A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Marc claims:
> "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over
> your savannas. Zero.
> Nada."
>
> To make a claim like this is totally irresponsible,
Well, it depends how you interpret it. The supposition that early man,
including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
completely defenseless against the predators thereof. IOW, it makes
about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming
alongside crocodiles.
This leaves us with a bit of a dilemma when it comes to interpreting
the evidence. 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?
(My answe to this question is below.)
> if not downright
> dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
> right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
> which is about as savanna as you can get.
I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than these
same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.
> The thousands of artifacts
> that have been found there speak for themselves.
Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.
> "The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
> grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
> East Africa.
They didn't occupy grasslands and open scrub. They occupied the treed
localities in the vicinity of grassland and open scrub. These were the
locations that had the resources--fruit trees, nuts, vegetables--that
were most essential to them surviving the dry season.
> Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
> associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
> grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
> limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
> open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
> posture (Dennell 2003:442)."
Might later hominids have ventured across open habitat more often than
A'pith? Sure. But to suggest that these adapatations indicate a shift
to a lifestyle that often involved long distance walking through hot,
treeless habitat is inconsisten with the predatory realities thereof.
What, then, were the stone weapons for? I think the answer to this
question is fairly obvious when you consider the fact that all the
evidence inidcated that hominids are and always have been highly
communal and territorial. The stone weapons served the purpose of
keeping food-competitor species out of their garden-like communal
territory which was part of their larger strategy to survive the dry
season and its rather dramatic predatory implications (predatory
massacres). Does this mean that they never used their weapons for
hunting? No, that too is too simplistic. In addition to keeping these
food-competitor species out off of their garden-like communal property
they employed them to ambush these same species once they had entered
their communal property. (And they also employed these stone weapons
to fend off or deter lesser predators.)
I think this interpretation of the evidence better matches up with the
overwhelming evidence that present day humans are primarily communal,
non-migratory.
Marc Verhaegen
news:1165098768.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> Marc claims:
>> "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over
>> your savannas. Zero. Nada."
>> To make a claim like this is totally irresponsible,
We are the opposite of savanna inhabitants:
- no fur = no protection against sun,
- thick fat = overheating in sun,
- sweating water+salt,
- high & regular drinking-needs, but low drinking capacity,
- low concentration power of kidneys,
- etc.
Only fools believe that our ancestors ever ran over the savanna. Why on
earth should they?? No food, no water... Humans (even with technology)
still don't inhabit the savannas.
All serious PAs now reject the savanna nonsense, eg:
- Tobias 1995: "We were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! . All the
former savannah supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier
words ."
- Wood 1996: "the 'savannah' hypothesis of human origins, in which the
cooling begat the savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now
discredited"
- Stringer 1997: "One of the strong points about the aquatic theory is in
explaining the origin of bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water,
that would forced them to walk upright ."
- Tobias 1998: ".Bamford identified fossil vines or lianas of Dichapetalum
in the same Member 4: such vines hang from forest trees and would not be
expected in open savannah. The team at Makapansgat found floral and faunal
evidence that the layers containing Australopithecus reflected forest or
forest margin conditions. From Hadar, in Ethiopia, where 'Lucy' was found,
and from Aramis in Ethiopia, where Tim White's team found Ardipithecus
ramidus . well-wooded and even forested conditions were inferred from the
fauna accompanying the hominid fossils. All the fossil evidence adds up to
the small-brained, bipedal hominids of four to 2.5 Ma having lived in a
woodland or forest niche, not savannah. ... if ever our earliest ancestors
were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
urinators there"
- Stringer 2001: "In the past I have agreed that we lack plausible models
for the origins of bipedalism and have agreed that wading in water can
facilitate bipedal locomotion (as observed in other normally quadrupedal
primates). I have never said that this must have been the forcing mechanism
in hominids, but I do consider it plausible. As for coastal colonisation, I
argued in my Nature News & Views last year that this was an event in the
late Pleistocene that may have facilitated the spread of modern humans."
- Wrangham 2005: "Here I follow the conventional assumption that hominins
began in the savanna. . the composition of the Okavango as a network of
islands could favor the evolution of bipedalism. For those who envisage
bipedalism as facilitated by the need to traverse or exploit aquatic
environments, an inland delta that generates low islands termitogenically or
hydrodynamically offers rich scenarios."
- Alemseged 2006: "I believe we should just put the savannah theory aside ."
If somebody has other examples of such rejections of the savanna theory,
please let me know.
--Marc Verhaegen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Only fools believe that our ancestors ever ran over the savanna.
How did the artifacts get on what is proven savanna? Or are you telling
this list that the Serengeti Plains are not savanna?
Jim McGinn
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1165098768.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Marc claims:
> >> "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over
> >> your savannas. Zero. Nada."
>
> >> To make a claim like this is totally irresponsible,
>
> We are the opposite of savanna inhabitants:
Opposite?
> - no fur = no protection against sun,
> - thick fat = overheating in sun,
> - sweating water+salt,
> - high & regular drinking-needs, but low drinking capacity,
> - low concentration power of kidneys,
> - etc.
> Only fools believe that our ancestors ever ran over the savanna. Why on
> earth should they?? No food, no water... Humans (even with technology)
> still don't inhabit the savannas.
Right. They can better be described as inhabiting the treed locations
of a somewhat savanna-like monsoon forest habitat. And so, even though
they did not regularly venture into or across treeless savanna habitat
the treed localities (city-sized, town-sized patches of forest) that
comprised the communal territory that they did inhabit were surrounded
by treeless savanna habitat.
> All serious PAs now reject the savanna nonsense,
Nah, they don't reject "the savanna" per se. It's old news that they
reject treeless savanna habitat. The term savanna means many different
things to many different people. Consequently saying the "savanna" is
rejected is meaningless.
Jim McGinn
The Serengeti plains are treeless presently. They were not treeless
when early hominids occupied the same sites.
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> We are the opposite of savanna inhabitants:
> - no fur = no protection against sun,
> - thick fat = overheating in sun,
> - sweating water+salt,
> - high & regular drinking-needs, but low drinking capacity,
> - low concentration power of kidneys,
> - etc.
> Only fools believe that our ancestors ever ran over the savanna. Why on
> earth should they?? No food, no water... Humans (even with technology)
> still don't inhabit the savannas.
http://tinyurl.com/y772dq
No permanent water on the Kalahri Marc, you better send these people a
care package :-)
Lee Olsen
Key words: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER--- OK? Serengeti bedrock is at two
million years, we can't be talking about anything older than that at
this location so there were no earlier hominids at the "same sites"
before that. We have only Homo (+ boisei until they went extinct).
There has been little change in the eco-system overall from that time
to present. If you don't like that, go argue with the official
Serengeti web site or find a citation of your own to counter.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
I know this evidence intimately. If we examine this evidence
objectively and honestly we can only come to the conclusion that it was
more heavily treed and generally wetter two million years ago than it
is presently.
By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your backtracking.
Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the predatory
realities in treeless habitat. Now you are trying to claim that
hominids did persist on treeless habitat. Which is it?
Of course we all know Lee will never answer this question. Like Marc,
he'll continue to hide behind the vagueness of his non-hypothesis.
C'mon Lee, you pitiful pseudo-scientists. Stop telling us what you
don't think. We all know that you don't think. State something
definitive, specific about your thinking on early hominids.
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> > Marc claims:
> > "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over
> > your savannas. Zero.
> > Nada."
> >
> > To make a claim like this is totally irresponsible,
>
> Well, it depends how you interpret it. The supposition that early man,
> including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
> treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
Nope, "treeless" is not what Marc claimed (he said "your savannas"),
but apparently he is the last one left on the planet that thinks they
are treeless and waterless, in fact I think he thinks a savanna is a
desert year round.
> completely defenseless against the predators thereof. IOW, it makes
> about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
> neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
> guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming
> alongside crocodiles.
>
> This leaves us with a bit of a dilemma when it comes to interpreting
> the evidence. 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?
> (My answe to this question is below.)
But we know for a fact that early Homo completely solved the big cat
problem. Pound for pound all cats are cowards. Whether it was in large
groups, sticks, rocks, fire, spears or just bluffing, Homo dropped off
the dinner menu at archaeological sites (that is to say they no longer
make up a larger percent of the fossil victims than do the big cats
themselves).
>
> > if not downright
> > dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
> > right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
> > which is about as savanna as you can get.
>
> I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
> wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
> localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than these
> same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.
Keywords: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER, OK? No timeline was specified in Marc's
statement.
>
> > The thousands of artifacts
> > that have been found there speak for themselves.
>
> Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
> the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.
One does not have to know the cause of a train wreck to know that there
was one. I never claimed the artifacts were concentrated in treeless
plains, but they are found there just the same, proving they utilized
such areas at times. It proves they were not afraid to be there.
>
> > "The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
> > grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
> > East Africa.
>
> They didn't occupy grasslands and open scrub. They occupied the treed
> localities in the vicinity of grassland and open scrub. These were the
> locations that had the resources--fruit trees, nuts, vegetables--that
> were most essential to them surviving the dry season.
You do realize he is talking about early Homo, not apiths?
>
> > Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
> > associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
> > grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
> > limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
> > open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
> > posture (Dennell 2003:442)."
>
> Might later hominids have ventured across open habitat more often than
> A'pith? Sure. But to suggest that these adapatations indicate a shift
Keywords: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER. If you want to talk about apiths
exclusively, then start another thread, Mark did not say apiths only.
> to a lifestyle that often involved long distance walking through hot,
> treeless habitat is inconsisten with the predatory realities thereof.
Apiths probably not, but that changed as soon as early Homo showed up.
> What, then, were the stone weapons for? I think the answer to this
> question is fairly obvious when you consider the fact that all the
> evidence inidcated that hominids are and always have been highly
> communal and territorial. The stone weapons served the purpose of
> keeping food-competitor species out of their garden-like communal
> territory which was part of their larger strategy to survive the dry
> season and its rather dramatic predatory implications (predatory
> massacres). Does this mean that they never used their weapons for
> hunting? No, that too is too simplistic. In addition to keeping these
> food-competitor species out off of their garden-like communal property
> they employed them to ambush these same species once they had entered
> their communal property. (And they also employed these stone weapons
> to fend off or deter lesser predators.)
>
> I think this interpretation of the evidence better matches up with the
> overwhelming evidence that present day humans are primarily communal,
> non-migratory.
So are chimps in the sense that they don't gobble up 50,000 sq. km as
do some hunter gatherers. One of the things that puts a damper on
human migratory habits today is the 6.5 billion of us that are in each
others way. Kind of hard to migrate if your neighbor has the A-bomb.
If you want to mix all into "hominids" then you have a problem. There
is an enormous switch in who were the victims and who were not after
two million years ago. It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and
Homo quite another.
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Only fools believe that our ancestors ever ran over the savanna.
> > > >
> > > > How did the artifacts get on what is proven savanna? Or are you telling
> > > > this list that the Serengeti Plains are not savanna?
> > >
> > > The Serengeti plains are treeless presently. They were not treeless
> > > when early hominids occupied the same sites.
> >
> > Key words: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER--- OK? Serengeti bedrock is at two
> > million years, we can't be talking about anything older than that at
> > this location so there were no earlier hominids at the "same sites"
> > before that. We have only Homo (+ boisei until they went extinct).
> > There has been little change in the eco-system overall from that time
> > to present. If you don't like that, go argue with the official
> > Serengeti web site or find a citation of your own to counter.
>
> I know this evidence intimately. If we examine this evidence
> objectively and honestly we can only come to the conclusion that it was
> more heavily treed and generally wetter two million years ago than it
> is presently.
Is that why you replied with lip service instead of a citation, because
you know the evidence so intimately? One more time, Marc said EVER,
ZERO, NADA there was no timeline specified. I put in the time line from
two million down to the present, not Marc. OUR ANCESTORS occupied
treeless plains, end of story. Of course there were some fluctuations
in climate, but not to the degree that the animals changed appreciably
through time.
>
> By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your backtracking.
> Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the predatory
> realities in treeless habitat. Now you are trying to claim that
> hominids did persist on treeless habitat. Which is it?
Hmmm, weren't you the guy just the other day that was just complaining
about being misquoted (reading you between the lines or something like
that?)? I really think you ought go back and do some work with
attribution marks so I know just what you are referring to.
>
> Of course we all know Lee will never answer this question. Like Marc,
> he'll continue to hide behind the vagueness of his non-hypothesis.
What question?
>
> C'mon Lee, you pitiful pseudo-scientists. Stop telling us what you
> don't think. We all know that you don't think. State something
> definitive, specific about your thinking on early hominids.
Says the loon who thinks lions and tigers descended from saber-tooth
cats.
By the way, not thinking is preferable to thinking stupid as you do.
Jim McGinn
Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> >
> > > Marc claims:
> > > "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over
> > > your savannas. Zero.
> > > Nada."
> > >
> > > To make a claim like this is totally irresponsible,
> >
> > Well, it depends how you interpret it. The supposition that early man,
> > including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
> > treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
>
> Nope, "treeless" is not what Marc claimed (he said "your savannas"),
> but apparently he is the last one left on the planet that thinks they
> are treeless and waterless, in fact I think he thinks a savanna is a
> desert year round.
Yes, Marc's strawman tactics are well documented.
>
> > completely defenseless against the predators thereof. IOW, it makes
> > about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
> > neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
> > guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming
> > alongside crocodiles.
> >
> > This leaves us with a bit of a dilemma when it comes to interpreting
> > the evidence. 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?
> > (My answe to this question is below.)
>
> But we know for a fact that early Homo completely solved the big cat
> problem. Pound for pound all cats are cowards. Whether it was in large
> groups, sticks, rocks, fire, spears or just bluffing, Homo dropped off
> the dinner menu at archaeological sites (that is to say they no longer
> make up a larger percent of the fossil victims than do the big cats
> themselves).
Well, I would agree that it seems reasonable to assume that
homo--starting about 2.5 mya--had advanced to the point to where big
cats were no longer the means by which most hominids died (unlike how
it had been for A'pith who typically met their demise in the clutches
of some kind of large predator, if not specifically a cat). All the
more reason to assume that they were not out in treeless habitat where
they would have had zero chance against lions and bear-sized hyena.
Homo rarely if ever left treed habitat.
> > > if not downright
> > > dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
> > > right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
> > > which is about as savanna as you can get.
> >
> > I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
> > wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
> > localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than these
> > same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.
>
> Keywords: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER, OK? No timeline was specified in Marc's
> statement.
So, you're arguing that Marc's vagueness excuses yours?
>
> >
> > > The thousands of artifacts
> > > that have been found there speak for themselves.
> >
> > Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
> > the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.
>
> One does not have to know the cause of a train wreck to know that there
> was one.
But one must know more than that there was a train wreck to determine
its cause.
> I never claimed the artifacts were concentrated in treeless
> plains, but they are found there just the same, proving they utilized
> such areas at times. It proves they were not afraid to be there.
Now you're becoming Marc. You are pretending the evidence tell you
something that it does not. There is no evidence of homo fossils in
treeless habitat. The fact that homo fossils can be found in places
that are currently treeless does not mean that the same location was
treeless millions of years ago.
>
>
> >
> > > "The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
> > > grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
> > > East Africa.
> >
> > They didn't occupy grasslands and open scrub. They occupied the treed
> > localities in the vicinity of grassland and open scrub. These were the
> > locations that had the resources--fruit trees, nuts, vegetables--that
> > were most essential to them surviving the dry season.
>
> You do realize he is talking about early Homo, not apiths?
Absolutely I realize that. There is no good reason for homo to
regularly travel through treeless habitat. They were completely
incapably of hunting any of the animals that resided there and they had
no defense against lions, dogs, and hyena. They would have avoided
such habitat in the same way that they would have avoided swimming next
to crocodiles.
>
> >
> > > Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
> > > associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
> > > grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
> > > limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
> > > open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
> > > posture (Dennell 2003:442)."
> >
> > Might later hominids have ventured across open habitat more often than
> > A'pith? Sure. But to suggest that these adapatations indicate a shift
>
> Keywords: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER. If you want to talk about apiths
> exclusively, then start another thread, Mark did not say apiths only.
>
>
> > to a lifestyle that often involved long distance walking through hot,
> > treeless habitat is inconsisten with the predatory realities thereof.
>
>
> Apiths probably not, but that changed as soon as early Homo showed up.
There is no good reason for homo to regularly travel through treeless
habitat. They were completely incapably of hunting any of the animals
that resided there and they had no defense against lions, dogs, and
hyena. They would have avoided such habitat in the same way that they
would have avoided swimming next to crocodiles.
> > What, then, were the stone weapons for? I think the answer to this
> > question is fairly obvious when you consider the fact that all the
> > evidence inidcated that hominids are and always have been highly
> > communal and territorial. The stone weapons served the purpose of
> > keeping food-competitor species out of their garden-like communal
> > territory which was part of their larger strategy to survive the dry
> > season and its rather dramatic predatory implications (predatory
> > massacres). Does this mean that they never used their weapons for
> > hunting? No, that too is too simplistic. In addition to keeping these
> > food-competitor species out off of their garden-like communal property
> > they employed them to ambush these same species once they had entered
> > their communal property. (And they also employed these stone weapons
> > to fend off or deter lesser predators.)
> >
> > I think this interpretation of the evidence better matches up with the
> > overwhelming evidence that present day humans are primarily communal,
> > non-migratory.
>
> So are chimps in the sense that they don't gobble up 50,000 sq. km as
> do some hunter gatherers.
?
One of the things that puts a damper on
> human migratory habits today is the 6.5 billion of us that are in each
> others way. Kind of hard to migrate if your neighbor has the A-bomb.
> If you want to mix all into "hominids" then you have a problem. There
> is an enormous switch in who were the victims and who were not after
> two million years ago.
?
> It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and
> Homo quite another.
I agree.
Jim McGinn
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > I know this evidence intimately. If we examine this evidence
> > objectively and honestly we can only come to the conclusion that it was
> > more heavily treed and generally wetter two million years ago than it
> > is presently.
>
> Is that why you replied with lip service instead of a citation, because
> you know the evidence so intimately? One more time, Marc said EVER,
> ZERO, NADA there was no timeline specified.
Nobody cares what Marc says.
> I put in the time line from
> two million down to the present, not Marc. OUR ANCESTORS occupied
> treeless plains,
Homo did not occupy treeless plains.
> end of story. Of course there were some fluctuations
> in climate, but not to the degree that the animals changed appreciably
> through time.
>
> >
> > By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your backtracking.
> > Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the predatory
> > realities in treeless habitat. Now you are trying to claim that
> > hominids did persist on treeless habitat. Which is it?
>
> Hmmm, weren't you the guy just the other day that was just complaining
> about being misquoted (reading you between the lines or something like
> that?)? I really think you ought go back and do some work with
> attribution marks so I know just what you are referring to.
Real scientists aren't afraid to tell us what they think.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marc claims:
> > > > "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over
> > > > your savannas. Zero.
> > > > Nada."
> > > >
> > > > To make a claim like this is totally irresponsible,
> > >
> > > Well, it depends how you interpret it. The supposition that early man,
> > > including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
> > > treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
> >
> > Nope, "treeless" is not what Marc claimed (he said "your savannas"),
> > but apparently he is the last one left on the planet that thinks they
> > are treeless and waterless, in fact I think he thinks a savanna is a
> > desert year round.
>
> Yes, Marc's strawman tactics are well documented.
Yes, so are yours.
>
> >
> > > completely defenseless against the predators thereof. IOW, it makes
> > > about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
> > > neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
> > > guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming
> > > alongside crocodiles.
> > >
> > > This leaves us with a bit of a dilemma when it comes to interpreting
> > > the evidence. 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?
> > > (My answe to this question is below.)
