The aquatic ape hypothesis was never crazy

[DaveC426913]

Your response to my question was not responsive.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're asking. They didn't actually race animals. It is based on several research papers - presumably about biophysics - so asking "how many" doesn't seem to apply in a way I understand.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

As always, present your evidence, here, for discussion. You were doing OK for a few psots ther, but now you're getting sucked back into rhetoric.

You are certainly welcome to quote draw from and cite relevant papers. But simply pointing us at a link is vacuous. Frankly, we don't even know you have read the links you post. (After all, you did just admit that you personally don't feel you need an education to form your opinions.)

That's not what I said, was it, darling? You don't know what paper trail I have.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Human vs Animals Ultramarathon (100km)

This video features a 100km ultramarathon race between animals and humans, revealing unexpected results. Previously, we showcased a 500-meter sprint where the cheetah triumphed. Here, we focus on long-distance efficiency.

We calculated each animal's time, factoring in rest, HYDRATION, and feeding, using five reliable sources, including three research papers.

"Hydration". That was the key word that you conveniently ignored.

Imagine endurance hunting on the scorching hot savannah 2 million years ago, right before the brain started to grow in erectus. Not even the Khoisan today can manage 10K without bringing water. It's just too damn hot for the human hydration capacity. 10K is the absolute max you should try out under the best of conditions and training level without hydration en route. Beyond that, you risk your life from excessive dehydration.

There is no first mover on the savannah to develop the capacity for bringing water with you on a hunt. If you can even find a steady source of drinking water out there, 'cause that shit's seasonal. You need the growing brain, before you can figure out how. But you won't grow the brain without endurance hunting that somehow, maybe, fingers crossed, will get you the right nutrients slowly across cento millenia, if you can even figure out how to get into the skull to eat the brains containing hopefully the right nutrients of a hunted down wildebeest, while you're still too stupid to figure out how to bring that damn water in order to even do it. And you can't do endurance hunting without thirsting to death. It's an endless circular argument. That's why not a single savannah mammal has taken that selection route.

"When one compares the land base with this universal collapse of brain size with what goes on in the marine system, I mean, you’ve got the dolphin, which is about the same body weight as a zebra. The zebra’s got about 360-70 grams of brain in its head, the dolphin’s got 1.8 kilograms. You know, it’s just phenomenal. The only way Homo sapiens could end up today with 2% of its body mass as brain, would be to find an ecological resource that would provide them with the nutrients that were required for the brain to grow. And the only place you can do that is at the coastlines."
- Michael Crawford

Human efficiency is key in long distances, shaped by millions of years of evolution for hunting and migration. Our upright posture has allowed us to develop tools and improve our legs and feet for running. Human feet, with their unique arches, are designed for long-distance running.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Again there is no first mover on the savannah for causing that upright posture in the first place. No savannah mammal has evolved anything like that. Baboons sure as hell haven't, these our closest relative on the savannah. The ones that just so happens to become vertically bipedal only when the seasonal rains flood their habitat and the critters suddenly have to wade through shallow water.

Additionally, our superior sweating system helps us regulate heat during intense exercise, preventing overheating—a challenge for fur-covered animals.

Not a single savannah mammal sweat buckets for thermoregulation. They can't evolve that on the savannah, 'cause they'd just die and it will never be selected for. Endurance hunting is for the waste bin. Our constant need for hydration rules it out completely.

And that's just a few reasons why endurance hunting as the locomotive of human evolution is a really, really stupid idea. Another is that Homo erectus started its brain growth spurt 2 million years ago. While the contemporary African savannah is only 1 million years old.

But don't let such details ruin your conviction. Facts are stupid thing, said the Ronald.

the hallmark of a zealot is that they will reject all contrary evidence, no matter how much is available, in favour of their pet hypothesis.)

No shit.

Who here refuse to accept that the savannah hypothesis has been officially dead for 30 years?


