Don't let the "hunting/gathering" mythology be a dictatorial influence in your thought processes

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 21, 9:39 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 9/21/2011 11:18 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

> > Whatever, the point is that these implements (you put the date on
> > them) primarily served the purpose of keeping animals out of garden
> > habitat.
>
> Desperation, Jim. It's just desperation you're feeling. Stop fucking
> around with your 'hypothesis' and dig up some evidence, and the feeling
> will go away.

Well, I'm just saying don't let the "hunting/gathering" mythology be a
dictatorial influence in your thought processes, especially not when
we're talking about chimpanzee-like animals as the starting point. I
think my assertion that these implements make more sense serving a
pest control purpose--driving off (sometimes agressive) herds of food
competitor mammals--than as all out hunting implements is not lacking
in evidentiary support. The understanding that emerges dovetails
perfectly with the agricultural animal that we actually are.

Along those lines, to put you on the spot, how do you explain the
origins of agriculturalism in hominids?

(Geez, Tom, did you not see this question coming? I would have
thought you'd know better by now.)

[Tom McDonald]

I'd be happy to discuss the known info on the origin of agriculture.

But first, stop changing the subject when you get desperate. Can you do
that, Jim? Can you? Thought you couldn't.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 22, 8:11 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 9:39 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > On 9/21/2011 11:18 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > Whatever, the point is that these implements

(you put the date on
> > > them)

No liar, you put the date on them:
Message-ID: <1165098768.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn (alias Claudius)
"If human ancestors were not regularly venturing across
treeless habitat chasing down prey and defending themselves against
predators then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?"

>primarily served the purpose of keeping animals out of garden
> > > habitat.

sept 21, 7:55 pm
McGinn: "As I thought I'd made clear, I'm talking about a period
starting with our earliest last common ancestor between the chimp
lineage and human lineage. My time frame is all earlier than 5 mya."

No TV, no computers, no bows and arrows >5 mya. Got it yet?

>
> > Desperation, Jim. It's just desperation you're feeling. Stop fucking
> > around with your 'hypothesis' and dig up some evidence, and the feeling
> > will go away.
>
> Well, I'm just saying don't let the "hunting/gathering" mythology be a
> dictatorial influence in your thought processes, especially not when
> we're talking about chimpanzee-like animals as the starting point.

Chimps don't hunt?

> I
> think my assertion that these implements make more sense

TVs might make good sense too. Good enough to get a person committed.

>serving a
> pest control purpose--driving off (sometimes agressive) herds of food
> competitor mammals--than as all out hunting implements is not lacking
> in evidentiary support.

First of all, there wasn't an influx of herd animals to Laetoli during
the dry season. They left.
Second, any garden-like habitat would be impossible for anthros to
miss, especially if it were
large enough to attract migrating herds away from their migration
pattern. I mean really, how
big a garden would it take to feed a million wildebeests?

Please try, in the future, to think a little before you post.

>  The understanding that emerges dovetails
> perfectly with the agricultural animal that we actually are.

No herds, no gatekeepers, they all left.

>
> Along those lines, to put you on the spot, how do you explain the
> origins of agriculturalism in hominids?

Same as the origins of TV.

>
> (Geez, Tom, did you not see this question coming?  I would have
> thought you'd know better by now.)

So, what were the origins of chess? Got evidence for Lucy in a chess
club too?

[Claudius Denk]

Olsen. When was the last time you had a good night's sleep?
Seriously, dude, you're becoming incomprehensible. Get some rest. No
joke.

Forget this shit. It's all nonsense. It doesn't mean anything. Let
it go.

Really.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 22, 8:46 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 8:39 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 8:11 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 21, 9:39 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 9/21/2011 11:18 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > > Whatever, the point is that these implements
>
> >  (you put the date on
>
> > > > > them)
>
> > No liar, you put the date on them:

> > Message-ID: <1165098768.578213.303...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>

> > Jim McGinn (alias Claudius)
> > "If human ancestors were not regularly venturing across
> > treeless habitat chasing down prey and defending themselves against
> > predators then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
> > arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
> > mya?"
>
> > >primarily served the purpose of keeping animals out of garden
> > > > > habitat.
>
> > sept 21, 7:55 pm
> > McGinn: "As I thought I'd made clear, I'm talking about a period
> > starting with our earliest last common ancestor between the chimp
> > lineage and human lineage.  My time frame is all earlier than 5 mya."
>
> > No TV, no computers, no bows and arrows >5 mya. Got it yet?

No response. What could he say?

>
> > > > Desperation, Jim. It's just desperation you're feeling. Stop fucking
> > > > around with your 'hypothesis' and dig up some evidence, and the feeling
> > > > will go away.
>
> > > Well, I'm just saying don't let the "hunting/gathering" mythology be a
> > > dictatorial influence in your thought processes, especially not when
> > > we're talking about chimpanzee-like animals as the starting point.
>
> > Chimps don't hunt?
>
> > > I
> > > think my assertion that these implements make more sense
>
> > TVs might make good sense too. Good enough to get a person committed.

No response. I guess that means agriculture and TVs are both on the
table.

>
> > >serving a
> > > pest control purpose--driving off (sometimes agressive) herds of food
> > > competitor mammals--than as all out hunting implements is not lacking
> > > in evidentiary support.
>
> > First of all, there wasn't an influx of herd animals to Laetoli during
> > the dry season. They left.
> > Second, any garden-like habitat would be impossible for anthros to
> > miss, especially if it were
> > large enough to attract migrating herds away from their migration
> > pattern. I mean really, how
> > big a garden would it take to feed a million wildebeests?

Odd acacia leaves and thorn trees were found, but not grooves of fruit
trees.

>
> > Please try, in the future, to think a little before you post.
>
> > >  The understanding that emerges dovetails
> > > perfectly with the agricultural animal that we actually are.
>
> > No herds, no gatekeepers, they all left.

No more challege to Hay and Leakey I guess.

>
> > > Along those lines, to put you on the spot, how do you explain the
> > > origins of agriculturalism in hominids?
>
> > Same as the origins of TV.

No response.

>
> > > (Geez, Tom, did you not see this question coming?  I would have
> > > thought you'd know better by now.)
>
> > So, what were the origins of chess? Got evidence for Lucy in a chess
> > club too?
>
> Olsen.  When was the last time you had a good night's sleep?

> Seriously, dude, you're becoming incomprehensible.  Get some rest.

Then why are you up so late?

> No
> joke.
>
> Forget this shit.  It's all nonsense.

>  It doesn't mean anything.  Let
> it go.
>
> Really.

IOW, you have nothing.

[Claudius Denk]

>. . . stop changing the subject when you get desperate. Can you do

> that, Jim? Can you? Thought you couldn't.

But, but, but, I . . . I, I started a new thread. What more do you
want from me. I try so hard to please you, Tom.

[Claudius Denk]

> > Olsen.  When was the last time you had a good night's sleep?
> > Seriously, dude, you're becoming incomprehensible.  Get some rest.
>
> Then why are you up so late?

I'm just going out.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 22, 8:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >. . . stop changing the subject when you get desperate. Can you do
> > that, Jim? Can you? Thought you couldn't.
>
> But, but, but, I . . . I, I started a new thread.

Yes, you always start new threads when the heat gets to hot for you to
handle in the old ones.
A diversionary tactic, hoping the roasting you took there will somehow
be forgotten here.

>  What more do you
> want from me.

Less lip service.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 22, 9:22 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 8:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > >. . . stop changing the subject when you get desperate. Can you do
> > > that, Jim? Can you? Thought you couldn't.
>
> > But, but, but, I . . . I, I started a new thread.
>
> Yes, you always start new threads

Yes. That's because I'm conscientious, polite, and open-minded. You,
on the otherhand, constantly change the subject mid thread.
(Sometimes when somebody acts like they got something to hide it's
because . . . )

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 23, 12:30 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 9:22 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 8:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > >. . . stop changing the subject when you get desperate. Can you do
> > > > that, Jim? Can you? Thought you couldn't.
>
> > > But, but, but, I . . . I, I started a new thread.
>
> > Yes, you always start new threads
>
> Yes.  That's because I'm conscientious, polite, and open-minded.

On Sep 22, 7:23 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"If you weren't an imbecile
you would realize that the word "test"
really isn't applicable to evolutionary theory or any historical
science."

Name calling, but no reference. You made that up and
you snipped out the reference to tests by
Julia A. Lee-Thorp, Matt Sponheimer, and Julie Luyt

Lip service and snipping is all you ever had for an argument.

> You,
> on the otherhand, constantly change the subject mid thread.
> (Sometimes when somebody acts like they got something to hide it's
> because . . . )

Looks like you lied again.

McGinn "etc"
What are you hiding?

[Claudius Denk]

[brough,civilization-overview dot com]

I am not aware that anthropologists have found any evidence that any
pre-homo sapiens hominids engaged in planting and harvesting crops.
The only crop planting and harvesting is known to have begun about
10,000 years ago.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 25, 11:43 am, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"

Actually, we don't see much evidence of any behavior prior to 10
thousand years. We don't, for example, have any evidence of them
eating. Surely we wouldn't conclude from this that they never ate.