> >
> > But we know for a fact that early Homo completely solved the big cat
> > problem. Pound for pound all cats are cowards. Whether it was in large
> > groups, sticks, rocks, fire, spears or just bluffing, Homo dropped off
> > the dinner menu at archaeological sites (that is to say they no longer
> > make up a larger percent of the fossil victims than do the big cats
> > themselves).
>
> Well, I would agree that it seems reasonable to assume that
> homo--starting about 2.5 mya--had advanced to the point to where big
> cats were no longer the means by which most hominids died (unlike how
One does not have to assume anything on this matter, the archaeological
record is quite clear.
> it had been for A'pith who typically met their demise in the clutches
> of some kind of large predator, if not specifically a cat). All the
> more reason to assume that they were not out in treeless habitat where
> they would have had zero chance against lions and bear-sized hyena.
> Homo rarely if ever left treed habitat.
So, now you are denying the Serengeti Plain is a treeless habitat? Or
do you think ostriches placed the artifacts out there?
>
> > > > if not downright
> > > > dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
> > > > right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
> > > > which is about as savanna as you can get.
> > >
> > > I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
> > > wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
> > > localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than these
> > > same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.
> >
> > Keywords: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER, OK? No timeline was specified in Marc's
> > statement.
>
> So, you're arguing that Marc's vagueness excuses yours?
What part of artifacts found on the treeless Serengeti Plain are you to
stupid to understand?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > The thousands of artifacts
> > > > that have been found there speak for themselves.
> > >
> > > Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
> > > the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.
> >
> > One does not have to know the cause of a train wreck to know that there
> > was one.
>
> But one must know more than that there was a train wreck to determine
> its cause.
Who, besides you, needs a reason for "cause" to prove that artifacts
were left by Homo out on the treeless Serengeti Plain? The issue was if
they were EVER there, an issue you seen to ignorant to grasp. Or maybe
you just want to talk about other issues, so start another thread.
>
> > I never claimed the artifacts were concentrated in treeless
> > plains, but they are found there just the same, proving they utilized
> > such areas at times. It proves they were not afraid to be there.
>
> Now you're becoming Marc. You are pretending the evidence tell you
> something that it does not. There is no evidence of homo fossils in
> treeless habitat. The fact that homo fossils can be found in places
> that are currently treeless does not mean that the same location was
> treeless millions of years ago.
Now you're becoming Paul. Olduvai cuts through the treeless Serengeti
Plain. The odds are in my favor, not yours.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > "The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
> > > > grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
> > > > East Africa.
> > >
> > > They didn't occupy grasslands and open scrub. They occupied the treed
> > > localities in the vicinity of grassland and open scrub. These were the
> > > locations that had the resources--fruit trees, nuts, vegetables--that
> > > were most essential to them surviving the dry season.
> >
> > You do realize he is talking about early Homo, not apiths?
>
> Absolutely I realize that. There is no good reason for homo to
> regularly travel through treeless habitat. They were completely
> incapably of hunting any of the animals that resided there and they had
> no defense against lions, dogs, and hyena. They would have avoided
> such habitat in the same way that they would have avoided swimming next
> to crocodiles.
Nope, just the opposite. You are far safer out in the open than you
are in the bush. Homo has little problem kicking any of the African
predators off of their kills, they don't have to hunt. They do it today
and there is nothing in the archaeological record that says they
weren't doing it two million years ago. Like crocs that hide
underwater, the thing a big-game hunter fears most is having to go into
the bush after a wounded animal. The more trees the worse off you are,
thick bush is just like the murky water that crocs hide in.
I'll get back to these. I need to find one of your old posts.
>
> One of the things that puts a damper on
> > human migratory habits today is the 6.5 billion of us that are in each
> > others way. Kind of hard to migrate if your neighbor has the A-bomb.
> > If you want to mix all into "hominids" then you have a problem. There
> > is an enormous switch in who were the victims and who were not after
> > two million years ago.
>
> ?
>
> > It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and
> > Homo quite another.
>
> I agree.
So does CK Brain.
Lee Olsen
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>
>
> > > I know this evidence intimately. If we examine this evidence
> > > objectively and honestly we can only come to the conclusion that it was
> > > more heavily treed and generally wetter two million years ago than it
> > > is presently.
> >
> > Is that why you replied with lip service instead of a citation, because
> > you know the evidence so intimately? One more time, Marc said EVER,
> > ZERO, NADA there was no timeline specified.
>
> Nobody cares what Marc says.
I care what Marc, Paul, and you say. It is a never ending source of
entertainment.
>
> > I put in the time line from
> > two million down to the present, not Marc. OUR ANCESTORS occupied
> > treeless plains,
>
> Homo did not occupy treeless plains.
Then by that logic you must really believe, deep down inside, that the
Serengeti Plain is heavily treed.
>
> > end of story. Of course there were some fluctuations
> > in climate, but not to the degree that the animals changed appreciably
> > through time.
> >
> > >
> > > By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your backtracking.
> > > Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the predatory
> > > realities in treeless habitat. Now you are trying to claim that
> > > hominids did persist on treeless habitat. Which is it?
> >
> > Hmmm, weren't you the guy just the other day that was just complaining
> > about being misquoted (reading you between the lines or something like
> > that?)? I really think you ought go back and do some work with
> > attribution marks so I know just what you are referring to.
>
> Real scientists aren't afraid to tell us what they think.
If you are referring to me, sorry to disappoint you. I've never
claimed I was a real scientist.
Jim McGinn
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > Nope, "treeless" is not what Marc claimed (he said "your savannas"),
> > > but apparently he is the last one left on the planet that thinks they
> > > are treeless and waterless, in fact I think he thinks a savanna is a
> > > desert year round.
> >
> > Yes, Marc's strawman tactics are well documented.
>
> Yes, so are yours.
Give it up, phoney. I have no reason to strawman you. You know that
if you tell me what your really think that you will lose the argument.
So you are being careful to not admit what you really think. You
aren't a scientists you are a politician.
> > > > completely defenseless against the predators thereof. IOW, it makes
> > > > about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
> > > > neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
> > > > guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming
> > > > alongside crocodiles.
> > > >
> > > > This leaves us with a bit of a dilemma when it comes to interpreting
> > > > the evidence. 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?
> > > > (My answe to this question is below.)
> > >
> > > But we know for a fact that early Homo completely solved the big cat
> > > problem. Pound for pound all cats are cowards. Whether it was in large
> > > groups, sticks, rocks, fire, spears or just bluffing, Homo dropped off
> > > the dinner menu at archaeological sites (that is to say they no longer
> > > make up a larger percent of the fossil victims than do the big cats
> > > themselves).
> >
> > Well, I would agree that it seems reasonable to assume that
> > homo--starting about 2.5 mya--had advanced to the point to where big
> > cats were no longer the means by which most hominids died (unlike how
>
> One does not have to assume anything on this matter, the archaeological
> record is quite clear.
I agree. And there is nothing there that indicates your ridiculous
supposition that homo regularly travelled on, over, or through treeless
savanna habitat.
> > it had been for A'pith who typically met their demise in the clutches
> > of some kind of large predator, if not specifically a cat). All the
> > more reason to assume that they were not out in treeless habitat where
> > they would have had zero chance against lions and bear-sized hyena.
> > Homo rarely if ever left treed habitat.
>
> So, now you are denying the Serengeti Plain is a treeless habitat? Or
> do you think ostriches placed the artifacts out there?
You've become Marc. You have no dispute with what I'm saying (thus you
have, inadvertently, confirmed the validity of my thinking) and so you
are misrepresenting it so that you can pretend to have made a point.
Who do you think is dumb enough to fall for these tactics?
> > > > > if not downright
> > > > > dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
> > > > > right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
> > > > > which is about as savanna as you can get.
> > > >
> > > > I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
> > > > wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
> > > > localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than these
> > > > same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.
> > >
> > > Keywords: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER, OK? No timeline was specified in Marc's
> > > statement.
> >
> > So, you're arguing that Marc's vagueness excuses yours?
>
> What part of artifacts found on the treeless Serengeti Plain are you to
> stupid to understand?
The part where dimwits like yourself assume that present climate
indicates past climate.
> > > > > The thousands of artifacts
> > > > > that have been found there speak for themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
> > > > the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.
> > >
> > > One does not have to know the cause of a train wreck to know that there
> > > was one.
> >
> > But one must know more than that there was a train wreck to determine
> > its cause.
>
> Who, besides you, needs a reason for "cause" to prove that artifacts
> were left by Homo out on the treeless Serengeti Plain?
So, you admit that you are not concerned with their lifestyle and paleo
reconstruction of habitat? Your saying that we should just ignore the
plethora of fossil evidence that indisputably indicates that all homo
fossils are found in the vicinity of other fossil evidence that
indicate treed/mosaic habitat.
Real scientists realize that they don't get to pick and choose what
evidence they consider and what evidence they don't consider. Real
scientists consider all the evidence.
> The issue was if
> they were EVER there, an issue you seen to ignorant to grasp.
Really? I don't know what you're talking about. Why not quote me
directly you strawman baiting evasive twit?
> Or maybe
> you just want to talk about other issues, so start another thread.
You want to avoid talking about the real issues.
> > > I never claimed the artifacts were concentrated in treeless
> > > plains, but they are found there just the same, proving they utilized
> > > such areas at times. It proves they were not afraid to be there.
> >
> > Now you're becoming Marc. You are pretending the evidence tell you
> > something that it does not. There is no evidence of homo fossils in
> > treeless habitat. The fact that homo fossils can be found in places
> > that are currently treeless does not mean that the same location was
> > treeless millions of years ago.
>
> Now you're becoming Paul. Olduvai cuts through the treeless Serengeti
> Plain. The odds are in my favor, not yours.
IMO, it's not a matter of odds, it's a matter of applying the evidence
in the most reasonable and intelligent manner possible. The evidence
does not speak for itself.
> > > > > "The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
> > > > > grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
> > > > > East Africa.
> > > >
> > > > They didn't occupy grasslands and open scrub. They occupied the treed
> > > > localities in the vicinity of grassland and open scrub. These were the
> > > > locations that had the resources--fruit trees, nuts, vegetables--that
> > > > were most essential to them surviving the dry season.
> > >
> > > You do realize he is talking about early Homo, not apiths?
> >
> > Absolutely I realize that. There is no good reason for homo to
> > regularly travel through treeless habitat. They were completely
> > incapably of hunting any of the animals that resided there and they had
> > no defense against lions, dogs, and hyena. They would have avoided
> > such habitat in the same way that they would have avoided swimming next
> > to crocodiles.
>
> Nope, just the opposite. You are far safer out in the open than you
> are in the bush. Homo has little problem kicking any of the African
> predators off of their kills, they don't have to hunt. They do it today
> and there is nothing in the archaeological record that says they
> weren't doing it two million years ago. Like crocs that hide
> underwater, the thing a big-game hunter fears most is having to go into
> the bush after a wounded animal. The more trees the worse off you are,
> thick bush is just like the murky water that crocs hide in.
This is cartoonish. Have you ever been hunting? Under the best of
conditions one is lucky if they can get within a hundred yards of their
prey. Imagine trying to take down a buffaloe from a hundred yards with
a stone tipped spear. Even more ridiculous is the supposition that
they could compete with lion, bear-sized hyena, and dogs/wolves and
other dedicated scavengers. And then you bring, "the bush," into the
discussion. Is there no limit to your strawman tactics?
?
>
> >
> > One of the things that puts a damper on
> > > human migratory habits today is the 6.5 billion of us that are in each
> > > others way. Kind of hard to migrate if your neighbor has the A-bomb.
> > > If you want to mix all into "hominids" then you have a problem. There
> > > is an enormous switch in who were the victims and who were not after
> > > two million years ago.
> >
> > ?
> >
> > > It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and
> > > Homo quite another.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> So does CK Brain.
Who?
Jim McGinn
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > Is that why you replied with lip service instead of a citation, because
> > > you know the evidence so intimately? One more time, Marc said EVER,
> > > ZERO, NADA there was no timeline specified.
> >
> > Nobody cares what Marc says.
>
> I care what Marc, Paul, and you say. It is a never ending source of
> entertainment.
You're so desperate to dispute and/or dismiss my thinking that you put
forth the false supposition that my thinking parralels that of Marc and
Paul. You are a desperate phoney.
> > > I put in the time line from
> > > two million down to the present, not Marc. OUR ANCESTORS occupied
> > > treeless plains,
> >
> > Homo did not occupy treeless plains.
>
> Then by that logic you must really believe, deep down inside, that the
> Serengeti Plain is heavily treed.
Yeah, right, idiot. Who do you think is stupid enough to believe that?
> > > end of story. Of course there were some fluctuations
> > > in climate, but not to the degree that the animals changed appreciably
> > > through time.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your backtracking.
> > > > Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the predatory
> > > > realities in treeless habitat. Now you are trying to claim that
> > > > hominids did persist on treeless habitat. Which is it?
> > >
> > > Hmmm, weren't you the guy just the other day that was just complaining
> > > about being misquoted (reading you between the lines or something like
> > > that?)? I really think you ought go back and do some work with
> > > attribution marks so I know just what you are referring to.
> >
> > Real scientists aren't afraid to tell us what they think.
>
> If you are referring to me, sorry to disappoint you. I've never
> claimed I was a real scientist.
Thank you for your honesty.
> > > > Of course we all know Lee will never answer this question. Like Marc,
> > > > he'll continue to hide behind the vagueness of his non-hypothesis.
> > >
> > > What question?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > C'mon Lee, you pitiful pseudo-scientists. Stop telling us what you
> > > > don't think. We all know that you don't think. State something
> > > > definitive, specific about your thinking on early hominids.
> > >
> > > Says the loon who thinks lions and tigers descended from saber-tooth
> > > cats.
> > > By the way, not thinking is preferable to thinking stupid as you do.
Thank you for your honesty.
Rick Wagler
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165167717.8...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>
>> > > Is that why you replied with lip service instead of a citation,
>> > > because
>> > > you know the evidence so intimately? One more time, Marc said EVER,
>> > > ZERO, NADA there was no timeline specified.
>> >
>> > Nobody cares what Marc says.
>>
>> I care what Marc, Paul, and you say. It is a never ending source of
>> entertainment.
>
> You're so desperate to dispute and/or dismiss my thinking that you put
> forth the false supposition that my thinking parralels that of Marc and
> Paul. You are a desperate phoney.
>
of each of your woolly fantasies is not in dispute.
Rick Wagler
Jim McGinn
Rick Wagler wrote:
> > You're so desperate to dispute and/or dismiss my thinking that you put
> > forth the false supposition that my thinking parralels that of Marc and
> > Paul. You are a desperate phoney.
> >
> The similarity is methods employed.
Be specific you evasive twit.
spiznet
The similarities of your obsessive, unlogical, anti-paridymal, rants.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
You retards can't even comprehend the meaning of the word specific.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> > > > Nope, "treeless" is not what Marc claimed (he said "your savannas"),
> > > > but apparently he is the last one left on the planet that thinks they
> > > > are treeless and waterless, in fact I think he thinks a savanna is a
> > > > desert year round.
> > >
> > > Yes, Marc's strawman tactics are well documented.
> >
> > Yes, so are yours.
>
> Give it up, phoney. I have no reason to strawman you. You know that
Are you dyslexic or something? I didn't say you had a reason to
strawman me.
> if you tell me what your really think that you will lose the argument.
That would be hard to do since you haven't made an argument yet. I've
seen a lot of unsupported, undocumented lip-service in your posts so
far, but certainly nothing that would resemble an argument.
> So you are being careful to not admit what you really think. You
> aren't a scientists you are a politician.
You are too ignorant of the literature to be making demands on others.
Yep, dyslexic for sure.
Date: 2 Dec 2006 19:41:09
Message-ID: <1165117269.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
LO "I never claimed the artifacts were concentrated in treeless
plains, but they are found there just the same, proving they utilized
such areas at times. It proves they were not afraid to be there."
Re from Jim: "And there is nothing there that indicates your ridiculous
supposition that homo regularly travelled on, ..."
"Regularly traveled" huh? Recognize this? "Quote me directly you
stooge."
Mind if I ask you a personal question? Are you incarcerated someplace,
maybe an institution that has a minimum secruity ward that allows
computer use, but not access to a library? Well, if you are not
incarcerated now, there is a good chance you will be sometime in the
future. Lying assholes are typical of the ilk that end up in those
places sooner or later.
>
> > > it had been for A'pith who typically met their demise in the clutches
> > > of some kind of large predator, if not specifically a cat). All the
> > > more reason to assume that they were not out in treeless habitat where
> > > they would have had zero chance against lions and bear-sized hyena.
> > > Homo rarely if ever left treed habitat.
> >
> > So, now you are denying the Serengeti Plain is a treeless habitat? Or
> > do you think ostriches placed the artifacts out there?
>
> You've become Marc. You have no dispute with what I'm saying (thus you
> have, inadvertently, confirmed the validity of my thinking) and so you
> are misrepresenting it so that you can pretend to have made a point.
> Who do you think is dumb enough to fall for these tactics?
You are as delusional as Crowley. On the ground evidence found in a
treeless habitat has no impact on your delusional brain.
No one is really ignorant enough, except you, to believe the Olduvai
Gorge cutting through the treeless Serengeti Plain, exposing thousands
of artifacts, through two million years of time could all be from
treed areas.
>
> > > > > > if not downright
> > > > > > dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
> > > > > > right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
> > > > > > which is about as savanna as you can get.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
> > > > > wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
> > > > > localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than these
> > > > > same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.
> > > >
> > > > Keywords: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER, OK? No timeline was specified in Marc's
> > > > statement.
> > >
> > > So, you're arguing that Marc's vagueness excuses yours?
> >
> > What part of artifacts found on the treeless Serengeti Plain are you to
> > stupid to understand?
>
> The part where dimwits like yourself assume that present climate
> indicates past climate.
What part of dimwits like your think it was always treed?
>
> > > > > > The thousands of artifacts
> > > > > > that have been found there speak for themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
> > > > > the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.
> > > >
> > > > One does not have to know the cause of a train wreck to know that there
> > > > was one.
> > >
> > > But one must know more than that there was a train wreck to determine
> > > its cause.
> >
> > Who, besides you, needs a reason for "cause" to prove that artifacts
> > were left by Homo out on the treeless Serengeti Plain?
>
> So, you admit that you are not concerned with their lifestyle and paleo
> reconstruction of habitat? Your saying that we should just ignore the
> plethora of fossil evidence that indisputably indicates that all homo
> fossils are found in the vicinity of other fossil evidence that
> indicate treed/mosaic habitat.
So you admit you can't read simple English.
Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
posture (Dennell 2003:442)."
The reason is plain to everyone. You can't cite counter evidence
because there isn't any. You can't understand the simplest
of evidence. You, like Crowley simply make it up as you go. Not
surprising coming from a person who believes lions and tigers descended
from saber-toothed cats.
>
> Real scientists realize that they don't get to pick and choose what
> evidence they consider and what evidence they don't consider. Real
> scientists consider all the evidence.
Real scientists cite the sources of their claims.
>
> > The issue was if
> > they were EVER there, an issue you seen to ignorant to grasp.
>
> Really? I don't know what you're talking about. Why not quote me
> directly you strawman baiting evasive twit?
Because I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting Marc. Are you saying you
can't remember from one day to the next what was said on these posts?
Cartoonish to those who can't read. Mr. Memory Loss, I said just the
opposite. Maybe it will help you to read the paragraphs twice, the
second time for comprehension. You are safer in the open than in the
trees you claim that they never left.
> conditions one is lucky if they can get within a hundred yards of their
> prey. Imagine trying to take down a buffaloe from a hundred yards with
> a stone tipped spear. Even more ridiculous is the supposition that
Who said anything about spearing buffalo? You delusional sot.
