Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Article in February 2010 Scientific American - "The Naked Truth"

Expand Messages
  • azul_chan_chak
    ... Hi Colin, Yes, I ve read a bit about this -- the Rapid Coastal Migration theory. It says that one major branch of beach-combing people, starting from East
    Message 1 of 30 , Feb 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "colinbuss" <colinbuss@...> wrote:
      >
      > We have the same problem here on the Pacific coast of North America (British Columbia). All the current archaeological sites in BC show the oldest at about 10000 years BP - about the end of the glaciation. The accepted theory is that the first humans came down from Beringia (western Alaska) through a gap in the ice sheets in Canada. A very hostile environment and one with no archaeological evidence. It is more like that humans came in along the coast - a much more amenable (and abundant) environment. However, due to isostatic rebound it is quite likely that the first Americans (Archeulan technology in continental US) came in along the coastal margin about 11.5k years BP. However, the evidence is under water!
      >
      > Colin
      >

      Hi Colin,

      Yes, I've read a bit about this -- the Rapid Coastal Migration theory. It says that one major branch of beach-combing people, starting from East Africa (the homeland of all modern humans), along the coastline to South Asia, SE Asia, and very probably up to North America and South America, as opposite to the fashionable Beringia theory. It's well supported by archaeological and genetic (even linguistic?) evidences. I wonder what's its status in the academy now? Still dominated by Beringia and Clovis-first?

      It's very interesting in that the Rapid Coastal Migration theory is totally independent from AAT, but actually telling the same story. Coastal migration requires the participants to be very confident and skilful in water locomotion (not just technology), and on the other way round, according to AAT we humans are already water-proficient, no wonder the earliest migrations are thru the coastlines.

      It seems to me that if a theory is on the right track, it should be consistent with other theories (however unrelated or unfashionable), not just bits and pieces of ad hoc stuff.

      Chak
    • azul_chan_chak
      ... Hi Marc, She says that fur has social functions (e.g. raising hair to express anger in dogs and chimps), loss of fur means we need other compensations,
      Message 2 of 30 , Feb 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:
        > Incredible. "The naked skin played a crucial role in our dependence on
        > language"?? Such stuff gets published...
        >
        > --marc
        >

        Hi Marc,

        She says that fur has social functions (e.g. raising hair to express anger in dogs and chimps), loss of fur means we need other compensations, like, facial expression and language.
        It's the weakest point in her article, and sounds like a new big discovery.

        Chak
      • azul_chan_chak
        ... Hi Colin, I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured article in SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of old
        Message 3 of 30 , Feb 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "colinbuss" <colinbuss@...> wrote:
          >
          > Has any one any thoughts on this?
          >
          > This piece is not presenting any new data, as the byline suggests, just rehashing the savannah theory.
          >
          > I've written emails to the author and Scientific American. Paleoanthropology have a tendency to confuse speculation with fact. Generally, our theories of human evolution have scant evidencery support but we can rely on analagous evolution to firm up certain paths of speculation.
          >
          > Current mammals in the savannah are not hairless and the only ones that are have semi-aquatic habits or aquatic ancestries. If hair is such a problem for big animals why aren't giraffes and buffalos hairless?
          >

          Hi Colin,

          I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured article in SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of old stuff, or data that do not particularly support the theory.

          E.g. It quotes research that Homo ergaster evolved prolonged walking and running by 1.6 Mya. By assuming sweating (and hence hair loss) was evolved for running, "according to fossil evidence", naked skin and sweating must have evolved 1.6 Mya. Sounds like she got some fossil evidence.

          It mentioned that human versions of skin proteins make our skin more "waterproof and scuff-resistant" -- isn't it a support for AAT?

          The enlargement of human brain needs a stable temperature, hence the hair loss and sweating for dissipating heat -- immersing in water would be a better way to keep stable temperature.


          However, the author did provide some useful information. e.g.
          - Genetic study showed that dark pigmentation (as a response to hair loss in tropical Africa) originated 1.2 Mya. This is applicable to any theory.
          - Speciation of body lice showed that clothes invented much later (72 Kya, from Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tales"), so the notion that "clothes caused hair loss" is untenable.

          Besides fossil records (too rare) and convergent evolution (not taken seriously), I think genetic study would be an important way to find evidences, no matter what's your theory.

          Chak
        • colinbuss
          Exactly Chak! Great rationalization. The linguistic condundrum is well demonstrated in BC (British Columbia) with 31 languages (not dialects but distinct
          Message 4 of 30 , Feb 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Exactly Chak! Great rationalization.

            The linguistic condundrum is well demonstrated in BC (British Columbia) with 31 languages (not dialects but distinct languages) prior to contact including two "isolates" and the majority clustered along the coast. Isolates are languages with no other related language anywhere. So, as is seen in all studies of linguistics, greater diversity implies greater antiquity.

            The simple reason why an aquatic ancestry makes sense is that it is better living on the beach! Everyone know this so to say we became the way we are by going into difficult environments is counter intuitive. Sure, some guys ran off into the desert but the women and children, and mature men, stayed at home where life was easier.

            Colin

            --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "azul_chan_chak" <albert.chak@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "colinbuss" <colinbuss@> wrote:
            > >
            > > We have the same problem here on the Pacific coast of North America (British Columbia). All the current archaeological sites in BC show the oldest at about 10000 years BP - about the end of the glaciation. The accepted theory is that the first humans came down from Beringia (western Alaska) through a gap in the ice sheets in Canada. A very hostile environment and one with no archaeological evidence. It is more like that humans came in along the coast - a much more amenable (and abundant) environment. However, due to isostatic rebound it is quite likely that the first Americans (Archeulan technology in continental US) came in along the coastal margin about 11.5k years BP. However, the evidence is under water!
            > >
            > > Colin
            > >
            >
            > Hi Colin,
            >
            > Yes, I've read a bit about this -- the Rapid Coastal Migration theory. It says that one major branch of beach-combing people, starting from East Africa (the homeland of all modern humans), along the coastline to South Asia, SE Asia, and very probably up to North America and South America, as opposite to the fashionable Beringia theory. It's well supported by archaeological and genetic (even linguistic?) evidences. I wonder what's its status in the academy now? Still dominated by Beringia and Clovis-first?
            >
            > It's very interesting in that the Rapid Coastal Migration theory is totally independent from AAT, but actually telling the same story. Coastal migration requires the participants to be very confident and skilful in water locomotion (not just technology), and on the other way round, according to AAT we humans are already water-proficient, no wonder the earliest migrations are thru the coastlines.
            >
            > It seems to me that if a theory is on the right track, it should be consistent with other theories (however unrelated or unfashionable), not just bits and pieces of ad hoc stuff.
            >
            > Chak
            >
          • azul_chan_chak
            Hi Colin, Oh right, I remember there re many groups of indigenous languages at the western coast of Canada and USA (diversity can rival Africa or Papua New
            Message 5 of 30 , Feb 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Colin,

              Oh right, I remember there're many groups of indigenous languages at the western coast of Canada and USA (diversity can rival Africa or Papua New Guinea), in contrast to the uniformity of inland Alaska/Siberia, which indicate later spread of few languages.

              So evidences in human physiology, archeology, genetics, linguistics... all point to the coast. I wonder scientist are looking at evidences, or what the textbooks tell them.


              For "better living on the beach", my thought is that for our arboreal ancestors who still climbing on trees, moving to either a beach or a grassland would be a challenging task, e.g. new predators, new types of locomotion, new types of food. (We humans already have aquatic adaptations, so we may think the beach is a better place to live as an afterthought.)