The Savannah Hypotheses: Origin, Reception and Impact on Paleoanthropology
Renato Bender, Phillip V. Tobias and Nicole Bender (2012)

The reconstruction of the human past is a complex task characterized by a high level of interdisciplinarity. How do scientists from different fields reach consensus on crucial aspects of paleoanthropological research? The present paper explores this question through an historical analysis of the origin, development, and reception of the savannah hypotheses (SHs). We show that this model neglected to investigate crucial biological aspects which appeared to be irrelevant in scenarios depicting early hominins evolving in arid or semi-arid open plains. For instance, the exploitation of aquatic food resources and other aspects of hominin interaction with water were largely ignored in classical paleoanthropology. These topics became central to alternative ideas on human evolution known as aquatic hypotheses. Since the aquatic model is commonly regarded as highly controversial, its rejection led to a stigmatization of the whole spectrum of topics around water use in non-human hominoids and hominins. We argue that this bias represents a serious hindrance to a comprehensive reconstruction of the human past. Progress in this field depends on clear differentiation between hypotheses proposed to contextualize early hominin evolution in specific environmental settings and research topics which demand the investigation of all relevant facets of early hominins' interaction with complex landscapes.

 

[billvon]

"Imagine endurance hunting on the scorching hot savannah 2 million years ago, right before the brain started to grow in erectus. Not even the Khoisan today can manage 10K without bringing water.

This may really blow your mind, but . . .

There is actually water on the savannah. If there wasn't, those prey animals would all be dead.
And it's not always scorching hot on the savannah. They had seasons even back then.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

This may really blow your mind, but . . .

There is actually water on the savannah. If there wasn't, those prey animals would all be dead.
And it's not always scorching hot on the savannah. They had seasons even back then.

4 days. Then you thirst to death, sapiens.
23 days. That's baboons. An actual savannah simian. That isn't bipedal outside of water. Isn't furless. Isn't big-brained. Doesn't have a hooded nose. Doesn't talk.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's not what I said, was it, darling?

I said 'getting educated is the better gambit' and I quoted you, responding with 'not if you don't need to'.

Yikes!

You don't know what paper trail I have.

I know what knowledge you don't have, here. You are demonstrating a consistent lack of knowledge on how to science. You've made a dozen rookie mistakes, and you keep making them over and over, despite them being regularly pointed out. These are red flags.

"Hydration". That was the key word that you conveniently ignored.

I didn't ignore it; it's right there. You literally quoted me saying it. Why do you need to be dishonest about this?

Hydration was taken into account. The savannah is full of water; it's bursting with life. This fact was already made clear to you, and yet here you are forgetting it all over again.

The hallmark of a poorly-educated mind is that they can't change it when presented with new facts; they just reject them outright (and fotne dishonestly) and double down. The savannah had plenty of water to support its burgeoning ecosystem.

Imagine endurance hunting on the scorching hot savannah 2 million years ago,

Ah yes. There's that word 'imagine' again. You've employed it before. And I called it out then. Have you considered that science does more than "imagine" stuff?

right before the brain started to grow in erectus. Not even the Khoisan today can manage 10K without bringing water

Again, there's plenty of water on the savannah. You are aware of lions, hyenas, dogs, snakes, cheetah, boar, giraffes, antelope, wildebeest, rhinos and hippos, right?

You know hippos, right? Those aquatic mammals? And those aquatic crocs?

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Again there is no first mover on the savannah for causing that upright posture in the first place. No savannah mammal has evolved anything like that.

What do you mean "no savannah mammal"? Hominids have.

Not a single savannah mammal sweat buckets for thermoregulation.

Hominids do. So yeah.

They can't evolve that on the savannah, 'cause they'd just die and it will never be selected for.

Savannah has plenty water to support a burgeoning ecology - including aquatic megafauna, such as hippos and crocs.

You are repeating the same mistakes over and over. This is a clear indication that you are not being objective and that you are not embracing new (to you) information. These are red flags.

Who here refuse to accept that the savannah hypothesis has been officially dead for 30 years?

Oh, it's "official" is it? Isn't that what Trump, the official loser, said about the 2020 election?