> they could compete with lion, bear-sized hyena, and dogs/wolves and
> other dedicated scavengers. And then you bring, "the bush," into the
> discussion. Is there no limit to your strawman tactics?
Your total and complete ignorance of the literaure is not my problem.
Didn't you know bush is where you find trees where you claim Homo was
hiding?
> > >
> > > > It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and
> > > > Homo quite another.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> >
> > So does CK Brain.
>
> Who?
CK Brain. Google 101--enter
Lee Olsen
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> > > > Is that why you replied with lip service instead of a citation, because
> > > > you know the evidence so intimately? One more time, Marc said EVER,
> > > > ZERO, NADA there was no timeline specified.
> > >
> > > Nobody cares what Marc says.
> >
> > I care what Marc, Paul, and you say. It is a never ending source of
> > entertainment.
>
> You're so desperate to dispute and/or dismiss my thinking that you put
> forth the false supposition that my thinking parralels that of Marc and
> Paul. You are a desperate phoney.
Subject: Re: lions & savannah Date: 27 Nov 2006 16:45:28
Message-ID: <1164674728.2...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Are you sure about that? References?"
You demand of others what you refuse to comply with yourself. What you
really want is others to slither down to your (and Paul's) level of
imagination and science fiction. When people question your statements,
no citations necessary. If that is not accepted, then a barrage of lip
service follow by vebal abuse is the agenda. You delusionally believe
you are exempt from the scientific process. I'm Jim, King Shit, and
that is that. What you really are is a spoiled, selfish, childish brat.
>
> > > > I put in the time line from
> > > > two million down to the present, not Marc. OUR ANCESTORS occupied
> > > > treeless plains,
> > >
> > > Homo did not occupy treeless plains.
> >
> > Then by that logic you must really believe, deep down inside, that the
> > Serengeti Plain is heavily treed.
>
> Yeah, right, idiot. Who do you think is stupid enough to believe that?
Actually, artifacts are found in areas far more arid than a savanna.
What does that tell you?
Glad you recognize your stupidity.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> >
> > > > > Is that why you replied with lip service instead of a citation, because
> > > > > you know the evidence so intimately? One more time, Marc said EVER,
> > > > > ZERO, NADA there was no timeline specified.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody cares what Marc says.
> > >
> > > I care what Marc, Paul, and you say. It is a never ending source of
> > > entertainment.
> >
> > You're so desperate to dispute and/or dismiss my thinking that you put
> > forth the false supposition that my thinking parralels that of Marc and
> > Paul. You are a desperate phoney.
>
> Subject: Re: lions & savannah Date: 27 Nov 2006 16:45:28
> Message-ID: <1164674728.2...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> Jim McGinn: "Are you sure about that? References?"
>
> You demand of others what you refuse to comply with yourself. What you
> really want is others to slither down to your (and Paul's) level of
> imagination and science fiction.
It's unfortunate you were unable to recall any particular instances of
my "level of imagination and science fiction," whatever this means.
It's just strange how many people are so sure I must be wrong and are
all so equally unable to say why or how.
> When people question your statements,
> no citations necessary. If that is not accepted, then a barrage of lip
> service follow by vebal abuse is the agenda. You delusionally believe
> you are exempt from the scientific process. I'm Jim, King Shit, and
> that is that. What you really are is a spoiled, selfish, childish brat.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
>
>
>
> >
> > > > > I put in the time line from
> > > > > two million down to the present, not Marc. OUR ANCESTORS occupied
> > > > > treeless plains,
> > > >
> > > > Homo did not occupy treeless plains.
> > >
> > > Then by that logic you must really believe, deep down inside, that the
> > > Serengeti Plain is heavily treed.
> >
> > Yeah, right, idiot. Who do you think is stupid enough to believe that?
>
> Actually, artifacts are found in areas far more arid than a savanna.
> What does that tell you?
This is my point.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> >
> > > > > Nope, "treeless" is not what Marc claimed (he said "your savannas"),
> > > > > but apparently he is the last one left on the planet that thinks they
> > > > > are treeless and waterless, in fact I think he thinks a savanna is a
> > > > > desert year round.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Marc's strawman tactics are well documented.
> > >
> > > Yes, so are yours.
> >
> > Give it up, phoney. I have no reason to strawman you. You know that
>
> Are you dyslexic or something? I didn't say you had a reason to
> strawman me.
>
>
> > if you tell me what your really think that you will lose the argument.
>
> That would be hard to do since you haven't made an argument yet. I've
> seen a lot of unsupported, undocumented lip-service in your posts so
> far, but certainly nothing that would resemble an argument.
Typical pseudo-scientists. You're going to just continue believing
that they hunted and scavenged out on the treeless savanna. You won't
admit it now. f
Maybe you could find a hobby that doesn't involve, you know,
intellectual things.
>
>
> >
> > > > it had been for A'pith who typically met their demise in the clutches
> > > > of some kind of large predator, if not specifically a cat). All the
> > > > more reason to assume that they were not out in treeless habitat where
> > > > they would have had zero chance against lions and bear-sized hyena.
> > > > Homo rarely if ever left treed habitat.
> > >
> > > So, now you are denying the Serengeti Plain is a treeless habitat? Or
> > > do you think ostriches placed the artifacts out there?
> >
> > You've become Marc. You have no dispute with what I'm saying (thus you
> > have, inadvertently, confirmed the validity of my thinking) and so you
> > are misrepresenting it so that you can pretend to have made a point.
> > Who do you think is dumb enough to fall for these tactics?
>
> You are as delusional as Crowley. On the ground evidence found in a
> treeless habitat has no impact on your delusional brain.
Uh . . "On the ground evidence . . ?"
Other than the one on the top of your head, do you have a point?
>
> No one is really ignorant enough, except you, to believe the Olduvai
> Gorge cutting through the treeless Serengeti Plain, exposing thousands
> of artifacts, through two million years of time could all be from
> treed areas.
Evidence doesn't lie. Why not just let the paleo reconstructions speak
for themselves.
>
> >
> > > > > > > if not downright
> > > > > > > dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
> > > > > > > right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
> > > > > > > which is about as savanna as you can get.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
> > > > > > wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
> > > > > > localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than these
> > > > > > same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Keywords: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER, OK? No timeline was specified in Marc's
> > > > > statement.
> > > >
> > > > So, you're arguing that Marc's vagueness excuses yours?
> > >
> > > What part of artifacts found on the treeless Serengeti Plain are you to
> > > stupid to understand?
> >
> > The part where dimwits like yourself assume that present climate
> > indicates past climate.
>
> What part of dimwits like your think it was always treed?
Maybe you actually ought to read the paper.
> >
> > > > > > > The thousands of artifacts
> > > > > > > that have been found there speak for themselves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
> > > > > > the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.
> > > > >
> > > > > One does not have to know the cause of a train wreck to know that there
> > > > > was one.
> > > >
> > > > But one must know more than that there was a train wreck to determine
> > > > its cause.
> > >
> > > Who, besides you, needs a reason for "cause" to prove that artifacts
> > > were left by Homo out on the treeless Serengeti Plain?
> >
> > So, you admit that you are not concerned with their lifestyle and paleo
> > reconstruction of habitat? Your saying that we should just ignore the
> > plethora of fossil evidence that indisputably indicates that all homo
> > fossils are found in the vicinity of other fossil evidence that
> > indicate treed/mosaic habitat.
>
> So you admit you can't read simple English.
> Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
> associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
> grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
> limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
> open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
> posture (Dennell 2003:442)."
Does the term paleo habitat reconstruction mean anything to you?
It's your fantasy. I would never be so dumb as to emplay early
hominids in treeless habitat. You tell me what they are, supposedly,
doing out there. The whole notion is absurd.
> > they could compete with lion, bear-sized hyena, and dogs/wolves and
> > other dedicated scavengers. And then you bring, "the bush," into the
> > discussion. Is there no limit to your strawman tactics?
>
> Your total and complete ignorance of the literaure is not my problem.
> Didn't you know bush is where you find trees where you claim Homo was
> hiding?
Don't be ridiculous. I never indicated bush. That's your delusion.
Marc Verhaegen
news:1165190707....@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Not 1 sensible argument in this whole "discussion".
Why don't you consider the *facts*, my boys?
Only fools reject the littoral theory:
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora:
Aquatic Ape Theory is an inaccurate term: it's not about apes, nor about
having been aquatic.
AAT states that our ancestors sometime after the Homo/Pan split relied
partly on aquatic resources:
- Homo: AAT, contrary to what many PAs think, has nothing to do with
australopiths,
- littoral: it's about our ancestors having been shoreline dwellers
(coast/lake/river-side),
- diaspora: Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as far as Ain Hanech
(Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto (Java) etc.: AAT simply says that
these people got there along shorelines, not over dry plains.
Leading PAs such as Ph.Tobias
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
& Chr.Stringer
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003982.html
now agree with a "wet" past & shoreline dispersals
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> It's unfortunate you were unable to recall any particular instances of
> my "level of imagination and science fiction," whatever this means.
> It's just strange how many people are so sure I must be wrong and are
> all so equally unable to say why or how.
Pompous, self-proclaimed statements of fact made by an illiterate
amateur, who is totally incapable of citing collaborating data from the
literature, is not a science writer, but a science-fiction writer. You
are not exempt from either the peer review process or the citation
process. Repeating such claims without review or original data only
reenforces the fact that you are incapable of anything more than
endless circular arguments of lip service and ad hominems.
>
> > When people question your statements,
> > no citations necessary. If that is not accepted, then a barrage of lip
> > service follow by vebal abuse is the agenda. You delusionally believe
> > you are exempt from the scientific process. I'm Jim, King Shit, and
> > that is that. What you really are is a spoiled, selfish, childish brat.
>
> Would you like some cheese with that whine?
No, just a few citations to back up your claims.
>
> This is my point.
Be specific. Your point on Sat, Dec 2 2006 11:40 pm
was "Homo rarely if ever left treed habitat."
More arid is not consistent with trees.
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Nope, "treeless" is not what Marc claimed (he said "your savannas"),
> > > > > > but apparently he is the last one left on the planet that thinks they
> > > > > > are treeless and waterless, in fact I think he thinks a savanna is a
> > > > > > desert year round.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Marc's strawman tactics are well documented.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, so are yours.
> > >
> > > Give it up, phoney. I have no reason to strawman you. You know that
> >
> > Are you dyslexic or something? I didn't say you had a reason to
> > strawman me.
> >
> >
> > > if you tell me what your really think that you will lose the argument.
> >
> > That would be hard to do since you haven't made an argument yet. I've
> > seen a lot of unsupported, undocumented lip-service in your posts so
> > far, but certainly nothing that would resemble an argument.
>
> Typical pseudo-scientists. You're going to just continue believing
> that they hunted and scavenged out on the treeless savanna. You won't
> admit it now. f
"Be specific you evasive twit."
Retard, you "can't even comprehend the meaning of the word specific."
Are you talking about Homo, apiths, or both?
>
> Maybe you could find a hobby that doesn't involve, you know,
> intellectual things.
Maybe you could find a hobby that doesn't require you to feel it
necessary to tell lies about others:
Date: 2 Dec 2006 19:12:01 -
Message-ID: <1165113030.3...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your
backtracking. Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the
predatory realities in treeless habitat."
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > it had been for A'pith who typically met their demise in the clutches
> > > > > of some kind of large predator, if not specifically a cat). All the
> > > > > more reason to assume that they were not out in treeless habitat where
> > > > > they would have had zero chance against lions and bear-sized hyena.
> > > > > Homo rarely if ever left treed habitat.
> > > >
> > > > So, now you are denying the Serengeti Plain is a treeless habitat? Or
> > > > do you think ostriches placed the artifacts out there?
> > >
> > > You've become Marc. You have no dispute with what I'm saying (thus you
> > > have, inadvertently, confirmed the validity of my thinking) and so you
> > > are misrepresenting it so that you can pretend to have made a point.
> > > Who do you think is dumb enough to fall for these tactics?
> >
> > You are as delusional as Crowley. On the ground evidence found in a
> > treeless habitat has no impact on your delusional brain.
>
> Uh . . "On the ground evidence . . ?"
Uh. . like stone tools in treeless habitats......
>
> Other than the one on the top of your head, do you have a point?
Yes, handaxes do have a point, something your square head can't grasp.
>
> >
> > No one is really ignorant enough, except you, to believe the Olduvai
> > Gorge cutting through the treeless Serengeti Plain, exposing thousands
> > of artifacts, through two million years of time could all be from
> > treed areas.
>
> Evidence doesn't lie. Why not just let the paleo reconstructions speak
> for themselves.
"Be specific you evasive twit."
Retard, you "can't even comprehend the meaning of the word specific."
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > > if not downright
> > > > > > > > dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
> > > > > > > > right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
> > > > > > > > which is about as savanna as you can get.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
> > > > > > > wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
> > > > > > > localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than these
> > > > > > > same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Keywords: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER, OK? No timeline was specified in Marc's
> > > > > > statement.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you're arguing that Marc's vagueness excuses yours?
> > > >
> > > > What part of artifacts found on the treeless Serengeti Plain are you to
> > > > stupid to understand?
> > >
> > > The part where dimwits like yourself assume that present climate
> > > indicates past climate.
> >
> > What part of dimwits like your think it was always treed?
>
> Maybe you actually ought to read the paper.
What paper....
"Be specific you evasive twit."
Retard, you "can't even comprehend the meaning of the word specific."
>
> > >
> > > > > > > > The thousands of artifacts
> > > > > > > > that have been found there speak for themselves.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
> > > > > > > the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One does not have to know the cause of a train wreck to know that there
> > > > > > was one.
> > > > >
> > > > > But one must know more than that there was a train wreck to determine
> > > > > its cause.
> > > >
> > > > Who, besides you, needs a reason for "cause" to prove that artifacts
> > > > were left by Homo out on the treeless Serengeti Plain?
> > >
> > > So, you admit that you are not concerned with their lifestyle and paleo
> > > reconstruction of habitat? Your saying that we should just ignore the
> > > plethora of fossil evidence that indisputably indicates that all homo
> > > fossils are found in the vicinity of other fossil evidence that
> > > indicate treed/mosaic habitat.
> >
> > So you admit you can't read simple English.
> > Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
> > associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
> > grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
> > limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
> > open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
> > posture (Dennell 2003:442)."
>
>
> Does the term paleo habitat reconstruction mean anything to you?
Does thread drift mean anything to you?
No, the delusion is all yours, I never indicated that you indicated
bush. I indicated bush as an example of the fear modern hunters have
entering such areas chasing wounded animals they can't see (like murky
croc waters that you did indicate). Nowhere did I claim you said bush.
Your stupidity was your fantasy claim that: "Homo rarely if ever left
treed habitat." Learn to be more specific. If you did not mean the
treed habitat was something other than a place for Homo to hide from
all the other predators, then you should have said so.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> >
> > It's unfortunate you were unable to recall any particular instances of
> > my "level of imagination and science fiction," whatever this means.
> > It's just strange how many people are so sure I must be wrong and are
> > all so equally unable to say why or how.
>
> Pompous, self-proclaimed statements of fact made by an illiterate
> amateur, who is totally incapable of citing collaborating data from the
> literature, is not a science writer, but a science-fiction writer. You
> are not exempt from either the peer review process or the citation
> process. Repeating such claims without review or original data only
> reenforces the fact that you are incapable of anything more than
> endless circular arguments of lip service and ad hominems.
Again, It's unfortunate you were unable to recall any particular
instances of my "level of imagination and science fiction," whatever
this means. It's just strange how many people are so sure I must be
wrong and are all so equally unable to say why or how.
> > > When people question your statements,
> > > no citations necessary. If that is not accepted, then a barrage of lip
> > > service follow by vebal abuse is the agenda. You delusionally believe
> > > you are exempt from the scientific process. I'm Jim, King Shit, and
> > > that is that. What you really are is a spoiled, selfish, childish brat.
> >
> > Would you like some cheese with that whine?
>
> No, just a few citations to back up your claims.
You didn't cite the evidence. You cited a dimwitted interpretation of
the evidence by a guy named Dennell. That guy made the same dimwitted
assumption that you made, he immediately assumed that bipedalism was a
walking/running adaptation and he made the same dumb mistake of
assuming the present habitat was a treeless millions of years ago as it
is now.
The best evidence we have involves making comparison to the species
whose fossils (including plants--ie. pollen) are found
contemporaneously with the hominid fossils. According to this evidence
hominid are never found in treeless habitat. Hardly surprising.
Hominids have no adaptations that would allow them to survive in
treeless habitat. Moreover hominids are communal creatures. It simply
makes sense that hominid would begin practicing communal territorialism
at the treed locations in a greater savanna habitat.
Bipedalism is not a long distance walking/running adaptation. It's an
adaptation associated with carrying/throwing rocks and sticks to
acheive communal territorialistic ends. It couldn't be more obvious.
All you have to do is apply a minimal amount of intelligence to
interpreting the evidence.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > Nope, "treeless" is not what Marc claimed (he said "your savannas"),
> > > > > > > but apparently he is the last one left on the planet that thinks they
> > > > > > > are treeless and waterless, in fact I think he thinks a savanna is a
> > > > > > > desert year round.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, Marc's strawman tactics are well documented.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, so are yours.
> > > >
> > > > Give it up, phoney. I have no reason to strawman you. You know that
> > >
> > > Are you dyslexic or something? I didn't say you had a reason to
> > > strawman me.
> > >
> > >
> > > > if you tell me what your really think that you will lose the argument.
> > >
> > > That would be hard to do since you haven't made an argument yet. I've
> > > seen a lot of unsupported, undocumented lip-service in your posts so
> > > far, but certainly nothing that would resemble an argument.
> >
> > Typical pseudo-scientists. You're going to just continue believing
> > that they hunted and scavenged out on the treeless savanna. You won't
> > admit it now. f
>
> "Be specific you evasive twit."
> Retard, you "can't even comprehend the meaning of the word specific."
>
> Are you talking about Homo, apiths, or both?
Both.
> > Maybe you could find a hobby that doesn't involve, you know,
> > intellectual things.
>
> Maybe you could find a hobby that doesn't require you to feel it
> necessary to tell lies about others:
> Date: 2 Dec 2006 19:12:01 -
> Message-ID: <1165113030.3...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
> Jim McGinn: "By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your
> backtracking. Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the
> predatory realities in treeless habitat."
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > it had been for A'pith who typically met their demise in the clutches
> > > > > > of some kind of large predator, if not specifically a cat). All the
> > > > > > more reason to assume that they were not out in treeless habitat where
> > > > > > they would have had zero chance against lions and bear-sized hyena.
> > > > > > Homo rarely if ever left treed habitat.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, now you are denying the Serengeti Plain is a treeless habitat? Or
> > > > > do you think ostriches placed the artifacts out there?
> > > >
> > > > You've become Marc. You have no dispute with what I'm saying (thus you
> > > > have, inadvertently, confirmed the validity of my thinking) and so you
> > > > are misrepresenting it so that you can pretend to have made a point.
> > > > Who do you think is dumb enough to fall for these tactics?
> > >
> > > You are as delusional as Crowley. On the ground evidence found in a
> > > treeless habitat has no impact on your delusional brain.
> >
> > Uh . . "On the ground evidence . . ?"
>
> Uh. . like stone tools in treeless habitats......
Do you have any evidence that the habitat was treeless when the tools
were put there?
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It's unfortunate you were unable to recall any particular instances of
> > > my "level of imagination and science fiction," whatever this means.
> > > It's just strange how many people are so sure I must be wrong and are
> > > all so equally unable to say why or how.
> >
> > Pompous, self-proclaimed statements of fact made by an illiterate
> > amateur, who is totally incapable of citing collaborating data from the
> > literature, is not a science writer, but a science-fiction writer. You
> > are not exempt from either the peer review process or the citation
> > process. Repeating such claims without review or original data only
> > reenforces the fact that you are incapable of anything more than
> > endless circular arguments of lip service and ad hominems.