              Chak



              --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "colinbuss" <colinbuss@...> wrote:
              >
              > Exactly Chak! Great rationalization.
              >
              > The linguistic condundrum is well demonstrated in BC (British Columbia) with 31 languages (not dialects but distinct languages) prior to contact including two "isolates" and the majority clustered along the coast. Isolates are languages with no other related language anywhere. So, as is seen in all studies of linguistics, greater diversity implies greater antiquity.
              >
              > The simple reason why an aquatic ancestry makes sense is that it is better living on the beach! Everyone know this so to say we became the way we are by going into difficult environments is counter intuitive. Sure, some guys ran off into the desert but the women and children, and mature men, stayed at home where life was easier.
              >
              > Colin
              >
              > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "azul_chan_chak" <albert.chak@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "colinbuss" <colinbuss@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > We have the same problem here on the Pacific coast of North America (British Columbia). All the current archaeological sites in BC show the oldest at about 10000 years BP - about the end of the glaciation. The accepted theory is that the first humans came down from Beringia (western Alaska) through a gap in the ice sheets in Canada. A very hostile environment and one with no archaeological evidence. It is more like that humans came in along the coast - a much more amenable (and abundant) environment. However, due to isostatic rebound it is quite likely that the first Americans (Archeulan technology in continental US) came in along the coastal margin about 11.5k years BP. However, the evidence is under water!
              > > >
              > > > Colin
              > > >
              > >
              > > Hi Colin,
              > >
              > > Yes, I've read a bit about this -- the Rapid Coastal Migration theory. It says that one major branch of beach-combing people, starting from East Africa (the homeland of all modern humans), along the coastline to South Asia, SE Asia, and very probably up to North America and South America, as opposite to the fashionable Beringia theory. It's well supported by archaeological and genetic (even linguistic?) evidences. I wonder what's its status in the academy now? Still dominated by Beringia and Clovis-first?
              > >
              > > It's very interesting in that the Rapid Coastal Migration theory is totally independent from AAT, but actually telling the same story. Coastal migration requires the participants to be very confident and skilful in water locomotion (not just technology), and on the other way round, according to AAT we humans are already water-proficient, no wonder the earliest migrations are thru the coastlines.
              > >
              > > It seems to me that if a theory is on the right track, it should be consistent with other theories (however unrelated or unfashionable), not just bits and pieces of ad hoc stuff.
              > >
              > > Chak
              > >
              >
            • Andrew
              ... I have just read the article in this month s Scientific American. There is a little section trying to refute AAT. The 3 reasons given don t hold up. The
              Message 6 of 30 , Feb 10, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "azul_chan_chak" <albert.chak@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "colinbuss" <colinbuss@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Has any one any thoughts on this?
                > >
                > > This piece is not presenting any new data, as the byline suggests, just rehashing the savannah theory.
                > >
                > > I've written emails to the author and Scientific American. Paleoanthropology have a tendency to confuse speculation with fact. Generally, our theories of human evolution have scant evidencery support but we can rely on analagous evolution to firm up certain paths of speculation.
                > >
                > > Current mammals in the savannah are not hairless and the only ones that are have semi-aquatic habits or aquatic ancestries. If hair is such a problem for big animals why aren't giraffes and buffalos hairless?
                > >
                >
                > Hi Colin,
                >
                > I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured article in SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of old stuff, or data that do not particularly support the theory.
                >
                > E.g. It quotes research that Homo ergaster evolved prolonged walking and running by 1.6 Mya. By assuming sweating (and hence hair loss) was evolved for running, "according to fossil evidence", naked skin and sweating must have evolved 1.6 Mya. Sounds like she got some fossil evidence.
                >
                > It mentioned that human versions of skin proteins make our skin more "waterproof and scuff-resistant" -- isn't it a support for AAT?
                >
                > The enlargement of human brain needs a stable temperature, hence the hair loss and sweating for dissipating heat -- immersing in water would be a better way to keep stable temperature.
                >
                >
                > However, the author did provide some useful information. e.g.
                > - Genetic study showed that dark pigmentation (as a response to hair loss in tropical Africa) originated 1.2 Mya. This is applicable to any theory.
                > - Speciation of body lice showed that clothes invented much later (72 Kya, from Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tales"), so the notion that "clothes caused hair loss" is untenable.
                >
                > Besides fossil records (too rare) and convergent evolution (not taken seriously), I think genetic study would be an important way to find evidences, no matter what's your theory.
                >
                > Chak
                >
                I have just read the article in this month's Scientific American. There is a little section trying to refute AAT. The 3 reasons given don't hold up. The stupidest is number 2 "the fossil record shows that watery habitats were thick with hungry crocodiles and agressive hippopotamuses. Our small, defenseless ancestors would not have stood a chance in an encounter with such creatures".

                As I think Elaine has said in one of her books, you might just as well say that our ancestors could not have ventured onto the savanna because of lions, hyenas, leopards etc.

                Hippos evolved to live in water millions of years after crocs did so. The presence of crocodiles did not stop hippos evolving to become amphibious, so why would it have stopped any other mammal doing the same?

                Hippos don't usually live on the coast or next to deep lakes, neither do they live in swamps. I don't think that they would live in forested river valleys either, they seem to need lots of grass. If you watched the beginning of the latest episode on BBC about the Rift Valley it showed a heavily forested valley with grassland on the flat land above. I doubt you would find hippos there.

                Human ancestors could have dug up crocodile eggs making them locally extinct.

                Andrew Lewis
              • Marc Verhaegen
                ... Fossilised sweat? :-D ... Yes. There s no evidence that large brains for some reason should need stable tps, but what we do know is that our body +
                Message 7 of 30 , Feb 10, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  >>> Has any one any thoughts on this?
                  >>> This piece is not presenting any new data, as the byline suggests, just
                  >>> rehashing the savannah theory.
                  >>> I've written emails to the author and Scientific American. Paleoanthropology
                  >>> have a tendency to confuse speculation with fact. Generally, our theories of
                  >>> human evolution have scant evidencery support but we can rely on analagous
                  >>> evolution to firm up certain paths of speculation.
                  >>> Current mammals in the savannah are not hairless and the only ones that are
                  >>> have semi-aquatic habits or aquatic ancestries. If hair is such a problem
                  >>> for big animals why aren't giraffes and buffalos hairless?

                  >> Hi Colin,
                  >> I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured article in
                  >> SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of old stuff,
                  >> or data that do not particularly support the theory.
                  >> E.g. It quotes research that Homo ergaster evolved prolonged walking and
                  >> running by 1.6 Mya. By assuming sweating (and hence hair loss) was evolved
                  >> for running, "according to fossil evidence", naked skin and sweating must
                  >> have evolved 1.6 Mya. Sounds like she got some fossil evidence.

                  Fossilised sweat? :-D

                  >> It mentioned that human versions of skin proteins make our skin more
                  >> "waterproof and scuff-resistant" -- isn't it a support for AAT?
                  >> The enlargement of human brain needs a stable temperature, hence the hair
                  >> loss and sweating for dissipating heat -- immersing in water would be a
                  >> better way to keep stable temperature.

                  Yes. There's no evidence that large brains for some reason should need
                  stable tps, but what we do know is that our body + brain tp is rather low,
                  as in aq.mammals (c 36-37°C instead of 38-39°), and that the tp fluctuations
                  are low (usu.<1° between morning & evening (but often 3° in, eg,
                  Austr.aboriginals), as in aq.mammals, whereas typical savanna mammals can
                  have fluctuations of >5°.

                  >> However, the author did provide some useful information. e.g.
                  >> - Genetic study showed that dark pigmentation (as a response to hair loss in
                  >> tropical Africa) originated 1.2 Mya. This is applicable to any theory.
                  >> - Speciation of body lice showed that clothes invented much later (72 Kya,
                  >> from Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tales"), so the notion that "clothes caused
                  >> hair loss" is untenable.
                  >> Besides fossil records (too rare) and convergent evolution (not taken
                  >> seriously), I think genetic study would be an important way to find
                  >> evidences, no matter what's your theory. Chak

                  > I have just read the article in this month's Scientific American. There is a
                  > little section trying to refute AAT. The 3 reasons given don't hold up. The
                  > stupidest is number 2 "the fossil record shows that watery habitats were thick
                  > with hungry crocodiles and agressive hippopotamuses. Our small, defenseless
                  > ancestors would not have stood a chance in an encounter with such creatures".
                  > As I think Elaine has said in one of her books, you might just as well say
                  > that our ancestors could not have ventured onto the savanna because of lions,
                  > hyenas, leopards etc.

                  Yes. Lucy's bones were found amid crab claws & crocodile eggs, the savanna
                  people should logically conclude that Lucy didn't exist: ITO human ancestors
                  can't live together in the neighbourhood crocodiles.

                  > Hippos evolved to live in water millions of years after crocs did so. The
                  > presence of crocodiles did not stop hippos evolving to become amphibious, so
                  > why would it have stopped any other mammal doing the same?
                  > Hippos don't usually live on the coast or next to deep lakes, neither do they
                  > live in swamps. I don't think that they would live in forested river valleys
                  > either, they seem to need lots of grass. If you watched the beginning of the
                  > latest episode on BBC about the Rift Valley it showed a heavily forested
                  > valley with grassland on the flat land above. I doubt you would find hippos
                  > there.
                  > Human ancestors could have dug up crocodile eggs making them locally extinct.
                  > Andrew Lewis

                  Yes, the crocodile argument is so silly that it doesn't deserve an answer.
                  Besides, AAT is about littoral dispersal of Homo - something that the AAT
                  critics still not seem to undestand.

                  --marc
                • colinbuss
                  Also, hippos are a threat beyond water. I was warned to be wary of them at night when I was in South Africa. They run around all night feeding - out on the
                  Message 8 of 30 , Feb 10, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Also, hippos are a threat beyond water. I was warned to be wary of them at night when I was in South Africa. They run around all night feeding - out on the savannah when it is cooler (at night).

