On Aug 12, 3:33 pm, Marc Verhaegen wrote:

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.

"Marc Verhaegen" wrote in message
news:C4C7DC4E.136E5%%m_verhaegen@skynet.be...

On Aug 13, 8:33 am, Marc Verhaegen wrote:

The cited reference does not exist on the Sydney Morning Herald. With
a little research, I find that the cited article should be this one, a
rather disjointed pre-election puff-piece from a political
correspondent who wisely does not venture into the murky world of Marc
Verhaegen and mangrove man:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cavedwellers-in-queensland/2007/10/17/1192300857029...
http://tinyurl.com/5fccvr

The piece Marc posts is actually from that most authorittative of on-
line paleoanthropological fora, http://www.sciforums.com:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79797

No doubt Marc will soon return with irrefutable evidence that
siliconshrew is the on-line persona of Chris Stringer and Phil
Tobias's love-child who'll take time out from out-swimming Minke
whales in Beijing to set us all to rights on our discredited savannah
hypothesis.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html

*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.

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 hard to get into the mind of early people and find
out what they were thinking," a University of NSW archaeologist, Dr Andy
Herries, said.*

I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about AAT it
made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.

The first spear was for impaling fish. The first rock tool was for breaking
shellfish. It's all so very logical.

I daresay it will become the accepted theory over time. The savannah one is
pretty much out the window now.

KIND FORWARD OF EYES OPENING EXCHANGES DEMONSTRATIVE OF THE UTTER
LUNACY OF PRESENT UNIVERSITIES PARASITES' SUPPORTED THEORIES.... An
eyes opener further on superior approach of the True Geology indeed

On 11 août, 11:40, don findlay tower.net.au> wrote:

*> George wrote:

*> > Forwarded from talk.origins (part of the post of the month for
August 2007)
*>
*> >http://groups.google.com:80/group/talk.origins/msg/
84feb0a7d1e268f0
*>
*> > The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not
impossible,
*> > are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called
miracles.

*> > up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
*>
*> > Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?*
*>
*> > Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right
chemical
*...