Given what stones tools tell us about their intellect I see no reason
not to assume that some forms of planting goes back a million years or
more.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 25, 12:09 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 11:43 am, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 1:16 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > I'm just saying don't let the "hunting/gathering" mythology be a
> > > dictatorial influence in your thought processes, especially not when
> > > we're talking about chimpanzee-like animals as the starting point.  I
> > > think my assertion that these implements make more sense serving a
> > > pest control purpose--driving off (sometimes agressive) herds of food
> > > competitor mammals--than as all out hunting implements is not lacking
> > > in evidentiary support.  The understanding that emerges dovetails
> > > perfectly with the agricultural animal that we actually are.
>
> > > Along those lines, to put you on the spot, how do you explain the
> > > origins of agriculturalism in hominids?
>
> > I am not aware that anthropologists have found any evidence that any
> > pre-homo sapiens hominids engaged in planting and harvesting crops.
> > The only crop planting and harvesting is known to have begun about
> > 10,000 years ago.
>
> Actually, we don't see much evidence of any behavior prior to 10
> thousand years.

Your illiteracy is not an argument.

>  We don't, for example, have any evidence of them
> eating.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5801/980.short

> Surely we wouldn't conclude from this that they never ate.

Surely we wouldn't conclude they ate fruit where there wasn't any.

>
> Given what stones tools tell us about their intellect

Sept 21, 7:55 pm

McGinn: "As I thought I'd made clear, I'm talking about a period
starting with our earliest last common ancestor between the chimp
lineage and human lineage. My time frame is all earlier than 5 mya."

There weren't any stone tools at > 5 mya. So stone tools don't tell
you a thing about intellect 5 mya. It does say a lot about your
ignorance, however.

>I see no reason
> not to assume that some forms of planting goes back a million years or
> more.

Yes, McGinn, the same person that "I see just fine at night at
night", and "lions, tigers, and "etc." in the Miocene. What else do
you see in your sci-fi melodrama?

[brough,civilization-overview dot com]

On Sep 25, 3:09 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> we don't see much evidence of any behavior prior to 10
> thousand years.  We don't, for example, have any evidence of them
> eating.  Surely we wouldn't conclude from this that they never ate.
>
> Given what stones tools tell us about their intellect I see no reason
> not to assume that some forms of planting goes back a million years or

> more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am not an anthropologist but I researched their work and they
apparently can tell what humans ate from the bones and seeds scattered
around their hearths. Even to the present day, there are hunter/
gatherers in remote regions who still do not practice agriculture. The
women just gathered roots, fruit, nuts etc. as the men hunted. It
worked fine.

Starting some forty thousand years ago, cave art in Europe indicates
they began to concentrate more on hunting and began hunting on a mass
scale. Apprently, that is why the Mammoth and many other large animals
are no longer found. They were hunted to extinction.

It was then, eventually, that the women took up the slack and planted
instead of gathered. Agriculture took off.

brough
http://civilization-overview.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 26, 7:05 am, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"

<charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 3:09 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > we don't see much evidence of any behavior prior to 10
> > thousand years.  We don't, for example, have any evidence of them
> > eating.  Surely we wouldn't conclude from this that they never ate.
>
> > Given what stones tools tell us about their intellect I see no reason
> > not to assume that some forms of planting goes back a million years or
> > more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am not an anthropologist but I researched their work and they
> apparently can tell what humans ate from the bones and seeds scattered
> around their hearths. Even to the present day, there are hunter/
> gatherers in remote regions who still do not practice agriculture. The
> women just gathered roots, fruit, nuts etc. as the men hunted. It
> worked fine.
>
> Starting some forty thousand years ago, cave art in Europe indicates
> they began to concentrate more on hunting and began hunting on a mass
> scale. Apprently, that is why the Mammoth and many other large animals
> are no longer found. They were hunted to extinction.

Makes sense. But what's your thinking on how they came to have the
ability to hunt on a "mass scale" basis--starting from chimpanzee-like
animals 6 to 8 mya?

> It was then, eventually, that the women took up the slack and planted
> instead of gathered. Agriculture took off.
>
> broughhttp://civilization-overview.com

Well, it's a nice story and all, but is it really a story that is
supported by evidence, reason, and logic? Or is it, maybe, a story
based on lack of evidence to the contrary. And there's nothing wrong
with this method as long as the people putting forth such argument
aren't concealing this shortcomings from us.

So, Chuck, I'm not saying your thinking is wrong. I'm saying that
your thinking is incomplete because it doesn't explain the selective
origins of the animals that are capable of the behavior you indicate
in your thinking.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 26, 7:58 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 7:05 am, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 3:09 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > we don't see much evidence of any behavior prior to 10
> > > thousand years.  We don't, for example, have any evidence of them
> > > eating.  Surely we wouldn't conclude from this that they never ate.
>
> > > Given what stones tools tell us about their intellect I see no reason
> > > not to assume that some forms of planting goes back a million years or
> > > more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I am not an anthropologist but I researched their work and they
> > apparently can tell what humans ate from the bones and seeds scattered
> > around their hearths. Even to the present day, there are hunter/
> > gatherers in remote regions who still do not practice agriculture. The
> > women just gathered roots, fruit, nuts etc. as the men hunted. It
> > worked fine.
>
> > Starting some forty thousand years ago, cave art in Europe indicates
> > they began to concentrate more on hunting and began hunting on a mass
> > scale. Apprently, that is why the Mammoth and many other large animals
> > are no longer found. They were hunted to extinction.
>
> Makes sense.  But what's your thinking on how they came to have the
> ability to hunt on a "mass scale" basis

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo5962308.html
The Hunters or the Hunted?

>--starting from chimpanzee-like
> animals 6 to 8 mya?

What chimpanzee-like animal? Are they kind of like Miocene lions and
tigers?

>
> > It was then, eventually, that the women took up the slack and planted
> > instead of gathered. Agriculture took off.
>
> > broughhttp://civilization-overview.com
>
> Well, it's a nice story and all, but is it really a story that is
> supported by evidence, reason, and logic?

Not much logic in zero evidence scenarios like yours.

> Or is it, maybe, a story
> based on lack of evidence to the contrary.

Endless lip service.

>  And there's nothing wrong
> with this method as long as the people putting forth such argument
> aren't concealing this shortcomings from us.

Speaking of shortcomings, this would be good time for you to stop
concealing who the "etc" is in your scenario.

>
> So, Chuck, I'm not saying your thinking is wrong.  I'm saying that
> your thinking is incomplete

like McGinn's "etc"?

> because it doesn't explain the selective
> origins of the animals that are capable of the behavior you indicate
> in your thinking.

Since there is no evidence for agriculture or computers 6 to 8 mya,
there is no reason for an explanation.

[Paul Crowley]

On 26/09/2011 15:05, brough,civilization-overview dot com wrote:

> I am not an anthropologist but I researched their work and they
> apparently can tell what humans ate from the bones and seeds
> scattered around their hearths.

For nearly all of the past 2.4 Myr, sea-levels have
been much lower, typically 300 feet lower. So any
H.sap hearths found would have been 'in the hills',
and often in the mountains. I bet that you did not
encounter a statement of that fact very often -- if
at all -- in your research.

> Even to the present day, there are hunter/gatherers in remote

> regions who still do not practice agriculture.

They have established a niche in semi-desert.
There is no good reason to believe (let alone
unthinkingly assume) that the great bulk of
human ancestors occupied a similar habitat.

> The women just gathered roots, fruit, nuts etc. as the men hunted.
> It worked fine.

It worked well enough -- but, as I say, there is no
good reason to use it as a general model.

> Starting some forty thousand years ago, cave art in Europe
> indicates they began to concentrate more on hunting

Name another period in human history when the
commonly depicted art gave a reliable account of
prevailing life-styles.

In any case, cave art indicates no such 'beginning'.

> and began hunting on a mass scale.

Ditto.

> Apprently, that is why the Mammoth and many other large
> animals are no longer found. They were hunted to extinction.

Very few large animals in Eurasia were hunted
to extinction before modern times. Those in the
Americas were probably wiped out quickly and
before they had time to adapt to a quite unfamiliar
predator.

> It was then, eventually, that the women took up the slack and
> planted instead of gathered. Agriculture took off.

Do you think that the same story applied in all
the places on the globe where agriculture
developed -- at roughly the same time ? . . .
China? Papua NG? North, South and Central
America? Wouldn't that be too much of a
coincidence?


Paul.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 26, 2:31 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 26/09/2011 15:05, brough,civilization-overview dot com wrote:
>
> > I am not an anthropologist but I researched their work and they
> > apparently can tell what humans ate from the bones and seeds
> > scattered around their hearths.
>
> For nearly all of the past 2.4 Myr, sea-levels have
> been much lower, typically 300 feet lower.