                    The thought experiment is this: We currently dominate all ecosystems on the planet so when did that happen? When did we learn how to survive in the riparian forests?

                    And of course animals are killed; however, our ancestors were the ones who figured out how to survive.

                    Colin

                    --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > >>> Has any one any thoughts on this?
                    > >>> This piece is not presenting any new data, as the byline suggests, just
                    > >>> rehashing the savannah theory.
                    > >>> I've written emails to the author and Scientific American. Paleoanthropology
                    > >>> have a tendency to confuse speculation with fact. Generally, our theories of
                    > >>> human evolution have scant evidencery support but we can rely on analagous
                    > >>> evolution to firm up certain paths of speculation.
                    > >>> Current mammals in the savannah are not hairless and the only ones that are
                    > >>> have semi-aquatic habits or aquatic ancestries. If hair is such a problem
                    > >>> for big animals why aren't giraffes and buffalos hairless?
                    >
                    > >> Hi Colin,
                    > >> I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured article in
                    > >> SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of old stuff,
                    > >> or data that do not particularly support the theory.
                    > >> E.g. It quotes research that Homo ergaster evolved prolonged walking and
                    > >> running by 1.6 Mya. By assuming sweating (and hence hair loss) was evolved
                    > >> for running, "according to fossil evidence", naked skin and sweating must
                    > >> have evolved 1.6 Mya. Sounds like she got some fossil evidence.
                    >
                    > Fossilised sweat? :-D
                    >
                    > >> It mentioned that human versions of skin proteins make our skin more
                    > >> "waterproof and scuff-resistant" -- isn't it a support for AAT?
                    > >> The enlargement of human brain needs a stable temperature, hence the hair
                    > >> loss and sweating for dissipating heat -- immersing in water would be a
                    > >> better way to keep stable temperature.
                    >
                    > Yes. There's no evidence that large brains for some reason should need
                    > stable tps, but what we do know is that our body + brain tp is rather low,
                    > as in aq.mammals (c 36-37°C instead of 38-39°), and that the tp fluctuations
                    > are low (usu.<1° between morning & evening (but often 3° in, eg,
                    > Austr.aboriginals), as in aq.mammals, whereas typical savanna mammals can
                    > have fluctuations of >5°.
                    >
                    > >> However, the author did provide some useful information. e.g.
                    > >> - Genetic study showed that dark pigmentation (as a response to hair loss in
                    > >> tropical Africa) originated 1.2 Mya. This is applicable to any theory.
                    > >> - Speciation of body lice showed that clothes invented much later (72 Kya,
                    > >> from Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tales"), so the notion that "clothes caused
                    > >> hair loss" is untenable.
                    > >> Besides fossil records (too rare) and convergent evolution (not taken
                    > >> seriously), I think genetic study would be an important way to find
                    > >> evidences, no matter what's your theory. Chak
                    >
                    > > I have just read the article in this month's Scientific American. There is a
                    > > little section trying to refute AAT. The 3 reasons given don't hold up. The
                    > > stupidest is number 2 "the fossil record shows that watery habitats were thick
                    > > with hungry crocodiles and agressive hippopotamuses. Our small, defenseless
                    > > ancestors would not have stood a chance in an encounter with such creatures".
                    > > As I think Elaine has said in one of her books, you might just as well say
                    > > that our ancestors could not have ventured onto the savanna because of lions,
                    > > hyenas, leopards etc.
                    >
                    > Yes. Lucy's bones were found amid crab claws & crocodile eggs, the savanna
                    > people should logically conclude that Lucy didn't exist: ITO human ancestors
                    > can't live together in the neighbourhood crocodiles.
                    >
                    > > Hippos evolved to live in water millions of years after crocs did so. The
                    > > presence of crocodiles did not stop hippos evolving to become amphibious, so
                    > > why would it have stopped any other mammal doing the same?
                    > > Hippos don't usually live on the coast or next to deep lakes, neither do they
                    > > live in swamps. I don't think that they would live in forested river valleys
                    > > either, they seem to need lots of grass. If you watched the beginning of the
                    > > latest episode on BBC about the Rift Valley it showed a heavily forested
                    > > valley with grassland on the flat land above. I doubt you would find hippos
                    > > there.
                    > > Human ancestors could have dug up crocodile eggs making them locally extinct.
                    > > Andrew Lewis
                    >
                    > Yes, the crocodile argument is so silly that it doesn't deserve an answer.
                    > Besides, AAT is about littoral dispersal of Homo - something that the AAT
                    > critics still not seem to undestand.
                    >
                    > --marc
                    >
                  • Heather Twist
                    There was a really interesting link a few weeks back by a guy who was swimming in tropical rivers. He found them a very easy way to get through the forest, and
                    Message 9 of 30 , Feb 10, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      There was a really interesting link a few weeks back by a guy
                      who was swimming in tropical rivers. He found them a very
                      easy way to get through the forest, and the crocs etc. didn't
                      bother him. I would guess that crocs and hippos are a bit like
                      sharks: they will eat you if you look like their normal prey (or
                      hippos will attack if you look like another hippo?). But crocs
                      eat animals that come down to the water to drink, that can't
                      see them. Hippos attack mainly to protect their territory
                      I think (they are vegetarians), but they might feel less
                      threatened by a small swimming animal than they are by
                      a tall guy or a big boat.

                      Anyway, this guy also found that most animals ignored him
                      while he was in the water. Standing up, he looked like a human.
                      In the water, he was part of the landscape. And he'd be safer
                      from the big cats (less odor if nothing else: plus the cats don't
                      attack in the water).

                      If his experience is typical, rivers are plenty safe for humans,
                      hippos and all.


                      On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM, colinbuss <colinbuss@...> wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      > Also, hippos are a threat beyond water. I was warned to be wary of them at
                      > night when I was in South Africa. They run around all night feeding - out on
                      > the savannah when it is cooler (at night).
                      >
                      > The thought experiment is this: We currently dominate all ecosystems on the
                      > planet so when did that happen? When did we learn how to survive in the
                      > riparian forests?
                      >
                      > And of course animals are killed; however, our ancestors were the ones who
                      > figured out how to survive.
                      >
                      > Colin
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com <AAT%40yahoogroups.com>, Marc Verhaegen
                      > <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > >>> Has any one any thoughts on this?
                      > > >>> This piece is not presenting any new data, as the byline suggests,
                      > just
                      > > >>> rehashing the savannah theory.
                      > > >>> I've written emails to the author and Scientific American.
                      > Paleoanthropology
                      > > >>> have a tendency to confuse speculation with fact. Generally, our
                      > theories of
                      > > >>> human evolution have scant evidencery support but we can rely on
                      > analagous
                      > > >>> evolution to firm up certain paths of speculation.
                      > > >>> Current mammals in the savannah are not hairless and the only ones
                      > that are
                      > > >>> have semi-aquatic habits or aquatic ancestries. If hair is such a
                      > problem
                      > > >>> for big animals why aren't giraffes and buffalos hairless?
                      > >
                      > > >> Hi Colin,
                      > > >> I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured article
                      > in
                      > > >> SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of old
                      > stuff,
                      > > >> or data that do not particularly support the theory.
                      > > >> E.g. It quotes research that Homo ergaster evolved prolonged walking
                      > and
                      > > >> running by 1.6 Mya. By assuming sweating (and hence hair loss) was
                      > evolved
                      > > >> for running, "according to fossil evidence", naked skin and sweating
                      > must
                      > > >> have evolved 1.6 Mya. Sounds like she got some fossil evidence.
                      > >
                      > > Fossilised sweat? :-D
                      > >
                      > > >> It mentioned that human versions of skin proteins make our skin more
                      > > >> "waterproof and scuff-resistant" -- isn't it a support for AAT?
                      > > >> The enlargement of human brain needs a stable temperature, hence the
                      > hair
                      > > >> loss and sweating for dissipating heat -- immersing in water would be
                      > a
                      > > >> better way to keep stable temperature.
                      > >
                      > > Yes. There's no evidence that large brains for some reason should need
                      > > stable tps, but what we do know is that our body + brain tp is rather
                      > low,
                      > > as in aq.mammals (c 36-37�C instead of 38-39�), and that the tp
                      > fluctuations
                      > > are low (usu.<1� between morning & evening (but often 3� in, eg,
                      > > Austr.aboriginals), as in aq.mammals, whereas typical savanna mammals can
                      > > have fluctuations of >5�.
                      > >
                      > > >> However, the author did provide some useful information. e.g.
                      > > >> - Genetic study showed that dark pigmentation (as a response to hair
                      > loss in
                      > > >> tropical Africa) originated 1.2 Mya. This is applicable to any theory.
                      > > >> - Speciation of body lice showed that clothes invented much later (72
                      > Kya,
                      > > >> from Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tales"), so the notion that "clothes
                      > caused
                      > > >> hair loss" is untenable.
                      > > >> Besides fossil records (too rare) and convergent evolution (not taken
                      > > >> seriously), I think genetic study would be an important way to find
                      > > >> evidences, no matter what's your theory. Chak
                      > >
                      > > > I have just read the article in this month's Scientific American. There
                      > is a
                      > > > little section trying to refute AAT. The 3 reasons given don't hold up.
                      > The
                      > > > stupidest is number 2 "the fossil record shows that watery habitats
                      > were thick
                      > > > with hungry crocodiles and agressive hippopotamuses. Our small,
                      > defenseless
                      > > > ancestors would not have stood a chance in an encounter with such
                      > creatures".
                      > > > As I think Elaine has said in one of her books, you might just as well
                      > say
                      > > > that our ancestors could not have ventured onto the savanna because of
                      > lions,
                      > > > hyenas, leopards etc.
                      > >
                      > > Yes. Lucy's bones were found amid crab claws & crocodile eggs, the
                      > savanna
                      > > people should logically conclude that Lucy didn't exist: ITO human
                      > ancestors
                      > > can't live together in the neighbourhood crocodiles.
                      > >
                      > > > Hippos evolved to live in water millions of years after crocs did so.
                      > The
                      > > > presence of crocodiles did not stop hippos evolving to become
                      > amphibious, so
                      > > > why would it have stopped any other mammal doing the same?
                      > > > Hippos don't usually live on the coast or next to deep lakes, neither
                      > do they
                      > > > live in swamps. I don't think that they would live in forested river
                      > valleys
                      > > > either, they seem to need lots of grass. If you watched the beginning
                      > of the
                      > > > latest episode on BBC about the Rift Valley it showed a heavily
                      > forested
                      > > > valley with grassland on the flat land above. I doubt you would find
                      > hippos
                      > > > there.
                      > > > Human ancestors could have dug up crocodile eggs making them locally
                      > extinct.
                      > > > Andrew Lewis
                      > >
                      > > Yes, the crocodile argument is so silly that it doesn't deserve an
                      > answer.
                      > > Besides, AAT is about littoral dispersal of Homo - something that the AAT
                      > > critics still not seem to undestand.
                      > >
                      > > --marc
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >



                      --
                      Heather Twist

                      www.dunkers.us
                      Kraut: the easy way!


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Andrew
                      The savanna has big non-predatory but aggressive animals, the African buffalo. They kill lions.
                      Message 10 of 30 , Feb 11, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The savanna has big non-predatory but aggressive animals, the African buffalo. They kill lions.

                        --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "colinbuss" <colinbuss@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Also, hippos are a threat beyond water. I was warned to be wary of them at night when I was in South Africa. They run around all night feeding - out on the savannah when it is cooler (at night).
                        >
                        > The thought experiment is this: We currently dominate all ecosystems on the planet so when did that happen? When did we learn how to survive in the riparian forests?
                        >
                        > And of course animals are killed; however, our ancestors were the ones who figured out how to survive.
                        >
                        > Colin
                        >
                        > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > >>> Has any one any thoughts on this?
                        > > >>> This piece is not presenting any new data, as the byline suggests, just
                        > > >>> rehashing the savannah theory.
                        > > >>> I've written emails to the author and Scientific American. Paleoanthropology
                        > > >>> have a tendency to confuse speculation with fact. Generally, our theories of
                        > > >>> human evolution have scant evidencery support but we can rely on analagous
                        > > >>> evolution to firm up certain paths of speculation.
                        > > >>> Current mammals in the savannah are not hairless and the only ones that are
                        > > >>> have semi-aquatic habits or aquatic ancestries. If hair is such a problem
                        > > >>> for big animals why aren't giraffes and buffalos hairless?
                        > >
                        > > >> Hi Colin,
                        > > >> I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured article in
                        > > >> SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of old stuff,
                        > > >> or data that do not particularly support the theory.
                        > > >> E.g. It quotes research that Homo ergaster evolved prolonged walking and
                        > > >> running by 1.6 Mya. By assuming sweating (and hence hair loss) was evolved
                        > > >> for running, "according to fossil evidence", naked skin and sweating must
                        > > >> have evolved 1.6 Mya. Sounds like she got some fossil evidence.
                        > >
                        > > Fossilised sweat? :-D
                        > >
                        > > >> It mentioned that human versions of skin proteins make our skin more
                        > > >> "waterproof and scuff-resistant" -- isn't it a support for AAT?
                        > > >> The enlargement of human brain needs a stable temperature, hence the hair
                        > > >> loss and sweating for dissipating heat -- immersing in water would be a
                        > > >> better way to keep stable temperature.
                        > >
                        > > Yes. There's no evidence that large brains for some reason should need
                        > > stable tps, but what we do know is that our body + brain tp is rather low,
                        > > as in aq.mammals (c 36-37°C instead of 38-39°), and that the tp fluctuations
                        > > are low (usu.<1° between morning & evening (but often 3° in, eg,
                        > > Austr.aboriginals), as in aq.mammals, whereas typical savanna mammals can
                        > > have fluctuations of >5°.
                        > >
                        > > >> However, the author did provide some useful information. e.g.
                        > > >> - Genetic study showed that dark pigmentation (as a response to hair loss in
                        > > >> tropical Africa) originated 1.2 Mya. This is applicable to any theory.
                        > > >> - Speciation of body lice showed that clothes invented much later (72 Kya,
                        > > >> from Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tales"), so the notion that "clothes caused
                        > > >> hair loss" is untenable.
                        > > >> Besides fossil records (too rare) and convergent evolution (not taken
                        > > >> seriously), I think genetic study would be an important way to find
                        > > >> evidences, no matter what's your theory. Chak
                        > >
                        > > > I have just read the article in this month's Scientific American. There is a
                        > > > little section trying to refute AAT. The 3 reasons given don't hold up. The
                        > > > stupidest is number 2 "the fossil record shows that watery habitats were thick
                        > > > with hungry crocodiles and agressive hippopotamuses. Our small, defenseless
                        > > > ancestors would not have stood a chance in an encounter with such creatures".
                        > > > As I think Elaine has said in one of her books, you might just as well say
                        > > > that our ancestors could not have ventured onto the savanna because of lions,
                        > > > hyenas, leopards etc.
                        > >
                        > > Yes. Lucy's bones were found amid crab claws & crocodile eggs, the savanna
                        > > people should logically conclude that Lucy didn't exist: ITO human ancestors
                        > > can't live together in the neighbourhood crocodiles.
                        > >
                        > > > Hippos evolved to live in water millions of years after crocs did so. The
                        > > > presence of crocodiles did not stop hippos evolving to become amphibious, so
                        > > > why would it have stopped any other mammal doing the same?
                        > > > Hippos don't usually live on the coast or next to deep lakes, neither do they
                        > > > live in swamps. I don't think that they would live in forested river valleys
                        > > > either, they seem to need lots of grass. If you watched the beginning of the
                        > > > latest episode on BBC about the Rift Valley it showed a heavily forested
                        > > > valley with grassland on the flat land above. I doubt you would find hippos
                        > > > there.
                        > > > Human ancestors could have dug up crocodile eggs making them locally extinct.
                        > > > Andrew Lewis
                        > >
                        > > Yes, the crocodile argument is so silly that it doesn't deserve an answer.
                        > > Besides, AAT is about littoral dispersal of Homo - something that the AAT
                        > > critics still not seem to undestand.
                        > >
                        > > --marc
                        > >
                        >
                      • Heather Twist
                        Which interestingly enough, is exactly the kind of animal that the savannah theorists are saying was first hunted by hominids? Pretty much all those big game
                        Message 11 of 30 , Feb 11, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Which interestingly enough, is exactly the kind of animal that the savannah
                          theorists are saying was first hunted by hominids? Pretty much all those big
                          game animals can kill humans pretty easily: tourists are routinely killed by
                          cute little deer when they try to feed them. The idea of a group of hominids
                          killing enough large game animals (esp. enough to get enough omega 3 fatty
                          acids) is just pretty unlikely. Esp. when said hominids are short and don't
                          run very well ... even the bigger Neanderthals sustained major injuries
                          hunting aurochs, and hunting buffalo was dangerous for the American Indians
                          (even when they had long sharp spears and arrows).

                          BTW it's interesting being around some of our local cows. The Angus have
                          been bred for placidity, but the Longhorn are semi-wild. One got into a
                          backyard ... it jumped the fence, they jump like deer. The horns got tangled
                          in a swing set. The swing set ended up looking like crumpled wire. When
                          confronted with a dog or coyote, they will gore the coyote, but just toss
                          the dog in the air with their horns (they seem to realize the dogs belong to
                          people and are not as deadly to them). I personally can't imagine hunting
                          one of those without a longbow. And they are way more domesticated than an
                          African beast would be.


