quote]it has nothing to do with the
thread you mined this from. In THAT thread you were
WRONGLY claiming that it was Clovis.
[/quote]
Says the liar who claims the oldest human remains at Marmes
are 6,700 years old. This proves how incredibly stupid you are.
That has everything to do with any subject, not only this one.
 
JTEM...
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm
 
Transparent as glass, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]"This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
at around 6,700 years of age:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063
[/quote]
Yes it does, but what your twisted excuse for a brain thinks
it has to do with the Aquatic Ape theory is a mystery that
only medication at the proper doses could clear up.

Seriously, mental case, isn't it about time you were honest
with yourself and came to terms with the fact that there's
really something wrong with you, and that usenet is no
substitute for a doctor's care?

In thread, after thread, after thread you're unable to cope with
the subject at hand, refusing to so much as try and contribute
anything worthwhile. Instead, when you're not too busy
dredging up ancient posts that you never understood, you're
re-re-re-posting this stupid strawman.

Psst. Your claim was that it was Clovis. It's not. The Marmes
Rockshelter is not Clovis.

Idiot.
 
Paul Crowley...
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:32 am
 
On 10/10/2010 22:45, Claudius Denk wrote:

[quote]What crazy 'reasoning'. Firstly, it's most
unlikely that normal elephants in a normal
environment flee at the sight of a mouse.
They must see them often, and know that
they are not a danger. Secondly, other
large mammals do NOT flee from mice.

I hardly consider the supposition that herbivorous
species are skittish to be controversial.

To be 'skittish' is to be both unpredictable
and dangerous. If you want to live, avoid
getting near large skittish mammals,
especially those with horns, tusks or large
teeth.
[..]

I consider it a small victory that you admit they are skittish.
[/quote]
I make no such admission. I doubt if hippos
would ever be so, or buffalo, or most zebra, or
most other large herbivores. In any case, it
would be most unwise for a hominid to get near
a group of zebra. They will readily kick or run
you down.

[quote]You are wrong. Chimps can certainly move quite
fast to get to trees, but early hominids could not.

Evidence?

It's in all papers on australopiths and earlier
hominids that deal with their locomotion.

IOW, it's somebody's (who?) interpretation of the
evidence. Right? We don't actually have any direct
evidence that they weren't capable of moving as faster or
even (possibly) faster (over distances less than one
hundred yards) than, let's say, either extant humans or
extant chimps. Right?
[/quote]
Wrong. Firstly, extant chimps can run quadrupedally
-- very much faster than hominids. Secondly, experts
can look at fossils and determine muscle size, and
say what the species could, or could not, have done.
Thirdly, we can more readily trust conclusions that
they make which are uncomfortable for them. They
would much rather conclude that early hominids
could run well. It would not leave an horrendous
problem hanging in the air.

[quote](BTW, I have forgotten why you
even brought this subject up. Can you clarify?)
[/quote]
You make an ancient and foolish mistake; you
claim that quadrupedal apes became bipedal in
order to get better at certain things on the ground,
which fossil studies now show they could not begin
to do -- i.e. you claim that they ran around and
scared off large herbivores. That's almost as
stupid as claiming that they came down from the
trees to run around the savanna hunting down fast
prey -- a theory which (small mercies) has now
bitten the dust -- even if it has not replaced with
anything better.

[quote]It should be sufficient to know that ordinary
mammals (such as large herbivores) would be
better at night than would primates.

Sufficient for what? The apes/hominids in my scenario
would have to be night blind for it to be a problem for my
scenario.

At a certain point in the night, there is enough
light for ordinary mammals to get around, but
not enough for primates to be able to see them.

You're not following. You need to convince me that the
LCA was night-blind. That is *the* issue AFAICT.
[/quote]
No, it is NOT the issue. 'Night-blind' is not an
on/off switch. It is a spectrum of capacities.
The question is whether or not the LCA was
_more_ night-blind than the animals its descendants
were supposed to be chasing. And, of course, it was
much more night-blind. That fact destroys your
scenario.

[quote]Assuming that the mammals have some fear
of the primates (which I reject for all those of
the primate size and greater) they can, at that
point, eat up, or destroy the resources the
primates would like to guard.

You lost me.

I'd have
them 'gardening' from a very early stage, in
the safety of their island. I'd say that such
an activity was a crucial feature of the hominid
niche almost from the start. It allowed for much
larger and more dense populations than would
otherwise have been possible. It would often
have been a 'life-saver' for such populations.

Gardening requires a fairly high level of consciousness
and deliberation.

Chimps and orangs are close to that stage now.
It needs little more than one bright animal to
realise the advantages, and the rest will copy.

Absurd.
[/quote]
It is entirely reasonable. The first 're-plantings'
of edible crops would have happened accidentally,
but the results would, at some stage, have been
noticed. Then it would have been done deliberately.
Apes are often seen to do things that need much
more 'conscious deliberation'.

[quote](My hypothesis purports to explain
the selective origins of such.)

