Mario Petrinovich <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:J Moore :
Quoted message said:Mario Petrinovich :
Quoted message said:J Moore :
> Actually, although they usually build nest in trees, even lone
chimps
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> have been observed to have slept on the ground in leopard country, which was a bit of a
> surprise. JMoore
Of course. Was it ill? Surprising and illogical. "Leopard
I repeat: Note the plural.
Quoted message said:Ok. One thing in time. I am living in Croatia. This is ex-Yugoslavia. This was, and by all
merrits still is, a communist country. What communists are doing, is twisting the truth,
all the time. I am 42 years old, and I saw a lot of this, during my lifetime. So : You can
say that lone chimps have been observed, even if you saw only one chimp. If this quote is
all the data you have, you cannot know if they possibly saw it only once, in rare
occasions, or very often. In all those cases the quote is grammatically correct. A
"leopard country" is the whole Africa, except Sahara.
No no, Mario. You're supposed to compare me to Nazis, not communists. 🙂
I'm afraid that in English, contrary to your belief, there is a difference between singular and
plural forms of nouns. "Chimps" is not "chimp seen twice". (Also note that researchers learn, as the
first part of their research, to distinguish the various chimps in their study groups.)
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:many other observations over the years, indicates that they don't fear leopards as much as you'd
think they would. Mind you, it doesn't always work out for the best -- chimps are sometimes
killed by both leopards
and
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:by lions -- but obviously not at a high enough rate to make it a problem
for
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:maintaining their population.
Because they know what they are doing. It is known thing with
other
Quoted message said:animals, as well. I saw a lot of documentaries. When predator is sated, animal can do what
otherwise wouldn't. A leopard has its range. If chimps know that leopard has been eating, and
where leopard is ("Vocal advertisement by rasping is also frequent in areas with many leopards." -
Kingdom), there is no problem for them. The bottom line is, can they deal with hungry leopard. As
I said, if you are using such things, this simply isn't enough to convince anybody knowlagable in
animal behavior, that
chimps
Quoted message said:doesn't have problems with predators, and that they can deal with them.
When
Quoted message said:it is also well known that predators can do a havoc to chimps. And it
isn't
Quoted message said:known at all that chimps can do anything to a predator. If researcher,
when
Quoted message said:he sees a lone chimp (in a "leopard country"😉, immediately jumps with conclusion that chimps can
deal with predators, he is very biased, IMO.
Absolutely, they do know what they're doing, as our ancestors would as well. After all, even our
earliest hominid ancestors were about the size of chimps and at least as intelligent.
Quoted message said:Please, don't say that. I know what savanna is, just like
everybody.
Quoted message said:I am not stupid. The savanna idea is the move away from trees, the move to region with less
trees, the living conditions that include trees, less nad less. Further, savanna theory is
including feeding on animal meat. That animal meat is, again, in a region with very sparse trees.
Even baboons
use
Quoted message said:trees, so they are living in regions with trees. There are no treeless environment in savanna.
Keep in mind that "savannah theory" is an AAT construct; actual researchers, even when they refer to
living on savannahs, are constructing theories based on such things as likely behavior and social
organization in which environment can be a factor, but they don't posit environment as the driving
force that the typcial AAT does. Meat is available in forests as well as savannahs; meat is
available whereever animals live -- this really should not have to be pointed out.
Quoted message said:Further still, the AAT is not my only theory (the theory I believe in). The other theory
is my own "fire theory". Which says that hominids
not
Quoted message said:only lived in savanna (after the aquatic phase), but that they themselves actually created
savanna. So, I have nothing against hominids living in savanna. Only, we didn't become bipedal in
savanna, which is clearly seen from the latest findings of bipedals, which are older than
savanna. So,
you
Quoted message said:can say that I have also a savanna theory, in which hominids are the main participants. If you are
interested, I can tell you a few words about this theory.
This has already been put forward by Lee Talbot, but he is talking about the period about 2 million
years ago and this doesn't really tally up with either known controlled use of fire (possibly about
1.3 mya) or the spread of savannahs in Africa, which was earlier. With some study you may find some
things in paleoanthrology that really interest you -- I would recommend you take a look, as you
obviously have an interest, and reality is far more fascinating than fantasies, although admittedly
often more challenging. Here's a quote on the savannah:
"How long has this characteristic savanna mosaic of grasslands, shrubs, and forested areas been in
existence? Recent pollen studies inidicate that grasslands have existed in Ethiopia for over 2.5
million years (Bonnefille, 1976a). This suggest that, contrary to common assumptions, eastern
African grasslands are not necessarily recent or entirely the result of human burning activities.
Even prior to these new data, the relative antiquity of savannas in Africa should have been obvious
from the range of fauna primarily adapted to such grasslands. Mio-Pliocene deposits further indicate
that the mosaic quality of this area was present at that time (Butzer, 1978)" (Nancy Tanner 1981:
136, *On Becoming Human*. New York and London: Cambridge University Press.)
The refs from the quoted section of *On Becoming Human* are:
Bonnefille, Raymonde 1976 "Palnyological Evidence for an Important Change in the Vegetation of the
Omo Basin between 2.5 and 2 Million Years Ago". In *Earliest Man and Environments in the Lake Rudolf
Basin*, Yves Coppens, F. Clark Howell, Glynn Ll. Isaac, and Richard E.F. Leakey (eds.), pp. 421-431.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Butzer, Karl W. 1978 "Geo-ecological Perspectives on Early Hominid Evolution". In *Early Hominids of
Africa*, C.J. Jolly (ed.), pp. 191-217. London: Duckworth.
