http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080508-first-american...

Scientists discovered several species of seaweed and marine algae
dating back more than 14,000 years at the Monte Verde archaeological
site in south-central Chile.

The findings suggest that these early Americans were beachcombers with
a tradition of using coastal resources, says study lead author Tom
Dillehay.

"Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote in message

news:C44B6618.11ED7%m_verhaegen at (no spam) skynet.be...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080508-first-american...
Scientists discovered several species of seaweed and marine algae
dating back more than 14,000 years at the Monte Verde archaeological
site in south-central Chile.
The findings suggest that these early Americans were beachcombers with
a tradition of using coastal resources, says study lead author Tom
Dillehay.

Thanks, DD.  No doubt Olson thinks this beach is savanna.

Yea, thanks, DD.  14,000 years, eh?  Wow.

============================> "Because the, as all hominoids, they [Hylobates] descend
 from aquarborealists, of course. Had you read our work,
 you would have known... Marco --01/09/2003

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080508-first-american...
Scientists discovered several species of seaweed and marine algae
dating back more than 14,000 years at the Monte Verde archaeological
site in south-central Chile.
The findings suggest that these early Americans were beachcombers with
a tradition of using coastal resources, says study lead author Tom
Dillehay.

They also found a stone cutting tool with seaweed stuck to the blade.
hmm, kudu anyone?

Yes, early Homo ran after kudus, grasped them, killed them &
then went to the sea to get seashells to butcher them:
K.Choi & D.Driwantoro 2007 "Shell
tool use by early members of Homo erectus in Sangiran, central Java,
Indonesia: cut mark evidence" J.archaeol.Sci.34:48-58.

ROFL. What's the date on this? A million years after early Homo was
eating kudus at Gona?
Your data is little too late, don't you think?

My little boy, don't you think that ex-littoral mammals will prefer to
colonise new territories along the coasts rather than over your
savanna??

Savanna Fool:
Gee, Pops the problem is there is no valid reason to
charcterize hominds as "littoral mammal".

My boy,
- SC fat : not in savanna mammals

- extreme handiness : idem

- poor olfaction : idem

- no fur : idem (elephants protected by dust/mud...)

- head-spine-legs = 1 line : idem

- large needs of iodine
- large needs of DHA

Satisfied by foods avaiable on savannah

All these features are typically seen in (semi)aquatic mammals.
None of these feature, my little boy, is seen in savanna mammals.

Inthe case of nakedness this is simply untrue. Never mind

Got it?
Now back to school.

I've been to school. How do you think I'm so easily

becasue claiming that fat is a balance etc. is unproved nonsense

SF:
Gee, Pops the problem is there is no valid reason to
charcterize hominds as "littoral mammal".

My boy, - SC fat : not in savanna mammals

SF:
Feed 'em and see what happens. Not that much fat
in pre-industrial humans either

SFs are stupid stupid stupid: never heard of Paleolithic venuses??

No answer: he hasn't.

Inform, my little boy, and then come back (or stay away).

Name a mammal that is physioilogically incapable
of accumulating fat sub-cutaneously.

If you want to ask stupid questions, do your own homework.

Fat is a balance
between opportunity - sufficient food - and cost -
reduced ability to avoid predators.

:-DDD

My little boy, we're not interested in your self-made "facts".

Then refute them. "Do your own homework" is not

Fat is a balance
between opportunity - sufficient food - and cost -
reduced ability to avoid predators.

:-DDD
My little boy, we're not interested in your self-made "facts".

Then refute them.

SF:
Fat is a balance
between opportunity - sufficient food - and cost -
reduced ability to avoid predators.

:-DDD
My little boy, we're not interested in your self-made "facts".

Then refute them.

prove your nonsense or shut up

Why? For your claim about humans and sc fat vs

"Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhaegen at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote in message
news:C44E9737.12040%m_verhaegen at (no spam) skynet.be...
SF:
Fat is a balance
between opportunity - sufficient food - and cost -
reduced ability to avoid predators.

:-DDD
My little boy, we're not interested in your self-made "facts".

Then refute them.

prove your nonsense or shut up

Why?

"nickname" <alas_my_lo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:23e91c3f-4450-4b73-8422-bdca06f443a7 at (no spam) w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

See map, the site was adjacent to the oceanic bay on a creek & peat
watershed.Perfect for combined waterside ambushes and seaside
foraging, seaweed and mollusc foraging, lots of walking too..
http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/

What is it with you wet apes and your top posting?

Were you hoping that no one would read on down
and catch the direct quote from the primary investigator
at Monte Verde? "Located on a small creek 60 km
(36 miles) from the ocean..." Well, your definition of
"adjacent" must be different from mine and Dillahay's.

