Northwest Passage?

[Digit]

If you subscribe to the concept that the SE Asian continental plateau/plain was dry land, though – as I do,

Science isn't about feelings, hunches, rumors, legends, myths, etc. etc., Roy.

Make up your mind.

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

If you subscribe to the concept that the SE Asian continental plateau/plain was dry land, though – as I do,

Science isn't about feelings, hunches, rumors, legends, myths, etc. etc., Roy.

Make up your mind.

No thanks, Roy, I don't like to fall into the trap of fixing ideas/concepts in stone, like you would apparently like me to.
That's exactly what's wrong with e.g. creationists.
I like to keep an open mind, while you are attempting to close my mind. To lock myself in. You like to see me paint myself in a corner. Forget it.

And, FYI: science starts with hypotheses and logic, and is impossible without them.

[Digit]

You like to see me paint myself in a corner.

You already have!
Holding to an idea is fine by me, but holding it against the evidence is no different to the creationists.
Unless you produce your own Moses to shallow the seas at the Wallace line, then snap it shut behind your plodders, you still have to explain why they were not followed by other large animals from north or south.
Perhaps they were all drowned like Pharaoh's army?

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

You like to see me paint myself in a corner.

You already have!
Holding to an idea is fine by me, but holding it against the evidence is no different to the creationists.
Unless you produce your own Moses to shallow the seas at the Wallace line, then snap it shut behind your plodders, you still have to explain why they were not followed by other large animals from north or south.
Perhaps they were all drowned like Pharaoh's army?

You have an uncanny knack for asking the same questions over and over, while ignoring the answers presented to you because they're unwelcome, because you'd have to give up your position. Remarkably akin to creationists stubbornly ignoring all the facts laid out before them. You remind me of one Kent Hovind,

...or of, god forbid (in a manner of speaking)... Arch!

If you really want to know the answer to your conundrum read the past year's posts again. But you don't want to know the answer to your conundrum. Fine. That's your choice. We know that now, after you repeated it umpteen times. You strike me like a vinyl record stuck in a groove. But by all means: stay firmly entrenched in your opinion if you like.
I've moved on.

[Digit]

You have an uncanny knack for asking the same questions over and over,

Matched by an uncanny knack of avoiding the evidence in your case.
Your answers theorise unproven tectonic activity, which as I pointed out require a certain 'Biblical' set of actions.
So refresh my memory, me being old, how long was this land bridge open, why did no large animals cross it, even the bird life north of th line is different to that south of the line?

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

OK, old man, one more, and last, time in telegram style:

Look at the evidence:

The emergence of Wallace's line cannot be dated with any measure of certainty, so any dating is a wild guess, but let's assume, for argument's sake, that it emerged 10 mya, or even 50 mya.
That explains the difference in fauna between east and west of the line.

Next:

HE/MP was in Java 1,57 mya.

HE/HF was in Flores 800 kya.

Bednarik makes a good case for hominid rafting/boating/sailing around 800 kya (thus it was developed earlier).

So Fred Flintstone (HE) had been tandakking (Bahassa Indonesian word for dancing/jumping up and down) on Bali's eastern beach for at least half a million years pondering ways to get across Wallace's line to the visible land on the other side. And undoubtedly trying, with probably hundreds of them swept out to open sea, never to be heard of again. Until, one day, well over 800,000 years ago their rafting/boating/sailing skills had, apparently, developed enough to finally make a succesful crossing to Lombok/Sumba/Sumbawa/Flores (probably one landmass then), etc.

But crossing open water was a traumatic event in those early days of rafting/boating/sailing, so HE avoided it whenever possible, and he rather walked as long as he could. And he could. Straight on to Oz via the Papua landbridge. So he did.

Since then more waves of HE followed, rafting/boating/sailing across Wallace's line, because they had to, apparently passing HF without consequences, and on to Oz, on foot, because they could, with, eventually – between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago – HS(S) following in their footsteps (yes, walking; the Papua-Oz landbridge was still there), creating the hybrid HE/HS(S) we now know as Aboriginals.

Write it down, Roy!

[Digit]

Write it down, Roy!

I don't collect fairy stories RS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line

but the deep water between those two large continental shelf areas was — for a period in excess of 50 million years — a barrier that kept the flora and fauna of Australia separated from that of Asia.

but let's assume,

No, let's see some evidence!

http://www.australianwildlife.com.au/marsupials.htm

That knocks the 10 mya on the head I think as the oz fauna would have attempted to move north, as with South American marsupials. Plus when ever Homo crossed that line other species could have also crossed at that time. Why did they not?
Your previous answers, just to show that I remember, for the apparent non-existance of placental mammals south of that line was selective slaughtering by HE, for which again you offer no evidence.
And for the umpteenth time of telling, the Papua land bridge to oz is south of the Wallace line.
So to sum up...
You can offer no evidence for a cross Wallacion land bridge, only an assumption, you can offer no evidence for large fauna moving north or south of that line over millions of years.
I suspect that Creationists could produce far more supporters to their cause than you can to yours!