"The almost complete skeleton of a large whale Balaenoptera sp was
found
closely associated with 57 Lower Palaeolithic artefacts near Baia
Farta, at
an altitude of 65 m, 3 km from the present shoreline."

Manuel Gutierrez, Claude Guerin, Maria Lena & Maria Piedade da Jesus
2001
Exploitation d'un grand cétacé au Paléolithique ancien: Le site de
Dungo V à
Baia Farta (Benguela, Angola)
CRAS 332:357-362

> So any
> H.sap hearths found would have been 'in the hills',
> and often in the mountains.

Liar.
http://gulf.rice.edu/Images/WLouisiana/Figure2.GIF

> I bet that you did not
> encounter a statement of that fact very often -- if
> at all -- in your research.

I'll bet he didn't either, because your claim it isn't true. You made
it up.

>
> > Even to the present day, there are hunter/gatherers in remote
> > regions who still do not practice agriculture.
>
> They have established a niche in semi-desert.

That's what he just implied, are you a parrot or something?

> There is no good reason to believe (let alone
> unthinkingly assume) that the great bulk of
> human ancestors occupied a similar habitat.

No one ever claimed they did, Mr. Strawman. You made that up too.

>
> > The women just gathered roots, fruit, nuts etc. as the men hunted.
> > It worked fine.
>
> It worked well enough -- but, as I say, there is no
> good reason to use it as a general model.

Yes there is, your illiteracy is not an argument.

>
> > Starting some forty thousand years ago, cave art in Europe
> > indicates they began to concentrate more on hunting
>
> Name another period in human history when the
> commonly depicted art gave a reliable account of
> prevailing life-styles.

So, using references, demonstrate why this art is not accurate:
http://www.aguntherphotography.com/files/images/549_large.jpg

>
> In any case, cave art indicates no such 'beginning'.
>
> > and began hunting on a mass scale.
>
> Ditto.
>
> > Apprently, that is why the Mammoth and many other large
> > animals are no longer found. They were hunted to extinction.
>
> Very few large animals in Eurasia were hunted
> to extinction before modern times.

> Those in the
> Americas were probably wiped out quickly and
> before they had time to adapt to a quite unfamiliar
> predator.

Typical Crowley nonsense.

See Grayson:
http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/grayson--jar07.pdf

>
> > It was then, eventually, that the women took up the slack and
> > planted instead of gathered. Agriculture took off.
>
> Do you think that the same story applied in all
> the places on the globe where agriculture
> developed -- at roughly the same time ? . . .
> China?  Papua NG?  North, South and Central
> America?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

[brough,civilization-overview dot com]

On Sep 26, 10:58 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 7:05 am, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 3:09 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > we don't see much evidence of any behavior prior to 10
> > > thousand years.  We don't, for example, have any evidence of them
> > > eating.  Surely we wouldn't conclude from this that they never ate.
>
> > > Given what stones tools tell us about their intellect I see no reason
> > > not to assume that some forms of planting goes back a million years or
> > > more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I am not an anthropologist but I researched their work and they
> > apparently can tell what humans ate from the bones and seeds scattered
> > around their hearths. Even to the present day, there are hunter/
> > gatherers in remote regions who still do not practice agriculture. The
> > women just gathered roots, fruit, nuts etc. as the men hunted. It
> > worked fine.
>
> > Starting some forty thousand years ago, cave art in Europe indicates
> > they began to concentrate more on hunting and began hunting on a mass
> > scale. Apprently, that is why the Mammoth and many other large animals
> > are no longer found. They were hunted to extinction.
>
> Makes sense.  But what's your thinking on how they came to have the
> ability to hunt on a "mass scale" basis--starting from chimpanzee-like
> animals 6 to 8 mya?

Well, you know we evolved all that time as small-group primates. We
were never a herd animal! We are still small group primates. Our
biggest difference was developing language. By about 40,000 years ago,
we began to form into larger groups. My theory is that by that time
our language ability had evolved to the point where we could develop
grand ideological systems that, because all more or less believed the
same, enabled people in the larger groups to be bonded or bound into
their larger group so they could still feel as safe and loyal to the
larger group athey did in the small group.

It is not the mythology of the ideology that is important now in this
discussion but rather the characteristics of religions that enabled
them to serve this social evolutionary purpose. They all had to, and
still do, provide answers to four questions: what is our origin, our
goals, the means or rules we must follow in achieving them and what
stands in our way?

> > It was then, eventually, that the women took up the slack and planted
> > instead of gathered. Agriculture took off.
>
> > broughhttp://civilization-overview.com
>
> Well, it's a nice story and all, but is it really a story that is
> supported by evidence, reason, and logic?  Or is it, maybe, a story
> based on lack of evidence to the contrary.  And there's nothing wrong
> with this method as long as the people putting forth such argument
> aren't concealing this shortcomings from us.
>
> So, Chuck, I'm not saying your thinking is wrong.  I'm saying that
> your thinking is incomplete because it doesn't explain the selective
> origins of the animals that are capable of the behavior you indicate

> in your thinking.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

In "The Last Civilization," I build a picture of pre-history on three
things: (1) a study of the work of Gimbutas and others on the study of
the mythology that pre-history people believed and passed on, (2 )
tied that in with the basic human nature of small-group humanity based
upon a study of other small social group primates, (3) and some of the
puzzles that were left were unwound by applying what we have learned
of human history.

brough
http://civiloization-overview.com

[brough,civilization-overview dot com]

On Sep 26, 12:23 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo5962308.html
> The Hunters or the Hunted?

Provocative questions in book titles don't, of course, change the fact
that large animals all over the globe began to become extinct after
man began to live in larger groups and developed the spear into a
longer range weapon.

>
> >--starting from chimpanzee-like
> > animals 6 to 8 mya?
>
> What chimpanzee-like animal? Are they kind of like Miocene lions and
> tigers?
>

I can't make sense out of that question. . .

brough
http://civilization-overview.com

[brough,civilization-overview dot com]

On Sep 26, 5:31 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 26/09/2011 15:05, brough,civilization-overview dot com wrote:
>
> > I am not an anthropologist but I researched their work and they
> > apparently can tell what humans ate from the bones and seeds
> > scattered around their hearths.
>
> For nearly all of the past 2.4 Myr, sea-levels have
> been much lower, typically 300 feet lower.  So any
> H.sap hearths found would have been 'in the hills',
> and often in the mountains.  I bet that you did not
> encounter a statement of that fact very often -- if
> at all -- in your research.

Myr is an astronomy designation for millions of years! Are you saying
that hominids planted crops and for millions of years?!? I am curious
as to what your reasoning is based on.

>
> > Even to the present day, there are hunter/gatherers in remote
> > regions who still do not practice agriculture.
>
> They have established a niche in semi-desert.
> There is no good reason to believe (let alone
> unthinkingly assume) that the great bulk of
> human ancestors occupied a similar habitat.

OK, I'll leave it at that. You have no evidence human ancestors grew
crops and I have no evidence to show they did not. As in most science
in such a case, I'll stick with the consensus when I have no evidence
to support the contrary.

It is much the same with the rest of your post below. You state your
opinions and some of it is nit-picking. Please don't be offended if I
don't respond to all your points in this thread unless either of us
can come up with something else.

[Tom McDonald]

Denk believes that the LCA was chimp-like, a knuckle-walker. This was
tenable until more recent work shows that Miocene apes were not
knuckle-walkers, and Ardipithicus ramidus, about 4.4 mya, on the line
that led to us (though we don't know if it was on the direct line or a
cousin line) was definitely not a knuckle-walker, but was generally an
upright walker, though adapted for trees, too.

The current thinking is that knuckle-walking is a derived, rather than a
primitive, trait of the chimp and gorilla lines since the LCA. Thus,
Denk needs to pretend that this new evidence isn't germane; but he has
none of his own to counter it with.

[Paul Crowley]

On 27/09/2011 15:47, brough,civilization-overview dot com wrote:

>>> I am not an anthropologist but I researched their work and they
>>> apparently can tell what humans ate from the bones and seeds
>>> scattered around their hearths.
>>
>> For nearly all of the past 2.4 Myr, sea-levels have
>> been much lower, typically 300 feet lower. So any
>> H.sap hearths found would have been 'in the hills',
>> and often in the mountains. I bet that you did not
>> encounter a statement of that fact very often -- if
>> at all -- in your research.
>
> Myr is an astronomy designation for millions of years!

It's common in the study of evolution -- which
operates over millions of years.

> Are you saying that hominids planted crops and for
> millions of years?!?

Not here.

> I am curious as to what your reasoning is based on.

Either your research was limited or (more likely
IMHO) the texts you studied consisted of the
usual standard PA fare (i.e. mostly garbage).
You should recognise the time-scale, although
I see that I should have said 2.58 Myr. The
figure must have been revised since it was fixed
in my memory. It's when the earth went into an
extended ice age -- which has lasted since that
date, with occasional warmer inter-glacials,
such as the one we are in now.