                          On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Andrew <gdvbqz@...> wrote:

                          >
                          >
                          > The savanna has big non-predatory but aggressive animals, the African
                          > buffalo. They kill lions.
                          >
                          > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com <AAT%40yahoogroups.com>, "colinbuss"
                          > <colinbuss@...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Also, hippos are a threat beyond water. I was warned to be wary of them
                          > at night when I was in South Africa. They run around all night feeding - out
                          > on the savannah when it is cooler (at night).
                          > >
                          > > The thought experiment is this: We currently dominate all ecosystems on
                          > the planet so when did that happen? When did we learn how to survive in the
                          > riparian forests?
                          > >
                          > > And of course animals are killed; however, our ancestors were the ones
                          > who figured out how to survive.
                          > >
                          > > Colin
                          > >
                          > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com <AAT%40yahoogroups.com>, Marc Verhaegen
                          > <m_verhaegen@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > >>> Has any one any thoughts on this?
                          > > > >>> This piece is not presenting any new data, as the byline suggests,
                          > just
                          > > > >>> rehashing the savannah theory.
                          > > > >>> I've written emails to the author and Scientific American.
                          > Paleoanthropology
                          > > > >>> have a tendency to confuse speculation with fact. Generally, our
                          > theories of
                          > > > >>> human evolution have scant evidencery support but we can rely on
                          > analagous
                          > > > >>> evolution to firm up certain paths of speculation.
                          > > > >>> Current mammals in the savannah are not hairless and the only ones
                          > that are
                          > > > >>> have semi-aquatic habits or aquatic ancestries. If hair is such a
                          > problem
                          > > > >>> for big animals why aren't giraffes and buffalos hairless?
                          > > >
                          > > > >> Hi Colin,
                          > > > >> I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured
                          > article in
                          > > > >> SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of
                          > old stuff,
                          > > > >> or data that do not particularly support the theory.
                          > > > >> E.g. It quotes research that Homo ergaster evolved prolonged walking
                          > and
                          > > > >> running by 1.6 Mya. By assuming sweating (and hence hair loss) was
                          > evolved
                          > > > >> for running, "according to fossil evidence", naked skin and sweating
                          > must
                          > > > >> have evolved 1.6 Mya. Sounds like she got some fossil evidence.
                          > > >
                          > > > Fossilised sweat? :-D
                          > > >
                          > > > >> It mentioned that human versions of skin proteins make our skin more
                          > > > >> "waterproof and scuff-resistant" -- isn't it a support for AAT?
                          > > > >> The enlargement of human brain needs a stable temperature, hence the
                          > hair
                          > > > >> loss and sweating for dissipating heat -- immersing in water would
                          > be a
                          > > > >> better way to keep stable temperature.
                          > > >
                          > > > Yes. There's no evidence that large brains for some reason should need
                          > > > stable tps, but what we do know is that our body + brain tp is rather
                          > low,
                          > > > as in aq.mammals (c 36-37�C instead of 38-39�), and that the tp
                          > fluctuations
                          > > > are low (usu.<1� between morning & evening (but often 3� in, eg,
                          > > > Austr.aboriginals), as in aq.mammals, whereas typical savanna mammals
                          > can
                          > > > have fluctuations of >5�.
                          > > >
                          > > > >> However, the author did provide some useful information. e.g.
                          > > > >> - Genetic study showed that dark pigmentation (as a response to hair
                          > loss in
                          > > > >> tropical Africa) originated 1.2 Mya. This is applicable to any
                          > theory.
                          > > > >> - Speciation of body lice showed that clothes invented much later
                          > (72 Kya,
                          > > > >> from Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tales"), so the notion that "clothes
                          > caused
                          > > > >> hair loss" is untenable.
                          > > > >> Besides fossil records (too rare) and convergent evolution (not
                          > taken
                          > > > >> seriously), I think genetic study would be an important way to find
                          > > > >> evidences, no matter what's your theory. Chak
                          > > >
                          > > > > I have just read the article in this month's Scientific American.
                          > There is a
                          > > > > little section trying to refute AAT. The 3 reasons given don't hold
                          > up. The
                          > > > > stupidest is number 2 "the fossil record shows that watery habitats
                          > were thick
                          > > > > with hungry crocodiles and agressive hippopotamuses. Our small,
                          > defenseless
                          > > > > ancestors would not have stood a chance in an encounter with such
                          > creatures".
                          > > > > As I think Elaine has said in one of her books, you might just as
                          > well say
                          > > > > that our ancestors could not have ventured onto the savanna because
                          > of lions,
                          > > > > hyenas, leopards etc.
                          > > >
                          > > > Yes. Lucy's bones were found amid crab claws & crocodile eggs, the
                          > savanna
                          > > > people should logically conclude that Lucy didn't exist: ITO human
                          > ancestors
                          > > > can't live together in the neighbourhood crocodiles.
                          > > >
                          > > > > Hippos evolved to live in water millions of years after crocs did so.
                          > The
                          > > > > presence of crocodiles did not stop hippos evolving to become
                          > amphibious, so
                          > > > > why would it have stopped any other mammal doing the same?
                          > > > > Hippos don't usually live on the coast or next to deep lakes, neither
                          > do they
                          > > > > live in swamps. I don't think that they would live in forested river
                          > valleys
                          > > > > either, they seem to need lots of grass. If you watched the beginning
                          > of the
                          > > > > latest episode on BBC about the Rift Valley it showed a heavily
                          > forested
                          > > > > valley with grassland on the flat land above. I doubt you would find
                          > hippos
                          > > > > there.
                          > > > > Human ancestors could have dug up crocodile eggs making them locally
                          > extinct.
                          > > > > Andrew Lewis
                          > > >
                          > > > Yes, the crocodile argument is so silly that it doesn't deserve an
                          > answer.
                          > > > Besides, AAT is about littoral dispersal of Homo - something that the
                          > AAT
                          > > > critics still not seem to undestand.
                          > > >
                          > > > --marc
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >



                          --
                          Heather Twist

                          www.dunkers.us
                          Kraut: the easy way!


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Marc Verhaegen
                          ... Yes, I saw his link about a guy travelling swimming in the rivers in South America: the rivers were safer than the forest, he said. --marc
                          Message 12 of 30 , Feb 11, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Op 11/02/10 03:50, Heather Twist <HeatherTwist@...> schreef:

                            > There was a really interesting link a few weeks back by a guy
                            > who was swimming in tropical rivers. He found them a very
                            > easy way to get through the forest, and the crocs etc. didn't
                            > bother him. I would guess that crocs and hippos are a bit like
                            > sharks: they will eat you if you look like their normal prey (or
                            > hippos will attack if you look like another hippo?). But crocs
                            > eat animals that come down to the water to drink, that can't
                            > see them. Hippos attack mainly to protect their territory
                            > I think (they are vegetarians), but they might feel less
                            > threatened by a small swimming animal than they are by
                            > a tall guy or a big boat.
                            > Anyway, this guy also found that most animals ignored him
                            > while he was in the water. Standing up, he looked like a human.
                            > In the water, he was part of the landscape. And he'd be safer
                            > from the big cats (less odor if nothing else: plus the cats don't
                            > attack in the water).
                            > If his experience is typical, rivers are plenty safe for humans,
                            > hippos and all.

                            Yes, I saw his link about a guy travelling swimming in the rivers in South
                            America: the rivers were safer than the forest, he said.

