sci.anthropology.paleo Google Group

Re: Lucy and the Arc of Deception (was Re: Lucy and the Arc of Visual Perception)

m_verhae...@skynet.be (Marc Verhaegen) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 14:37:23 UT

Op 21/03/10 03:48, in artikel
92305051-88f5-49ab-9e66-14c7f9 573...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups .com, Roger
Munday <mundayro...@gmail.com> schreef:
Yes, the man is a netloon, I don't waste my time any more on reading his
nonsense.

Re: Laetoli footprints revisited

m_verhae...@skynet.be (Marc Verhaegen) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 14:35:37 UT

Sorry for the empty link.
[link]
rttext&tlng=en
If you can't find it there, send me your email address, IIRC I have its pdf
somewhere.

Laetoli footprints

m_verhae...@skynet.be (Marc Verhaegen) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 14:13:50 UT

From AAT:
[link]
Thanks, Bill.
"The subjects walked both with normal, erect human gaits and then with
crouched, chimpanzee-like gaits."
IOW, they compared to humans walking normally & humans walking with
"chimp-like"(??) gaits...
This is what some people call "science"...

Re: Laetoli footprints revisited

andrew.nowicki...@gmail.com (Andrew Nowicki) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 10:56:26 UT

Vertebrates have big spine muscles. The muscles work hard and waste
lots of energy to hold the spine in the horizontal position. A bipedal
creature has the advantage because its spine muscles are idle most of
the time.
The power spent on walking is proportional to average acceleration and
deceleration of the legs. Long legs are perfect for walking because

Re: Laetoli footprints revisited

rmacf...@alphalink.com.au (rmacfarl) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 07:49:44 UT

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
times leaving the terrain completely soaked, just as it happens in the
Serengeti today (making it sometimes impossible to drive through even
with a
4WD vehicle). The layers of the upper unit of the Footprint Tuff at
Laetoli
are extensively redeposited by water, the sheetwash of heavy rains.

Re: Laetoli footprints revisited

paleoc...@hotmail.com (Lee Olsen) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 03:51:37 UT

Like amateurs who publish in TREE,
beavers are the same as mountain beavers.
First these amateurs claim they did an "extensive survey" of the
literature...
Verhaegen et al. (2002) Page 213:
"Our extensive survey of the literature [17]"
(Who is "[17]"? They cite themselves, who else would made such a

Re: Lucy and the Arc of Deception (was Re: Lucy and the Arc of Visual Perception)

paleoc...@hotmail.com (Lee Olsen) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 03:10:00 UT

No, I don't, I cite from the literature.... from those who do know.
It would only be abuse if it weren't true. As it is, it is just the
facts.
You got caught lying about what the editor said. No editor is that
stupid. Go ahead and prove me wrong. There are other peer-reviewed
journals out there, try another one. If the Journal of Human

Re: Lucy and the Arc of Deception (was Re: Lucy and the Arc of Visual Perception)

mundayro...@gmail.com (Roger Munday) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 02:48:35 UT

So,
I take it from this that you have no expertise in the area covered by
this forum, yet you present yourself as being able to comment
knowledgeably and authoritatively. To say nothing of your childish
need to engage in abuse.
Olsen you are a prat.

Re: Lucy and the Arc of Deception (was Re: Lucy and the Arc of Visual Perception)

paleoc...@hotmail.com (Lee Olsen) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 02:20:33 UT

Well that sure is a statement of fact, nor are you literate.
> If you, like the previous critic, want some 'authority', however
Liar. It is very obvious you didn't read this:
"Journal of the Royal Statistical Society
Notes on the Submission of Papers"
or your manifesto would have looked like a paper

Re: Lucy and the Arc of Deception (was Re: Lucy and the Arc of Visual Perception)

paleoc...@hotmail.com (Lee Olsen) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 02:05:10 UT

You didn't ask a question you lying clown, you stated a false ass-u-
mption.
And there are no athropologists that frequent this forum and
certainly
no one left that claims to be an expert. The last self-proclaimed
expert
was Jim McGinn. You two would get along just fine.

Re: Laetoli footprints revisited

trarve...@hotmmoveail.com (RichTravsky) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 02:03:48 UT

Thanks for the link!

Re: Laetoli footprints revisited

mundayro...@gmail.com (Roger Munday) — Sun, 21 maalis 2010 00:13:30 UT

This quote from R J Clarke is of interest to me, as I suggested
something similar in my Lucy paper, however the link you give does not
lead anywhere, and R J Clarke is not recognised when searched for at
SAJS, can you supply me with a better link?

Re: Lucy and the Arc of Visual Perception

mundayro...@gmail.com (Roger Munday) — Sat, 20 maalis 2010 23:58:56 UT

So - no answer to this question from the anthropologists, the experts,
that frequent this forum.
What should I deduce from this - That it is unanswerable in terms of
the generally accepted theories of human evolution that involve
Afarensis, and now Ardi, as ancestors?
I think so.
What else?
That this question has simply not been thought of? - Or that this

Re: Laetoli footprints revisited

m_verhae...@skynet.be (Marc Verhaegen) — Sat, 20 maalis 2010 23:26:15 UT

Laetoli Footprints Preserve Earliest Direct Evidence of Human-Like Bipedal
Biomechanics

Debates over the evolution of hominin bipedalism, a defining human
characteristic, revolve around whether early bipeds walked more like humans,
with energetically efficient extended hind limbs, or more like apes with

Laetoli footprints revisited

g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net (Gerrit Hanenburg) — Sat, 20 maalis 2010 21:14:40 UT

Evidence of kinematically human-like bipedalism:
[link]
Gerrit