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Write it down, Roy!

I don't collect fairy stories RS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line

but the deep water between those two large continental shelf areas was — for a period in excess of 50 million years — a barrier that kept the flora and fauna of Australia separated from that of Asia.

How long ago the Wallace line emerged is pure conjecture, Roy. It is anyone guess. A wild, unsubstantiated guess. We assume it has been millions of years, but how many millions of years we simply haven't a clue.
It doesn't matter: having been separated for millions of years (even if we don't have a clue how many), be it 10 million years or 50 million years, sufficiently explains the difference in fauna for me in the context of the hominid migration history.

but let's assume,

No, let's see some evidence!

http://www.australianwildlife.com.au/marsupials.htm

That knocks the 10 mya on the head I think as the oz fauna would have attempted to move north, as with South American marsupials.

FYI: they did, and got as far as Sulawesi... because Wallace's line stopped their further migration.

Plus when ever Homo crossed that line other species could have also crossed at that time. Why did they not?

I don't know, but I'm guessing it may have something to do with fauna not knowing about rafting/boating/sailing, while homo did...

Your previous answers, just to show that I remember, for the apparent non-existance of placental mammals south of that line was selective slaughtering by HE, for which again you offer no evidence.

That was one of my first hypotheses, Roy, which I have clearly exchanged for the above as knowledge about HE/MP, HE/HF, and early hominid/HE rafting/boating/sailing (Bednarik) entered the scene. You see: my ideas evolve. Unlike yours, it seems.

And for the umpteenth time of telling, the Papua land bridge to oz is south of the Wallace line.

Well, if you want to nitpick (as you seem so fond of): the Papua land bridge was east of Wallace's line. Not south.
But there is a little progress here: you finally seem to accept that there was a Papua landbridge...

So to sum up...
You can offer no evidence for a cross Wallacion land bridge, only an assumption,

Something wrong with your eyes? I don't offer any "evidence for a cross Wallacion land bridge", because I don't think there was one (in the last X million years).

you can offer no evidence for large fauna moving north or south of that line over millions of years.

Again: something wrong with your eyes? I don't offer any "evidence for large fauna moving north or south of that line over millions of years", because I don't think they did. Unlike hominids.

So you're barking up a confusing array of wrong trees here.

[Digit]

because Wallace's line stopped their further migration.

Exactly!!!

I don't know, but I'm guessing it may have something to do with fauna not knowing about rafting/boating/sailing...

So at last you accept that Homo didn't walk there? Is that correct?

was east of Wallace's line.

Who's nit picking? The point was it represents a barrier, that is south of Asia!

Something wrong with your eyes? I don't offer any "evidence for a cross Wallacion land bridge", because I don't think there was one (in the last X million years)

You have in the past!!

Again: something wrong with your eyes? I don't offer any "evidence for large fauna moving north or south of that line over millions of years", because I don't think they did

Which was presumably due to their lack of sailing skills?

I don't know, but I'm guessing it may have something to do with fauna not knowing about rafting/boating/sailing...

So summing up Homo 'boated' across the Wallace line that thus represented a barrier to all non-'boating' species, are we agreed?

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

So summing up Homo 'boated' across the Wallace line that thus represented a barrier to all non-'boating' species, are we agreed?

Sure, Roy, we agree, as this has been my concept for well over a year now, having chucked the selective slaughtering hypothesis. Which change, until this day, you stubbornly ignored, and even denied (see above).

And then there's still the effects of tectonics/volcanism, in this most tectonically/volcanically active part of the world, that are still completely ignored by all theorists.

[Digit]

you stubbornly ignored, and even denied.

Didn't ignore it, just missed your chnge of view at some time.

Sure, Roy, we agree, as this has been my concept for well over a year now,

So what's this then?

migrate – on foot – to all the corners of the globe –

Doen't oz count now?

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

So what's this then?

migrate – on foot – to all the corners of the globe –

Doen't oz count now?

Correct: Oz wasn't reached until after rafting/boating/sailing was developed. So that would be after roughly 1 mya. Imo, (the contemporary coastlines of) all the other continents, including the Americas, were reached by HE, on foot, before, say 500 kya.

Trans-oceanic rafting/boating/sailing/crossing probably only evolved in the last 100,000 years. We know there was regular global trade – = shipping – by 3,500 years ago (tobacco, cannabis, heroïn, and cocaïne in 1/3rd of Egyptian mummies; so they were regular users, i.o.w. junkies, i.o.w. there was regular supply = global trade).

[Digit]

were reached by HE, on foot, before, say 500 kya.

Also not proven. But on the other point, WELCOME TO THE CLUB!

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Sorry, I'm allergic to 'clubs'...

[Digit]

Particularly the number 5 iron, leaves terrible bruises.

Roy.