And what about the Mastodon? How does that fit in
with your "seaside foraging"? I'll agree that a 72-mile
round trip is quite a hike.

[..seaweed and marine algae dating back more
than 14,000 years at the Monte Verde must explain
something]

http://tinyurl.com/5jwbu7

"What are the artifacts and ecofacts from Monte Verde? Located on
a small creek 60 km (36 miles) from the ocean, on the cold, wet coastal
plain, this site was inhabited by people who constructed rectangular
rowhouses (having a common wall in between) of wood, perhaps covered
in hide that was staked like tents. The 12 rooms were 3-4 m long,
with clay-lined fire pits and 2 large hearths apparently for common
cooking or heat. On the west side was an isolated, wishbone-shaped
building with a rear platform and open front facing the hearths. Most
of the interesting plant remains came from this unusual structure, some
in chewed wads, many species that may have been used for medicinal
purposes, as well as burned animal skin, and most of the mastodon
remains (was it a hut for game processing? a shaman's home?). Monte
Verde was a rare open-air site (as opposed to a cave or rock shelter),
and was spectacular because the creek backed up, which resulted in
the formation of a peat bog that covered and, because of the wet,
anaerobic conditions, preserved everything that would normally rot fast.
Other items recovered include wooden artifacts such as stakes and
mortars; twine and cordage; diverse plants such as 11 wild potatoes,
roots, seeds, nuts, leafy vegetables; animal remains including mastodons
(MNI or minimum number of mastodons was 6), paleollama, and
smaller things such as amphibians, reptiles, birds, even bird eggshell,
and animal hide and 38 meat fragments (show pictures from Dillehay
1997, Fagan 1997, Gore 1997). Biotic remains, numbering some
20,000 specimens of 55 taxa, were of species from many different
types of environments (coast, marsh, forest), including some areas
up to 400 km away, and all seasons of the year, suggesting
sedentary settlement."

Mastodon, eh? They had to wack those beasts on the beach
and then lug 'em 36 miles back to camp? They must have been
real brutes....

Got it, my boy? (Probably not: SFs are incredibly stupid.)

Got what, Marco? You and your friends are
mental defectives? Yea, I've got that.
==================================
"You only read what you like to read."
Marco --01/01/03

None of these feature, my little boy, is seen in savanna mammals.

Really? But humans display some measure of your
list and they're savanna mammals.

:-D

Yes, if some fool says we're savanna mammals, then we're savanna mammals...

Savanna mammals, my little boy, have a keen sense of smell, are fast, don't
need much water, don't much iodine, don'et need much sodium etc.etc.

Your arborealism can't explain our ext.nose, our furlessness, SC fat etc.

Neither can you. Especially since you admitted bushmen are savannah adapted.

"admitted"?? What else IYO??
Yes, you admitted it. Are you denying it now?

On May 11, 1:59 pm, "Makouli" <m... at (no spam) work.com> wrote:
"nickname" <alas_my_lo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:23e91c3f-4450-4b73-8422-bdca06f443a7 at (no spam) w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

See map, the site was adjacent to the oceanic bay on a creek & peat
watershed.Perfect for combined waterside ambushes and seaside
foraging, seaweed and mollusc foraging, lots of walking too..
http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/

What is it with you wet apes and your top posting?

See map above, the site was less than ten miles from salt water, other

nickname wrote:

On May 11, 1:59 pm, "Makouli" <m... at (no spam) work.com> wrote:
"nickname" <alas_my_lo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:23e91c3f-4450-4b73-8422-bdca06f443a7 at (no spam) w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

See map, the site was adjacent to the oceanic bay on a creek & peat
watershed.Perfect for combined waterside ambushes and seaside
foraging, seaweed and mollusc foraging, lots of walking too..
http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/

What is it with you wet apes and your top posting?

See map above, the site was less than ten miles from salt water, other

Call it an even ten miles.

THat makes it a 20 mile round trip to go "beachcombing".

"Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote in message

news:C44DF312.11FD7%m_verhaegen at (no spam) skynet.be...> SF:
Gee, Pops the problem is there is no valid reason to
charcterize hominds as "littoral mammal".

My boy,
- SC fat : not in savanna mammals

SF:
Feed 'em and see what happens. Not that much fat
in pre-industrial humans either

SFs are stupid stupid stupid: never heard of Paleolithic venuses??

Inform, my little boy, and then come back (or stay away).

Name a mammal that is physioilogically incapable
of accumulating fat sub-cutaneously.

between opportunity - sufficient food - and cost -
reduced ability to avoid predators. All the Venus
statuettes prove is that some cultures in the distant
past attached some significance to fat accumulation
in females. Your response is a classic non sequitur.

Rick Wagler