Re: Fingerprints and aquatic habits
- View Source--- In AAT@y..., "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@v...> wrote:
> gy.htmlspeakers is?
> >> >> >Any idea what the ethnic composition of the Nostratic
> >> >>Altaic etc.
> >> >> Nostratic evolved into Uralic, IndoEuropean, Dravidian,
> >> >It cannot be done. That's my point. For every language there are as
> >> >Are you claiming Uralic, IndoEuropean, Dravidian, Altaic etc.
> >> >are ethnic groups?
> >> No. They're linguistic groups.
> >True, but aren't languages spoken by people (by ethnic groups)?
> >Of course they are.
> Yes, and how do you hope to find out which ethnic groups spoke which
many varieties of dialect as there are river valleys and within the
same ethnic group individuals speak different dialects as well as
numerous languages. The picture is extremly complicated.
> >> > Interesting. Please continue.ahead.)
> >> That's it. (If *you* want to relate these to ethnic groups, go
> >variations. But
> >I wish it could be done but it can't. There are too many
> >to simply eliminate ethnic groups from language doesn't add anylegitimacy
> >to languge studies.Translation please?
> Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
> >> >> It was one language. Not a composition, but a reconstructionfrom
> >> >> languages (not from "all" languages of course!!). Just as the
> >> >> LCA was 1 species (no composition!), reconstructed from thereconstruction) and
> >> >> living & fossil hominoid species.
> >> >
> >> >Confusing. You say Nostratic was one language (a
> >> >Glen dates it to 15,000 BCE but below no one identifies whichlanguage
> theLCA was 1
> >> >pre-Nostratics spoke. Also, I do like your idea that hominoid
> >> >species but I'd substitute another word for hominoid. Andwhich date
> areThis is wherein the problem lies. Your 20 Mya date places us in the
> >> >you giving to hominoid LCA?
> >> Gerry, we've discussed this many times. Probably ca.20 Ma or so.
Miocene, an era that not too long ago you pooh-poohed. Have you
now "reached" back to the Miocene? Then you and Cremo do have
something in common!!!
> >Hmmm. NO we haven't Marc. We've discussed origins of homonids,not
> originsSorry but I don't recall.
> >of language.
> Several times.
> (BTW, Nostratic is NOT about language origins!) MarcExactly. But Proto World is. However, Nostratic is about one
language group evolving into another and this creates a major
problem. Linguists simply gathered 50 or 100 words (even fewer)
showed a comparison and claimed one language derived form the other.
This is clumsy science (not to mention linguistics). And for those
interested, this is only an interpretation given by the linguist in
> >You appear to be weak on the origins of both but not on thesaid
> >accumulation of detail. Your knowledge never ceases to amaze me,
> GerryWow. Did I say that? I still mean it. Marc's knowledge is a source
> >in true ernestness.
of inspiration :-)
- View Source
----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: Fingerprints and aquatic habits
> >> >I certainly have no problem with ancestors of all living humans having
> >> >aquatic adaptations if you mean that at a point in the "far" distant
> >> >our ancestors were aquatic. This in effect corresponds with organisms
> >> >adapting to their environment. As far as how much "time" it took
> >> >organisms to adapt to a particular environment, I'm not certain. Do
> >> >you have additional information on this type of adaptation? Gerry
> >> AFAIR the chiclids in the African lakes evolved into more than 100
> >> in a few 1000 years. All adapted to their own particular environment.
> >> Marc
> >And Darwin's finches evolved into many different species in even a
> >time period. Yet the rhinoceros is still around pretty much in the same
> >form for many, many 1000's of years. Does this have something to do
> >environmental differences between African lakes and African savannah
> >(chiclids and rhinoceros)? Gerry
> In the lakes there are bottom-dwellers, surface-dwellers, snail-eaters,
> fish-eaters, plant-eaters, parasitic species etc. etc. These evolved many
> times in parallel in different lakes or in different parts of the same
> Some think it might have something to do with the breeding system of the
> cichlids, or with the special jaw articulations (which would allow very
> specific dietary adaptations), or with the size (eg, rhinos have much
> generation times). In any case, evolution in certain instances can be very
This sounds like the scenario I found when I visited the Monterey Aquarium.
Each species evolves to fit its environment. Didn't someone today state
that the environment with more participants breeds faster than that with
only a few? But I do agree that the environment must be accompanied by
other factors such as dietary adaptations, size, generation times etc. The
end result of evolution is "mind boggling".