It does not -- because it does not place them in
a context where such a development is feasible.
It is essential that the species live on the ground,
and have little or no interference from herbivores.
One such place would be a small off-shore island
(possibly adjacent to a larger ones). The regular
use of digging sticks would also facilitate such a
practice.

Incidental speculation.

I don't know why you are even bothering with the things
you are pretending to dispute. These aspects of my
hypothesis aren't, IMO, all that controversial. IMO, the
most vulnerable aspect of my Ecological Gatekeeper
Hypothesis is its assumptions about the predatory
implications, specifally about the dry-season predatory
massacres that would have potentially caused the
extinction, or at least decimation, of whole communities.
If it could be demonstrated (or convincingly argued) that
these could not have happened (during middle to late
miocene in east Africa) then that would refute my whole
hypothesis.
[/quote]
The whole thing is so nonsensical that I don't
bother to consider it. You never dream of
presenting any evidence that might back it up.
When was the last "dry-season predatory
massacre" witnessed? Or anything like it?


Paul.
 
Marc Verhaegen...
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:11 pm
 
Some netloon at s.a.p declares:

[quote]Everything about our culture is ultimately land based.
[/quote]
??

Apparently the man's "culture"(??) ultimately (??) doesn't include rice,
fish, crayfish, seaweeds, shellfish...

[quote]... why did
hominids spend so much time developing stone tools and the like?
[/quote]
Like other stone tool using animals, of course. What else?
Only creationists think hominids must be an exception.

Hard tools &/or thick enamel are typically seen in durophagous animals.
Tool-using & thick-enameled mammals are:
- sea otters: stones etc.
- capuchins: shells to open oysters, stones to open nuts etc.
- early hominids-pongids:

2 +-distinct phases can be discerned in hominoid tool use:

1) Miocene:
Pongids make & use tools, hominids make & use tools, so tool use might
predate the hominid/pongid split c 15 Ma.
IOW, hominid-pongid tool use seems to have evolved at about the same time as
their thick enamel: Afropith, Heliopith, Griphopith etc.
Heliopith & Griphopith 17-14 Ma are found in coastal forests (where
capuchins today use shells to open mangrove oysters).

2) Pleistocene:
Specialisation in stone tool use is seen in H.erectus when they spread to
other continents along coasts & rivers.
All H.erectus fossils are found next to shellfish, eg, google "econiche
Homo", they ate hard-shelled invertebrates & used shells to butcher drowned
bovids, eg, Choi & Driwantoro 2007 J.archaeol.Sci.34:48, Joordens cs 2009
JHE 57:656.

Nevertheless, the netloon now declares:

[quote]Not for fish or shells...
[/quote]
??

- fish: Although nobody speaks of fish (fish consumption is probably very
late in human evolution), harpoons did have stone points.
- shells: Sea otters, chimps & capuchins use stone tools to open nut &/or
mollusc shells.

[quote]Think about it.
[/quote]
Very Happy
 
Marc Verhaegen...
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:58 pm
 
Some netloon at s.a.p declares:

[quote]Everything about our culture is ultimately land based.
[/quote]
The man's "culture"(??) apparently ultimately doesn't include rice, fish,
crayfish, seaweeds, shellfish etc.

[quote]... why did
hominids spend so much time developing stone tools and the like?
[/quote]
Like all stone tool using animals, of course. Why else?
Only creationists think humans must be an exception.

- Capuchins use shells to open mangrove oysters, and stones to open
nutshells.
- All gr.apes make & use tools to open nutshells etc.
- Sea otters use stone tools to open shellfish.

Stone use + thick enamel is seen in:
- capuchin
- sea otter
- H.erectus & relatives
- probably early hominids-pongids.

2 +-distinct phases can be discerned in hominoid tool use:

1) Miocene:
Pongids & hominids make & use tools, so the beginnings or our tool use might
predate the hominid/pongid split c 15 Ma.
Hard tools &/or thick enamel are typically seen in durophagous animals.
Thick enamel is seen in the early hominoids Afropith, Heliopith, Griphopith
etc.
Heliopith & Griphopith fossils are found in coastal forests (cf mangrove
capuchins opening oysters with shells).

2) Pleistocene:
Elaboration of stone tool use is seen in H.erectus & relatives, who spread
to different continents & islands along coasts & rivers.
H.erectus is know to have eaten shellish & used mollusc shells (probably
Tridacna gigas) to butcher drowend bovids, eg, Choi & Driwantoro 2007
J.archaeol.Sci.34:48, Joordens cs.2009 JHE 57:656.
All erectus fossils are found next to shellfish, eg, google "econiche Homo".


[quote]Not for fish or shells...
[/quote]
??

- fish:
Although nobody speaks of fish here (fish consumption is probably very late
in our evolution), harpoons did have stone points AFAIK.

- shells:
Chimps, capuchins & sea otters do use stone tools to open nut &/or mollusc
shells.