Our ancestors would have lived in much the
same locations as we do -- mostly close to
the sea.

>>> Even to the present day, there are hunter/gatherers in remote
>>> regions who still do not practice agriculture.
>>
>> They have established a niche in semi-desert.
>> There is no good reason to believe (let alone
>> unthinkingly assume) that the great bulk of
>> human ancestors occupied a similar habitat.
>
> OK, I'll leave it at that. You have no evidence
> human ancestors grew crops

Between ~16 kya and ~8 kya human societies
all over the world would have been
constantly devastated by repeated flooding
as sea-levels rose. As soon as humans
recovered from all that, they began to plant
crops in numerous parts of the world. They
must have been doing much the same before
16 kya.

> and I have no
> evidence to show they did not.

Insofar as you could be said to be thinking,
you rely on sets of extraordinary coincidences.

> As in most science in such a case, I'll stick with
> the consensus when I have no evidence to support
> the contrary.

It is not science to stick with an ancient
consensus established long before anyone
understood the concept of niche, or knew
that humans (and many other species)
were territorial, or that sea-levels rose world-
wide in relatively recent times. The fact that
PA professors teach from the notes they
made in class forty years earlier, copied
from notes made 40 years before that, and
so on back to Darwin, should not stop you
from trying to engage what you call your
mind.

> It is much the same with the rest of your post
> below. You state your opinions and some of it is
> nit-picking.

Which bits were 'nit-picking'?

> Please don't be offended if I don't
> respond to all your points in this thread

You haven't responded to any.

> unless
> either of us can come up with something else.

You could try to explain your reliance on
coincidences. Or justify your belief that
occupants of semi-deserts are a good
model for early humans. Or show how
cave-art is a trustworthy guide to palaeolithic
life.


Paul.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 27, 7:25 am, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"

<charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 12:23 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>  >http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo5962308.html
>
> > The Hunters or the Hunted?
>
> Provocative questions in book titles don't, of course, change the fact
> that large animals all over the globe began to become extinct after
> man began to live in larger groups and developed the spear into a
> longer range weapon.

Denk's timeframe is Miocene, not Middle Stone Age.

>
> > >--starting from chimpanzee-like
> > > animals 6 to 8 mya?
>
> > What chimpanzee-like animal? Are they kind of like Miocene lions and
> > tigers?
>
> I can't make sense out of that question. . .

Tom's answer is right on.

Even if the issue is in dispute, the answer provided by Denk need not
be asked until the issue is resolved, not before.
Bonobos and common chips have been separated for ca. 2 my, IIRC,
determined by dna estimates and the age of the Congo river, so K/W has
been around for that long. Before that time no fossil chimps or
gorillas exist, hard to tell just when K/W came into existence.

>
> broughhttp://civilization-overview.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 27, 7:00 am, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"

<charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 10:58 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > > > we don't see much evidence of any behavior prior to 10
> > > > thousand years.  We don't, for example, have any evidence of them
> > > > eating.  Surely we wouldn't conclude from this that they never ate.
>
> > > > Given what stones tools tell us about their intellect I see no reason
> > > > not to assume that some forms of planting goes back a million years or
> > > > more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I am not an anthropologist but I researched their work and they
> > > apparently can tell what humans ate from the bones and seeds scattered
> > > around their hearths. Even to the present day, there are hunter/
> > > gatherers in remote regions who still do not practice agriculture. The
> > > women just gathered roots, fruit, nuts etc. as the men hunted. It
> > > worked fine.
>
> > > Starting some forty thousand years ago, cave art in Europe indicates
> > > they began to concentrate more on hunting and began hunting on a mass
> > > scale. Apprently, that is why the Mammoth and many other large animals
> > > are no longer found. They were hunted to extinction.
>
> > Makes sense.  But what's your thinking on how they came to have the
> > ability to hunt on a "mass scale" basis--starting from chimpanzee-like
> > animals 6 to 8 mya?
>
> Well, you know we evolved all that time as small-group primates.

If we look at the evidence objectively one can only conclude that it's
impossible for hominids to have evolved as a small-group primate.
Scientists are obliged to be objective.

> We were never a herd animal!

In a sense we are a herding animal. And my hypothesis describes how
this began with the LCA.

> We are still small group primates.

uh . . . No. We are hardly a small group primate.

> Our
> biggest difference was developing language. By about 40,000 years ago,
> we began to form into larger groups. My theory is that by that time
> our language ability had evolved to the point where we could develop
> grand ideological systems that, because all more or less believed the
> same, enabled people in the larger groups to be bonded or bound into
> their larger group so they could still feel as safe and loyal to the
> larger group athey did in the small group.

The function of ideology . . . is very complex. But when you figure
out why ideology is adaptive you also figure out why culture and
language became adaptive. From a purely theoretical standpoint its a
very difficult nut to crack. (But when you crack it a whole world of
other pieces of the puzzle seem to just fall into place.) I'll just
say that you're not there yet. There's a lot more to ideology than
can be explained by keeping larger groups unified.

[Claudius Denk]

One again, this is a conclusion based not on evidence but lack
thereof.

Creating a phantom species to whom from which both chimps and hominids
evolved is not good science.

[Tom McDonald]

That's not what's been done. Miocene apes do not show knuckle-walking;
Ardi does not show knuckle-walking. We don't walk on our knuckles.
Chimps and gorillas do. Ergo, something happened at or after the LCA,
and it does not seem to have been a chimp-like creature as the LCA.

If you have actual evidence that it was a chimp-like creature, other
than your imagination, please present it.

[Claudius Denk]

Jungle dwelling (rainforest dwelling) miocene apes left no fossils.
So there's no fossil based reason not to assume that they (jungle
dwelling miocene apes) were not similar to chimps and gorilla. And
that includes knucklewalking. The only other "ape" fossils we have
are on the hominid lineage and were bipedal. Don't believe anybody
that tells you that knucklewalking is a "derived" trait. People that
make such statements are just avoiding having to deal with the
theoretical conundrum associated with early emergence of bipedalism in
the hominid lineage. They are just taking the easy way out. Notice
how these arguments always pivot off a claim based on absence of
evidence. And then if you don't agree with them they just try to
shout you down. That's the sign of insecurity of somebody that knows
they have a weak argument.

[Lee Olsen]

More vague nonsese that is just exactly the opposite of the evidence.
Define "small group" Define "large group"

>
> > We were never a herd animal!
>
> In a sense we are a herding animal.

More nonsense.
Don't bring semantic arguments to a science forum.

>  And my hypothesis describes how
> this began with the LCA.

Don't bring semantic arguments to a science forum or "Miocene lions,
tigers,...etc." for that matter.

>
> > We are still small group primates.
>
> uh . . . No.  We are hardly a small group primate.

"are"? There you go, using examples outside your own timeline, what a
hypocrite.

<snip> repeating your data free, reference free, melodrama won't make
it come true.

[Lee Olsen]

Liar....
Dryopithicus
Samburupihecus
Chororapithicus
Nakalipithicus

> So there's no fossil based reason not to assume

Nonsense.

>that they (jungle
> dwelling miocene apes) were not similar to chimps and gorilla.

Talk about vague, define "similar" in your Miocene "lions,
tiger,....etc" new double-speak lingo.

> And
> that includes knucklewalking.  The only other "ape" fossils we have
> are on the hominid lineage and were bipedal.

IOW, if you don't know, make up a just-so story to answer a guestion
that is in dispute. That's called leading the evidence.

>  Don't believe anybody
> that tells you that knucklewalking is a "derived" trait.

And don't believe a amateur science writer who iccorpoates Miocene
"lions, tigers,...etc" in a science-fiction
dime novel.

>  People that
> make such statements are just avoiding having to deal with the
> theoretical conundrum associated with early emergence of bipedalism in
> the hominid lineage.

People that deal with Miocene "lions, tigers,...etc" are pseudo-
science quacks.

 They are just taking the easy way out.  Notice
> how these arguments always pivot off a claim based on absence of
> evidence.

What evidence is that? "lions, tigers, ...etc"? Or maybe imaginary 7
mya knuckle walkers?

> And then if you don't agree with them they just try to
> shout you down.  That's the sign of insecurity of somebody that knows
> they have a weak argument.

Don't bring a semantic argument to a science forum.

