Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 22:04:29 +0200
Op 19-05-2008 18:36, in artikel 9ta334drui3dgkhuk2doto4peq938764gm@xxxxxxx,
Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> schreef:
On Mon, 19 May 2008 05:24:39 -0700 (PDT), "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank"
<lflank@xxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On May 19, 2:26 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just tell us why you believe our ancestors lived in open plains rather than
at the waterside.
Because it's all a vast international plot by anthropologists to hide
the truth.
Ah?
Tobias 1995 ³We were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! ? All the
former savannah supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier
words ?²
Wood 1996 ³the ?savannah¹ hypothesis of human origins, in which the
cooling begat the savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now
discredited²
Stringer 1997 ³One of the strong points about the aquatic theory is in
explaining the origin of bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water,
that would forced them to walk upright ?²
Tobias 1998 ³Bamford identified fossil vines or lianas of Dichapetalum
in the same Member 4: such vines hang from forest trees and would not be
expected in open savannah. The team at Makapansgat found floral and faunal
evidence that the layers containing Australopithecus reflected forest or
forest margin conditions. From Hadar, in Ethiopia, where ?Lucy¹ was found,
and from Aramis in Ethiopia, where Tim White¹s team found Ardipithecus
ramidus ? well-wooded and even forested conditions were inferred from the
fauna accompanying the hominid fossils. All the fossil evidence adds up to
the small-brained, bipedal hominids of four to 2.5 Ma having lived in a
woodland or forest niche, not savannah.² ³? if ever our earliest ancestors
were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
urinators there²
Stringer 2001 ³In the past I have agreed that we lack plausible models
for the origins of bipedalism and have agreed that wading in water can
facilitate bipedal locomotion (as observed in other normally quadrupedal
primates). I have never said that this must have been the forcing mechanism
in hominids, but I do consider it plausible. As for coastal colonisation, I
argued in my Nature News & Views last year that this was an event in the
late Pleistocene that may have facilitated the spread of modern humans.²
Groves & Cameron 2004 ³Nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
Elaine Morgan has long argued that many aspects of human anatomy are best
explained as a legacy of a semiaquatic phase in the proto-human trajectory,
and this includes upright posture to cope with increased water depth as our
ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or seashore.²
Wrangham 2005 ³Here I follow the conventional assumption that hominins
began in the savanna.² ³? the composition of the Okavango as a network of
islands could favor the evolution of bipedalism. For those who envisage
bipedalism as facilitated by the need to traverse or exploit aquatic
environments, an inland delta that generates low islands termitogenically or
hydrodynamically offers rich scenarios.²
Alemseged 2006 ³I believe we should just put the savannah theory aside.
I think they basically became biped while they were living in a wooded,
covered environment ?²
Thorpe et al. 2007 ³? early hominins occupied woodland environments, not
open or even bush-savannah environments (such as sites including Allia Bay,
Aramis, Assa Issie and now Laetoli) ... they retained long grasping
forelimbs, which are more obviously relevant in an arboreal context?²
_____
If I were to admit that the current paradigm is wrong, the
Antrhopology Police would hunt me down and Expell me.
(yawn)
The AAT-ers seem to be just as paranoid, and just as nutty, as the
IDers are.
But I am curious about one thing:
What is it you mean by "aquatic", anyway? Do you mean simply that we
lived
along seashores and hunted marine life?
Yes.
[quote]
The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), sometimes referred to as the aquatic
ape theory, asserts that wading, swimming and diving for food exerted
a strong evolutionary effect on the ancestors of the genus Homo and is
in part responsible for the split between the common ancestors of
humans and other great apes. The AAH attempts to explain the large
number of physical differences between humans and other apes, such as
lack of body hair, larger brains and upright posture, in terms of the
methods of feeding and types of food of early hominids living in
coastal and river regions.
[end quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape
Would that make Polynesian
natives
"aquatic"?
Could well be.
Or do you mean that we actually lived in water, gave birth in water,
and seldom
ventured onto land, like seals?
No.
And please don't tell me to "just buy this book" or "just read this
website". I'm asking
YOU, here and now.
.
- References:
- AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- From: LloydBrown
- Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- From: Louann Miller
- Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- From: 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
- Re: Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- From: Ye Old One
- AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- Prev by Date: Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- Next by Date: Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- Next by thread: Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