If you really want to play the "official" card then its AAH that's officially rejected by the scientific community. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Regarding that simulation. I've seen similar where one human was pitted against one gazelle, and the "results" were the human lost. As mentioned upstream here the humans didn't use one hunter to chase a gazelle, they worked in relays. That's what they learned from the painted dogs.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

I said 'getting educated is the better gambit' and I quoted you, responding with 'not if you don't need to'.

You're deliberately not getting educated on this one. 'Cause you don't have to.

I know what knowledge you don't have, here. You are demonstrating a consistent lack of knowledge on how to science. You've made a dozen rookie mistakes, and you keep making them over and over, despite them being regularly pointed out. These are red flags.

Nice Goebbels turnabout there, mate.

Hydration was taken into account. The savannah is full of water; it's bursting with life. This fact was already made clear to you, and yet here you are forgetting it all over again.

And that's why the Khoisan need to bring water on those hunts you want to be representational.

The hallmark of a poorly-educated mind is that they can't change it when presented with new facts; they just reject them outright (and fotne dishonestly) and double down. The savannah had plenty of water to support its burgeoning ecosystem.

Just not endurance hunting hominins. Try it.

Ah yes. There's that word 'imagine' again. You've employed it before. And I called it out then. Have you considered that science does more than "imagine" stuff?

Well done on the comma shagging, Donald.

right before the brain started to grow in erectus. Not even the Khoisan today can manage 10K without bringing water

Again, there's plenty of water on the savannah. You are aware of lions, hyenas, dogs, snakes, cheetah, boar, giraffes, antelope, wildebeest, rhinos and hippos, right?

And therefore not hominin. That need far more drinking water to survive than almost every other mammal in that general substrate.

There's one other mammal on the hot African savannah today that also die of thirst within four days and therefore has to endlessly trek for water sources to stay alive, the matriarch using her extensive memory to map them. And that's the African bush elephant. You know, the one also with semiaquatic ancestry, going back 39 million years? The one who also loves to bathe, conditions permitting? The number for rhinos, the other big past semiaquatic down there, you ask? Five days listed, then it die of thirst. The savannah baboon? 23 days clocked without a fresh drink of water. That's the difference between past semiaquatic mammals and not. 'Cause water bodies come and go through geological history, and some semiaquatics suddenly has to adapt to drier conditions, but carry with them the wet scars of evolution that Hardy and Morgan stumbled on.

But don't let numbers ruin your conformity. Nullius in Verba clearly doesn't apply.

You know hippos, right? Those aquatic mammals? And those aquatic crocs?

Which inhabit the same general substrate as your hominin ancestors. The latter just at coastal saltwater instead of inland fresh. With plenty of shellfish and aquatic bugs to eat to keep growing that ape brain.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Again there is no first mover on the savannah for causing that upright posture in the first place. No savannah mammal has evolved anything like that.

What do you mean "no savannah mammal"? Hominids have.

Not a single savannah mammal sweat buckets for thermoregulation.

Hominids do. So yeah.

And therefore can't have evolved their unique ape form on ...? Come on, you almost got it.
(And it's hominin, not hominid. Hominid are all the great apes.)

Savannah has plenty water to support a burgeoning ecology - including aquatic megafauna, such as hippos and crocs.

Your ancestors just can't have adapted there. Come on, it's not difficult.

You are repeating the same mistakes over and over. This is a clear indication that you are not being objective and that you are not embracing new (to you) information. These are red flags.

The savannah hypothesis has been dead for thirty years. It was never the cradle of mankind. It was a leftover house-move from Eurasian ice age steppe hunters being the first culture modern archeology and later paleoanthropology studied in depth, then white man's Academia really, really wanting that white culture to be representational of everyone's origin. Them professors grumbled too when that crazy Australian in South Africa kept shouting about that Taung Child, and they had to relocate to black, black Africa after the embarrassing Piltdown hoax (plus a pig-racist world war). They just picked the substrate that most resembled what they already wanted to be that cradle. That's the only reason your head is still stuck on the savannah. They just relocated the Flintstones to Africa, and they were still in the wrong.
The savannah hypothesis is an obsolete idea, as obsolete as the tellarcentric universe. The waterside one is the only one left with any real credibility now, and just like Hardy, Tobias had to wait until he was an emeritus before he could cut through the bullshit without wrecking his precious academic career in the service of science.