>
>
>
> > Ardi does not show knuckle-walking. We don't walk on our knuckles.
> > Chimps and gorillas do. Ergo, something happened at or after the LCA,
> > and it does not seem to have been a chimp-like creature as the LCA.
>
> > If you have actual evidence that it was a chimp-like creature, other

> > than your imagination, please present it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 28, 7:04 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 11:15 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

> > > >> Denk believes that the LCA was chimp-like, a knuckle-walker. This was
> > > >> tenable until more recent work shows that Miocene apes were not
> > > >> knuckle-walkers, and Ardipithicus ramidus, about 4.4 mya, on the line
> > > >> that led to us (though we don't know if it was on the direct line or a
> > > >> cousin line) was definitely not a knuckle-walker, but was generally an
> > > >> upright walker, though adapted for trees, too.
>
> > > >> The current thinking is that knuckle-walking is a derived, rather than a
> > > >> primitive, trait of the chimp and gorilla lines since the LCA. Thus,
> > > >> Denk needs to pretend that this new evidence isn't germane; but he has
> > > >> none of his own to counter it with.
>

> > > > Once again, this is a conclusion based not on evidence but lack

> > > > thereof.
>
> > > > Creating a phantom species to whom from which both chimps and hominids
> > > > evolved is not good science.
>
> > > That's not what's been done.

> Miocene apes do not show knuckle-walking;

Details?

> > Jungle dwelling (rainforest dwelling) miocene apes left no fossils.
>
> Liar....
> Dryopithicus
> Samburupihecus
> Chororapithicus
> Nakalipithicus

Uh, we need dates, pictures of fossils, timeline for each species,
analysis . . . etc.

> > So there's no fossil based reason not to assume that they (jungle

> > dwelling miocene apes) were not similar to chimps and gorilla.
>

> Nonsense.

It's funny how you anthro-groupies never explain anything.

[Tom McDonald]

"Dryopithecus was about 60 centimetres (24 in) in body length, and more
closely resembled a monkey than a modern ape. The structure of its limbs
and wrists show that it walked in a similar way to modern chimpanzees,
but that it used the flat of its hands, like a monkey, rather than
knuckle-walking, like modern apes."

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

[Claudius Denk]

Now, finish your thought Tom. Continue: Therefore . . .

Where's your explanation/analysis Tom? Tell us how this, supposedly,
proves that both the hominid lineage and the chimpanzee lineage have a
common bipedal ancestor. That is what you are saying now, isn't it?

[Tom McDonald]

I'm saying that your assumption (and it is an assumption) that the LCA
was a knuckle-walker does not appear to have evidence to support it.

[Claudius Denk]

It's funny that what you were saying before seems to be different from
what you are saying now. Before you said, or at least insinuated, you
had proof that the LCA could not have been a knuckle-walker. Now
you're just saying you are unaware of any evidence that confirms it.
Can you see how that might seem a bit funny?

[Tom McDonald]

Read upthread. I didn't make that sort of categorical statement about
'proof'. But, of course, you need to deflect, since you don't have
evidence at all to support your LCA knuckle-walking idea.

Now *that's* funny.

[Claudius Denk]

Are these not your words:

"Denk believes that the LCA was chimp-like, a knuckle-walker. This was
tenable until more recent work shows that Miocene apes were not
knuckle-walkers, and Ardipithicus ramidus, about 4.4 mya, on the line
that led to us (though we don't know if it was on the direct line or a
cousin line) was definitely not a knuckle-walker, but was generally an
upright walker, though adapted for trees, too.

The current thinking is that knuckle-walking is a derived, rather than
a
primitive, trait of the chimp and gorilla lines since the LCA. Thus,
Denk needs to pretend that this new evidence isn't germane; but he has
none of his own to counter it with."

> But, of course, you need to deflect, since you don't have
> evidence at all to support your LCA knuckle-walking idea.
>
> Now *that's* funny.

Me think thou doth laugh too much.

[Tom McDonald]

It's easy to laugh at your inept misreading of my post. Please point to
the place where I wrote that the LCA could not have been a knuckle-walker.

Then point to the evidence that suggests it might have been.

[Claudius Denk]

Well, I really don't want to put you on the spot any more than I
already have. People can read the thread and come to their own
conclusions.

Of course, if you were so inclined, you could beat them to the punch
and make a retraction. But then again it's kind of too late for that
now anyways.

[Tom McDonald]

OK. I retract any thought I might have had that you could read for
comprehension, and that you might be able to do some of your own research.

My retraction. Hope you're happy with it.

[Claudius Denk]

Ecstatic.

[Lee Olsen]

7 mya "lions, tigers, hyenas, dogs, etc." you should be laughing more
yourself.

[Lee Olsen]

7 myr "lions, tigers, hyenas, dogs, etc." Start explaining.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Sep 21, 9:39 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On 9/21/2011 11:18 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > Whatever, the point is that these implements (you put the date on
> > > them) primarily served the purpose of keeping animals out of garden
> > > habitat.
> >
> > Desperation, Jim. It's just desperation you're feeling. Stop fucking
> > around with your 'hypothesis' and dig up some evidence, and the feeling
> > will go away.
>
> Well, I'm just saying don't let the "hunting/gathering" mythology be a
> dictatorial influence in your thought processes, especially not when
> we're talking about chimpanzee-like animals as the starting point. I
> think my assertion that these implements make more sense serving a
> pest control purpose--driving off (sometimes agressive) herds of food
> competitor mammals--than as all out hunting implements is not lacking
> in evidentiary support. The understanding that emerges dovetails
> perfectly with the agricultural animal that we actually are.
>
> Along those lines, to put you on the spot, how do you explain the
> origins of agriculturalism in hominids?
>
> (Geez, Tom, did you not see this question coming? I would have
> thought you'd know better by now.)

Considering that agricultural is only a few thousand years old, some think
it was for making beer.

[Claudius Denk]

Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that agriculture
of some sort did not exist prior to, "a few thousand years," ago? No?

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 4, 12:14 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
> Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that agriculture
> of some sort did not exist prior to, "a few thousand years," ago?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
"Often, someone will present a new idea and say that it must be
accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because
without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there
is no contrary evidence. One example is that of a simulated reality,
which proposes that the human race does indeed live in The Matrix and
we are a computer simulation. There is no evidence against this idea,
in fact, it may be impossible to fully disprove, but as there is no
real evidence for it there is no reason to accept the idea as real.
Another famous example is the teapot proposed by Bertrand Russell, the
existence of which cannot be disproved.
Indeed, if one is making an exceptionally bold claim (such as with
alternative medicine that claims miraculous cures) then exceptional
evidence is expected in its support. Or as Carl Sagan said,
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

[Claudius Denk]

The problem with this approach is that it is applicable to any and all
new ideas. The same kinds of things were said of Einstein's thinking,
for example.

Humans are an extraordinary species. Extraordinary results justify/
require extraordinary explanations.

I have an extraordinary explanation.

You? Uh . . . well,, I dunno, . . you have an agenda. You really
don't have a hypothesis.

[Tom McDonald]

On 10/4/2011 10:06 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Oct 4, 4:36 pm, Lee Olsen<paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 12:14 am, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that agriculture
>>> of some sort did not exist prior to, "a few thousand years," ago?
>>
>> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
>> "Often, someone will present a new idea and say that it must be
>> accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because
>> without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there
>> is no contrary evidence. One example is that of a simulated reality,
>> which proposes that the human race does indeed live in The Matrix and
>> we are a computer simulation. There is no evidence against this idea,
>> in fact, it may be impossible to fully disprove, but as there is no
>> real evidence for it there is no reason to accept the idea as real.
>> Another famous example is the teapot proposed by Bertrand Russell, the
>> existence of which cannot be disproved.
>> Indeed, if one is making an exceptionally bold claim (such as with
>> alternative medicine that claims miraculous cures) then exceptional
>> evidence is expected in its support. Or as Carl Sagan said,
>> "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
>
>
> The problem with this approach is that it is applicable to any and all
> new ideas. The same kinds of things were said of Einstein's thinking,
> for example.

You keep comparing yourself to Einstein. I don't think you know how hard
he worked to support his work. You? Not so much.

> Humans are an extraordinary species. Extraordinary results justify/
> require extraordinary explanations.
>
> I have an extraordinary explanation.

With an extraordinarily weak evidence set.

> You? Uh . . . well,, I dunno, . . you have an agenda. You really
> don't have a hypothesis.

And you don't have an agenda?

[Claudius Denk]

On Oct 4, 8:18 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 10:06 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

> >>> Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that agriculture
> >>> of some sort did not exist prior to, "a few thousand years," ago?
>
> >>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
> >> "Often, someone will present a new idea and say that it must be
> >> accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because
> >> without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there
> >> is no contrary evidence. One example is that of a simulated reality,
> >> which proposes that the human race does indeed live in The Matrix and
> >> we are a computer simulation. There is no evidence against this idea,
> >> in fact, it may be impossible to fully disprove, but as there is no
> >> real evidence for it there is no reason to accept the idea as real.
> >> Another famous example is the teapot proposed by Bertrand Russell, the
> >> existence of which cannot be disproved.
> >> Indeed, if one is making an exceptionally bold claim (such as with
> >> alternative medicine that claims miraculous cures) then exceptional
> >> evidence is expected in its support. Or as Carl Sagan said,
> >> "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
>
> > The problem with this approach is that it is applicable to any and all
> > new ideas.  The same kinds of things were said of Einstein's thinking,
> > for example.
>
> You keep comparing yourself to Einstein.

