Author: Claudius DenkClaudius Denk
Date: Aug 14, 2008 09:34
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?"
| 