>
> Again, It's unfortunate you were unable to recall any particular
> instances of my "level of imagination and science fiction," whatever
> this means. It's just strange how many people are so sure I must be
> wrong and are all so equally unable to say why or how.
Well, every thing you have claimed so far in these last few threads has
been unsupported gibberish, imagination, and science fiction. Were you
referring to something else? "Be specific you evasive twit." Retard,
you "can't even comprehend the meaning of the word specific."
>
> > > > When people question your statements,
> > > > no citations necessary. If that is not accepted, then a barrage of lip
> > > > service follow by vebal abuse is the agenda. You delusionally believe
> > > > you are exempt from the scientific process. I'm Jim, King Shit, and
> > > > that is that. What you really are is a spoiled, selfish, childish brat.
> > >
> > > Would you like some cheese with that whine?
> >
> > No, just a few citations to back up your claims.
>
> You didn't cite the evidence. You cited a dimwitted interpretation of
> the evidence by a guy named Dennell. That guy made the same dimwitted
> assumption that you made, he immediately assumed that bipedalism was a
> walking/running adaptation and he made the same dumb mistake of
> assuming the present habitat was a treeless millions of years ago as it
> is now.
Now Jim is going to do a stand-up comedy routine imitating Paul doing
a critique of a paper he hasn't read.
Cite where Dennell said anything about what was treeded or treeless
millions of years ago. Your comedy is as pathetic as your science. I
don't need to cite any evidence, Dennell did that in his well cited
paper---134 in all. How many citations did you say were in your
science-fiction masterpiece? ROTFL. On second thought, maybe you do
have potential for stand-up comedy!
>
> The best evidence we have involves making comparison to the species
> whose fossils (including plants--ie. pollen) are found
> contemporaneously with the hominid fossils. According to this evidence
> hominid are never found in treeless habitat. Hardly surprising.
> Hominids have no adaptations that would allow them to survive in
> treeless habitat. Moreover hominids are communal creatures. It simply
> makes sense that hominid would begin practicing communal territorialism
> at the treed locations in a greater savanna habitat.
>
> Bipedalism is not a long distance walking/running adaptation. It's an
> adaptation associated with carrying/throwing rocks and sticks to
> acheive communal territorialistic ends. It couldn't be more obvious.
> All you have to do is apply a minimal amount of intelligence to
> interpreting the evidence.
More pathetic attempts at comedy as Jim cites himself in an endless
loop of circular argumens. Not too bright on logic 101 are you? Not to
mention your being scientifically challenged.
Lee Olsen
Are you sure you mean that? Your statement seems contradictory.
Lee said: " It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and Homo quite
another."
Message-ID: <1165131627.5...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Jim said: "I agree."
We are dealing with two different species, doing two different things,
in two different habitats. Perhaps you would like to qualify your
answer with something more specific, just so we can avoid any possible
misunderstanding.
Yes, there is several lines of evidence, but since you have decided you
are exempt from the citing process, I see no reason why I should.
Will in New Haven
> > "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over
> > your savannas. Zero.
> > Nada."
> >
> > To make a claim like this is totally irresponsible,
>
> Well, it depends how you interpret it. The supposition that early man,
> including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
> treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
> about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
> neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
> guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming
> alongside crocodiles.
Jeeps and GUNS? I know you have an argument to make and I am not being
disrespectful but men on horseback or afoot armed with bows or spears
will run or ride across any savanna you care to describe. That doesn't
help the early hominids and your basic argument is not refulted but
jeeps and guns? Gimme a fucking break.
>
> This leaves us with a bit of a dilemma when it comes to interpreting
> the evidence. 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?
> (My answe to this question is below.)
>
> > if not downright
> > dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
> > right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
> > which is about as savanna as you can get.
>
> I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
> wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
> localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than these
> same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.
> > The thousands of artifacts
> > that have been found there speak for themselves.
>
> Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
> the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.
>
> > "The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
> > grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
> > East Africa.
>
> They didn't occupy grasslands and open scrub. They occupied the treed
> localities in the vicinity of grassland and open scrub. These were the
> locations that had the resources--fruit trees, nuts, vegetables--that
> were most essential to them surviving the dry season.
The first major expansion into Europe went by way of the steppes of
west-central Asia and not via the obvious route through Anatolia and
the Balkans. That has been widely interpreted as being becaue they
favored open country. However, they weren't early hominds. They were
modern humans with a very decent suite of weapons.
> > Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
> > associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
> > grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
> > limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
> > open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
> > posture (Dennell 2003:442)."
>
> Might later hominids have ventured across open habitat more often than
> A'pith? Sure. But to suggest that these adapatations indicate a shift
> to a lifestyle that often involved long distance walking through hot,
> treeless habitat is inconsisten with the predatory realities thereof.
> What, then, were the stone weapons for? I think the answer to this
> question is fairly obvious when you consider the fact that all the
> evidence inidcated that hominids are and always have been highly
> communal and territorial. The stone weapons served the purpose of
> keeping food-competitor species out of their garden-like communal
> territory which was part of their larger strategy to survive the dry
> season and its rather dramatic predatory implications (predatory
> massacres). Does this mean that they never used their weapons for
> hunting? No, that too is too simplistic. In addition to keeping these
> food-competitor species out off of their garden-like communal property
> they employed them to ambush these same species once they had entered
> their communal property. (And they also employed these stone weapons
> to fend off or deter lesser predators.)
>
Is this all an Eden fantasy? Forays into the open to hunt and return to
the protection of the trees, where the young and infirm could shelter,
aren't possibly a better explanation of the weapons because they
violate some kind of vision of innocence?
> I think this interpretation of the evidence better matches up with the
> overwhelming evidence that present day humans are primarily communal,
> non-migratory.
Humans stopped HAVING to be comunal with the invention of the bow and
arrow. I agree that "migratory" is pretty rare.
Will in New Haven
--
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
Will in New Haven
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Nope, "treeless" is not what Marc claimed (he said "your savannas"),
> > > > > > but apparently he is the last one left on the planet that thinks they
> > > > > > are treeless and waterless, in fact I think he thinks a savanna is a
> > > > > > desert year round.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Marc's strawman tactics are well documented.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, so are yours.
> > >
> > > Give it up, phoney. I have no reason to strawman you. You know that
> >
> > Are you dyslexic or something? I didn't say you had a reason to
> > strawman me.
> >
> >
> > > if you tell me what your really think that you will lose the argument.
> >
> > That would be hard to do since you haven't made an argument yet. I've
> > seen a lot of unsupported, undocumented lip-service in your posts so
> > far, but certainly nothing that would resemble an argument.
>
> Typical pseudo-scientists. You're going to just continue believing
> that they hunted and scavenged out on the treeless savanna. You won't
> admit it now. f
Who are we talking about? If "they" is a'pith, that is ridiculoous.
Modern Kalahari San could do it if the Bantu peoples hadn't driven them
into worse country. They do it in worse country with the same
predators. The density of predators is lower but THEY can't live in the
Kalahari in such large numbers as they could on the Savanna. Somewhere
in between, there were people, long before the arrival of jeeps and
guns, who could do it. The question is who and when and how did they
arrive at the point they could do it. Well, that's three questions but
it doesn't help us answer them if we think men with spears and bows are
helpless against predators. Men without guns EXTERMINATED many species
of predator.
Will in New Haven
--
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
>
> >
> >
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
You're going to just continue believing that they hunted and scavenged
Lee Olsen:
Are you talking about Homo, apiths, or both?
Claudius Denk:
Both.
Lee Olsen:
Are you sure you mean that?
Claudius Denk:
I'm somewhat impressed that you recognize the importance of this
question. You're question is a fair question and it's one that I
should be able to answer with in a relatively explicit (non-vague)
response. (I take everybody else to task for vagueness. It's only
fair that I be held to the same standard.)
To answer your question, Yes, I do mean that. In fact I think that the
current paradigm of anthropology has greatly underestimated the effect
of large predators on the ability of early hominids to colonize and/or
even just survive in open habitat. In fact I think this was a
tremendous limiting factor to the eventual achievement of civilization,
because the colonization of open habitat must have been achieved first
before the agricultural revolution could occur). I'll even go out on a
limb and say that until the development of metal tools/weapons open
habitat was largely (for all practical purposes) uninhabitable to
hominids. This means that all through the stone age hominids were
strictly limited to treed habitat. (And, yes, I'm perfectlfy aware
that I'm including modern humans in this.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lee Olsen:
It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and Homo quite another."
Claudius Denk:
I agree."
Lee Olsen:
We are dealing with two different species, doing two different things,
in two different habitats. Perhaps you would like to qualify your
answer with something more specific, just so we can avoid any possible
misunderstanding.
Claudius Denk:
Again, you are right to ask. Now that I read how you've interpreted
it, however, I think I must retract that statement. Both of them were
the communal territorialists I describe in my hypothesis. Homo, unlike
A'pith, eventually achieved a level of sophistication--as a result ot
the group selective aspects of communal territorialism--that they
became the masters of treed parts of savanna habitat (or large parts of
it). This was not the case for Apith. Apith were not the masters of
the treed habitat that they inhabitated. When lions and hyena came
into their habitat they had to get high in trees to survive. As
described in my hypothesis, predatory sieges/massacres would have been
a regular part of existence for these earliest hominids.
Homo, I suspect, probably had other differences from A'pith. They were
more likely to be on the ground (day and night) than A'pith. They had
some degree of trade. They had more sophisticated linguistic
abilities. They may have cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees.
And, of course, they had more sophisticated tools/weapons than did
A'pith.
There were other differences, of course. But even these were mostly
difference in degree rather than kind. As I indicated previously, both
A'pith and Homo were communal territorialists and, as such, they had
many behaviors in common. And I see no reason to categorize them, or
any hominid, as members of different species. Hominids exist in one
ever-broadening niche.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Claudius Denk:
Do you have any evidence that the habitat was treeless when the tools
were put there.
Lee Olsen:
Yes, there is several lines of evidence, but since you have decided you
are exempt from the citing process, I see no reason why I should.
Claudius Denk:
That's unfortunate.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
<snip>
> > You didn't cite the evidence. You cited a dimwitted interpretation of
> > the evidence by a guy named Dennell. That guy made the same dimwitted
> > assumption that you made, he immediately assumed that bipedalism was a
> > walking/running adaptation and he made the same dumb mistake of
> > assuming the present habitat was a treeless millions of years ago as it
> > is now.
>
> Now Jim is going to do a stand-up comedy routine imitating Paul doing
> a critique of a paper he hasn't read.
> Cite where Dennell said anything about what was treeded or treeless
> millions of years ago. Your comedy is as pathetic as your science. I
> don't need to cite any evidence, Dennell did that in his well cited
> paper---134 in all. How many citations did you say were in your
> science-fiction masterpiece? ROTFL. On second thought, maybe you do
> have potential for stand-up comedy!
This is a fact: there is zero evidence of hominids in treeless habitat
prior to the holocene.
> > The best evidence we have involves making comparison to the species
> > whose fossils (including plants--ie. pollen) are found
> > contemporaneously with the hominid fossils. According to this evidence
> > hominid are never found in treeless habitat. Hardly surprising.
> > Hominids have no adaptations that would allow them to survive in
> > treeless habitat. Moreover hominids are communal creatures. It simply
> > makes sense that hominid would begin practicing communal territorialism
> > at the treed locations in a greater savanna habitat.
> >
> > Bipedalism is not a long distance walking/running adaptation. It's an
> > adaptation associated with carrying/throwing rocks and sticks to
> > acheive communal territorialistic ends. It couldn't be more obvious.
> > All you have to do is apply a minimal amount of intelligence to
> > interpreting the evidence.
>
> More pathetic attempts at comedy as Jim cites himself in an endless
> loop of circular argumens. Not too bright on logic 101 are you? Not to
> mention your being scientifically challenged.
Until the development of metal weapons hominids could not survive open
habitat because of predation. It's really that simple. (Not that
there weren't minor exceptions to the rule.)
Also, if you are asserting that early hominids did reside in open
habitat then you are doing so despite the fact there is no evidence
that supports that (you could argue, however, that there is little
evidence that contradicts it, and you would be right, I suspect).
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Will in New Haven wrote:
> > You're going to just continue believing that they hunted and scavenged
> > out on the treeless savanna.
> Who are we talking about? If "they" is a'pith, that is ridiculoous.
"They" is A'pith, homo and all hominids prior to the development of
metal weapons.
> . . . there were people, long before the arrival of jeeps and
> guns, who could do it. The question is who and when and how did they
> arrive at the point they could do it.
I agree. This is the question. I think it's more recent than people
wish to believe. I don't think stone age man would have been able to
pull it off, except occasionally.
> Well, that's three questions but
> it doesn't help us answer them if we think men with spears and bows are
> helpless against predators. Men without guns EXTERMINATED many species
> of predator.
I agree that spears, and bow and arrow would be very useful against
lions, hyena, and other large predators, but only in treed habitat and
only as a deterent. Regardless of whether they were confronting these
beasts in open habitat or treed habitat the best they could hope for is
to injure one or two of them. And the only safe place against an
injured, pissed-off lion or hyena is high in a tree.
Will in New Haven
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > > You're going to just continue believing that they hunted and scavenged
> > > out on the treeless savanna.
>
> > Who are we talking about? If "they" is a'pith, that is ridiculoous.
>
> "They" is A'pith, homo and all hominids prior to the development of
> metal weapons.
>
> > . . . there were people, long before the arrival of jeeps and
> > guns, who could do it. The question is who and when and how did they
> > arrive at the point they could do it.
>
> I agree. This is the question. I think it's more recent than people
> wish to believe. I don't think stone age man would have been able to
> pull it off, except occasionally.
What major advantages did the high-plains Cheyenne, Crow or Lakota
have over stone-age man when they hunted bison with bows and lances?
Yes, using the lance was a show-off trick and the bow was their major
weapon but still, they killed bison and faced off or killled the plains
grizzly and the wolf. Sure, they could only have done this year-round
with horses but they got horses and started doing it LONG before they
got any number of useful rifles.
>
> > Well, that's three questions but
> > it doesn't help us answer them if we think men with spears and bows are
> > helpless against predators. Men without guns EXTERMINATED many species
> > of predator.
>
> I agree that spears, and bow and arrow would be very useful against
> lions, hyena, and other large predators, but only in treed habitat and
> only as a deterent. Regardless of whether they were confronting these
> beasts in open habitat or treed habitat the best they could hope for is
> to injure one or two of them. And the only safe place against an
> injured, pissed-off lion or hyena is high in a tree.
I think that you over-rate the importance of safety to a hunting band.
If there is a treed habitat where one can leave the kids, the old, the
women and the infirm, you take your chances. This is the same species
that fights insane wars today, the same species that has people ride
bulls for a living and real idiots do it as a hobby, and you are
thinking that the loss of a number of (primarily) young males over the
years is going to be a major limiting factor.
The social predators are horribly dangerous but so are men with spears
and bows. Not wanting to take casualties cuts both ways and lions and,
especially, hyenas are smart. The Native Americans seem to have taught
the grey wolf to "seven times never kill man" <Kipling, as I am sure
you know> because it is such a dangerous undertaking because the people
of this continent did not habitually go around unarmed. Wolves being
very smart and more vulnerable to stone-age weapons learned this more
readily that the solitary brown bear. Wolves in India, where going
around unarmed is very common, have never learned this lesson.
I think you are absolutely on to something about the importance of
treed habitats but you negate some of that when you overstate your
case. A hominid with enough mass and muscle to wield a spear well
enough to injure a lion badly and enough of a social structure that
several of them would stand their ground must be a fairly recent
developement but men like that could and I think would leave their
treed enviornments to hunt the larger and more plentiful hoofed game on
the plains. For the most part they would attempt to avoid lions and
hyenas but they could inflict enough harm on attackers that they would
not be a prey of choice.
Will in New Haven
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Will in New Haven wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> >
> > > Marc claims:
> > > "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over
> > > your savannas. Zero.
> > > Nada."
> > >
> > > To make a claim like this is totally irresponsible,
> >
> > Well, it depends how you interpret it. The supposition that early man,
> > including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
> > treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
> > completely defenseless against the predators thereof. IOW, it makes
> > about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
> > neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
> > guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming
> > alongside crocodiles.
>
> Jeeps and GUNS? I know you have an argument to make and I am not being
> disrespectful but men on horseback or afoot armed with bows or spears
> will run or ride across any savanna you care to describe. That doesn't
> help the early hominids and your basic argument is not refulted but
> jeeps and guns? Gimme a fucking break.
You're right. I got carried away. Horses and metal based weapons
might have been the difference.
Good point. Yes, I agree.
> > > Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
> > > associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
> > > grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
> > > limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
> > > open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
> > > posture (Dennell 2003:442)."
> >
> > Might later hominids have ventured across open habitat more often than
> > A'pith? Sure. But to suggest that these adapatations indicate a shift
> > to a lifestyle that often involved long distance walking through hot,
> > treeless habitat is inconsisten with the predatory realities thereof.
> > What, then, were the stone weapons for? I think the answer to this
> > question is fairly obvious when you consider the fact that all the
> > evidence inidcated that hominids are and always have been highly
> > communal and territorial. The stone weapons served the purpose of
> > keeping food-competitor species out of their garden-like communal
> > territory which was part of their larger strategy to survive the dry
> > season and its rather dramatic predatory implications (predatory
> > massacres). Does this mean that they never used their weapons for
> > hunting? No, that too is too simplistic. In addition to keeping these
> > food-competitor species out off of their garden-like communal property
> > they employed them to ambush these same species once they had entered
> > their communal property. (And they also employed these stone weapons
> > to fend off or deter lesser predators.)
> >
>
> Is this all an Eden fantasy?
Yes, the garden of eden. Notice it's not the savanna of Eden. Is it
not a good thing that we now have a hypothesis that dovetails with
man's most ancient story of hominid origins?
Hominids are the proprietors of the garden. This is the niche we fill
in the habitat. We preserve the garden as our strategy to survive the
annual dry season--the season of death. The means by which we achieved
this explains the origins of the adaptations that other hypotheses are
so completely unable to explain. For example, it explains the origins
that are associated with the peculiar hominid tendency to conduct war.
The earliest wars would have been conducted against inmigrating,
food-competitor species.
> Forays into the open to hunt and return to
> the protection of the trees, where the young and infirm could shelter,
> aren't possibly a better explanation of the weapons because they
> violate some kind of vision of innocence?
Why would they bother to leave treed habitat where they had a
tremendous strategic advantage. And keep in mind that every year
during the dry season all kinds of potential prey species would
desperately try to come into the garden habitat. These prey species
would be vulnerable to ambush tactics. There was no reason for early
hominid (including all of stone age man) to stray from treed habitat.
> > I think this interpretation of the evidence better matches up with the
> > overwhelming evidence that present day humans are primarily communal,
> > non-migratory.
>
> Humans stopped HAVING to be communal with the invention of the bow and
> arrow.
Uh . . .? I don't see how you would say this. Humas are currently the
most communal species known to exist.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Will in New Haven wrote:
> claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Will in New Haven wrote:
> >
> > > > You're going to just continue believing that they hunted and scavenged
> > > > out on the treeless savanna.
> >
> > > Who are we talking about? If "they" is a'pith, that is ridiculoous.
> >
> > "They" is A'pith, homo and all hominids prior to the development of
> > metal weapons.
> >
> > > . . . there were people, long before the arrival of jeeps and
> > > guns, who could do it. The question is who and when and how did they
> > > arrive at the point they could do it.
> >
> > I agree. This is the question. I think it's more recent than people
> > wish to believe. I don't think stone age man would have been able to
> > pull it off, except occasionally.