Well, no, not exactly. I was comparing you to Einstein's early
detractors (of which there were many).

> I don't think you know how hard
> he worked to support his work. You? Not so much.

I think I do know (and fully understand) how hard he worked. And i
know that you have no idea whatsoever.

> > Humans are an extraordinary species.  Extraordinary results justify/
> > require extraordinary explanations.
>
> > I have an extraordinary explanation.
>
> With an extraordinarily weak evidence set.

We all have the exact same evidence, dumbass. The difference is that
I have a real hypothesis, you have nothing but good intentions.

> > You?  Uh . . . well,, I dunno, . . you have an agenda.  You really
> > don't have a hypothesis.
>
> And you don't have an agenda?

Actually, no. And if I did I wouldn't bring it to a scientific forum.

[Tom McDonald]

It's touching that you think you don't have an agenda. It's obvious to
everyone else.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

> You keep comparing yourself to Einstein. I don't think you know how hard
> he worked to support his work. You? Not so much.

Actually, he was so confident that he would win the
Nobel Prize that he included the money in his
divorce agreement.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Often, someone will present a new idea and say that it must be
> accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because
> without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there
> is no contrary evidence.

Ironically, you suffer the opposite problem: Disbelieving
evidence in favor of an opinion. Let's take mtDNA for
example: We compare the prehistoric mtDNA of, say,
Australia to the modern population and we find there is
no match. Nope. If there is a single living descendent to
the prehistoric population there is no DNA evidence for
it. But you argue the opposite....

Apparently "Evidence" is in the eye of the beholder,
assuming the beholder is a whack job.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

> It's touching that you think you don't have an agenda. It's obvious to
> everyone else.

Here's the difference between you & me,
imbecile: You seek out the dumbest,
craziest posts to attack -- i.e. the very
weakest targets -- and I seek out the
over-blown assholes who think they're
so smart.

I guess this explains why you couldn't
argue your way out of a wet paper bag...

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 4, 9:49 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Often, someone will present a new idea and say that it must be
> > accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because
> > without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there
> > is no contrary evidence.
>
> Ironically, you suffer the opposite problem:  Disbelieving
> evidence in favor of an opinion.

What evidence is that?

> Let's take mtDNA for
> example:  We compare the prehistoric mtDNA of, say,
> Australia to the modern population and we find there is
> no match. Nope.

Another reference free, evidence free, lip service reply.

> If there is a single living descendent to
> the prehistoric population there is no DNA evidence for
> it. But you argue the opposite....

False accusation, your inability to quote me directly proves you are a
liar.

>
> Apparently "Evidence" is in the eye of the beholder,
> assuming the beholder is a whack job.

"whack job"? Like your snipping?

[Claudius Denk]

Sorry to interrupt your whacko session. Might you two whackjobs be so
kind as to continue your conversation in your own new thread? Thank
you.

[Claudius Denk]

Science mostly involves distinguishing between what is
real and what is, "obvious to everyone else."

[Lee Olsen]

Boy, you are really sensitive today, spill your beer?

[Claudius Denk]

I'm just hoping that when you and JTEM go into your roboposting
competition mode that you do it some other thread so that I can
attempt to maintain the illusion that I live in a rational universe
where roboposting competitions never take place.

[Lee Olsen]

You will take your science fiction drama to a UFO forum.

> when you and JTEM go into your roboposting
> competition mode

How many threads are on this board now, and in the last ten years,
that deal your pseudo-science crap?

> that you do it some other thread

You have posted numeous threads, zero evidence, zero science for over
ten years now with your bathroom wall smearings,
take it somewhere else, like alt.idiots.

> so that I can
> attempt to maintain the illusion that I live in a rational universe
> where roboposting competitions never take place.

Maintain illusion of gatekeepers is correct.

[JTEM]

, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What evidence is that?

You posted it. In sci.archaeology. You even
quoted it saying that Mungo Man's mtDNA
is extinct. Sorry, I just assumed that after
all my ribbing you took the time to find out
what "Extinct" means....

My apologies for granting you too much credit.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 5, 5:45 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What evidence is that?
>
> You posted it. In sci.archaeology.

Let's see just what you snipped out over at sci.arch:

"On Sep 28, 7:37 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > We know of hybridization, for example.


> > "meaningless"


> Ironically, you have that in quotes though you are
> not quoting anyone or anything. You're making it
> up as you go.

No, you are dishonest in snipping out the references as you go.
http://tinyurl.com/3p967ab

and...

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

I cited "meaningless" correctly and you later snipped the reference,
even after you quoted it yourself.

So either you have memory problems or you are dishonest, which is
it?"

> You even
> quoted it saying that Mungo Man's mtDNA
> is extinct.

And "meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense"

>.Sorry, I just assumed that after

> all my ribbing you took the time to find out
> what "Extinct" means....

You need to find out what "meaningless" means before pretending you
know something about evolution.

>
> My apologies for granting you too much credit.

Other than passing along the fact that you are illiterate and can
snip, do you have anything else to add?

[Claudius Denk]

I live in a rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live
in a rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe. I live in a
rational universe. I live in a rational universe.

There, I feel better.

[Claudius Denk]

On Oct 5, 7:30 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 5:45 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What evidence is that?
>
> > You posted it. In sci.archaeology.
>
>  Let's see just what you snipped out over at sci.arch:
>
> "On Sep 28, 7:37 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We know of hybridization, for example.
> > > "meaningless"
> > Ironically, you have that in quotes though you are
> > not quoting anyone or anything. You're making it
> > up as you go.
>

> No, you are dishonest in snipping out the references as you go.http://tinyurl.com/3p967ab

>
> and...
>
> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."
>
> I cited "meaningless" correctly and you later snipped the reference,
> even after you quoted it yourself.
>
> So either you have memory problems or you are dishonest, which is
> it?"
>
> > You even
> > quoted it saying that Mungo Man's mtDNA
> > is extinct.
>
> And "meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense"
>
> >.Sorry, I just assumed that after
> > all my ribbing you took the time to find out
> > what "Extinct" means....
>
> You need to find out what "meaningless" means before pretending you
> know something about evolution.
>
>
>
> > My apologies for granting you too much credit.
>
> Other than passing along the fact that you are illiterate and can
> snip, do you have anything else to add?

Maybe you two should team up. With JTEM's blind snipping skills and
Olsen's mastery of cut and paste you'd be completely un . . .
uh, . . . inscrutible.

[Lee Olsen]

Another evidence free, reference-free reply.
Are you working on the "lions, tigers,....etc. dilemma yet? It needs
fixing ya know.

[Lee Olsen]

Maybe you should team up with a text book. Ought to be something out
there on the evolution of lions and tigers that you could read.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> No, you are dishonest in snipping out the

Liar.

You're posting unrelated cites, again, pretending
they are supporting an argument you never made.

Example:

> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

You posted the above, sure, but you weren't arguing that
Mungo Man's mtDNA is irrelevant. Nope. As a matter of
fact, you were arguing exactly the opposite. *I* had said
that mtDNA evidence was the worst excuse for evidence,
and you were arguing that it's useful... posting this cite
calling it irrelevant.

Go figure.

But, hey, you are a mental case....

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 6, 8:57 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
<more lies>

[JTEM]

Check it out, LeeTard is a lying sack of shit....

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<more lies>

Here's what LeeTard was arguing AGAINST when
he posted a cite calling Mungo Man's mtDNA
irrelevant....

: I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.
:
: For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
: humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
: to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
: ago.
:
: Google: Mungo Man.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/4c49e88e85602fe1?hl=en&dmode=source

Yup, once again LeeTard posted a random, unrelated
cite and pretended that it supports an argument, one
he never made.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Check it out, LeeTard is a lying sack of shit....
>
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>     <more lies>
>
> Here's what LeeTard was arguing AGAINST when
> he posted a cite calling Mungo Man's mtDNA
> irrelevant....

Yep, the "quote" was factually accurate and still is.

>
> : I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.

You can't tell your fantasies from reality.

> :
> : For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
> : humans for, say, 60K years,

Might not have been is just as accuate.

> but nobody seems
> : to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
> : ago.

Liar. You made that up. One lineage doesn't make a population. It
seems everyone on the planet understands that but you.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.ab...
"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below
0.5%.
We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago.
This
dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow
between
populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support
the
hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest continuous populations outside Africa."


> :
> : Google:  Mungo Man.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/4c49e88e85602fe1?h...

> Yup, once again LeeTard posted a random, unrelated
> cite

Says the garbage man who hasn't a clue that mtDNA is only inherited
from the maternal line:
Subject: Re: Reconstruction of early spread of modern humans outside
Africa
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a33ad0ef-15ae-426b-916c-
abc6b8...@c1g2000yql.googlegroups.com>

JTEM:
>You
> have more Neanderthal DNA than you do DNA from your Great,
> Great Grandfather, you stupid jackass.

