|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Claudius DenkClaudius Denk
Date: Aug 13, 2008 20:47
On Aug 12, 2:44 pm, "Paul Crowley"
slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:> "Gerrit Hanenburg" inter.nl.nomail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:04l3a4dd5nc1ahihm8tq9ki3gmkgpdt4g4@4ax.com...
>>>>Savannas extend over much of Africa.
>>>Human populations don't -- and before
>>>guns, etc., were even more restricted.
>>>Savanna flora and fauna are quite
>>>distinct; they do not include (and
>>>never have) hominids of any kind.
>
>> And of course that is a statement of belief.
>> An empirical approach of the matter (i.e. science), for example
>> ecological structure analysis (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/656pbh),
>> provides a somewhat different view. >
> This is 'science'?
|
| Show full article (4.52Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Claudius DenkClaudius Denk
Date: Aug 13, 2008 18:53
On Aug 13, 8:34Â am, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> how savanna fools explain human locomotion...
>
> http://boltonian.edublogs.org/2008/03/13/the-evolution-of-bipedalism-...
> -aquatic-ape-theory-by-biskie/
>
> Some used more quadrupedalism and some used more bipedalism, but both
> worked pretty well. In the same way we now see different populations
> of chimps do the same things different ways, for instance in how they
> fish for ants and termites, or how they open nuts (biting in some
> groups, hammering them with wood clubs in others, and hammering with
> stones in yet others). These all work fairly well, and it's only after
> a lot of time that you see any significant differences in how useful
> any method or habit is.
>
> In our case we were in the lucky group;
Absurd.
> it happened
It happened? How can anybody argue with that.
|
| Show full article (2.78Kb) |
|
| |
2 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Marc VerhaegenMarc Verhaegen
Date: Aug 13, 2008 09:52
Savanna Fantast:
> Some used more quadrupedalism and some used more bipedalism, but both
> worked pretty well. In the same way
The man is producing his own "facts".
> we now see different populations
> of chimps do the same things different ways, for instance in how they
> fish for ants and termites, or how they open nuts (biting in some
> groups, hammering them with wood clubs in others, and hammering with
> stones in yet others). These all work fairly well, and it's only after
> a lot of time that you see any significant differences in how useful
> any method or habit is.
Nonsense: it's at the very moment that evolution works.
> In our case we were in the lucky group;
:-D
> it happened that bipedalism
> allowed us, after many millions of years mind you,
Mind you: the poor guy has never heard of the word "evolution".
> to use more tools
Yes, that's why bipedal kangaroos use so many tools...
|
| Show full article (2.90Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Gerrit HanenburgGerrit Hanenburg
Date: Aug 13, 2008 09:20
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> 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.
It does?
Gerrit
|
| |
|
16 Comments |
|
|
Author: Marc VerhaegenMarc Verhaegen
Date: Aug 13, 2008 08:34
how savanna fools explain human locomotion...
http://boltonian.edublogs.org/2008/03/13/the-evolution-of-bipedalism-and-the
-aquatic-ape-theory-by-biskie/
Some used more quadrupedalism and some used more bipedalism, but both
worked pretty well. In the same way we now see different populations
of chimps do the same things different ways, for instance in how they
fish for ants and termites, or how they open nuts (biting in some
groups, hammering them with wood clubs in others, and hammering with
stones in yet others). These all work fairly well, and it's only after
a lot of time that you see any significant differences in how useful
any method or habit is.
In our case we were in the lucky group; it happened that bipedalism
allowed us, after many millions of years mind you, to use more tools
in more ways, and develop both tools and food-getting to the point...
|
| Show full article (1.96Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Marc VerhaegenMarc Verhaegen
Date: Aug 13, 2008 07:44
> # 3 | Coturnix | August 12, 2008 11:18 AM
> Peer review is a relatively new thing - Nature mag started
> implementing it only in the late 1960s, the reason being to clear up
> the clutter of piles and piles of unpublished papers
Yes, I agree with Landon (not Langdon) that peer review is not the best
approach to really new ideas (read AAT), and of course it reinforces
nonsense like savanna hypotheses, but it may be good for refining ideas &
for avoiding serious mistakes.
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