Oh, it's "official" is it? Isn't that what Trump, the official loser, said about the 2020 election?

Yeah, that's a zinger. It was Tobias that declared it dead. The guy that dug up half the South African fossil archive out of Witwatersrand. Ever since, the only thing trying to replace it is "mosaic". Which is just pouring the same failed batch into different bottles. There is de facto only the waterside left. 'Cause that one was just never crazy. And most likely true.

If you really want to play the "official" card then its AAH that's officially rejected by the scientific community. You can't have it both ways.

Hundred professors against Einstein. Creationists are also out in force. They keep saying science ain't no democracy. Majority has no say in the scientific method ('cause the majority are psychotic self-destrutive apes that can't study them bloody selves). Hardy and Morgan's just doesn't have the massive scientific problems you have been told it does. All it has is a sociological one.

And I just can't assume good faith anymore, 'cause them hundred professors know damn well by now what it actually argues, and they're still filling you with lies about it. And there's only two reasonable explanations for keep doing that at this point with all this evidence accumulated: Either petty childish anger that their fraternity didn't come up with it and have wasted their entire professional life on the wrong scenario, and they refuse to accept such a crushing defeat to some brilliant Welsh grandma out of left field. Or, herd stupidity.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Regarding that simulation. I've seen similar where one human was pitted against one gazelle, and the "results" were the human lost. As mentioned upstream here the humans didn't use one hunter to chase a gazelle, they worked in relays. That's what they learned from the painted dogs.

What was that about pet hypotheses?

 

[DaveC426913]

You're deliberately not getting educated on this one. 'Cause you don't have to.

And yet I'm dismantling your arguments at every turn.

Nice Goebbels turnabout there, mate.

A non-response. I'll take the point.

And that's why the Khoisan need to bring water on those hunts you want to be representational.

Non-sequitur. Savannah is bursting with life. Plenty of water.

Just not endurance hunting hominins.

That is your assertion; you have not made it yet.

Well done on the comma shagging, Donald.

Antohger non-reppsne. I'll take the point.

And therefore not hominin. That need far more drinking water to survive than almost every other mammal in that general substrate.

The study I presented took into account hydration over a 100km marathon in savannah-like conditions.

What you have is speculation.

There's one other mammal on the hot African savannah today that also die of thirst within four days and therefore has to endlessly trek for water sources to stay alive, the matriarch using her extensive memory to map them. And that's the African bush elephant. You know, the one also with semiaquatic ancestry, going back 39 million years? The one who also loves to bathe, conditions permitting? The number for rhinos, the other big past semiaquatic down there, you ask? Five days listed, then it die of thirst.

Yup. Good thing the savannah is rife with water and the life that depends on it.

Which inhabit the same general substrate as your hominin ancestors. The latter just at coastal saltwater instead of inland fresh. With plenty of shellfish and aquatic bugs to eat to keep growing that ape brain.

Great conjecture, but not evidence in itself.

Your ancestors just can't have adapted there. Come on, it's not difficult.

Says the guy who read a book.

The savannah hypothesis has been dead for thirty years.

Say some. Rhetoric is not evidence.

If you accepted that someone saying a hypothesis is dead, we would not be discussing AAH, since it has been debunked and dead. By some.

There is no absolute authority in science, so appeals to a hypothesis being "dead" are fallacious.

Remember when I said you keep making rookie mistakes?

Creationists are also out in force.

I don't care what Creationists think. They use the same band of illogic as you do: plugging their ears when evidence is presented, repeating the same fallacies even after the've been proven fallacious, and getting all their ideas from a single book.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

And yet I'm dismantling your arguments at every turn.

No, you really are not.

Non-sequitur. Savannah is bursting with life. Plenty of water.

We just can't survive there without a capacity to store and carry drinking water with us.

Antohger non-reppsne. I'll take the point.

Yeah, and Trump clearly won the debate.