Lee Olsen:
"How do you know that, since you inherit mtDNA from the maternal
side?
Also note the words "might come from Neanderthals" and "low levels"

(no response: what could he say after being trapped by his own
ignorance?)

> and pretended that it supports an argument, one
> he never made.

Snipping and name calling is the only argument an illiterate like you
can make.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "whack job"? Like your snipping?

I've invited you many times to produce a single
example where I "snipped" something that
turned your lies, your ignorant musings and
your psychotic episodes into reasonable
comments.

You're still impotent.

[JTEM]

Again, I remind you, this is what I said, this is what
the LeeTard/etc was arguing AGAINST:

: I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.

:

: For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by

: humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems

: to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
: ago.

:
: Google: Mungo Man.

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> One lineage doesn't make a population.

It's the only evidence we have. One generally goes with
the evidence instead of against it.

But, while we're on the topic, Mungo Man is not the
only prehistoric Australian remains found. Please, by
all means, present a cite where one of these other
prehistoric australians has a DNA lineage found in the
modern population...

> "We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
> 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
> Western Australia in the early 20th century.

100 years old is modern. Period. And this cite does not compare
this modern specimen to any prehistoric sample.

You're misrepresenting the cite. It's conclusions, opinions
(what your deranged mind thinks is evidence) is
derived from a comparison of modern populations to each
others, and the result CONFLICT with a comparison
between those same populations and prehistoric DNA.

This much is fact, as you yourself established with your
cite calling Mungo Man's mtDNA "extinct."

Moron.

You're literally arguing against yourself now, and pretending
that you're disputing me...

> Says the garbage man who hasn't a clue that mtDNA is only inherited
> from the maternal line:

Weird, as I've said so myself on numerous occasions, going back
many years.

So, you twisted whack job, you were talking about lying and
making things up...

> Lee Olsen:
> "How do you know that, since you inherit mtDNA from the maternal
> side?

It's not mtDNA, you jackass. Not in the case of Neanderthals.

> Also note the words "might come from Neanderthals" and "low levels"

It's not low at all. It's staggering how big it is, considering.

> (no response: what could he say after being trapped by his own
> ignorance?)

Gosh, golly, I hadn't responded to something I already responded
to a half dozen times? Not YET?

Gee willickers...

You're demented. A total psycho.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 8, 12:19 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, I remind you,

On Oct 8, 11:20 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > JTEM:
> > "How many dog species do you think there are? I'll give you
> > a hint: You can count them all on two fingers and not use
> > one of them...."


LO:
> > So with or without Neandertals, we would still be "us",

So one poodle (hybrid) breeding with a population of 100 collies
(hybrids) would not change poodles and dogs at the species level.


>
> No. If I changed an ancestor I'd change you. Period.

Wrong. It wouldn't change me at all.

>
> > > Neanderthals weren't a different species.

Just because someone could do it, doesn't mean they did. And they
didn't at more than "(>2%)"

> Those earliest
> > > "Moderns" to reach Europe were as far away from us
> > > as Neanderthals were.

No, when Ns left Africa they were the same species to begin with,
changes at the local level later are irrelevant at the species level,
(Wolpoff seems to be correct on this point).

> Why not call them a different
> > > species?

Because then you would have to call Africans a different species, and
that makes you a racist. If you call Africans a "different population
(JTEM)", the same would apply to Neandertals, they were simply be a
"different population" ( IF it turns out the common DNA "(2%)" in the
rest of the world outside Africa is proven to be Neandertal).



>
> > You are babbling, do you want to try that again?
>
> Everything I say above is accurate.

Wrong, you have confused populations with individuals. You have two
eyes, so do frogs. That doesn't make you a frog population anymore
than "(>2%)" makes you a Neandertal population.

>
> > JTEM:
> > "We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> > according to all the data."
>
> Yup. This changes "moderns" physically, and it seems
> mentally as well. There is no evidence of symbolic
> thought before this hybridization.


Since the ancestors of Neandertals came from Africa to begin with,
then everyone is OoA at some point, both inside and outside Africa,
making OoA 100% correct and multireginalism 100% incorrect.
1) Wolpoff was only correct in timing (he claimed there was no
speciation in Africa from the so-called Archaics within Africa. In
this he seems to be correct and Cann was probably wrong.
2) If no speciation occcured in Archaic Africa, then all OoA were the
same species to begin with, so any reintroduction of a few Neandertal
genes after the fact doesn't change a thing, any more than breeding a
few poodles with a lot of collies would remake the entire population
poodles because of some low mix "(>2%)". The population of collies
still remains intact."

Your mistake is trying to claim the entire species is changed because
of a little inbreeding with a population (Neandertal) that was the
same species (in Africa) to begin with.

>
> > You said that, not me and it's flat wrong.
>
> Nope. We are the products of hybridization.
> To say
> we would be "Us" without is is like claiming your
> child would be yours even if they had different
> parents.

Wrong again. All Neandertal genes prove is they were swamped at the
population level, hence the miniscule "(>2%)". IOW, one poodle doesn't
make a new species when bred with a population of collies, since they
are both dogs to begin with. You admitted dogs are dogs, so you have
contradicted yourself once again.

[brough,civilization-overview dot com]

On Sep 28, 1:04 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 7:00 am, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 10:58 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > we don't see much evidence of any behavior prior to 10
> > > > > thousand years.  We don't, for example, have any evidence of them
> > > > > eating.  Surely we wouldn't conclude from this that they never ate.
>
> > > > > Given what stones tools tell us about their intellect I see no reason
> > > > > not to assume that some forms of planting goes back a million years or
> > > > > more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > I am not an anthropologist but I researched their work and they
> > > > apparently can tell what humans ate from the bones and seeds scattered
> > > > around their hearths. Even to the present day, there are hunter/
> > > > gatherers in remote regions who still do not practice agriculture. The
> > > > women just gathered roots, fruit, nuts etc. as the men hunted. It
> > > > worked fine.
>
> > > > Starting some forty thousand years ago, cave art in Europe indicates
> > > > they began to concentrate more on hunting and began hunting on a mass
> > > > scale. Apprently, that is why the Mammoth and many other large animals
> > > > are no longer found. They were hunted to extinction.
>
> > > Makes sense.  But what's your thinking on how they came to have the
> > > ability to hunt on a "mass scale" basis--starting from chimpanzee-like
> > > animals 6 to 8 mya?
>
> > Well, you know we evolved all that time as small-group primates.
>
> If we look at the evidence objectively one can only conclude that it's
> impossible for hominids to have evolved as a small-group primate.
> Scientists are obliged to be objective.
>
> > We were never a herd animal!
>
> In a sense we are a herding animal.  And my hypothesis describes how
> this began with the LCA.
>
> > We are still small group primates.
>
> uh . . . No.  We are hardly a small group primate.
>
> > Our
> > biggest difference was developing language. By about 40,000 years ago,
> > we began to form into larger groups. My theory is that by that time
> > our language ability had evolved to the point where we could develop
> > grand ideological systems that, because all more or less believed the
> > same, enabled people in the larger groups to be bonded or bound into
> > their larger group so they could still feel as safe and loyal to the
> > larger group athey did in the small group.
>
> The function of ideology . . . is very complex.  But when you figure
> out why ideology is adaptive you also figure out why culture and
> language became adaptive.  From a purely theoretical standpoint its a
> very difficult nut to crack.  (But when you crack it a whole world of
> other pieces of the puzzle seem to just fall into place.)  I'll just
> say that you're not there yet.  There's a lot more to ideology than
> can be explained by keeping larger groups unified.
>
>
>
> > It is not the mythology of the ideology that is important now in this
> > discussion but rather the characteristics of religions that enabled
> > them to serve this social evolutionary purpose. They all had to, and
> > still do, provide answers to four questions: what is our origin, our
> > goals, the means or rules we must follow in achieving them and what
> > stands in our way?
> > > > It was then, eventually, that the women took up the slack and planted
> > > > instead of gathered. Agriculture took off.
>
> > > > broughhttp://civilization-overview.com
>
> > > Well, it's a nice story and all, but is it really a story that is
> > > supported by evidence, reason, and logic?  Or is it, maybe, a story
> > > based on lack of evidence to the contrary.  And there's nothing wrong
> > > with this method as long as the people putting forth such argument
> > > aren't concealing this shortcomings from us.
>
> > > So, Chuck, I'm not saying your thinking is wrong.  I'm saying that
> > > your thinking is incomplete because it doesn't explain the selective
> > > origins of the animals that are capable of the behavior you indicate
> > > in your thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > In "The Last Civilization," I build a picture of pre-history on three
> > things: (1) a study of the work of Gimbutas and others on the study of
> > the mythology that pre-history people believed and passed on, (2 )
> > tied that in with the basic human nature of small-group humanity based
> > upon a study of other small social group primates, (3) and some of the
> > puzzles that were left were unwound by applying what we have learned
> > of human history.
>
> > broughhttp://civiloization-overview.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It seems to me you need to explain why it is the anthropological
consensus that we did evolve as small group primate and that
agriculture began with us approximately 10,000 years ago. On what
basis are you saying they and I are all wrong?

