I disagree. Here are some quotes from their paper that, I put it to you, are just a bit more than a "complete misunderstanding of basic terminology"...
"Hence, the palaeorivers that deposited those channelized sandstones likely co-existed with Ar. ramidus at Aramis, and our study interval has a time span of few thousand to most tens of thousands of years." Gani & Gani (2011:2)
"Similar clasts are also found in the adjacent lower channel body, suggesting that the floodplain was repeatedly flooded by the nearby palaeoriver." Gani & Gani (2011:2)
"However, it is also likely that the lower channel body may represent a crevasse channel of a main river. In any case, our sedimentological data strongly argue for the presence of sizable rivers at 4.4 Myr in the study area." Gani & Gani (2011:3)
At the very least you have to admit that this paper completely contradicts the first paleohabitat paper in Science (of the famous "Ardi papers") that appeared to argue for no significant water courses in the nearby habitat. An implication that aquaskeptics on TR that were gloating about a year or so ago.
None of these quotes produce a sfgf. Not even close. Re-read the Ardi papers concerning the palaeohabitat'of the site.
They, for example, when discussing the collection of microfossils explicitly refer to "overbank flooding" as the
source of the fossils of aquatic organisms collected. There are other references to rivers etc. So Gani & Gani's
paper is not a complete contradiction. A change in emphasis perhaps - I only have access to the abstract.
You are clutching at pedantic word definitions as straws rather than accept a simple bit of evidence indicating that life by rivers might have influenced human evolution.
Pedantic? English philosopher G E Moore once quipped that if language is to serve as a vehicle of communication
the words have to mean something. Apparently, for you, he was wrong. Again you make a, to be polite, extravagant
claim and are wholly unable to back it up. Calling it pedantry to insist that the words mean something only gives
pedantry a good name.
We know what riparian habitats are. We know what savannahs are. Put the two together and you get seasonally flooded gallery forests. [/quote]
Your complete misunderstanding of basic terminology remains firmly in place. Put those two together and you get
a river or stream flowing through a savannah. For you sfgf's are astonishingly common. They're not, Anything but.
If this is the way you cobble together evidence for the waterside hypothesis you have absolutely no cause to
complain about conventional palaeo ignoring it. Your whole argument here is ineffably silly.
As usual, the single, most simple, most obvious way of getting an ape to move bipedally - i.e. when in shallow water - is actively dissected out as a possibility because it might mean that Hardy was on the right lines all along and a lot of "authorities" in paleoanthropology would look very silly.
This proposed wading model has little to do with Hardy. Read his New Scientist piece. Throw out the tool making
and dolphin hunting and we have an animal on the Pacific coast of North America that fits the bill pretty closely.
They're called sea lions
I disagree with Hardy on the actual location for the origin of hominin bipedalism. Suggesting that wading might have played a role, I suggest, was being on the right lines. As it is the one scenario that can guarantee bipedalism in otherwise quadrupedal apes, don't you think it's about time the field considered it seriously?
"Otherwise quadrupedal" What does this mean for you? We're dealing with euprimates which means we're dealing
with animals that were facultative bipeds for 40MM years. If they wanted to wade bipedally they could do so.
For 40MM years. What exactly do you think mounds of latter day wading would do to produce an obligate biped?
I mean here we are 150 years after Darwin's "freeing the hands" idea and the authorities are still largely clueless as to what might have caused this most fundamental human trait.
We are not largely clueless. Read the voluminous literature on bipedalism. There are all kinds of clues as to how
bipedalism would enhance reproductive fitness in a ape already predisposed to it. In terms of your feckless quest
for "the cause" the problem is there are almost too many reasons for an ape to experience selection that led
to enhanced bipedalism. And since we have what appears to be a significant radiation of bipedal apes in eastern
Africa in the late Miocene - early Pliocene this selection was pretty effective. As for identifying "the cause" how
could you tell which of many candidates is the magic bullet? It's holy grail stuff. An archaeologist in Israel unearths
a piece of first century cookware - short of angels instantly filling the sky and shouting out in unison "BINGO!!" the
moment he touched it - how would you know? It is on many levels a silly question