>
> What major advantages did the high-plains Cheyenne, Crow or Lakota
> have over stone-age man when they hunted bison with bows and lances?
> Yes, using the lance was a show-off trick and the bow was their major
> weapon but still, they killed bison and faced off or killled the plains
> grizzly and the wolf. Sure, they could only have done this year-round
> with horses but they got horses and started doing it LONG before they
> got any number of useful rifles.
Point taken. (And previously conceded.) I agree that horses may have
been the difference.
>
> >
> > > Well, that's three questions but
> > > it doesn't help us answer them if we think men with spears and bows are
> > > helpless against predators. Men without guns EXTERMINATED many species
> > > of predator.
> >
> > I agree that spears, and bow and arrow would be very useful against
> > lions, hyena, and other large predators, but only in treed habitat and
> > only as a deterent. Regardless of whether they were confronting these
> > beasts in open habitat or treed habitat the best they could hope for is
> > to injure one or two of them. And the only safe place against an
> > injured, pissed-off lion or hyena is high in a tree.
>
> I think that you over-rate the importance of safety to a hunting band.
> If there is a treed habitat where one can leave the kids, the old, the
> women and the infirm, you take your chances. This is the same species
> that fights insane wars today, the same species that has people ride
> bulls for a living and real idiots do it as a hobby, and you are
> thinking that the loss of a number of (primarily) young males over the
> years is going to be a major limiting factor.
I agree that the level of technology of Homo was enough that we might
envision them being able to travel through such habitat much more often
than A'pith. Except for travelling there would really be no good
reason for them to be out there. There was nothing out there they
could hunt. And they certainly weren't competing with dedicated
scavengers.
>
> The social predators are horribly dangerous but so are men with spears
> and bows. Not wanting to take casualties cuts both ways and lions and,
> especially, hyenas are smart. The Native Americans seem to have taught
> the grey wolf to "seven times never kill man" <Kipling, as I am sure
> you know> because it is such a dangerous undertaking because the people
> of this continent did not habitually go around unarmed. Wolves being
> very smart and more vulnerable to stone-age weapons learned this more
> readily that the solitary brown bear. Wolves in India, where going
> around unarmed is very common, have never learned this lesson.
>
> I think you are absolutely on to something about the importance of
> treed habitats but you negate some of that when you overstate your
> case.
I agree. And that is why I refined my position.
> A hominid with enough mass and muscle to wield a spear well
> enough to injure a lion badly and enough of a social structure that
> several of them would stand their ground must be a fairly recent
> developement but men like that could and I think would leave their
> treed enviornments to hunt the larger and more plentiful hoofed game on
> the plains.
I agree that eventually humans did, but not until after domestication
of horses and metal weapons. IOW, not pre holocene.
spiznet
>
> >> Marc claims:
> >> "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over
> >> your savannas. Zero. Nada."
>
> >> To make a claim like this is totally irresponsible,
>
> - no fur = no protection against sun,
> - thick fat = overheating in sun,
> - sweating water+salt,
> - high & regular drinking-needs, but low drinking capacity,
> - low concentration power of kidneys,
> - etc.
> Only fools believe that our ancestors ever ran over the savanna. Why on
> earth should they?? No food, no water... Humans (even with technology)
> still don't inhabit the savannas.
> All serious PAs now reject the savanna nonsense, eg:
> - Tobias 1995: "We were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! . All the
> former savannah supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier
> words ."
> - Wood 1996: "the 'savannah' hypothesis of human origins, in which the
> cooling begat the savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now
> discredited"
> - Stringer 1997: "One of the strong points about the aquatic theory is in
> explaining the origin of bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water,
> that would forced them to walk upright ."
> - Tobias 1998: ".Bamford identified fossil vines or lianas of Dichapetalum
> in the same Member 4: such vines hang from forest trees and would not be
> expected in open savannah. The team at Makapansgat found floral and faunal
> evidence that the layers containing Australopithecus reflected forest or
> forest margin conditions. From Hadar, in Ethiopia, where 'Lucy' was found,
> and from Aramis in Ethiopia, where Tim White's team found Ardipithecus
> ramidus . well-wooded and even forested conditions were inferred from the
> fauna accompanying the hominid fossils. All the fossil evidence adds up to
> the small-brained, bipedal hominids of four to 2.5 Ma having lived in a
> woodland or forest niche, not savannah. ... if ever our earliest ancestors
> were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
> urinators there"
> - Stringer 2001: "In the past I have agreed that we lack plausible models
> for the origins of bipedalism and have agreed that wading in water can
> facilitate bipedal locomotion (as observed in other normally quadrupedal
> primates). I have never said that this must have been the forcing mechanism
> in hominids, but I do consider it plausible. As for coastal colonisation, I
> argued in my Nature News & Views last year that this was an event in the
> late Pleistocene that may have facilitated the spread of modern humans."
> - Wrangham 2005: "Here I follow the conventional assumption that hominins
> began in the savanna. . the composition of the Okavango as a network of
> islands could favor the evolution of bipedalism. For those who envisage
> bipedalism as facilitated by the need to traverse or exploit aquatic
> environments, an inland delta that generates low islands termitogenically or
> hydrodynamically offers rich scenarios."
> - Alemseged 2006: "I believe we should just put the savannah theory aside ."
>
> If somebody has other examples of such rejections of the savanna theory,
> please let me know.
>
> --Marc Verhaegen
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
Thanks for all the "savanna man" theory quotes. Glad your spare time is
so valuable.
spiznet
Cladiuginn!
This entire piece would be good for McClark's collection of quotes. Its
not enuf for you to call Sabrecats the ancestors of big cats, now you
want hominids & human ancestors up until 10k (or later) to be confined
to treed areas. Its good when you actually propose something new (first
in several years)... but it doesn't make your case any more plausible.
-Spiznet
Lee Olsen
> Claudius Denk:
> You're going to just continue believing that they hunted and scavenged
> out in treeless habitat.
>
> Lee Olsen:
> Are you talking about Homo, apiths, or both?
>
> Claudius Denk:
> Both.
If that is the case, then you have misquoted me again. So between that
and this one:
Message-ID: <1165113030.3...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the
predatory realities in treeless habitat." I'm afraid we are going to
have to officially register you as a sap liar.
>
> Lee Olsen:
> Are you sure you mean that?
>
> Claudius Denk:
(I take everybody else to task for vagueness. It's only
> fair that I be held to the same standard.)
Wow, are you going to regret that statement.
>
> To answer your question, Yes, I do mean that. In fact I think that the
> current paradigm of anthropology has greatly underestimated the effect
> of large predators on the ability of early hominids to colonize and/or
> even just survive in open habitat. In fact I think this was a
> tremendous limiting factor to the eventual achievement of civilization,
> because the colonization of open habitat must have been achieved first
> before the agricultural revolution could occur). I'll even go out on a
> limb and say that until the development of metal tools/weapons open
> habitat was largely (for all practical purposes) uninhabitable to
> hominids. This means that all through the stone age hominids were
> strictly limited to treed habitat. (And, yes, I'm perfectlfy aware
> that I'm including modern humans in this.)
Thanks for the clarification. But unfortunately all it does is confirm
the fact you know no more about large predators or hominids and their
habits than you understand about their evolution.
Message-ID: <1164704227....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
Jim Maginn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Lee Olsen:
> It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and Homo quite another."
>
> Claudius Denk:
> I agree."
>
> Lee Olsen:
> We are dealing with two different species, doing two different things,
> in two different habitats. Perhaps you would like to qualify your
> answer with something more specific, just so we can avoid any possible
> misunderstanding.
>
> Claudius Denk:
> Again, you are right to ask. Now that I read how you've interpreted
> it, however, I think I must retract that statement. Both of them were
> the communal territorialists I describe in my hypothesis. Homo, unlike
> A'pith, eventually achieved a level of sophistication--as a result ot
> the group selective aspects of communal territorialism--that they
> became the masters of treed parts of savanna habitat (or large parts of
Since Homo also became masters of the desert, we can also assume they
became masters
of the treeless savanna. They also did woodworking, so we can assume
they were also masters of the bush. Home bases have not yet been
identified, so proving where they were spending the majority of their
time remains unknown. I have not kept up on the home-base issue like I
used to, maybe recent cases have been found, I don't know.
> it). This was not the case for Apith. Apith were not the masters of
> the treed habitat that they inhabitated. When lions and hyena came
> into their habitat they had to get high in trees to survive. As
> described in my hypothesis, predatory sieges/massacres would have been
> a regular part of existence for these earliest hominids.
Apiths were doing about the same as baboons as far as % of victims in
the South African caves. Lions are late in the record, they probably
didn't have much impact on Apith evolution.
Baboons kill leopards in the day, and are victims at night. No reason
to believe Apiths were any different.
>
> Homo, I suspect, probably had other differences from A'pith. They were
> more likely to be on the ground (day and night) than A'pith. They had
> some degree of trade. They had more sophisticated linguistic
> abilities. They may have cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees.
> And, of course, they had more sophisticated tools/weapons than did
> A'pith.
Trade is imagination. But, since rock was moved around the landscape in
large quantities, your idea can't be falsifed either. Wonder what "more
sophisticated" means?
Unless forced to cultivate crops, modern hunter gathers can be quite
resistant to planting anything. My neighbors still go out and dig wild
roots with digging sticks, just like they have for the last 4000 years
(the sticks are now made of metal rather than wood).
>
> There were other differences, of course. But even these were mostly
> difference in degree rather than kind. As I indicated previously, both
> A'pith and Homo were communal territorialists and, as such, they had
> many behaviors in common. And I see no reason to categorize them, or
> any hominid, as members of different species. Hominids exist in one
> ever-broadening niche.
Well, there certainly are lumpers and splitters out there, but the
differences between early Homo and apiths are quite profound. Chimps
are communal terrorialists also, and also can get away from lions by
hiding in the trees. Why aren't we still chimps if trees are so
necessary in hominid lifestyles?
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
> Claudius Denk:
> Do you have any evidence that the habitat was treeless when the tools
> were put there.
>
> Lee Olsen:
> Yes, there is several lines of evidence, but since you have decided you
> are exempt from the citing process, I see no reason why I should.
>
> Claudius Denk:
> That's unfortunate.
It is very easy to counter any line of reasoning with a flame job, so
and so is a dimwit. If you do not want to play the science game on a
sci. list, I guess we will just continue with the flame game.
Unfortunate indeed.
Lee Olsen
Message-ID: <1164704227....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats.
Most of your posts are thought out to this level of expertise. I call
that imagination.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > You didn't cite the evidence. You cited a dimwitted interpretation of
> > > the evidence by a guy named Dennell. That guy made the same dimwitted
> > > assumption that you made, he immediately assumed that bipedalism was a
> > > walking/running adaptation and he made the same dumb mistake of
> > > assuming the present habitat was a treeless millions of years ago as it
> > > is now.
> >
> > Now Jim is going to do a stand-up comedy routine imitating Paul doing
> > a critique of a paper he hasn't read.
> > Cite where Dennell said anything about what was treeded or treeless
> > millions of years ago. Your comedy is as pathetic as your science. I
> > don't need to cite any evidence, Dennell did that in his well cited
> > paper---134 in all. How many citations did you say were in your
> > science-fiction masterpiece? ROTFL. On second thought, maybe you do
> > have potential for stand-up comedy!
>
> This is a fact: there is zero evidence of hominids in treeless habitat
> prior to the holocene.
This is another one of your facts "Both tigers and lions evolved from
Sabertoothed cats."
Who do you think the world is going to believe?
>
> > > The best evidence we have involves making comparison to the species
> > > whose fossils (including plants--ie. pollen) are found
> > > contemporaneously with the hominid fossils. According to this evidence
> > > hominid are never found in treeless habitat. Hardly surprising.
> > > Hominids have no adaptations that would allow them to survive in
> > > treeless habitat. Moreover hominids are communal creatures. It simply
> > > makes sense that hominid would begin practicing communal territorialism
> > > at the treed locations in a greater savanna habitat.
> > >
> > > Bipedalism is not a long distance walking/running adaptation. It's an
> > > adaptation associated with carrying/throwing rocks and sticks to
> > > acheive communal territorialistic ends. It couldn't be more obvious.
> > > All you have to do is apply a minimal amount of intelligence to
> > > interpreting the evidence.
> >
> > More pathetic attempts at comedy as Jim cites himself in an endless
> > loop of circular argumens. Not too bright on logic 101 are you? Not to
> > mention your being scientifically challenged.
>
> Until the development of metal weapons hominids could not survive open
> habitat because of predation. It's really that simple. (Not that
> there weren't minor exceptions to the rule.)
Actually, the evidence is just the oposite. Why would a metal weapon be
any better than a wood spear at night in open habitat? We do not know
if the apith victims in the South African caves were killed in the day
or at night. Since many baboons were involved and we know they get
killed mostly at night, why would apiths be any different? But since
Homo almost dropped out completely (no more than cats), we know they
weren't taken day or night in any appreciable numbers. That was a huge
turn-around.
>
> Also, if you are asserting that early hominids did reside in open
> habitat then you are doing so despite the fact there is no evidence
> that supports that (you could argue, however, that there is little
> evidence that contradicts it, and you would be right, I suspect).
"No evidence"? Who said that, the same guy that said "Both tigers and
lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."?
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Claudius Denk:
> > You're going to just continue believing that they hunted and scavenged
> > out in treeless habitat.
> >
> > Lee Olsen:
> > Are you talking about Homo, apiths, or both?
> >
> > Claudius Denk:
> > Both.
>
> If that is the case, then you have misquoted me again. So between that
> and this one:
> Message-ID: <1165113030.3...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
> Jim McGinn: "Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the
> predatory realities in treeless habitat." I'm afraid we are going to
> have to officially register you as a sap liar.
You lost me. Why are you afraid to tell us what you think?
>
> >
> > Lee Olsen:
> > Are you sure you mean that?
> >
> > Claudius Denk:
> (I take everybody else to task for vagueness. It's only
> > fair that I be held to the same standard.)
>
> Wow, are you going to regret that statement.
Not likely.
>
>
> >
> > To answer your question, Yes, I do mean that. In fact I think that the
> > current paradigm of anthropology has greatly underestimated the effect
> > of large predators on the ability of early hominids to colonize and/or
> > even just survive in open habitat. In fact I think this was a
> > tremendous limiting factor to the eventual achievement of civilization,
> > because the colonization of open habitat must have been achieved first
> > before the agricultural revolution could occur). I'll even go out on a
> > limb and say that until the development of metal tools/weapons open
> > habitat was largely (for all practical purposes) uninhabitable to
> > hominids. This means that all through the stone age hominids were
> > strictly limited to treed habitat. (And, yes, I'm perfectlfy aware
> > that I'm including modern humans in this.)
>
> Thanks for the clarification. But unfortunately all it does is confirm
> the fact you know no more about large predators or hominids and their
> habits than you understand about their evolution.
It's unfortunate that, once again, you cannot find and specific
examples of where I have stated something in error.
>
> Message-ID: <1164704227....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
> Jim Maginn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
> >
> >
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >
> > Lee Olsen:
> > It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and Homo quite another."
> >
> > Claudius Denk:
> > I agree."
> >
> > Lee Olsen:
> > We are dealing with two different species, doing two different things,
> > in two different habitats. Perhaps you would like to qualify your
> > answer with something more specific, just so we can avoid any possible
> > misunderstanding.
> >
> > Claudius Denk:
> > Again, you are right to ask. Now that I read how you've interpreted
> > it, however, I think I must retract that statement. Both of them were
> > the communal territorialists I describe in my hypothesis. Homo, unlike
> > A'pith, eventually achieved a level of sophistication--as a result ot
> > the group selective aspects of communal territorialism--that they
> > became the masters of treed parts of savanna habitat (or large parts of
>
> Since Homo also became masters of the desert, we can also assume they
> became masters
> of the treeless savanna.
There's a big difference between desert and treeless savannah.
Also, your assumptions seem flippant.
They also did woodworking, so we can assume
> they were also masters of the bush. Home bases have not yet been
> identified, so proving where they were spending the majority of their
> time remains unknown. I have not kept up on the home-base issue like I
> used to, maybe recent cases have been found, I don't know.
>
>
> > it). This was not the case for Apith. Apith were not the masters of
> > the treed habitat that they inhabitated. When lions and hyena came
> > into their habitat they had to get high in trees to survive. As
> > described in my hypothesis, predatory sieges/massacres would have been
> > a regular part of existence for these earliest hominids.
>
> Apiths were doing about the same as baboons as far as % of victims in
> the South African caves. Lions are late in the record, they probably
> didn't have much impact on Apith evolution.
Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
> Baboons kill leopards in the day, and are victims at night. No reason
> to believe Apiths were any different.
>
>
> >
> > Homo, I suspect, probably had other differences from A'pith. They were
> > more likely to be on the ground (day and night) than A'pith. They had
> > some degree of trade. They had more sophisticated linguistic
> > abilities. They may have cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees.
> > And, of course, they had more sophisticated tools/weapons than did
> > A'pith.
>
> Trade is imagination. But, since rock was moved around the landscape in
> large quantities, your idea can't be falsifed either. Wonder what "more
> sophisticated" means?
> Unless forced to cultivate crops, modern hunter gathers can be quite
> resistant to planting anything.
We aren't talking about modern hunter gathers. Early man was communal,
not hunter gathering. The hunting/gathering assumption of early man
are little more than an anthropological old wives tale..
My neighbors still go out and dig wild
> roots with digging sticks, just like they have for the last 4000 years
> (the sticks are now made of metal rather than wood).
Relevance?
>
>
> >
> > There were other differences, of course. But even these were mostly
> > difference in degree rather than kind. As I indicated previously, both
> > A'pith and Homo were communal territorialists and, as such, they had
> > many behaviors in common. And I see no reason to categorize them, or
> > any hominid, as members of different species. Hominids exist in one
> > ever-broadening niche.
>
> Well, there certainly are lumpers and splitters out there, but the
> differences between early Homo and apiths are quite profound. Chimps
> are communal terrorialists also,
No, chimps aren't communal. Read my hypothesis is you are having
trouble distinguishing them.
and also can get away from lions by
> hiding in the trees. Why aren't we still chimps if trees are so
> necessary in hominid lifestyles?
My hypothesis answers this question.
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Claudius Denk:
> > > You're going to just continue believing that they hunted and scavenged
> > > out in treeless habitat.
> > >
> > > Lee Olsen:
> > > Are you talking about Homo, apiths, or both?
> > >
> > > Claudius Denk:
> > > Both.
> >
> > If that is the case, then you have misquoted me again. So between that
> > and this one:
> > Message-ID: <1165113030.3...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
> > Jim McGinn: "Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the
> > predatory realities in treeless habitat." I'm afraid we are going to
> > have to officially register you as a sap liar.
>
> You lost me. Why are you afraid to tell us what you think?
I never said "both" so when you say "You're going to just continue
believing that they..."
You are miquoting me. I never said anything about apiths hunting out on
the savanna. I may have said something about C4 grass, but that is not
that same as saying they were hunting out there as Homo obviously was.
Message-ID: <1164704227....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
Jim Maginn (McGinn): "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed
cats."
Wonder how many times he has to see this in order to get it?
Sorry about the spelling, it wasn't deliberate.
>
> >
> > Message-ID: <1164704227....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
> > Jim Maginn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
> > >
> > >
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > >
> > > Lee Olsen:
> > > It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and Homo quite another."
> > >
> > > Claudius Denk:
> > > I agree."
> > >
> > > Lee Olsen:
> > > We are dealing with two different species, doing two different things,
> > > in two different habitats. Perhaps you would like to qualify your
> > > answer with something more specific, just so we can avoid any possible
> > > misunderstanding.