[quote]Think about it.
[/quote]
Very Happy
 
JTEM...
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:16 pm
 
mclark <mbclar... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100811135039.htm

Read the ardi papers for clues as to why the AA(X) should be an
embarrassment for its proponents.
[/quote]
There's nothing to support your statement, not so much as a word.

What is it you're misunderstanding as supporting your views?

> http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/
 
Lee Olsen...
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:07 am
 
On Oct 11, 10:16 pm, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]
There's nothing to support your statement, not so much as a word.
[/quote]
You mean like your reply?
 
mclark...
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:42 am
 
On Oct 12, 12:16 am, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote] mclark <mbclar... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100811135039.htm

Read the ardi papers for clues as to why the AA(X) should be an
embarrassment for its proponents.

There's nothing to support your statement, not so much as a word.

What is it you're misunderstanding as supporting your views?



http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Wow. First I provide an article which challenges the HE/2.6mya/Stone
Tools
thing and then another link to 11 (Eleven) papers challenging the
usual
wet ape canards (wading into bipedalism) and now I have provided
"nothing
to support [my] statement[s]". This JTEM fella sure is a classic, eh?
Lee, I don't know how you do it (or should I say, "Rich"? LOL).

Hey, JTEM. I see *nothing* to distinguish you from any of the
other chandelier swingers in this newsgroup: Marco, Mario,
Dimmy, Pauly --the lot of them. And that's not a good thing.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition,
but certainty is absurd." -- Voltaire
 
Lee Olsen...
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:42 am
 
On Oct 12, 7:42 am, mclark <mbclar... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

[quote]Lee, I don't know how you do it....
[/quote]
You do pretty well also, I'm envious...my list isn't
near this good:


"Also, ardi is an A'pith."
Dimmy --09/14/2010


This is really great stuff, Dimmy. Right up there with
some of your other insights:


"We descended from chimps."
Dimmy --08/04/2004


"All archeologists consider stone tools
to be fossils" Dimmy --07/31/2008


"Duck, dodge, weave, faint [sic]."
--Dimmy 07/25/2008


"You make it obvious that your [sic]
an amateur." Dimmy --11/21/2005


"Agriculture probably stretches back
hundreds of thousand if not millions
of years. " Dimmy --10/22/2006


"One of the benefits of smaller brains is the
ability to make split second decisions faster
than larger brains." --Dimmy 8/5/2006
 
Claudius Denk...
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:32 am
 
On Oct 12, 8:42 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 7:42 am, mclark <mbclar... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Lee, I don't know how you do it....

You do pretty well also, I'm envious...my list isn't
near this good:

"Also, ardi is an A'pith."
Dimmy --09/14/2010

This is really great stuff, Dimmy.  Right up there with
some of your other insights:

"We descended from chimps."
  Dimmy --08/04/2004

"All archeologists consider stone tools
 to be fossils"  Dimmy --07/31/2008

"Duck, dodge, weave, faint [sic]."
--Dimmy  07/25/2008

"You make it obvious that your [sic]
 an amateur."  Dimmy --11/21/2005

"Agriculture probably stretches back
hundreds of thousand if not millions
of years. " Dimmy  --10/22/2006

"One of the benefits of smaller brains is the
ability to make split second decisions faster
than larger brains."  --Dimmy 8/5/2006
[/quote]
It's interesting that you will go to all this trouble to gather up
these propaganda quotes but you won't spend any time at all
constructing/presenting any hypothetical thinking that directly
addresses the issues under discussion. As I've stated previously, you
learn more about what people think from what they refuse to discuss
than you do from what they do discuss.

Continually pointing out the ineptitude of an inept theory like AAT is
no replacement for having a hypothesis of your own. You and Mikey
should stop whining and put your heads together to see if you can come
up with a scenario that details the selective emergence of bipedalism
in the human/hominid lineage.
 
Lee Olsen...
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:27 am
 
On Oct 12, 10:32 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 8:42 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:





On Oct 12, 7:42 am, mclark <mbclar... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Lee, I don't know how you do it....

You do pretty well also, I'm envious...my list isn't
near this good:

"Also, ardi is an A'pith."
Dimmy --09/14/2010

This is really great stuff, Dimmy. Right up there with
some of your other insights:

"We descended from chimps."
Dimmy --08/04/2004

"All archeologists consider stone tools
to be fossils" Dimmy --07/31/2008

"Duck, dodge, weave, faint [sic]."
--Dimmy 07/25/2008

"You make it obvious that your [sic]
an amateur." Dimmy --11/21/2005

"Agriculture probably stretches back
hundreds of thousand if not millions
of years. " Dimmy --10/22/2006

"One of the benefits of smaller brains is the
ability to make split second decisions faster
than larger brains." --Dimmy 8/5/2006

It's interesting that you will go to all this trouble to gather up
these propaganda quotes....
[/quote]

Stop right there. You post numerous examples of misinformation
and that is defined as "propaganda" when you are called to task?
This is a science list, not the city pound. If you can't get the
simplest of facts straight, what are you doing here? You should be
at the library.
 
 
Page 5 of 10    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:36 am