Certainly later humans created, or helped along, open spaces using fire. This was common, for
instance, in North America. In fact, the ridge I lived on north of Santa Cruz, like most all of
those coastal ridges, was kept relatively free of trees by deliberate burning in the Native American
days. But it doesn't seem to be part of early hominid behavior, either deliberate or accidental, and
doesn't seem to be connected with the early spread of savannahs in Africa.
Quoted message said:Further, if they don't need trees, why don't they spread on baboon theritory. Now, this
would be logical, and in accordance with biological rules. Further, why would they need to
become bipedal? And further, in
what
Quoted message said:way would becomming bipedal (but slower) allow them to be even more treeless? Because they can see
predator earlier? Why is that important if predator cannot do anything to them? Or, maybe so that
they can see
predator
Quoted message said:earlier, so that they can run away to the tree (so because of this they don't need to be so close
to tree)? But whay then, they became slower?
This
Quoted message said:theory is hollow as Bible.
Well, until you offer some actual proof that humans are slower than chimps, that particular
statement is a bit hollow.
But running away (and I'm sorry to have to repeat myself so often) is not the way we would have
likely most often dealt with predators, as we can see by the ways that we've seen chimps deal with
predators. Now we see that even lone chimps don't seem to be especially afraid of predators such as
leopards, but keep in mind that most of the time what a predators faces with chimps (and with our
early ancestors) would be a pack of animals, animals which typically scream and throw things. Being
pelted with objects by an opponent when you're nowhere near striking distance would be a bizarre
thing from the predators' viewpoint, since they simply can't do anything like that. And we see that
in reality this behavior is effective. Being able to see predators earlier negates the likelihood of
an ambush, and increases the likelihood of a sucessful defense. It also allows adults to gather up
children and keep them safe within ranks.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:We are attacked by crocs, but not by sharks. Wether you want to accept this or not.
This is another thing which you are stating as fact but which is well known, and widely known,
to be untrue. This does not do your case any good.
No, this does not do any good to you. This is well known only to people who doesn't know
anything about this. To shark researchers, it is well known that almost every case of
shark attack was actually a mistake.
A
Quoted message said:lot of attacks were on a surfers laying on a surfboard. From bellow this looks just like a seal.
As soon as shark realizes that it isn't seal, it
let
Quoted message said:it go. Every researcher would tell you just this, if sharks want to kill humans, there wouldn't be
a few isolated cases, there would be a real bloodbath.
First you say that sharks don't attack us, then I point out that they do. Then you tell me that I'm
wrong when I say they do... and then you describe shark attacks. That's frankly a bit odd. And your
last point is a good one; I think it's highly likely that if our ancestors had spent a great deal of
time in waters where sharks (or crocs) roamed there would've indeed been a bloodbath. We avoid this
because, as a species, relatively few of us spend very much time in such waters and we have much
better tools and weapons to deal with them. Nevertheless, we still are attacked at times -- since we
aren't a commonly available food (as our supposed aquatic ancestors would've been) sharks haven't
learned to go after us so diligently. Let me point out that even if a large bite is all that's taken
out of a hominid which of course doesn't have much in the way of medical care available 🙂, they
would tend to die. However, if groups of hominids (and we seem likely to have always been a group-
living species) were spending a lot of time wading and/or swimming in waters where sharks (and
crocs) roam, those predators would be highly likely to see these common and relatively defenseless
hominids as food. Keep in mind that the defenses we likely used against terrestrial predators (as
seen with chimps) don't work against sharks and crocs -- I have info on this aspect of predation on
my site as well.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:It really doesn't do your case any good to continue to deny observed facts.
But, logic is simple. Predators can do havoc to chimps. Chimps cannot do anything to
predators. If you take a second look at those researchers of yours, you could easily see
that their views are stretched (interpreted) to match the prevailing opinion, and has
nothing with real truth.
It is a given that terrestrial predators can kill chimps at times, but it is also a given that they
cannot "do havoc" in terms of populations. If they could chimps would not exist; the fact that they
do demonstrates tat they can and do deal effectively with terrestrial predators, and there have been
many observations that show how they do so. That you choose not to believe these facts is not good
for your argument. Logic is indeed simple, and logic requires that observed facts be incorporated
into any logical argument.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Speaking of observed, measured facts, do you have any source for your claims about the running
speed of chimpanzees? Although it's not apropos to
how
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:they actually deal with predators, I'd love to know the numbers and the source of the claim.
JMoore
Kingdom "African Mammals" edition 2001, page 14. "Chimpanzee
anatomy
Quoted message said:shows a fine balance between fast quadrupedal activity on the ground and
the
Quoted message said:need to manoeuvre a large, heavy body through different levels of the
forest
Quoted message said:on very variably sized supports." -- Mario
I didn't see any part in that quote that mentioned any specific speed or any mention of the relative
speed of chimps and humans, which you seemed to be claiming to have some knowledge of. If you do
actually have some knowledge on that subject, some info you've found, could you please post it -- it
would be both helpful and interesting.
and Marc Verhaegen <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Another point which I forgot to mention (and should be obvious to most
folks) is that early hominids could certainly climb trees, and their
fossils
Quoted message said:show indications that they were better adapted to doing so than we are
now.
Quoted message said:
So? I guess Moore is talking about australopiths?? These have of course nothing to do with AAT
Most interations of the AAT refer to the population at the time of divergence from the last common
ancestor with apes, so autralopithecines are apropos to that discussion. At later times, of course,
terrestrial predators were even less of a problem because our ancestors in the time of [censored] erectus
and later had relatively sophisticated weaponry as well as the use of fire. And of course they could
still climb trees, as we can today.
JMoore
--
For a scientific critque of the aquaticape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org