> > >
> > > Claudius Denk:
> > > Again, you are right to ask. Now that I read how you've interpreted
> > > it, however, I think I must retract that statement. Both of them were
> > > the communal territorialists I describe in my hypothesis. Homo, unlike
> > > A'pith, eventually achieved a level of sophistication--as a result ot
> > > the group selective aspects of communal territorialism--that they
> > > became the masters of treed parts of savanna habitat (or large parts of
> >
> > Since Homo also became masters of the desert, we can also assume they
> > became masters
> > of the treeless savanna.
>
> There's a big difference between desert and treeless savannah.
You bet, even less trees to hide in.
>
> Also, your assumptions seem flippant.
Possibly, but correct just the same.
>
> They also did woodworking, so we can assume
> > they were also masters of the bush. Home bases have not yet been
> > identified, so proving where they were spending the majority of their
> > time remains unknown. I have not kept up on the home-base issue like I
> > used to, maybe recent cases have been found, I don't know.
> >
> >
> > > it). This was not the case for Apith. Apith were not the masters of
> > > the treed habitat that they inhabitated. When lions and hyena came
> > > into their habitat they had to get high in trees to survive. As
> > > described in my hypothesis, predatory sieges/massacres would have been
> > > a regular part of existence for these earliest hominids.
> >
> > Apiths were doing about the same as baboons as far as % of victims in
> > the South African caves. Lions are late in the record, they probably
> > didn't have much impact on Apith evolution.
>
> Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
CK Brain, you can get it interlibrary loan.
>
> > Baboons kill leopards in the day, and are victims at night. No reason
> > to believe Apiths were any different.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Homo, I suspect, probably had other differences from A'pith. They were
> > > more likely to be on the ground (day and night) than A'pith. They had
> > > some degree of trade. They had more sophisticated linguistic
> > > abilities. They may have cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees.
> > > And, of course, they had more sophisticated tools/weapons than did
> > > A'pith.
> >
> > Trade is imagination. But, since rock was moved around the landscape in
> > large quantities, your idea can't be falsifed either. Wonder what "more
> > sophisticated" means?
> > Unless forced to cultivate crops, modern hunter gathers can be quite
> > resistant to planting anything.
>
> We aren't talking about modern hunter gathers. Early man was communal,
> not hunter gathering. The hunting/gathering assumption of early man
> are little more than an anthropological old wives tale..
Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
>
> My neighbors still go out and dig wild
> > roots with digging sticks, just like they have for the last 4000 years
> > (the sticks are now made of metal rather than wood).
>
> Relevance?
Yes, they don't like "cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees"
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > There were other differences, of course. But even these were mostly
> > > difference in degree rather than kind. As I indicated previously, both
> > > A'pith and Homo were communal territorialists and, as such, they had
> > > many behaviors in common. And I see no reason to categorize them, or
> > > any hominid, as members of different species. Hominids exist in one
> > > ever-broadening niche.
> >
> > Well, there certainly are lumpers and splitters out there, but the
> > differences between early Homo and apiths are quite profound. Chimps
> > are communal terrorialists also,
>
> No, chimps aren't communal. Read my hypothesis is you are having
> trouble distinguishing them.
>
> and also can get away from lions by
> > hiding in the trees. Why aren't we still chimps if trees are so
> > necessary in hominid lifestyles?
>
> My hypothesis answers this question.
Answers are not evidence.
Jim McGinn
So, are you saying that this adds up to a reason to dismiss the fossil
evidence that indicates the existence of large feline predators in the
earliest years of hominid evolution? Does it also allow us to dismiss
the existence of bear-sized hyena?
Maybe they went through a flying phase?
>
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > You didn't cite the evidence. You cited a dimwitted interpretation of
> > > > the evidence by a guy named Dennell. That guy made the same dimwitted
> > > > assumption that you made, he immediately assumed that bipedalism was a
> > > > walking/running adaptation and he made the same dumb mistake of
> > > > assuming the present habitat was a treeless millions of years ago as it
> > > > is now.
> > >
> > > Now Jim is going to do a stand-up comedy routine imitating Paul doing
> > > a critique of a paper he hasn't read.
> > > Cite where Dennell said anything about what was treeded or treeless
> > > millions of years ago. Your comedy is as pathetic as your science. I
> > > don't need to cite any evidence, Dennell did that in his well cited
> > > paper---134 in all. How many citations did you say were in your
> > > science-fiction masterpiece? ROTFL. On second thought, maybe you do
> > > have potential for stand-up comedy!
> >
> > This is a fact: there is zero evidence of hominids in treeless habitat
> > prior to the holocene.
>
> This is another one of your facts "Both tigers and lions evolved from
> Sabertoothed cats."
> Who do you think the world is going to believe?
Does what other people think have any direct effect on its scientific
validity?
>
>
> >
> > > > The best evidence we have involves making comparison to the species
> > > > whose fossils (including plants--ie. pollen) are found
> > > > contemporaneously with the hominid fossils. According to this evidence
> > > > hominid are never found in treeless habitat. Hardly surprising.
> > > > Hominids have no adaptations that would allow them to survive in
> > > > treeless habitat. Moreover hominids are communal creatures. It simply
> > > > makes sense that hominid would begin practicing communal territorialism
> > > > at the treed locations in a greater savanna habitat.
> > > >
> > > > Bipedalism is not a long distance walking/running adaptation. It's an
> > > > adaptation associated with carrying/throwing rocks and sticks to
> > > > acheive communal territorialistic ends. It couldn't be more obvious.
> > > > All you have to do is apply a minimal amount of intelligence to
> > > > interpreting the evidence.
> > >
> > > More pathetic attempts at comedy as Jim cites himself in an endless
> > > loop of circular argumens. Not too bright on logic 101 are you? Not to
> > > mention your being scientifically challenged.
> >
> > Until the development of metal weapons hominids could not survive open
> > habitat because of predation. It's really that simple. (Not that
> > there weren't minor exceptions to the rule.)
>
> Actually, the evidence is just the oposite.
What evidence. (Normally, when people mention the word evidence they
then provide some.)
> Why would a metal weapon be
> any better than a wood spear at night in open habitat?
I'm tending to agree. As Will and I were discussing, I'm now starting
to think that domestication of horses (In addition to metal weapons)
may have been the big difference.
> We do not know
> if the apith victims in the South African caves were killed in the day
> or at night.
Uh . . . relevance?
> Since many baboons were involved and we know they get
> killed mostly at night, why would apiths be any different?
I don't understand the basis of your dispute. My hypothesis doesn't
specify night or day.
> But since
> Homo almost dropped out completely (no more than cats), we know they
> weren't taken day or night in any appreciable numbers. That was a huge
> turn-around.
I agree. As I explained, Homo achieved a level of sophistication by
which they were relatively unbothered by predators at their communal
sites (city, town). This was not the case for Apith.
> > Also, if you are asserting that early hominids did reside in open
> > habitat then you are doing so despite the fact there is no evidence
> > that supports that (you could argue, however, that there is little
> > evidence that contradicts it, and you would be right, I suspect).
>
> "No evidence"? Who said that, the same guy that said "Both tigers and
> lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."?
Relevance?
Jim McGinn
Lee Olsen wrote:
> You are miquoting me. I never said anything about apiths hunting out on
> the savanna. I may have said something about C4 grass, but that is not
> that same as saying they were hunting out there as Homo obviously was.
Lee, you have to stop telling us what you didn't say.
So, are you saying that Homo was hunting out in treeless savanna
habitat, fending off lions and hyena, hunting buffaloe? with a stone
tipped spear? What were they hunting? What were they hunting with?
So you have no examples that are relevant to the topic under
discussion?
> > > Apiths were doing about the same as baboons as far as % of victims in
> > > the South African caves. Lions are late in the record, they probably
> > > didn't have much impact on Apith evolution.
> >
> > Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
>
> CK Brain, you can get it interlibrary loan.
Why don't you pull a quote from it? Or are you saying that you don't
have a copy of this paper handy? How long ago was it that you looked
at this paper?
> > We aren't talking about modern hunter gathers. Early man was communal,
> > not hunter gathering. The hunting/gathering assumption of early man
> > are little more than an anthropological old wives tale..
>
> Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
No response.
> > My neighbors still go out and dig wild
> > > roots with digging sticks, just like they have for the last 4000 years
> > > (the sticks are now made of metal rather than wood).
> >
> > Relevance?
>
> Yes, they don't like "cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees"
Uh?
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There were other differences, of course. But even these were mostly
> > > > difference in degree rather than kind. As I indicated previously, both
> > > > A'pith and Homo were communal territorialists and, as such, they had
> > > > many behaviors in common. And I see no reason to categorize them, or
> > > > any hominid, as members of different species. Hominids exist in one
> > > > ever-broadening niche.
> > >
> > > Well, there certainly are lumpers and splitters out there, but the
> > > differences between early Homo and apiths are quite profound. Chimps
> > > are communal terrorialists also,
> >
> > No, chimps aren't communal. Read my hypothesis is you are having
> > trouble distinguishing them.
> >
> > and also can get away from lions by
> > > hiding in the trees. Why aren't we still chimps if trees are so
> > > necessary in hominid lifestyles?
> >
> > My hypothesis answers this question.
>
> Answers are not evidence.
A hypothesis has to be consistent with all the evidence. You can't
just pick and choose what evidence you consider and what evidence you
ignore.
Lee Olsen
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Lee, you have to stop telling us what you didn't say.
>
Jim, you have to stop reading (between the lines) what I didn't say.
> So, are you saying that Homo was hunting out in treeless savanna
> habitat, fending off lions and hyena, hunting buffaloe? with a stone
> tipped spear? What were they hunting? What were they hunting with?
Not only treeless savanna, but highlands (of the lake basins), lowland
flood plains, woodlands (you should like that), edges of rainforests,
inbetween lake basins and Asia.
I don't think they missed much.
Yes, I cited it and it got flamed without counter evidence.
>
>
> > > > Apiths were doing about the same as baboons as far as % of victims in
> > > > the South African caves. Lions are late in the record, they probably
> > > > didn't have much impact on Apith evolution.
> > >
> > > Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
> >
> > CK Brain, you can get it interlibrary loan.
>
> Why don't you pull a quote from it?
Be more than happy to, just as soon as you start backing up the claims
that you make with citations of your own.
>
>
> > > We aren't talking about modern hunter gathers. Early man was communal,
> > > not hunter gathering. The hunting/gathering assumption of early man
> > > are little more than an anthropological old wives tale..
> >
> > Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
>
> No response.
Ooops, missed that one. Are you sure I won't find any "no response"
questions of mine if dig back through these posts? Anyway, I was
referring to your statement "This means that all through the stone age
hominids were strictly limited to treed habitat." So "all through"
would mean modern hunter gatherers, who still use stone tools in some
cases.
>
> > > My neighbors still go out and dig wild
> > > > roots with digging sticks, just like they have for the last 4000 years
> > > > (the sticks are now made of metal rather than wood).
> > >
> > > Relevance?
> >
> > Yes, they don't like "cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees"
>
> Uh?
If modern H/G aren't cultivating, why should chimp-like creatures do
it? Not to mention chimps don't cultivate gardens either.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There were other differences, of course. But even these were mostly
> > > > > difference in degree rather than kind. As I indicated previously, both
> > > > > A'pith and Homo were communal territorialists and, as such, they had
> > > > > many behaviors in common. And I see no reason to categorize them, or
> > > > > any hominid, as members of different species. Hominids exist in one
> > > > > ever-broadening niche.
> > > >
> > > > Well, there certainly are lumpers and splitters out there, but the
> > > > differences between early Homo and apiths are quite profound. Chimps
> > > > are communal terrorialists also,
> > >
> > > No, chimps aren't communal. Read my hypothesis is you are having
> > > trouble distinguishing them.
> > >
> > > and also can get away from lions by
> > > > hiding in the trees. Why aren't we still chimps if trees are so
> > > > necessary in hominid lifestyles?
> > >
> > > My hypothesis answers this question.
> >
> > Answers are not evidence.
>
> A hypothesis has to be consistent with all the evidence. You can't
> just pick and choose what evidence you consider and what evidence you
> ignore.
You seem to be ignoring plenty of evidence yourself. In fact, you seem
to be making most of your evidence up as you go along.
Lee Olsen
> So, are you saying that this adds up to a reason to dismiss the fossil
> evidence that indicates the existence of large feline predators in the
> earliest years of hominid evolution? Does it also allow us to dismiss
> the existence of bear-sized hyena?
Nope, I'm just separating Homo from the apiths. Apiths were victims of
bear-sized hyenas, why not? Saber-tooth cat bait also. But not lion, I
don't think there is any evidence for those mixing with apiths, maybe
late boisei at best.
>
> Maybe they went through a flying phase?
Just as likely as a swimming/diving phase.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > You didn't cite the evidence. You cited a dimwitted interpretation of
> > > > > the evidence by a guy named Dennell. That guy made the same dimwitted
> > > > > assumption that you made, he immediately assumed that bipedalism was a
> > > > > walking/running adaptation and he made the same dumb mistake of
> > > > > assuming the present habitat was a treeless millions of years ago as it
> > > > > is now.
> > > >
> > > > Now Jim is going to do a stand-up comedy routine imitating Paul doing
> > > > a critique of a paper he hasn't read.
> > > > Cite where Dennell said anything about what was treeded or treeless
> > > > millions of years ago. Your comedy is as pathetic as your science. I
> > > > don't need to cite any evidence, Dennell did that in his well cited
> > > > paper---134 in all. How many citations did you say were in your
> > > > science-fiction masterpiece? ROTFL. On second thought, maybe you do
> > > > have potential for stand-up comedy!
> > >
> > > This is a fact: there is zero evidence of hominids in treeless habitat
> > > prior to the holocene.
> >
> > This is another one of your facts "Both tigers and lions evolved from
> > Sabertoothed cats."
> > Who do you think the world is going to believe?
>
> Does what other people think have any direct effect on its scientific
> validity?
Well, in this case, I think everyone in the world knows Ligers did not
evolve from saber-toothes.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > The best evidence we have involves making comparison to the species
> > > > > whose fossils (including plants--ie. pollen) are found
> > > > > contemporaneously with the hominid fossils. According to this evidence
> > > > > hominid are never found in treeless habitat. Hardly surprising.
> > > > > Hominids have no adaptations that would allow them to survive in
> > > > > treeless habitat. Moreover hominids are communal creatures. It simply
> > > > > makes sense that hominid would begin practicing communal territorialism
> > > > > at the treed locations in a greater savanna habitat.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bipedalism is not a long distance walking/running adaptation. It's an
> > > > > adaptation associated with carrying/throwing rocks and sticks to
> > > > > acheive communal territorialistic ends. It couldn't be more obvious.
> > > > > All you have to do is apply a minimal amount of intelligence to
> > > > > interpreting the evidence.
> > > >
> > > > More pathetic attempts at comedy as Jim cites himself in an endless
> > > > loop of circular argumens. Not too bright on logic 101 are you? Not to
> > > > mention your being scientifically challenged.
> > >
> > > Until the development of metal weapons hominids could not survive open
> > > habitat because of predation. It's really that simple. (Not that
> > > there weren't minor exceptions to the rule.)
> >
> > Actually, the evidence is just the oposite.
>
> What evidence. (Normally, when people mention the word evidence they
> then provide some.)
"Until the development of metal weapons hominids could not survive open
habitat because of predation." And your evidence is?
>
> > Why would a metal weapon be
> > any better than a wood spear at night in open habitat?
>
> I'm tending to agree. As Will and I were discussing, I'm now starting
> to think that domestication of horses (In addition to metal weapons)
> may have been the big difference.
>
> > We do not know
> > if the apith victims in the South African caves were killed in the day
> > or at night.
>
> Uh . . . relevance?
You claimed trees were not far out of sight for apiths and Homo both.
If they were BOTH doing the tree thing, then the archaeological record
should be the same for both, not just one of them. I just don't
understand why Homo, who needs trees to survive, would not be a victim
at night, just like apiths and baboons.
>
> > Since many baboons were involved and we know they get
> > killed mostly at night, why would apiths be any different?
>
> I don't understand the basis of your dispute. My hypothesis doesn't
> specify night or day.
Then please explain what trees have to do with Homo?
>
> > But since
> > Homo almost dropped out completely (no more than cats), we know they
> > weren't taken day or night in any appreciable numbers. That was a huge
> > turn-around.
>
> I agree. As I explained, Homo achieved a level of sophistication by
> which they were relatively unbothered by predators at their communal
> sites (city, town). This was not the case for Apith.
Early Homo couldn't see at night no matter how sophisticated they were,
even modern soldiers with rifles, knives, and fire occasionally get
nabbed by a cat at night.
>
> > > Also, if you are asserting that early hominids did reside in open
> > > habitat then you are doing so despite the fact there is no evidence
> > > that supports that (you could argue, however, that there is little
> > > evidence that contradicts it, and you would be right, I suspect).
> >
> > "No evidence"? Who said that, the same guy that said "Both tigers and
> > lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."?
>
> Relevance?
You can't be very well read if you keep saying there is no evidence.
But if I cited that evidence, I predict it would get your auto-flame
job, so why bother?
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > What evidence. (Normally, when people mention the word evidence they
> > then provide some.)
>
> "Until the development of metal weapons hominids could not survive open
> habitat because of predation." And your evidence is?
If I mention evidence I provide it.
> > > We do not know
> > > if the apith victims in the South African caves were killed in the day
> > > or at night.
> >
> > Uh . . . relevance?
>
> You claimed trees were not far out of sight for apiths and Homo both.
Uh huh.
> If they were BOTH doing the tree thing,
I never used the phrase, "the tree thing."
> then the archaeological record
> should be the same for both, not just one of them.
Why would you make such a dimwitted assumption?
> I just don't
> understand why Homo, who needs trees to survive, would not be a victim
> at night, just like apiths and baboons.
Are you asking why homo is more advanced (sophisticated) than A'pith?
This is explained in my hypothesis. Pay particular attention to the
group selective aspects thereof. So, to answer your question more
explicitly, the group selective aspects of the scenario in my
hypothesis explain why homo is more advanced that earlier A'piths. And
the difference is sophistication explains how they effectively came to
prevent predators from being a constant threat in their communal
habitat.
>
> >
> > > Since many baboons were involved and we know they get
> > > killed mostly at night, why would apiths be any different?
> >
> > I don't understand the basis of your dispute. My hypothesis doesn't
> > specify night or day.
>
> Then please explain what trees have to do with Homo?
They resided in treed habitat.
>
>
> >
> > > But since
> > > Homo almost dropped out completely (no more than cats), we know they
> > > weren't taken day or night in any appreciable numbers. That was a huge
> > > turn-around.
> >
> > I agree. As I explained, Homo achieved a level of sophistication by
> > which they were relatively unbothered by predators at their communal
> > sites (city, town). This was not the case for Apith.
>
> Early Homo couldn't see at night no matter how sophisticated they were,
I'm sure homo could see as well or better than you or me.
> even modern soldiers with rifles, knives, and fire occasionally get
> nabbed by a cat at night.
What's your point?
>
> >
> > > > Also, if you are asserting that early hominids did reside in open
> > > > habitat then you are doing so despite the fact there is no evidence
> > > > that supports that (you could argue, however, that there is little
> > > > evidence that contradicts it, and you would be right, I suspect).
> > >
> > > "No evidence"? Who said that, the same guy that said "Both tigers and
> > > lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."?
> >
> > Relevance?
>
> You can't be very well read if you keep saying there is no evidence.
Of what?
> But if I cited that evidence, I predict it would get your auto-flame
> job, so why bother?
It doesn't matter whether the evidence exists. It matters whether you
believe it exists. If only you could wish it into existence.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > Lee, you have to stop telling us what you didn't say.
> >
>
> Jim, you have to stop reading (between the lines) what I didn't say.