The study I presented took into account hydration over a 100km marathon in savannah-like conditions.

Exactly. Hydration. 'Cause your physiology just can't store enough of it to make the full run without a hefty external reserve. Which is no problem for all your potential prey. Who denies any challenge to his pet hypothesis here?

Yup. Good thing the savannah is rife with water and the life that depends on it.

Just not enough for you, sapiens.

Great conjecture, but not evidence in itself.

And yet far more than any terrestrial story manage.

Says the guy who read a book.

Yes, how dare I read these banned volumes? As if they're the only ones I read.

Say some. Rhetoric is not evidence.

If you accepted that someone saying a hypothesis is dead, we would not be discussing AAH, since it has been debunked and dead. By some.

There is no absolute authority in science, so appeals to a hypothesis being "dead" are fallacious.

Savannah is as dead as phlogiston theory. Find a paleoanthropologist you trust and ask him or her flat out if we evolved on the African savannah. And then notice how uncomfortable they suddenly become. They are not too kean to say it out loud to outsiders. But they also can't say out loud that Morgan was just not unreasonable either.

Remember when I said you keep making rookie mistakes?

And I told you to look in the mirror.

I don't care what Creationists think. They use the same band of illogic as you do: plugging their ears when evidence is presented, repeating the same fallacies even after the've been proven fallacious, and getting all their ideas from a single book.

Oh yeah, it's just the one.

 

[DaveC426913]

We just can't survive there without a capacity to store and carry drinking water with us.

Unevidenced claim, or strawman, depending on which way you want to look at it.

There is water to be found.

Yeah, and Trump clearly won the debate.

No one said otherwise. Another red herring.

Trump saying he didn't lose the election, while having lost the election, is the salient bit here. It parallels your own empty rhetoric about hypotheses being "dead" or "not dead". Saying things doesn't make them so.

Exactly. Hydration. 'Cause your physiology just can't store enough of it to make the full run without a hefty external reserve.

Since there are plenty of external reserves around, that's not a problem.

Just not enough for you, sapiens.

Luckily, I am not the test subject. Fallacious analogy.

Yes, how dare I read these banned volumes? As if they're the only ones I read.

Reading isn't enough. You are lacking the wisdom and context to know strong from weak argument.

I once believed a story about the abduction of JFK. It all sounded so plausible. There was no one in my ear to say "is that factoid actually true? Is it relevant? Is it refutable?" But I was twelve.

(I'm not saying you're twelve, I'm simply saying you're not equipped in education and broad experience to make a considered judgement of strong hypotheses versus weak hypotheses. You have your beliefs; we all do. But it's not a strongly defensible assertion.

Savannah is as dead as phlogiston theory.

Empty rhetoric. Not evidence.

Find a paleoanthropologist you trust and ask him or her flat out if we evolved on the African savannah. And then notice how uncomfortable they suddenly become. They are not too kean to say it out loud to outsiders. But they also can't say out loud that Morgan was just not unreasonable either.
-

More empty rhetoric.

Every sentence of empty rhetoric is time, space and credibility that you squander, when you should be presenting your actual case with evidence. But you don't really have a case yourself; you're stumping for a book.

The fact that you keep coming back to this empty rhetoric is a good indicator that you're more comfortable making broad, indefensible assertions than actually presenting facts that can be challenged and debunked.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, just not enough for you before your supersized brain. It's not difficult to understand.

See, I call you out on an unevidenced claim and you respond, not by evidencing it, but with empty rhetoric.

Unevidenced or strawman claim remains unevidenced strawnan.

Now you're just flat out denying the reality of the semi-arid savannah. While also denying the complete lack of fossil evidence to support those sacred savannah hypotheses. Paleoanthropology just decided implicitly to never actually look for this evidence until Tobias finally called it out in the mid 1990s.

OK, so talk to us about that. At least this is more than mere rhetoric.

That's exactly what you are. You have those scars of evolution too. All eight billion of you.

You keep demonstrating that you do not know how to science.

By your fluffy logic, North American Indians could never have survived off the land because, if I, personally, went out and tried to survive off the land, I would surely die of exposure. Or Australian aboriginals don't exist, because I, personally, couldn't eke out a living in the Australian outback.