                            --marc

                            >> Also, hippos are a threat beyond water. I was warned to be wary of them at
                            >> night when I was in South Africa. They run around all night feeding - out on
                            >> the savannah when it is cooler (at night).
                            >> The thought experiment is this: We currently dominate all ecosystems on the
                            >> planet so when did that happen? When did we learn how to survive in the
                            >> riparian forests?
                            >> And of course animals are killed; however, our ancestors were the ones who
                            >> figured out how to survive. Colin




                            >>>>>> Has any one any thoughts on this?
                            >>>>>> This piece is not presenting any new data, as the byline suggests,
                            >>>>>> just rehashing the savannah theory.
                            >>>>>> I've written emails to the author and Scientific American.
                            >> Paleoanthropology
                            >>>>>> have a tendency to confuse speculation with fact. Generally, our
                            >> theories of
                            >>>>>> human evolution have scant evidencery support but we can rely on
                            >> analagous
                            >>>>>> evolution to firm up certain paths of speculation.
                            >>>>>> Current mammals in the savannah are not hairless and the only ones
                            >> that are
                            >>>>>> have semi-aquatic habits or aquatic ancestries. If hair is such a
                            >> problem
                            >>>>>> for big animals why aren't giraffes and buffalos hairless?
                            >>>
                            >>>>> Hi Colin,
                            >>>>> I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured article
                            >> in
                            >>>>> SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of old
                            >> stuff,
                            >>>>> or data that do not particularly support the theory.
                            >>>>> E.g. It quotes research that Homo ergaster evolved prolonged walking
                            >> and
                            >>>>> running by 1.6 Mya. By assuming sweating (and hence hair loss) was
                            >> evolved
                            >>>>> for running, "according to fossil evidence", naked skin and sweating
                            >> must
                            >>>>> have evolved 1.6 Mya. Sounds like she got some fossil evidence.
                            >>>
                            >>> Fossilised sweat? :-D
                            >>>
                            >>>>> It mentioned that human versions of skin proteins make our skin more
                            >>>>> "waterproof and scuff-resistant" -- isn't it a support for AAT?
                            >>>>> The enlargement of human brain needs a stable temperature, hence the
                            >> hair
                            >>>>> loss and sweating for dissipating heat -- immersing in water would be
                            >> a
                            >>>>> better way to keep stable temperature.
                            >>>
                            >>> Yes. There's no evidence that large brains for some reason should need
                            >>> stable tps, but what we do know is that our body + brain tp is rather
                            >> low,
                            >>> as in aq.mammals (c 36-37°C instead of 38-39°), and that the tp
                            >> fluctuations
                            >>> are low (usu.<1° between morning & evening (but often 3° in, eg,
                            >>> Austr.aboriginals), as in aq.mammals, whereas typical savanna mammals can
                            >>> have fluctuations of >5°.
                            >>>
                            >>>>> However, the author did provide some useful information. e.g.
                            >>>>> - Genetic study showed that dark pigmentation (as a response to hair
                            >> loss in
                            >>>>> tropical Africa) originated 1.2 Mya. This is applicable to any theory.
                            >>>>> - Speciation of body lice showed that clothes invented much later (72
                            >> Kya,
                            >>>>> from Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tales"), so the notion that "clothes
                            >> caused
                            >>>>> hair loss" is untenable.
                            >>>>> Besides fossil records (too rare) and convergent evolution (not taken
                            >>>>> seriously), I think genetic study would be an important way to find
                            >>>>> evidences, no matter what's your theory. Chak
                            >>>
                            >>>> I have just read the article in this month's Scientific American. There
                            >> is a
                            >>>> little section trying to refute AAT. The 3 reasons given don't hold up.
                            >> The
                            >>>> stupidest is number 2 "the fossil record shows that watery habitats
                            >> were thick
                            >>>> with hungry crocodiles and agressive hippopotamuses. Our small,
                            >> defenseless
                            >>>> ancestors would not have stood a chance in an encounter with such
                            >> creatures".
                            >>>> As I think Elaine has said in one of her books, you might just as well
                            >> say
                            >>>> that our ancestors could not have ventured onto the savanna because of
                            >> lions,
                            >>>> hyenas, leopards etc.
                            >>>
                            >>> Yes. Lucy's bones were found amid crab claws & crocodile eggs, the
                            >> savanna
                            >>> people should logically conclude that Lucy didn't exist: ITO human
                            >> ancestors
                            >>> can't live together in the neighbourhood crocodiles.
                            >>>
                            >>>> Hippos evolved to live in water millions of years after crocs did so.
                            >> The
                            >>>> presence of crocodiles did not stop hippos evolving to become
                            >> amphibious, so
                            >>>> why would it have stopped any other mammal doing the same?
                            >>>> Hippos don't usually live on the coast or next to deep lakes, neither
                            >> do they
                            >>>> live in swamps. I don't think that they would live in forested river
                            >> valleys
                            >>>> either, they seem to need lots of grass. If you watched the beginning
                            >> of the
                            >>>> latest episode on BBC about the Rift Valley it showed a heavily
                            >> forested
                            >>>> valley with grassland on the flat land above. I doubt you would find
                            >> hippos
                            >>>> there.
                            >>>> Human ancestors could have dug up crocodile eggs making them locally
                            >> extinct.
                            >>>> Andrew Lewis
                            >>>
                            >>> Yes, the crocodile argument is so silly that it doesn't deserve an
                            >> answer.
                            >>> Besides, AAT is about littoral dispersal of Homo - something that the AAT
                            >>> critics still not seem to undestand.
                            >>>
                            >>> --marc
                          • Marc Verhaegen
                            ... Hunted or scavenched? First? I don t know, but the hunted animals were very varied: bovids, hippos, rhino, deer, whale... ... DD said Hn might have hidden
                            Message 13 of 30 , Feb 11, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Which interestingly enough, is exactly the kind of animal that the savannah
                              > theorists are saying was first hunted by hominids?

                              Hunted or scavenched? First? I don't know, but the hunted animals were very
                              varied: bovids, hippos, rhino, deer, whale...

                              > Pretty much all those big
                              > game animals can kill humans pretty easily: tourists are routinely killed by
                              > cute little deer when they try to feed them. The idea of a group of hominids
                              > killing enough large game animals (esp. enough to get enough omega 3 fatty
                              > acids) is just pretty unlikely. Esp. when said hominids are short and don't
                              > run very well ... even the bigger Neanderthals sustained major injuries
                              > hunting aurochs, and hunting buffalo was dangerous for the American Indians
                              > (even when they had long sharp spears and arrows).

                              DD said Hn might have hidden in shallow water amid reeds or so & injured
                              animals that couldn't move well in the mud or water & let them bleed to
                              death.

                              All "butchering" sites were water(river)side AFAIK, in savannas or
                              elsewhere. Possibly they sometimes butchered bovids that were killed)
                              crossing rivers & were trampled or drowned (1:10 die during the trek,
                              usu.when trying to cross rivers).

                              Paleolithic Homo already butchered stranded whales: M Gutierrez cs 2001
                              Exploitation d'un grand cétacé au Paléolithique ancien: le site de Dungo V à
                              Baia Farta (Benguela, Angola). CR Acad Sci 332:357-62.

                              --marc

                              > BTW it's interesting being around some of our local cows. The Angus have
                              > been bred for placidity, but the Longhorn are semi-wild. One got into a
                              > backyard ... it jumped the fence, they jump like deer. The horns got tangled
                              > in a swing set. The swing set ended up looking like crumpled wire. When
                              > confronted with a dog or coyote, they will gore the coyote, but just toss
                              > the dog in the air with their horns (they seem to realize the dogs belong to
                              > people and are not as deadly to them). I personally can't imagine hunting
                              > one of those without a longbow. And they are way more domesticated than an
                              > African beast would be.

                              >> The savanna has big non-predatory but aggressive animals, the African
                              >> buffalo. They kill lions.