>
>
> > So, are you saying that Homo was hunting out in treeless savanna
> > habitat, fending off lions and hyena, hunting buffaloe? with a stone
> > tipped spear? What were they hunting? What were they hunting with?
>
> Not only treeless savanna, but highlands (of the lake basins), lowland
> flood plains, woodlands (you should like that), edges of rainforests,
> inbetween lake basins and Asia.
> I don't think they missed much.
Wishful nonsense.
You were flamed because your statements were argumentative and
irrelvant to the point under discussion. You tried to dismiss the
existence of large feline predators in the earliest years of hominid
evolution based on an irrelevant observation.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > Apiths were doing about the same as baboons as far as % of victims in
> > > > > the South African caves. Lions are late in the record, they probably
> > > > > didn't have much impact on Apith evolution.
> > > >
> > > > Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
> > >
> > > CK Brain, you can get it interlibrary loan.
> >
> > Why don't you pull a quote from it?
>
> Be more than happy to, just as soon as you start backing up the claims
> that you make with citations of your own.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > > We aren't talking about modern hunter gathers. Early man was communal,
> > > > not hunter gathering. The hunting/gathering assumption of early man
> > > > are little more than an anthropological old wives tale..
> > >
> > > Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
> >
> > No response.
>
> Ooops, missed that one. Are you sure I won't find any "no response"
> questions of mine if dig back through these posts? Anyway, I was
> referring to your statement "This means that all through the stone age
> hominids were strictly limited to treed habitat." So "all through"
> would mean modern hunter gatherers, who still use stone tools in some
> cases.
Obviously not.
> >
> > > > My neighbors still go out and dig wild
> > > > > roots with digging sticks, just like they have for the last 4000 years
> > > > > (the sticks are now made of metal rather than wood).
> > > >
> > > > Relevance?
> > >
> > > Yes, they don't like "cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees"
> >
> > Uh?
>
> If modern H/G aren't cultivating, why should chimp-like creatures do
> it? Not to mention chimps don't cultivate gardens either.
Humans do. Humans are hominids.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There were other differences, of course. But even these were mostly
> > > > > > difference in degree rather than kind. As I indicated previously, both
> > > > > > A'pith and Homo were communal territorialists and, as such, they had
> > > > > > many behaviors in common. And I see no reason to categorize them, or
> > > > > > any hominid, as members of different species. Hominids exist in one
> > > > > > ever-broadening niche.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, there certainly are lumpers and splitters out there, but the
> > > > > differences between early Homo and apiths are quite profound. Chimps
> > > > > are communal terrorialists also,
> > > >
> > > > No, chimps aren't communal. Read my hypothesis is you are having
> > > > trouble distinguishing them.
> > > >
> > > > and also can get away from lions by
> > > > > hiding in the trees. Why aren't we still chimps if trees are so
> > > > > necessary in hominid lifestyles?
> > > >
> > > > My hypothesis answers this question.
> > >
> > > Answers are not evidence.
> >
> > A hypothesis has to be consistent with all the evidence. You can't
> > just pick and choose what evidence you consider and what evidence you
> > ignore.
>
> You seem to be ignoring plenty of evidence yourself. In fact, you seem
> to be making most of your evidence up as you go along.
Be specific.
pete
> > > > > > > Claudius Denk:
> > > > > > > This means that all through the stone age hominids were
> > > > > > > strictly limited to treed habitat.
> You were flamed because your statements were argumentative and
> irrelvant to the point under discussion. You tried to dismiss the
> existence of large feline predators in the earliest years of hominid
> evolution based on an irrelevant observation.
Are there any species that lions eat,
that don't live where lions live?
--
pete
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> > > What evidence. (Normally, when people mention the word evidence they
> > > then provide some.)
> >
> > "Until the development of metal weapons hominids could not survive open
> > habitat because of predation." And your evidence is?
>
> If I mention evidence I provide it.
If only you could wish it into existence.
>
> > > > We do not know
> > > > if the apith victims in the South African caves were killed in the day
> > > > or at night.
> > >
> > > Uh . . . relevance?
> >
> > You claimed trees were not far out of sight for apiths and Homo both.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> > If they were BOTH doing the tree thing,
>
> I never used the phrase, "the tree thing."
Do you hear strange voices often? I never said you did, if I did, I
would have cited you directly.
So, you deny that
Message-ID: <1164616361.9...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
"we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more than 50 or
maybe a 100 yards from the safety of trees." is not doing a tree thing?
Try reading for comprehension the second time.
>
> > then the archaeological record
> > should be the same for both, not just one of them.
>
> Why would you make such a dimwitted assumption?
It is not an assumption, it is a cold hard fact.
>
> > I just don't
> > understand why Homo, who needs trees to survive, would not be a victim
> > at night, just like apiths and baboons.
>
> Are you asking why homo is more advanced (sophisticated) than A'pith?
Try reading for comprehension. why would Homo, who needs trees to
survive, would not be a victim at night, just like apiths and baboons.?
> This is explained in my hypothesis. Pay particular attention to the
You don't have a hypothesis, you have imaginary ramblings.
> group selective aspects thereof. So, to answer your question more
> explicitly, the group selective aspects of the scenario in my
> hypothesis explain why homo is more advanced that earlier A'piths. And
> the difference is sophistication explains how they effectively came to
> prevent predators from being a constant threat in their communal
> habitat.
That isn't an answer to the question, it's evasion.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Since many baboons were involved and we know they get
> > > > killed mostly at night, why would apiths be any different?
> > >
> > > I don't understand the basis of your dispute. My hypothesis doesn't
> > > specify night or day.
> >
> > Then please explain what trees have to do with Homo?
>
> They resided in treed habitat.
"Are you sure about that? References?"
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > But since
> > > > Homo almost dropped out completely (no more than cats), we know they
> > > > weren't taken day or night in any appreciable numbers. That was a huge
> > > > turn-around.
> > >
> > > I agree. As I explained, Homo achieved a level of sophistication by
> > > which they were relatively unbothered by predators at their communal
> > > sites (city, town). This was not the case for Apith.
> >
> > Early Homo couldn't see at night no matter how sophisticated they were,
>
> I'm sure homo could see as well or better than you or me.
Which would not be good enough to escape cats at night.
>
> > even modern soldiers with rifles, knives, and fire occasionally get
> > nabbed by a cat at night.
>
> What's your point?
Homo didn't need to be teathered "50 or maybe a 100 yards from the
safety
of trees."
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > Also, if you are asserting that early hominids did reside in open
> > > > > habitat then you are doing so despite the fact there is no evidence
> > > > > that supports that (you could argue, however, that there is little
> > > > > evidence that contradicts it, and you would be right, I suspect).
> > > >
> > > > "No evidence"? Who said that, the same guy that said "Both tigers and
> > > > lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."?
> > >
> > > Relevance?
> >
> > You can't be very well read if you keep saying there is no evidence.
>
> Of what?
Jim McGinn: "fact there is no evidence" You made the claim, you tell
me.
>
> > But if I cited that evidence, I predict it would get your auto-flame
> > job, so why bother?
>
> It doesn't matter whether the evidence exists. It matters whether you
> believe it exists. If only you could wish it into existence.
Your complete and profound ignorance of the literature is hardly my
problem.
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > Lee, you have to stop telling us what you didn't say.
> > >
> >
> > Jim, you have to stop reading (between the lines) what I didn't say.
> >
> >
> > > So, are you saying that Homo was hunting out in treeless savanna
> > > habitat, fending off lions and hyena, hunting buffaloe? with a stone
> > > tipped spear? What were they hunting? What were they hunting with?
> >
> > Not only treeless savanna, but highlands (of the lake basins), lowland
> > flood plains, woodlands (you should like that), edges of rainforests,
> > inbetween lake basins and Asia.
> > I don't think they missed much.
>
> Wishful nonsense.
So, you believe as Marc does, that the scatter of stone tools were put
at the archaeological sites by ostriches?
> You tried to dismiss the
> existence of large feline predators in the earliest years of hominid
> evolution based on an irrelevant observation.
"You're a chickenshit phoney, afraid to quote me directly. Quote me
directly you stooge."
NOTICE: Jim McGinn is a registered liar here on sap.
Message-ID: <1165113030.3...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the
predatory realities in treeless habitat."
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Apiths were doing about the same as baboons as far as % of victims in
> > > > > > the South African caves. Lions are late in the record, they probably
> > > > > > didn't have much impact on Apith evolution.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
> > > >
> > > > CK Brain, you can get it interlibrary loan.
> > >
> > > Why don't you pull a quote from it?
> >
> > Be more than happy to, just as soon as you start backing up the claims
> > that you make with citations of your own.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > We aren't talking about modern hunter gathers. Early man was communal,
> > > > > not hunter gathering. The hunting/gathering assumption of early man
> > > > > are little more than an anthropological old wives tale..
> > > >
> > > > Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
> > >
> > > No response.
> >
> > Ooops, missed that one. Are you sure I won't find any "no response"
> > questions of mine if dig back through these posts? Anyway, I was
> > referring to your statement "This means that all through the stone age
> > hominids were strictly limited to treed habitat." So "all through"
> > would mean modern hunter gatherers, who still use stone tools in some
> > cases.
>
> Obviously not.
Obviously so.
>
> > >
> > > > > My neighbors still go out and dig wild
> > > > > > roots with digging sticks, just like they have for the last 4000 years
> > > > > > (the sticks are now made of metal rather than wood).
> > > > >
> > > > > Relevance?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, they don't like "cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees"
> > >
> > > Uh?
> >
> > If modern H/G aren't cultivating, why should chimp-like creatures do
> > it? Not to mention chimps don't cultivate gardens either.
>
> Humans do. Humans are hominids.
Humans built the Grand Coulee Dam, chimps and apiths could not.
> > > > > My hypothesis answers this question.
> > > >
> > > > Answers are not evidence.
> > >
> > > A hypothesis has to be consistent with all the evidence. You can't
> > > just pick and choose what evidence you consider and what evidence you
> > > ignore.
> >
> > You seem to be ignoring plenty of evidence yourself. In fact, you seem
> > to be making most of your evidence up as you go along.
>
> Be specific.
Message-ID: <1164616361.9...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more than
50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety of trees."
Message-ID: <1164704227....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
Message-ID: <1164791885....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Uh, the grasslands of a savannah environment tend to be treeless,
dimwit. This is all but common knowledge.
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/savanna.htm
There are several different types of savannas around the world. The
savannas we are most familiar with are the East African savannas
covered with acacia trees.
Too bad you didn't qualify your statement by pointing out that it is
savanna plains that tend to be treeless. You need to be more more
specific in the future.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Your question seems too vague to consider. What's your point?
Let's keep it simple. Yes or no, IYO, did lion sized (or bigger)
predators exist in the earliest (late miocene) years of hominid
evolution? It's a simple question, Pete. Why not give us a simple
answer (you evasive twit)? As you can see, Lee is bending over
backwards to avoid this question. Will you do the same? (My guess is
you will.)
>
> --
> pete
Lee Olsen
"You're a chickenshit phoney, afraid to quote me directly."
I see your arguments have disintegrated from simple misinformation to
just plain lies. Message-ID:
<1165382392.9...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
Lee: "Apiths were victims of bear-sized hyenas, why not? Saber-tooth
cat bait also. But not lion, I don't think there is any evidence for
those mixing with apiths, maybe late boisei at best."
What part of the simple statement "cat bait" are you too stupid to
understand? As for your imaginary late Miocene lions, cite fossil
evidence for them.
>
> >
> > --
> > pete
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Let's keep it simple. Yes or no, IYO, did lion sized (or bigger)
> > predators exist in the earliest (late miocene) years of hominid
> > evolution?
No response
> > It's a simple question, Pete. Why not give us a simple
> > answer (you evasive twit)? As you can see, Lee is bending over
> > backwards to avoid this question. Will you do the same? (My guess is
> > you will.)
It seems I guessed right.
Jim McGinn
Lee Olsen wrote:
> "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more than 50 or
> maybe a 100 yards from the safety of trees." is not doing a tree thing?
> Try reading for comprehension the second time.
>
> >
> > > then the archaeological record
> > > should be the same for both, not just one of them.
> >
> > Why would you make such a dimwitted assumption?
>
> It is not an assumption, it is a cold hard fact.
It's an assumption.
> > > I just don't
> > > understand why Homo, who needs trees to survive, would not be a victim
> > > at night, just like apiths and baboons.
> >
> > Are you asking why homo is more advanced (sophisticated) than A'pith?
>
> Try reading for comprehension. why would Homo, who needs trees to
> survive, would not be a victim at night, just like apiths and baboons.?
For the reasons I mentioned previously.
> > This is explained in my hypothesis. Pay particular attention to the
>
> You don't have a hypothesis, you have imaginary ramblings.
No, you don't have a hypothesis. You have nothing but vagueness and
obedience to authority. I have a hypothesis and you are unable to
dispute it.
> > group selective aspects thereof. So, to answer your question more
> > explicitly, the group selective aspects of the scenario in my
> > hypothesis explain why homo is more advanced that earlier A'piths. And
> > the difference is sophistication explains how they effectively came to
> > prevent predators from being a constant threat in their communal
> > habitat.
>
> That isn't an answer to the question, it's evasion.
What part of it don't you understand?
> Homo didn't need to be teathered "50 or maybe a 100 yards from the
> safety of trees."
They had no defense against predators.
> > > > > > Also, if you are asserting that early hominids did reside in open
> > > > > > habitat then you are doing so despite the fact there is no evidence
> > > > > > that supports that (you could argue, however, that there is little
> > > > > > evidence that contradicts it, and you would be right, I suspect).
> > > > >
> > > > > "No evidence"? Who said that, the same guy that said "Both tigers and
> > > > > lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."?
> > > >
> > > > Relevance?
> > >
> > > You can't be very well read if you keep saying there is no evidence.
> >
> > Of what?
>
> Jim McGinn: "fact there is no evidence" You made the claim, you tell
> me.
Read upthread.
> > > But if I cited that evidence, I predict it would get your auto-flame
> > > job, so why bother?
> >
> > It doesn't matter whether the evidence exists. It matters whether you
> > believe it exists. If only you could wish it into existence.
>
> Your complete and profound ignorance of the literature is hardly my
> problem.
I know the literature (certainly better than you). The difference is I
don't let it lead me by the nose.
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net forgot where his fossil lions went
Upon further review:
1) Message-ID: <1165104702....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "The Serengeti plains are treeless presently. They were not
treeless when early hominids occupied the same sites."
http://www.serengeti.org
"The Serengeti ecosystem is one of the oldest on earth. The essential
features of climate, vegetation and fauna have barely changed in the
past million years."
Contrary to McGinn's ignorant statement, archaeological sites have
existed at Olduvai during the last million years. This means by
definition ("Serengeti Plains") there were sites that were occupied
during treeless times.
Specifically
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/africa/olduvai_gorge.html
"The gorge was modified by fault shifting and erosion. It is after
these geographical changes that Beds III and IV were created. These two
Beds range from 1,150,000 to 600,000 years ago."
2) Message-ID: <1164704227....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
"The analysis shows that the sabertooth cats were a sister group to
the modern cats--that is, they diverged early on from the ancestors of
modern cats and are not closely related to any living felid species."
Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American
cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.
3) Message-ID: <1164791885....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Uh, the grasslands of a savannah environment tend to be
treeless, dimwit. This is all but common knowledge."
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/savanna.htm
"There are several different types of savannas around the world. The
savannas we are most familiar with are the East African savannas
covered with acacia trees."
You should have been more specific and said savanna plains, not
grasslands. Maybe you will get it right next time.
spiznet
It is unbelievable (to me) that in one thread JMc is throwing out his
theory of many years (8mya human ancestors) and jumping to a completely
undefensible position of 2.5 mya homo tree-dwellers. Guess what, Jim,
we KNOW the climate 2.5 mya. It is not TREES. You have outted yourself
and lost your fight for the final time (as well as senses).
-Spiznet
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> > "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more than 50 or
> > maybe a 100 yards from the safety of trees." is not doing a tree thing?
> > Try reading for comprehension the second time.
> >
> > >
> > > > then the archaeological record
> > > > should be the same for both, not just one of them.
> > >
> > > Why would you make such a dimwitted assumption?
> >
> > It is not an assumption, it is a cold hard fact.
>
> It's an assumption.
Your ignorance of the literature is not my problem.
>
> > > > I just don't
> > > > understand why Homo, who needs trees to survive, would not be a victim
> > > > at night, just like apiths and baboons.
> > >
> > > Are you asking why homo is more advanced (sophisticated) than A'pith?
> >
> > Try reading for comprehension. why would Homo, who needs trees to
> > survive, would not be a victim at night, just like apiths and baboons.?
>
> For the reasons I mentioned previously.
Reasons from a loon are not evidence.
>
> > > This is explained in my hypothesis. Pay particular attention to the
> >
> > You don't have a hypothesis, you have imaginary ramblings.
>
> No, you don't have a hypothesis. You have nothing but vagueness and
> obedience to authority. I have a hypothesis and you are unable to
> dispute it.
No, what you have is imagination. I not only disputed it, I trashed
it. No sites on treeless savanna indeed. What an idiot.
1) Message-ID: <1165104702....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "The Serengeti plains are treeless presently. They were not
treeless when early hominids occupied the same sites."
http://www.serengeti.org
"The Serengeti ecosystem is one of the oldest on earth. The essential
features of climate, vegetation and fauna have barely changed in the
past million years."
Contrary to McGinn's ignorant statement, archaeological sites have
existed at Olduvai during the last million years. This means by
definition ("Serengeti Plains") there were sites that were occupied
during treeless times.
Specifically
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/africa/olduvai_gorge.html
"The gorge was modified by fault shifting and erosion. It is after
these geographical changes that Beds III and IV were created. These two
Beds range from 1,150,000 to 600,000 years ago."
>
> > > group selective aspects thereof. So, to answer your question more
> > > explicitly, the group selective aspects of the scenario in my
> > > hypothesis explain why homo is more advanced that earlier A'piths. And
> > > the difference is sophistication explains how they effectively came to
> > > prevent predators from being a constant threat in their communal
> > > habitat.
> >
> > That isn't an answer to the question, it's evasion.
>
> What part of it don't you understand?
Lip service is not evidence of anything other than your delusional
imagination.
>
> > Homo didn't need to be teathered "50 or maybe a 100 yards from the
> > safety of trees."
>
> They had no defense against predators.
Going to do another stand-up comedy routine imitating Paul doing a
critique on work he hasn't read? See CK Brain.
>
> > > > > > > Also, if you are asserting that early hominids did reside in open
> > > > > > > habitat then you are doing so despite the fact there is no evidence
> > > > > > > that supports that (you could argue, however, that there is little
> > > > > > > evidence that contradicts it, and you would be right, I suspect).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "No evidence"? Who said that, the same guy that said "Both tigers and
> > > > > > lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."?
> > > > >
> > > > > Relevance?
> > > >
> > > > You can't be very well read if you keep saying there is no evidence.
> > >
> > > Of what?
> >
> > Jim McGinn: "fact there is no evidence" You made the claim, you tell
> > me.
>
> Read upthread.
for more lip service and no evidence.
>
> > > > But if I cited that evidence, I predict it would get your auto-flame
> > > > job, so why bother?
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter whether the evidence exists. It matters whether you
> > > believe it exists. If only you could wish it into existence.
> >
> > Your complete and profound ignorance of the literature is hardly my
> > problem.
>
> I know the literature (certainly better than you).
You are certainly doing a good job hiding this profound knowledge
behind idiot statements like:
Message-ID: <1164704227....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
So far, you haven't demonstrated that you have even been in a library,
let alone read anything in one. You can't cite anything because you
don't know anything to cite, you made it all up.
pete
>
> pete wrote:
> > claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > >
> > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > > Jim McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > Claudius Denk:
> > > > > > > > > This means that all through
> > > > > > > > > the stone age hominids were
> > > > > > > > > strictly limited to treed habitat.