It's dumb, amateur logic, and it hurts you every time you produce nonsense like this.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

It's dumb, amateur logic, and it hurts you every time you produce nonsense like this.

The Khoisan have to bring water for any endurance hunting as observed. Or they too will collapse from dehydration like we see happen to Olympic level marathon runners skipping the last drinking station gunning for a time bonus.

Our mutual hominin ancestors 2mya did not have the capacity to bring water with them in primitive containers before the brain started growing. The semi-arid savannah, which may I remind you didn't even exist when the hominin brain started exploding in size with erectus 2mya, does not provide enough water bodies to properly hydrate said hominins during such an incredibly inefficient hunt. It's really ridiculous that you keep claiming the opposite.

Therefore the brain cannot have started growing because of endurance hunting, because extant hominins with their observed high hydration needs can't go endurance hunting without bringing a water reserve, which they need the bigger brain to figure out how to bring. Endurance hunting is an endless circular argument. That is what is dumb.

And you just don't want to hear it. 'Cause you know the Earth is the center of the universe. You will simply not accept that the savannah hypotheses are dead, dead, dead.

Meanwhile all hominins needed for this excessive brain growth to take off 2mya is to pick and eat some f'ing oysters, cracking them open with a god damned stone. Seafood which contains the exact range of micronutrients needed for a mammal to evolve a growing brain. While your precious run down prey on the savannah quite simply does not. We even observe other simians doing this exact primitive clam shucking as a perfect illustration of how your hominin ancestors would've done it.

Savannah baboons, which on ocassion are opportunistic meat eaters, are not observed engaging in any kind of endurance hunting. They are the closest simian relative on the savannah we can hope to draw analogies from. And while the wet scenario has real world simian analogies to back it up, the savannah one has none. The wet scenario has by far the least ammount of assumptions and therefore adheres perfectly to parsimony straight from William of Ockham. You have to pile and pile on the assumptions in order to make your pet theory even remotely plausible.

And you can keep whining that I "don't know how to do science" all you want. That will not make these clearly piss irritating observations go away. They don't become crazy because they for some stupid sociological reason make you really, really sad.

 

[DaveC426913]

The Khoisan have to bring water for any endurance hunting as observed. Or they too will collapse from dehydration like we see happen to Olympic level marathon runners skipping the last drinking station gunning for a time bonus.

Yes. These are poor comparisons. No one doubts that skipping hydration is a bad idea.

Fortunately, proto-humans were not in a timed marathon. They can stop as necessary to rehydate at any waterhole, pond, creek or rivulet.

does not provide enough water bodies to properly hydrate said hominins

This is a baseless assertion, made merely because it fits your narrative. You cannot know that there were not enough water bodies, let alone not enough water to be found by the expert hominid.

Therefore the brain cannot have started growing because of endurance hunting, because extant hominins with their observed high hydration needs can't go endurance hunting without bringing a water reserve,

Not true. Plenty of water for the expert.

Endurance hunting is an endless circular argument. That is what is dumb.

The reason it seems circular is that you are in an echo chamber. You are only hearing what you want to hear.

Meanwhile all hominins needed for this excessive brain growth to take off 2mya is to pick and eat some f'ing oysters, cracking them open with a god damned stone.

Calm down.

Great conjecture. Evidence?

Seafood which contains the exact range of micronutrients needed for a mammal to evolve a growing brain. While your precious run down prey on the savannah quite simply does not. We even observe other simians doing this exact primitive clam shucking as a perfect illustration of how your hominin ancestors would've done it.

This is a rationalization; it just sounds plausible. But that's not evidence.

Savannah baboons, which on ocassion are opportunistic meat eaters, are not observed engaging in any kind of endurance hunting. They are the closest simian relative on the savannah we can hope to draw analogies from.

That one species does not do what another species does is not evidence. It would be nice if baboons imitated us, but they don't.

And while the wet scenario has real world simian analogies to back it up, the savannah one has none. The wet scenario has by far the least ammount of assumptions and therefore adheres perfectly to parsimony straight from William of Ockham.

