|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: RichTravskyRichTravsky
Date: Aug 17, 2008 21:39
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Broken link.
Opinion piece.
Worthless.
> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
> have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
"some"
|
| Show full article (1.05Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: jim79jim79
Date: Aug 17, 2008 12:48
MAKE $250,000 IN WEEKS - 2007
AS SEEN ON OPRAH & 20/20
***Oprah Winfrey and ABC's investigative team 20/20 also can prove
it
can be done***
***Proven by various, highly- respected U.S. TV and radio programs
as
being 100%% legal, feasible and true***
IF A 15 - YEAR OLD BOY COULD MAKE $71,000 IN JUST 5 WEEKS AND OTHER
$250,000 IN FEW MORE WEEKS - SO CAN YOU!!
THIS REALLY CAN MAKE YOU EASY MONEY!! IT WORKS!! BUT YOU HAVE TO
FOLLOW THE LETTER FOR IT TO WORK!!
THIS IS NOT A PYRAMID SCAM!!!
I came across an article similar to this that said you could make
thousands of dollars within Weeks with only an initial investment of
$12.00!
...HERE'S HOW!!
PayPal verifies that this $12 investment program is 100%% legal and
is
a big hit this year see their note below or ask them directly... ...
|
| Show full article (11.95Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: nicknamenickname
Date: Aug 17, 2008 11:32
> Consider this: laryngeal air sac as 'air trap'
(from my post at AAT)*
> Macaque + Nasalis + Otter (air trap in underfur)
>
> Longest tail = smallest air trap/sac = no float, fast swim
> long tail proboscis, long tail macaque, long tail river otter
>
> Shortest tail = largest...
|
| Show full article (1.23Kb) |
|
2 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Marc VerhaegenMarc Verhaegen
Date: Aug 17, 2008 08:34
"The paleobiology of the robust australopithecines (Paranthropus): a test of
the durophage model with a morphometric analysis of carnivoran skulls"
AB Shabel 2008 AAJA abstracts
The problem of the paleo-ecology of the robust apiths can be rigorously
studied through comparative analyses of non-hominin clades. The robust
hominins represent a clear & divergent morphological trend...
|
| Show full article (3.23Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: HamadyHamady
Date: Aug 17, 2008 08:20
The Earth's crust, the surface on which we daily walk and build our
houses safely, in fact moves on a layer called the mantle which is
denser than the crust. If there was not a system in place to keep this
motion under control, continual shocks and quakes would occur on the
Earth and the world would be a truly unlivable place. And yet, the
mountains and their extensions under the ground greatly decrease
underground movements, and hence such shocks.
The Earth's mountains have come about as a result of movements and
clashes of huge plates which make up the planet's crust. When two of
these plates collide, one usually slides under the other. The plate on
top is pushed up and so forms mountains. At the same time, the plate
at the bottom proceeds under the ground and forms a deep protrusion.
This means that mountains have deep downward protrusions that are as
large as those visible on the surface. In other words, mountains are
firmly rooted in the Earth's layer called the mantle.
|
| Show full article (2.63Kb) |
|
8 Comments |
|
|
Author: Marc VerhaegenMarc Verhaegen
Date: Aug 17, 2008 04:06
> "For Pilbeam and Gould's paper, the implication was that the two types
> of australopiths (gracile vs robust) were roughly equivalent to
> chimpanzees and gorillas ... but more similar than these African apes."
> [Expected, since they lived closer to the LCA HPG, now H, P, G are
> further specialized DD]
> The larger one was a scaled up version of the smaller one. The degree
> of social and dietary change that accompanied this difference in size
> for the African non-human apes was probably overestimated at the time
> of the paper and over the following decade. Later, we were to discover
> that chimps eat a lot of leaves and some gorillas eat a lot of fruit
> (for gorillas).
> http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/08/size_and_scaling_in_hominid_ev.php?u
> tm_source=readerspicks&utm_medium=link
Greg Laden 14.8.08
D Pilbeam & SJ Gould 1974 Science 186:892-901
"Size and Scaling in Human Evolution"
scaled CC & tooth size against body size : did they change in an evol.sense?
or were they just following...
|
| Show full article (4.01Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Claudius DenkClaudius Denk
Date: Aug 16, 2008 11:00
On Aug 16, 2:09 am, Claudius Denk sbcglobal.net> wrote:> On Aug 16, 1:30 am, "Paul Crowley"
>>> Oh come on. Obviously I know better than to take a PA's word on
>>> anthing. You are ignoring all the evidence that substantiates that
>>> A'pith were heavily preyed on.
>
>> What evidence is that?
>
> Do your own research and prove me wrong. The evidence is part of the
> public record. Do you dispute my assertion that A'piths were heavily
> preyed upon? Why don't you start by providing us a definitive yes or
> no response to this question.
No response.
|
| Show full article (1.96Kb) |
|
18 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Claudius DenkClaudius Denk
Date: Aug 16, 2008 03:00
On Aug 12, 3:33 pm, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
> have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
> painting up to 30,000 years earlier than had been thought.
This comment here doesn't make sense. Us hominids have been
(relatively) larger brained, multi-habitat, (and niche independent),
and highly communicative. And we've been this way for upwards of a
millions of years. Why wouldn't we expect them to have at least
started to exploit seafood, and occasionally occupy aquatic/littoral
habitat? What's the big deal? Likewise we'd expect them to begin to
search for food in many varied habitats, mountains, swamp, treeless
habitat, etc. So, Marc, if you are using this as evidence that
supports your notion that, "hominids had a more aquatic
past," (whatever that means) you're off your rocker.
> The discovery of this artistic, beach-loving, lobster-chomping hominid (I do
> hope they christen him "Bronte-saurus") is invaluable to the understanding
> of our forebears.
It is? Why? I'm not catching on, here. How is this, "invaluable?"
|
| Show full article (2.07Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