Also, it would help this discussion if you would explain why we have
had religions for as long as we know and probably as long as we have
had speech. Is it something that surrounds us for no reason,
explanation and serves no function, role, or purpose?

I have been trying to find a post you might have made on your
hypothisis regarding our apeish ancestors cultivating crops. Is that
yours? Please tell me where it is so I can get some idea of you
reasoning. I am always open to new ideas.

brough
http://civilization-overview.com

[brough,civilization-overview dot com]

> you.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree entirely.

[Claudius Denk]

On Oct 9, 9:08 am, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"

> > > broughhttp://civiloization-overview.com-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It seems to me you need to explain why it is the anthropological
> consensus

If the consensus had explanations that genuinely made sense then they
wouldn't need to refer to a consensus to shore up the validity of
their non-argument. IOW, a consensus is often an agreement on what to
assume in lieu of evidence. Consensus is the antithesis of what
science is supposed to be about.

> that we did evolve as small group primate and that
> agriculture began with us approximately 10,000 years ago. On what
> basis are you saying they and I are all wrong?

Well, to a large degree it's on the basis that they depend on
consensus to make their argument for them and consensus is--from a
sceintific standpoint--a really weak argument.

> Also, it would help this discussion if you would explain why we have
> had religions for as long as we know and probably as long as we have
> had speech. Is it something that surrounds us for no reason,
> explanation and serves no function, role, or purpose?

Religion, speech, culture. Distribution of wealth. Incentive
disincentive. Society (or community) as the unit of selection.
Stratification of wealth and knowledge within the structure of
society.

It's complicated. All things considered you'd be better off devoting
your thinking to what (IMO) happened in the earliest years of hominid
evolution with the onset of monsoon habitat with a significant dry
season. And very aggressive competition from food competitors and
meat eaters.

> I have been trying to find a post you might have made on your
> hypothisis regarding our apeish ancestors cultivating crops. Is that
> yours?

No. That sounds like some straw-baiting from some of the defenders of
the consensus. I take it as a badge of validity in that they have so
much trouble disputing it that they have to misrepresent it in order
to pretend to dispute it.

> Please tell me where it is so I can get some idea of you
> reasoning. I am always open to new ideas.

If you are a representative of the consensus then you are, by
defintion, not open to new ideas.

Stop relying on a brainless consensus to do you thinking for you.

> broughhttp://civilization-overview.com

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > JTEM:
> > > "How many dog species do you think there are? I'll give you
> > > a hint:  You can count them all on two fingers and not use
> > > one of them...."
>
> LO:

This appears nowhere in the post you were
replying to, nor the post before that. You're
literally making up a conversation.

Your extensive array of mental illnesses has,
once again, caused you to invent a different
conversation. I remind you -- ONCE AGAIN --
this is what you were arguing against:

: I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.
:
: For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
: humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
: to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
: ago.
:
: Google: Mungo Man.

P.S. Every word of it is 100% fact, and you've
proven it.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 7:44 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > On Sep 21, 9:39 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > > On 9/21/2011 11:18 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > > > Whatever, the point is that these implements (you put the date on
> > > > > them) primarily served the purpose of keeping animals out of garden
> > > > > habitat.
> >
> > > > Desperation, Jim. It's just desperation you're feeling. Stop fucking
> > > > around with your 'hypothesis' and dig up some evidence, and the feeling
> > > > will go away.
> >
> > > Well, I'm just saying don't let the "hunting/gathering" mythology be a
> > > dictatorial influence in your thought processes, especially not when
> > > we're talking about chimpanzee-like animals as the starting point. I
> > > think my assertion that these implements make more sense serving a
> > > pest control purpose--driving off (sometimes agressive) herds of food
> > > competitor mammals--than as all out hunting implements is not lacking
> > > in evidentiary support. The understanding that emerges dovetails
> > > perfectly with the agricultural animal that we actually are.
> >
> > > Along those lines, to put you on the spot, how do you explain the
> > > origins of agriculturalism in hominids?
> >
> > > (Geez, Tom, did you not see this question coming? I would have
> > > thought you'd know better by now.)
> >
> > Considering that agricultural is only a few thousand years old, some think
> > it was for making beer.

>
> Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that agriculture

> of some sort did not exist prior to, "a few thousand years," ago? No?

As has been pointed out to you, domestication, such as in agriculture,
leaves genetic changes. There are none such from several million years
ago.

[Claudius Denk]

You got any proof or are you just talking out your ass as usual?

[RichTravsky]

Again?

First posted September 4th

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/e22cba63fcfafdd3?dmode=source

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/13701.full
Detecting multiple origins of domesticated crops
Published online before print September 10, 2008,
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0807439105
PNAS September 16, 2008 vol. 105 no. 37 13701-13702

http://www.genetics.org/content/154/4/1785.full
Genetics, Vol. 154, 1785-1791, April 2000
The Origin of the Domestic Pig: Independent Domestication and
Subsequent Introgression

[Claudius Denk]

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/e22cba63fcf...

>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/13701.full
> Detecting multiple origins of domesticated crops
> Published online before print September 10, 2008,
> doi: 10.1073/pnas.0807439105
> PNAS September 16, 2008 vol. 105 no. 37 13701-13702
>
> http://www.genetics.org/content/154/4/1785.full
> Genetics, Vol. 154, 1785-1791, April 2000
> The Origin of the Domestic Pig: Independent Domestication and
> Subsequent Introgression

Relevance? (Keep in mind, the rest of us don't have access to your
imagination.)

[Tom McDonald]

The references answer your question. If you don't want answers, don't
ask questions.

[Claudius Denk]

They do? How so? Remember, Tom, I don't have access to your
imagnation either.

[Tom McDonald]

Did you read the references? If so, answer your own questions; if not,
read it? If you read it and don't understand something, ask for help.

Or not. You might find something that disturbs you in them, and we all
know that your feelings are the important thing here.

[Claudius Denk]

No response.

> > Remember, Tom, I don't have access to your
> > imagnation either.
>
> Did you read the references? If so, answer your own questions; if not,
> read it? If you read it and don't understand something, ask for help.
>
> Or not. You might find something that disturbs you in them, and we all
> know that your feelings are the important thing here.

Answer my question you evasive twit.

[Tom McDonald]

So did you not read the references, or did you not understand them? The
basic idea of changes to plants and animals through domestication (you
know, actual agriculture), is very simple. Man selects plants and
animals for traits that are advantageous to us, while nature selects for
traits that are advantageous to the plants and animals. The selection
processes produce different results, and those differences show up in
the fossil and archaeological record.

What do you not understand about this?

[Claudius Denk]

Uh, pay attention, dumbass. I'm only going to explain this to you
once. Travsky made the specific claim that he could prove that there
was no evidence of domestication prior to 10 kya. The references he
offerred do not address that issue.

Tom, this isn't a hand holding service here. If you can't follow a
simple discussion then maybe you shoud recuse yourself from the
conversation.

[Tom McDonald]

Right. You have nothing. Piss off, troll.

[Claudius Denk]

> Right. You have nothing. Piss off, troll.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Don't go away mad, . . . just go away.

[Tom McDonald]

Oh, I'm not mad. I'm vastly amused by your flailing incompetence.

Keep up the comedy, Jim. It's what you're good at.

[Claudius Denk]

Do you two geniuses think it's not obvious that your every move in
this discussion is a bluff. As we/you have demonstrated, all it takes
to put you in your place is to call the bluff.

[Tom McDonald]

Aaaand the funny just keeps on coming.

[Claudius Denk]

Uh, you know, Tom. There's nothing stopping you from actually reading
those two references and then endeavoring to explain to us (in your
own words) what it is you think you thought you saw.

[Tom McDonald]

You? Recommending someone read the literature? Stop! My ribs hurt from
laughing!

[Tom McDonald]

From the first reference:

"Crop domestication, which began ≈12,000 years ago, represents a recent
event on an evolutionary time scale."

Discuss.

[Claudius Denk]

That's your argument?

[Tom McDonald]

On 10/16/2011 10:11 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Oct 15, 10:23 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2011 12:02 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:

<snip>

>>> Uh, you know, Tom. There's nothing stopping you from actually
>>> reading those two references and then endeavoring to explain to us
>>> (in your own words) what it is you think you thought you saw.
>>
>> From the first reference:
>>
>> "Crop domestication, which began ≈12,000 years ago, represents a recent
>> event on an evolutionary time scale."
>>
>> Discuss.
>
> That's your argument?

My argument is that there is no evidence of plant domestication earlier
than, arguably, ca. 20,000 ya, and none of any consequence before the
beginning of the Holocene. That's agriculture, Jim. You have it
beginning millions of years ago. That's foolish, Jim.

[RichTravsky]

Nicely put. It went over his head, tho.

[RichTravsky]

Also well put.

[RichTravsky]

Game, set, match.