Well, except for evidence of their existence and behavior.

And you can keep whining that I "don't know how to do science" all you want. That will not make these clearly piss irritating observations go away. They don't become crazy because they for some stupid sociological reason make you really, really sad.

They're not crazy; they're just amateurish.

 

[TheVat]

The semi-arid savannah, which may I remind you didn't even exist when the hominin brain started exploding in size with erectus 2mya,

Savannah biome goes back to the Miocene. You seem to be a bundle of bold assertions on a topic of which you know little.

Savanna | African Grasslands, Wildlife & Climate | Britannica

Savanna, vegetation type that grows under hot, seasonally dry climatic conditions and is characterized by an open tree canopy (i.e., scattered trees) above a continuous tall grass understory (the vegetation layer between the forest canopy and the ground). The largest areas of savanna are found in

www.britannica.com

 

[billvon]

Savannah biome goes back to the Miocene.

Stop with the facts! They only anger him.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Yes. These are poor comparisons. No one doubts that skipping hydration is a bad idea.

Fortunately, proto-humans were not in a timed marathon. They can stop as necessary to rehydate at any waterhole, pond, creek or rivulet.

Which is why the Khoisan carry extra water with them on them hunts?

You just don't want to hear it. No, they can't. It's the bleedin' semi-arid savannah. With only seasonal rains. The few ethnicities living there today can't without at minimum post-glacial technology. How can you keep blabbing such nonsense?

Semi-arid climate
"These climates tend to have hot, or sometimes extremely hot, summers and warm to cool winters, with some to minimal precipitation. Hot semi-arid climates are most commonly found around the fringes of subtropical deserts."

Not true. Plenty of water for the expert.

"Omanipadmehum, for pokker! Omanipadmehum, for pokker! Omanipadmehum, for pokker!"

Like a f'ing mantra. Just keep repeat the lie, and it will magically become truth.

The reason it seems circular is that you are in an echo chamber. You are only hearing what you want to hear.

STOP SHOUTING AT THE MIRROR!

Great conjecture. Evidence?

300,000 year old shellfish kitchen midden in Southern France. As in erectus.

This is a rationalization; it just sounds plausible. But that's not evidence.

You're doing the creationist again.

That one species does not do what another species does is not evidence. It would be nice if baboons imitated us, but they don't.

No shit.

Well, except for evidence of their existence and behavior.

Take a bath, sapiens.

The scars of evolution just don't count. Funny how the methods of paleontology just can't be applied to paleoanthropology. For you are a special species and rules don't apply to you. You are the master race, causing your own extinction.

They're not crazy; they're just amateurish.

So was Galileo. Shit happens.

 

[TheVat]

300,000 year old shellfish kitchen midden in Southern France. As in erectus.

Shellfish midden! I'm just dazzled!

And I think they found a midden with catfish bones. So we must have evolved on river beds!

 

[sculptor]

Which is why the Khoisan carry extra water with them on them hunts?

You just don't want to hear it. No, they can't. It's the bleedin' semi-arid savannah. With only seasonal rains. The few ethnicities living there today can't without at minimum post-glacial technology. How can you keep blabbing such nonsense?

Semi-arid climate
"These climates tend to have hot, or sometimes extremely hot, summers and warm to cool winters, with some to minimal precipitation. Hot semi-arid climates are most commonly found around the fringes of subtropical deserts."



"Omanipadmehum, for pokker! Omanipadmehum, for pokker! Omanipadmehum, for pokker!"

Like a f'ing mantra. Just keep repeat the lie, and it will magically become truth.



STOP SHOUTING AT THE MIRROR!



300,000 year old shellfish kitchen midden in Southern France. As in erectus.



You're doing the creationist again.



No shit.



Take a bath, sapiens.

The scars of evolution just don't count. Funny how the methods of paleontology just can't be applied to paleoanthropology. For you are a special species and rules don't apply to you. You are the master race, causing your own extinction.



So was Galileo. Shit happens.

300kyr = most likely neandertalensis