                              >>> Also, hippos are a threat beyond water. I was warned to be wary of them
                              >> at night when I was in South Africa. They run around all night feeding - out
                              >> on the savannah when it is cooler (at night).
                              >>>
                              >>> The thought experiment is this: We currently dominate all ecosystems on
                              >> the planet so when did that happen? When did we learn how to survive in the
                              >> riparian forests?
                              >>>
                              >>> And of course animals are killed; however, our ancestors were the ones
                              >> who figured out how to survive.
                              >>>
                              >>> Colin
                              >>>
                              >>> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com <AAT%40yahoogroups.com>, Marc Verhaegen
                              >> <m_verhaegen@> wrote:
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>>> Has any one any thoughts on this?
                              >>>>>>> This piece is not presenting any new data, as the byline suggests,
                              >> just
                              >>>>>>> rehashing the savannah theory.
                              >>>>>>> I've written emails to the author and Scientific American.
                              >> Paleoanthropology
                              >>>>>>> have a tendency to confuse speculation with fact. Generally, our
                              >> theories of
                              >>>>>>> human evolution have scant evidencery support but we can rely on
                              >> analagous
                              >>>>>>> evolution to firm up certain paths of speculation.
                              >>>>>>> Current mammals in the savannah are not hairless and the only ones
                              >> that are
                              >>>>>>> have semi-aquatic habits or aquatic ancestries. If hair is such a
                              >> problem
                              >>>>>>> for big animals why aren't giraffes and buffalos hairless?
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>> Hi Colin,
                              >>>>>> I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured
                              >> article in
                              >>>>>> SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of
                              >> old stuff,
                              >>>>>> or data that do not particularly support the theory.
                              >>>>>> E.g. It quotes research that Homo ergaster evolved prolonged walking
                              >> and
                              >>>>>> running by 1.6 Mya. By assuming sweating (and hence hair loss) was
                              >> evolved
                              >>>>>> for running, "according to fossil evidence", naked skin and sweating
                              >> must
                              >>>>>> have evolved 1.6 Mya. Sounds like she got some fossil evidence.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> Fossilised sweat? :-D
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>> It mentioned that human versions of skin proteins make our skin more
                              >>>>>> "waterproof and scuff-resistant" -- isn't it a support for AAT?
                              >>>>>> The enlargement of human brain needs a stable temperature, hence the
                              >> hair
                              >>>>>> loss and sweating for dissipating heat -- immersing in water would
                              >> be a
                              >>>>>> better way to keep stable temperature.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> Yes. There's no evidence that large brains for some reason should need
                              >>>> stable tps, but what we do know is that our body + brain tp is rather
                              >> low,
                              >>>> as in aq.mammals (c 36-37°C instead of 38-39°), and that the tp
                              >> fluctuations
                              >>>> are low (usu.<1° between morning & evening (but often 3° in, eg,
                              >>>> Austr.aboriginals), as in aq.mammals, whereas typical savanna mammals
                              >> can
                              >>>> have fluctuations of >5°.
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>> However, the author did provide some useful information. e.g.
                              >>>>>> - Genetic study showed that dark pigmentation (as a response to hair
                              >> loss in
                              >>>>>> tropical Africa) originated 1.2 Mya. This is applicable to any
                              >> theory.
                              >>>>>> - Speciation of body lice showed that clothes invented much later
                              >> (72 Kya,
                              >>>>>> from Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tales"), so the notion that "clothes
                              >> caused
                              >>>>>> hair loss" is untenable.
                              >>>>>> Besides fossil records (too rare) and convergent evolution (not
                              >> taken
                              >>>>>> seriously), I think genetic study would be an important way to find
                              >>>>>> evidences, no matter what's your theory. Chak
                              >>>>
                              >>>>> I have just read the article in this month's Scientific American.
                              >> There is a
                              >>>>> little section trying to refute AAT. The 3 reasons given don't hold
                              >> up. The
                              >>>>> stupidest is number 2 "the fossil record shows that watery habitats
                              >> were thick
                              >>>>> with hungry crocodiles and agressive hippopotamuses. Our small,
                              >> defenseless
                              >>>>> ancestors would not have stood a chance in an encounter with such
                              >> creatures".
                              >>>>> As I think Elaine has said in one of her books, you might just as
                              >> well say
                              >>>>> that our ancestors could not have ventured onto the savanna because
                              >> of lions,
                              >>>>> hyenas, leopards etc.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> Yes. Lucy's bones were found amid crab claws & crocodile eggs, the
                              >> savanna
                              >>>> people should logically conclude that Lucy didn't exist: ITO human
                              >> ancestors
                              >>>> can't live together in the neighbourhood crocodiles.
                              >>>>
                              >>>>> Hippos evolved to live in water millions of years after crocs did so.
                              >> The
                              >>>>> presence of crocodiles did not stop hippos evolving to become
                              >> amphibious, so
                              >>>>> why would it have stopped any other mammal doing the same?
                              >>>>> Hippos don't usually live on the coast or next to deep lakes, neither
                              >> do they
                              >>>>> live in swamps. I don't think that they would live in forested river
                              >> valleys
                              >>>>> either, they seem to need lots of grass. If you watched the beginning
                              >> of the
                              >>>>> latest episode on BBC about the Rift Valley it showed a heavily
                              >> forested
                              >>>>> valley with grassland on the flat land above. I doubt you would find
                              >> hippos
                              >>>>> there.
                              >>>>> Human ancestors could have dug up crocodile eggs making them locally
                              >> extinct.
                              >>>>> Andrew Lewis
                              >>>>
                              >>>> Yes, the crocodile argument is so silly that it doesn't deserve an
                              >> answer.
                              >>>> Besides, AAT is about littoral dispersal of Homo - something that the
                              >> AAT
                              >>>> critics still not seem to undestand.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> --marc
                              >>>>
                              >>>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >
                              >
                            • Heather Twist
                              Yeah, scavenged sounds likely. Eating animals that get trapped in mud sounds likely. Heap big hunter eating big bovids happened, but it was a lot later ...
                              Message 14 of 30 , Feb 11, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yeah, scavenged sounds likely. Eating animals that get
                                trapped in mud sounds likely. "Heap big hunter" eating
                                big bovids happened, but it was a lot later ... and not
                                nearly as ubiquitous as the current paleo-diet-mindset.
                                Mostly I was commenting on the mindset: a lot of the
                                people that are trying to replicate the "ancestral diet"
                                are concentrating on large land animals and deep water
                                fish ... neither of which is the most common diet element
                                of the majority of pre-neolithic humans. You are
                                right though: there are a fair number of bovines that
                                die, so if you were a tribe following a large
                                number of beasts, you might not even need to hunt them.

                                And at the water's edge, you REALLY don't need to hunt
                                big animals. Even in today's world, much of the time when
                                I've gone walking on the beach, there is some animal
                                carcass or another washed up. (There are always huge
                                bunches of seaweed with various animals clinging, but
                                there are also seals and dolphins etc. I would imagine in
                                an area with lots of bovines, there would be dead large
                                bovines too ).

                                Anyway, when people talk about the savannah theory,
                                the traditional view has been that men had to walk
                                upright in order to carry their spears. To hunt big
                                animals. Which certainly happened later on, but I think
                                it's pretty well discredited now as a "first step"?


                                On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...>wrote:

                                >
                                >
                                > > Which interestingly enough, is exactly the kind of animal that the
                                > savannah
                                > > theorists are saying was first hunted by hominids?
                                >
                                > Hunted or scavenched? First? I don't know, but the hunted animals were very
                                > varied: bovids, hippos, rhino, deer, whale...
                                >
                                > > Pretty much all those big
                                > > game animals can kill humans pretty easily: tourists are routinely killed
                                > by
                                > > cute little deer when they try to feed them. The idea of a group of
                                > hominids
                                > > killing enough large game animals (esp. enough to get enough omega 3
                                > fatty
                                > > acids) is just pretty unlikely. Esp. when said hominids are short and
                                > don't
                                > > run very well ... even the bigger Neanderthals sustained major injuries
                                > > hunting aurochs, and hunting buffalo was dangerous for the American
                                > Indians
                                > > (even when they had long sharp spears and arrows).
                                >
                                > DD said Hn might have hidden in shallow water amid reeds or so & injured
                                > animals that couldn't move well in the mud or water & let them bleed to
                                > death.
                                >
                                > All "butchering" sites were water(river)side AFAIK, in savannas or
                                > elsewhere. Possibly they sometimes butchered bovids that were killed)
                                > crossing rivers & were trampled or drowned (1:10 die during the trek,
                                > usu.when trying to cross rivers).
                                >
                                > Paleolithic Homo already butchered stranded whales: M Gutierrez cs 2001
                                > Exploitation d'un grand c�tac� au Pal�olithique ancien: le site de Dungo V
                                > �
                                > Baia Farta (Benguela, Angola). CR Acad Sci 332:357-62.
                                >
                                > --marc
                                >
                                > > BTW it's interesting being around some of our local cows. The Angus have
                                > > been bred for placidity, but the Longhorn are semi-wild. One got into a
                                > > backyard ... it jumped the fence, they jump like deer. The horns got
                                > tangled
                                > > in a swing set. The swing set ended up looking like crumpled wire. When
                                > > confronted with a dog or coyote, they will gore the coyote, but just toss
                                > > the dog in the air with their horns (they seem to realize the dogs belong
                                > to
                                > > people and are not as deadly to them). I personally can't imagine hunting
                                > > one of those without a longbow. And they are way more domesticated than
                                > an
                                > > African beast would be.
                                >
                                > >> The savanna has big non-predatory but aggressive animals, the African
                                > >> buffalo. They kill lions.
                                >
                                >
                                > >>> Also, hippos are a threat beyond water. I was warned to be wary of them
                                > >> at night when I was in South Africa. They run around all night feeding -
                                > out
                                > >> on the savannah when it is cooler (at night).
                                > >>>
                                > >>> The thought experiment is this: We currently dominate all ecosystems on
                                > >> the planet so when did that happen? When did we learn how to survive in
                                > the
                                > >> riparian forests?
                                > >>>
                                > >>> And of course animals are killed; however, our ancestors were the ones
                                > >> who figured out how to survive.
                                > >>>
                                > >>> Colin
                                > >>>
                                > >>> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com <AAT%40yahoogroups.com> <AAT%
                                > 40yahoogroups.com>, Marc Verhaegen
                                >
                                > >> <m_verhaegen@> wrote:
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>>>> Has any one any thoughts on this?
                                > >>>>>>> This piece is not presenting any new data, as the byline suggests,
                                > >> just
                                > >>>>>>> rehashing the savannah theory.
                                > >>>>>>> I've written emails to the author and Scientific American.
                                > >> Paleoanthropology
                                > >>>>>>> have a tendency to confuse speculation with fact. Generally, our
                                > >> theories of
                                > >>>>>>> human evolution have scant evidencery support but we can rely on
                                > >> analagous
                                > >>>>>>> evolution to firm up certain paths of speculation.
                                > >>>>>>> Current mammals in the savannah are not hairless and the only ones
                                > >> that are
                                > >>>>>>> have semi-aquatic habits or aquatic ancestries. If hair is such a
                                > >> problem
                                > >>>>>>> for big animals why aren't giraffes and buffalos hairless?
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>>> Hi Colin,
                                > >>>>>> I just read the article, with some expectation (for a featured
                                > >> article in
                                > >>>>>> SciAm), but turn out to be quite disappointing, only a marsh up of
                                > >> old stuff,
                                > >>>>>> or data that do not particularly support the theory.
                                > >>>>>> E.g. It quotes research that Homo ergaster evolved prolonged walking
                                > >> and
                                > >>>>>> running by 1.6 Mya. By assuming sweating (and hence hair loss) was
                                > >> evolved
                                > >>>>>> for running, "according to fossil evidence", naked skin and sweating
                                > >> must
                                > >>>>>> have evolved 1.6 Mya. Sounds like she got some fossil evidence.
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>> Fossilised sweat? :-D
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>>> It mentioned that human versions of skin proteins make our skin more
                                > >>>>>> "waterproof and scuff-resistant" -- isn't it a support for AAT?
                                > >>>>>> The enlargement of human brain needs a stable temperature, hence the
                                > >> hair
                                > >>>>>> loss and sweating for dissipating heat -- immersing in water would
                                > >> be a
                                > >>>>>> better way to keep stable temperature.
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>> Yes. There's no evidence that large brains for some reason should need
                                > >>>> stable tps, but what we do know is that our body + brain tp is rather
                                > >> low,
                                > >>>> as in aq.mammals (c 36-37�C instead of 38-39�), and that the tp
                                > >> fluctuations
                                > >>>> are low (usu.<1� between morning & evening (but often 3� in, eg,
                                > >>>> Austr.aboriginals), as in aq.mammals, whereas typical savanna mammals
                                > >> can
                                > >>>> have fluctuations of >5�.
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>>> However, the author did provide some useful information. e.g.
                                > >>>>>> - Genetic study showed that dark pigmentation (as a response to hair
                                > >> loss in
                                > >>>>>> tropical Africa) originated 1.2 Mya. This is applicable to any
                                > >> theory.
                                > >>>>>> - Speciation of body lice showed that clothes invented much later
                                > >> (72 Kya,
                                > >>>>>> from Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tales"), so the notion that "clothes
                                > >> caused
                                > >>>>>> hair loss" is untenable.
                                > >>>>>> Besides fossil records (too rare) and convergent evolution (not
                                > >> taken
                                > >>>>>> seriously), I think genetic study would be an important way to find
                                > >>>>>> evidences, no matter what's your theory. Chak
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>> I have just read the article in this month's Scientific American.
                                > >> There is a
                                > >>>>> little section trying to refute AAT. The 3 reasons given don't hold
                                > >> up. The
                                > >>>>> stupidest is number 2 "the fossil record shows that watery habitats
                                > >> were thick
                                > >>>>> with hungry crocodiles and agressive hippopotamuses. Our small,
                                > >> defenseless
                                > >>>>> ancestors would not have stood a chance in an encounter with such
                                > >> creatures".
                                > >>>>> As I think Elaine has said in one of her books, you might just as
                                > >> well say
                                > >>>>> that our ancestors could not have ventured onto the savanna because
                                > >> of lions,
                                > >>>>> hyenas, leopards etc.
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>> Yes. Lucy's bones were found amid crab claws & crocodile eggs, the
                                > >> savanna
                                > >>>> people should logically conclude that Lucy didn't exist: ITO human
                                > >> ancestors
                                > >>>> can't live together in the neighbourhood crocodiles.
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>>> Hippos evolved to live in water millions of years after crocs did so.
                                > >> The
                                > >>>>> presence of crocodiles did not stop hippos evolving to become
                                > >> amphibious, so
                                > >>>>> why would it have stopped any other mammal doing the same?
                                > >>>>> Hippos don't usually live on the coast or next to deep lakes, neither
                                > >> do they
                                > >>>>> live in swamps. I don't think that they would live in forested river
                                > >> valleys
                                > >>>>> either, they seem to need lots of grass. If you watched the beginning
                                > >> of the
                                > >>>>> latest episode on BBC about the Rift Valley it showed a heavily
                                > >> forested
                                > >>>>> valley with grassland on the flat land above. I doubt you would find
                                > >> hippos
                                > >>>>> there.
                                > >>>>> Human ancestors could have dug up crocodile eggs making them locally
                                > >> extinct.
                                > >>>>> Andrew Lewis
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>> Yes, the crocodile argument is so silly that it doesn't deserve an
                                > >> answer.
                                > >>>> Besides, AAT is about littoral dispersal of Homo - something that the
                                > >> AAT
                                > >>>> critics still not seem to undestand.
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>> --marc
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>
                                > >>
                                > >>
                                > >>
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >



                                --
                                Heather Twist

                                www.dunkers.us
                                Kraut: the easy way!


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • azul_chan_chak
                                ... So whales, dolphins, seals, manatees should NEVER have evolved from land mammals, because all the coastlines are guarded by mighty crocodiles, and the
                                Message 15 of 30 , Feb 13, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <gdvbqz@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hippos evolved to live in water millions of years after crocs did so. The presence of crocodiles did not stop hippos evolving to become amphibious, so why would it have stopped any other mammal doing the same?
                                  >

                                  So whales, dolphins, seals, manatees should NEVER have evolved from land mammals, because all the coastlines are guarded by mighty crocodiles, and the waters are full of damn sharks since 420 million years ago. :-D


                                  --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Heather Twist <HeatherTwist@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Anyway, when people talk about the savannah theory,
                                  > the traditional view has been that men had to walk
                                  > upright in order to carry their spears. To hunt big
                                  > animals. Which certainly happened later on, but I think
                                  > it's pretty well discredited now as a "first step"?
                                  >
                                  >

                                  Right, PAs agreed. Ardi and Lucy are already bipedal (at least partially).

                                  Chak
                                • Marc Verhaegen
                                  ... Yes, again & again we see migrations along coasts & rivers: c 40 ka along the N-Afr.coasts (Afro-Asiatic) & in Europe along the S.Eur.coasts & following
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Feb 16, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ...

                                    >> We have the same problem here on the Pacific coast of North America (British
                                    >> Columbia). All the current archaeological sites in BC show the oldest at
                                    >> about 10 ka - about the end of the glaciation. The accepted theory
                                    >> is that the first humans came down from Beringia (western Alaska) through a
                                    >> gap in the ice sheets in Canada. A very hostile environment and one with no
                                    >> archaeological evidence. It is more like that humans came in along the coast
                                    >> - a much more amenable (and abundant) environment. However, due to isostatic
                                    >> rebound it is quite likely that the first Americans (Archeulan technology in
                                    >> continental US) came in along the coastal margin about 11.5 ka.
                                    >> However, the evidence is under water! Colin

                                    > Hi Colin,
                                    > Yes, I've read a bit about this -- the Rapid Coastal Migration theory. It says
                                    > that one major branch of beach-combing people, starting from East Africa (the
                                    > homeland of all modern humans), along the coastline to South Asia, SE Asia,
                                    > and very probably up to North America and South America, as opposite to the
                                    > fashionable Beringia theory. It's well supported by archaeological and genetic
                                    > (even linguistic?) evidences. I wonder what's its status in the academy now?
                                    > Still dominated by Beringia and Clovis-first?
                                    > It's very interesting in that the Rapid Coastal Migration theory is totally
                                    > independent from AAT, but actually telling the same story. Coastal migration
                                    > requires the participants to be very confident and skilful in water locomotion
                                    > (not just technology), and on the other way round, according to AAT we humans
                                    > are already water-proficient, no wonder the earliest migrations are thru the
                                    > coastlines.

                                    Yes, again & again we see migrations along coasts & rivers: c 40 ka along
                                    the N-Afr.coasts (Afro-Asiatic) & in Europe along the S.Eur.coasts &
                                    following the Danube-Rhine, like much later the (Indo-Eur.?)
                                    agriculturalists c 8-6 ka along the same routes.

                                    > It seems to me that if a theory is on the right track, it should be consistent
                                    > with other theories (however unrelated or unfashionable), not just bits and
                                    > pieces of ad hoc stuff. Chak

                                    Yes, "truth is the intersection of independent lines", exactly what AAT is.

                                    --marc
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.