> >
> > > You were flamed because your statements were argumentative and
> > > irrelvant to the point under discussion. You tried to dismiss the
> > > existence of large feline predators in
> > > the earliest years of hominid
> > > evolution based on an irrelevant observation.
> >
> > Are there any species that lions eat,
> > that don't live where lions live?
>
> Your question seems too vague to consider.
That's pretty stupid, even for you, Jim.
> What's your point?
The point is that big cats DID eat early hominids,
which they couldn't have done,
if they didn't share the same habitat with them.
http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/eyeteeth.htm
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/root1.html
"Most South African sites consist of remains of the lairs of
predators who ate australopithecines for dinner,
as suggested by the many
carnivore tooth marks on hominid skulls and bones."
> Let's keep it simple. Yes or no, IYO, did lion sized (or bigger)
> predators exist in the earliest (late miocene) years of hominid
> evolution?
Yes.
>It's a simple question, Pete.
> Why not give us a simple answer (you evasive twit)?
I don't know.
Having just answered your first question,
makes that second one a lot tougher.
> As you can see, Lee is bending over
> backwards to avoid this question.
> Will you do the same?
Each of your questions after the first one,
contain at least one invalid hypothesis.
> (My guess is you will.)
There isn't any difference between your
lack of guessing skill and your lack of hypothesizing skill,
because all your hypothesese are just uneducated guesses.
And stupid too.
--
pete
Jim McGinn
Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudi...@sbcglobal.net forgot where his fossil lions went
>
> Upon further review:
> 1) Message-ID: <1165104702....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
> Jim McGinn: "The Serengeti plains are treeless presently. They were not
> treeless when early hominids occupied the same sites."
>
> http://www.serengeti.org
> "The Serengeti ecosystem is one of the oldest on earth.
I can't make sense of this statement. The serengeti-like ecosystem
(ethiopian fauna) is, geologically speaking, very young. It emerged
about 8 mya.
> The essential
> features of climate, vegetation and fauna have barely changed in the
> past million years."
Well, I think the point in time we stipulated, 2 mya, had a climate
that is considered to have been wetter and warmer. This was before the
ice ages.
Certainly you're not saying we should ignore paleoclimatological data.
> Contrary to McGinn's ignorant statement, archaeological sites have
> existed at Olduvai during the last million years.
Uh, never said they didn't. And what's your point?
> This means by
> definition ("Serengeti Plains") there were sites that were occupied
> during treeless times.
By definition?
Gee, Lee, it's just hard to argue with your logic.
> Specifically
> http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/africa/olduvai_gorge.html
> "The gorge was modified by fault shifting and erosion. It is after
> these geographical changes that Beds III and IV were created. These two
> Beds range from 1,150,000 to 600,000 years ago."
Relevance?
>
> 2) Message-ID: <1164704227....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
> Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."
>
> "The analysis shows that the sabertooth cats were a sister group to
> the modern cats--that is, they diverged early on from the ancestors of
> modern cats and are not closely related to any living felid species."
> Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American
> cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.
Well then I guess I stand corrected on this point.
> 3) Message-ID: <1164791885....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Jim McGinn: "Uh, the grasslands of a savannah environment tend to be
> treeless, dimwit. This is all but common knowledge."
>
> http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/savanna.htm
> "There are several different types of savannas around the world. The
> savannas we are most familiar with are the East African savannas
> covered with acacia trees."
How is this relevant? Are you saying treeless habitat did not exist
2mya? Obviously you're not saying this. (Hopefully you're not that
dumb. The fossil record proves that treeless habitat has existed in
East Africa for 8 my.) In which case I'm wondering what your point is.
> You should have been more specific and said savanna plains, not
> grasslands. Maybe you will get it right next time.
If you want to progress in this discipline I suggest you get a better
understanding of the paleoclimatological origins of monsoon climate and
the paleontological origins of the Ethiopian fauna.
Jim McGinn
pete wrote:
> > > Are there any species that lions eat,
> > > that don't live where lions live?
> >
> > Your question seems too vague to consider.
>
> That's pretty stupid, even for you, Jim.
>
> > What's your point?
>
> The point is that big cats DID eat early hominids,
> which they couldn't have done,
> if they didn't share the same habitat with them.
Uh, okay. I suspect you think you've stated something profound. I
don't see it. What's your point?
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/eyeteeth.htm
>
> http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/root1.html
>
> "Most South African sites consist of remains of the lairs of
> predators who ate australopithecines for dinner,
> as suggested by the many
> carnivore tooth marks on hominid skulls and bones."
Yep.
> > Let's keep it simple. Yes or no, IYO, did lion sized (or bigger)
> > predators exist in the earliest (late miocene) years of hominid
> > evolution?
>
> Yes.
Why do you think Lee wishes beyond hope to not believe this?
> >It's a simple question, Pete.
> > Why not give us a simple answer (you evasive twit)?
>
> I don't know.
> Having just answered your first question,
> makes that second one a lot tougher.
Feel free to answer the second question first.
> > As you can see, Lee is bending over
> > backwards to avoid this question.
>
> > Will you do the same?
>
> Each of your questions after the first one,
> contain at least one invalid hypothesis.
>
> > (My guess is you will.)
>
> There isn't any difference between your
> lack of guessing skill and your lack of hypothesizing skill,
> because all your hypothesese are just uneducated guesses.
> And stupid too.
I wish I was more smarter like yew.
Lee Olsen
>
> > > Let's keep it simple. Yes or no, IYO, did lion sized (or bigger)
> > > predators exist in the earliest (late miocene) years of hominid
> > > evolution?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Why do you think Lee wishes beyond hope to not believe this?
"You're a chickenshit phoney, afraid to quote me directly."
"I see your arguments have disintegrated from simple misinformation to
just plain lies.
Message-ID: <1165382392.924931.265...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
Lee: "Apiths were victims of bear-sized hyenas, why not? Saber-tooth
cat bait also. But not lion, I don't think there is any evidence for
those mixing with apiths, maybe late boisei at best."
What part of the simple statement "cat bait" are you too stupid to
understand? As for your imaginary late Miocene lions, cite fossil
evidence for them."
IOW, show where lions, not saber-tooth cats or leopards, were eating
apiths. Hard evidence exists that leopards were killing or scavenging
apiths at Swartkrans for example. You need to be specific. It matters a
great deal if lions were involved. Lions evolved relatively late, if
there were no lions present at many of these sites, it would be hard
for them to kill anything, let alone apiths. Most of this discussion
and Marc's original thread has centered on how dangerous lions are,
well they certainly are dangerous, but if they weren't around, who
cares? Once Homo (and lions were prevalent), bingo, no more caves
loaded with hominid bones. Apiths were well on their way to extinction
at this time, but so far as I know, lions could have played no part in
the predation of the earliest apiths. I have no argument against Lucy
hiding in trees to escape whatever predators were around early, but
that does not include Homo or his ability to function out ("50-100
yds") away from trees, lions or not.
Now, what I can expect from you in reply to this is a complete
mistatement of what I just said.
Lies seem to be the only argument you have.
Lee Olsen
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > claudi...@sbcglobal.net forgot where his fossil lions went
> >
> > Upon further review:
> > 1) Message-ID: <1165104702....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
> > Jim McGinn: "The Serengeti plains are treeless presently. They were not
> > treeless when early hominids occupied the same sites."
> >
> > http://www.serengeti.org
> > "The Serengeti ecosystem is one of the oldest on earth.
>
> I can't make sense of this statement. The serengeti-like ecosystem
> (ethiopian fauna) is, geologically speaking, very young. It emerged
> about 8 mya.
I don't think they mean "the first savanna" per se, just "barely
changed" for the time it's been there is how I read it.
>
> > The essential
> > features of climate, vegetation and fauna have barely changed in the
> > past million years."
>
> Well, I think the point in time we stipulated, 2 mya, had a climate
> that is considered to have been wetter and warmer. This was before the
> ice ages.
>
> Certainly you're not saying we should ignore paleoclimatological data.
If you want to progress in this discipline I suggest you get a better
understanding of the English language and learn how to critically read
what was actually said rather than what you imagine was said. "point in
time"? Do you think human evolution occured at a point in time only at
2 mya? Range in time, not point in time is the only thing I would agree
to.
>
> > Contrary to McGinn's ignorant statement, archaeological sites have
> > existed at Olduvai during the last million years.
>
> Uh, never said they didn't. And what's your point?
Message-ID: <1165098768.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "Well, it depends how you interpret it. The supposition
that early man,
including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
completely defenseless against the predators thereof."
ID: <1164616361.9...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."
Homo did not need trees for protection as you claimed, that is the
point. The Serengeti Plains are treeless (sometime after 2 mya),
archaeological sites exist there. Does this include exactly at 2 mya or
8 mya? No, never said it did. I just refuted your claim of Homo being
dependent on trees, that was the only issue, in spite of what you think
you might have read.
>
> > This means by
> > definition ("Serengeti Plains") there were sites that were occupied
> > during treeless times.
>
> By definition?
>
> Gee, Lee, it's just hard to argue with your logic.
The Serengeti has "barely changed" and that means no trees. It is only
in your imagination that "8 mya" got into this.
>
> > Specifically
> > http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/africa/olduvai_gorge.html
> > "The gorge was modified by fault shifting and erosion. It is after
> > these geographical changes that Beds III and IV were created. These two
> > Beds range from 1,150,000 to 600,000 years ago."
>
> Relevance?
It falsifies your statement: Jim McGinn: "The Serengeti plains are
treeless presently. They were not treeless when early hominids occupied
the same sites."
>
> > 3) Message-ID: <1164791885....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > Jim McGinn: "Uh, the grasslands of a savannah environment tend to be
> > treeless, dimwit. This is all but common knowledge."
> >
> > http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/savanna.htm
> > "There are several different types of savannas around the world. The
> > savannas we are most familiar with are the East African savannas
> > covered with acacia trees."
>
> How is this relevant? Are you saying treeless habitat did not exist
> 2mya? Obviously you're not saying this. (Hopefully you're not that
> dumb. The fossil record proves that treeless habitat has existed in
> East Africa for 8 my.) In which case I'm wondering what your point is.
I only said the archaeological record started at Olduvai at this time
(2 mya). Your truism (for the 2 mya point in time) has nothing to do
with the fact that at some point early Homo was dealing with treeless
habitat, in spite of lions.
>
>
> > You should have been more specific and said savanna plains, not
> > grasslands. Maybe you will get it right next time.
>
> If you want to progress in this discipline I suggest you get a better
> understanding of the paleoclimatological origins of monsoon climate and
> the paleontological origins of the Ethiopian fauna.
If you want to progress in this discipline I suggest you get a better
understanding of the English language. I never said anything about 8
mya. I only claimed early Homo was doing just fine in treeless areas
(deserts/Serengeti Plains) contrary to your claim Homo needed to be
within 50-100 yards from them. One of your many problems seems to be
your complete misunderstanding of the habits of lions.
pete
> I wish I was more smarter like yew.
You seriously believe that the reason that everybody
always tells you that you're an idiot
is because you're the only person on the planet
that's smart enough to understand what you're saying,
don't you?
--
pete
Jim McGinn
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Let's keep it simple. Yes or no, IYO, did lion sized (or bigger)
> > > > predators exist in the earliest (late miocene) years of hominid
> > > > evolution?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Why do you think Lee wishes beyond hope to not believe this?
>
> "You're a chickenshit phoney, afraid to quote me directly."
>
> "I see your arguments have disintegrated from simple misinformation to
> just plain lies.
>
> Message-ID: <1165382392.924931.265...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
> Lee: "Apiths were victims of bear-sized hyenas, why not? Saber-tooth
> cat bait also. But not lion, I don't think there is any evidence for
> those mixing with apiths, maybe late boisei at best."
>
> What part of the simple statement "cat bait" are you too stupid to
> understand? As for your imaginary late Miocene lions, cite fossil
> evidence for them."
>
> IOW, show where lions, not saber-tooth cats or leopards, were eating
> apiths. Hard evidence exists that leopards were killing or scavenging
> apiths at Swartkrans for example. You need to be specific. It matters a
> great deal if lions were involved. Lions evolved relatively late, if
> there were no lions present at many of these sites, it would be hard
> for them to kill anything, let alone apiths.
The issue was whether or not A'pith would have been confined to treed
habitat. As to whether or not the exact predators involved have the
label of lion or some other label I don't give a flying fuck
Jim McGinn
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > claudi...@sbcglobal.net forgot where his fossil lions went
> > >
> > > Upon further review:
> > > 1) Message-ID: <1165104702....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
> > > Jim McGinn: "The Serengeti plains are treeless presently. They were not
> > > treeless when early hominids occupied the same sites."
> > >
> > > http://www.serengeti.org
> > > "The Serengeti ecosystem is one of the oldest on earth.
> >
> > I can't make sense of this statement. The serengeti-like ecosystem
> > (ethiopian fauna) is, geologically speaking, very young. It emerged
> > about 8 mya.
>
> I don't think they mean "the first savanna" per se, just "barely
> changed" for the time it's been there is how I read it.
?
> >
> > > The essential
> > > features of climate, vegetation and fauna have barely changed in the
> > > past million years."
> >
> > Well, I think the point in time we stipulated, 2 mya, had a climate
> > that is considered to have been wetter and warmer. This was before the
> > ice ages.
> >
> > Certainly you're not saying we should ignore paleoclimatological data.
>
> If you want to progress in this discipline I suggest you get a better
> understanding of the English language and learn how to critically read
> what was actually said rather than what you imagine was said. "point in
> time"? Do you think human evolution occured at a point in time only at
> 2 mya? Range in time, not point in time is the only thing I would agree
> to.
What's your point?
Evidenc indicates it did change. I'll go with the evidence. You do
what you want.
>
>
> >
> > > Specifically
> > > http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/africa/olduvai_gorge.html
> > > "The gorge was modified by fault shifting and erosion. It is after
> > > these geographical changes that Beds III and IV were created. These two
> > > Beds range from 1,150,000 to 600,000 years ago."
> >
> > Relevance?
>
> It falsifies your statement: Jim McGinn: "The Serengeti plains are
> treeless presently. They were not treeless when early hominids occupied
> the same sites."
Obviously it doesn't falsify it. Look at the dates.
>
>
>
> >
> > > 3) Message-ID: <1164791885....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > Jim McGinn: "Uh, the grasslands of a savannah environment tend to be
> > > treeless, dimwit. This is all but common knowledge."
> > >
> > > http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/savanna.htm
> > > "There are several different types of savannas around the world. The
> > > savannas we are most familiar with are the East African savannas
> > > covered with acacia trees."
> >
> > How is this relevant? Are you saying treeless habitat did not exist
> > 2mya? Obviously you're not saying this. (Hopefully you're not that
> > dumb. The fossil record proves that treeless habitat has existed in
> > East Africa for 8 my.) In which case I'm wondering what your point is.
>
> I only said the archaeological record started at Olduvai at this time
> (2 mya). Your truism (for the 2 mya point in time) has nothing to do
> with the fact that at some point early Homo was dealing with treeless
> habitat, in spite of lions.
Evidence?
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > > claudi...@sbcglobal.net forgot where his fossil lions went
> > > >
> > > > Upon further review:
> > > > 1) Message-ID: <1165104702....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
> > > > Jim McGinn: "The Serengeti plains are treeless presently. They were not
> > > > treeless when early hominids occupied the same sites."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.serengeti.org
> > > > "The Serengeti ecosystem is one of the oldest on earth.
> > >
> > > I can't make sense of this statement. The serengeti-like ecosystem
> > > (ethiopian fauna) is, geologically speaking, very young. It emerged
> > > about 8 mya.
> >
> > I don't think they mean "the first savanna" per se, just "barely
> > changed" for the time it's been there is how I read it.
>
> ?
No trees for the last million years, simple enough?
>
> > >
> > > > The essential
> > > > features of climate, vegetation and fauna have barely changed in the
> > > > past million years."
> > >
> > > Well, I think the point in time we stipulated, 2 mya, had a climate
> > > that is considered to have been wetter and warmer. This was before the
> > > ice ages.
> > >
> > > Certainly you're not saying we should ignore paleoclimatological data.
> >
> > If you want to progress in this discipline I suggest you get a better
> > understanding of the English language and learn how to critically read
> > what was actually said rather than what you imagine was said. "point in
> > time"? Do you think human evolution occured at a point in time only at
> > 2 mya? Range in time, not point in time is the only thing I would agree
> > to.
>
> What's your point?
Better yet, what was yours?
The Serengeti Park site says barely changed. You are claiming 50-100
yds. between trees, in order for "both" apiths and Homo to live there,
that is a substantial amout of trees for the Serengeti Park to miss.
Where is your citation that says they are wrong? PS, lip service
doesn't count for a citation.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Specifically
> > > > http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/africa/olduvai_gorge.html
> > > > "The gorge was modified by fault shifting and erosion. It is after
> > > > these geographical changes that Beds III and IV were created. These two
> > > > Beds range from 1,150,000 to 600,000 years ago."
> > >
> > > Relevance?
> >
> > It falsifies your statement: Jim McGinn: "The Serengeti plains are
> > treeless presently. They were not treeless when early hominids occupied
> > the same sites."
>
> Obviously it doesn't falsify it. Look at the dates.
You said "Both" and that is the only issue that I'm challenging. Those
dates include the period of time that Homo was on the treeless
Serengeti Plains.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > 3) Message-ID: <1164791885....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > > Jim McGinn: "Uh, the grasslands of a savannah environment tend to be
> > > > treeless, dimwit. This is all but common knowledge."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/savanna.htm
> > > > "There are several different types of savannas around the world. The
> > > > savannas we are most familiar with are the East African savannas
> > > > covered with acacia trees."
> > >
> > > How is this relevant? Are you saying treeless habitat did not exist
> > > 2mya? Obviously you're not saying this. (Hopefully you're not that
> > > dumb. The fossil record proves that treeless habitat has existed in
> > > East Africa for 8 my.) In which case I'm wondering what your point is.
> >
> > I only said the archaeological record started at Olduvai at this time
> > (2 mya). Your truism (for the 2 mya point in time) has nothing to do
> > with the fact that at some point early Homo was dealing with treeless
> > habitat, in spite of lions.
>
> Evidence?
See previously cited Serengeti Park site. If you don't like what they
say, find an opposing view of your own and cite it.
Lee Olsen
No, you simply backed down from what you first said.
Message-ID: <1165297102.6...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
JimMcGinn: "When lions and hyena came into their habitat they had to
get high in trees to survive."
They?
Jim McGinn: "Both" (Meaning Homo). Which is it and how many times are
you going to change your position? My objection was to both. But I did
agree about Lucy being---"cat bait" remember? But another problem was
your statement that "Sabertoothed lion" (no such thing) were bigger and
that was supposed to be a problem and you also proclaimed the lions
speed was also a factor.
You are wrong on both counts. Saber-toothed cats were very specialized
animals. They wouldn't have evolved giant canines just to stab a tiny
apith. They were geared for giant slow moving creatures. They had
bob-tails, further indication they were slow ambush hunters. The only
way they would be a threat to a hominid is if hominids were wandering
around in tall grass or thick bush, otherwise they could be seen a
mile away and would never be able to catch Lucy. As long as she stayed
out of the ambush zones (and stayed near trees), saber-tooths would
have been no problem. Lions weren't around early, so no matter how
fast they were, what early apith would care?
All the above demonstrates the lack of thought you have put into
this. The same applies to your sci-fi hypothesis. You were told by
qualified people (Greg Laden, Su Solomon etc.) in 1999 that you needed
to go back to the library. You have made it very clear you didn't take
their advice.
Jim McGinn
A'pith only. This would be apparent if you included the context.
>
> Jim McGinn: "Both" (Meaning Homo). Which is it and how many times are
> you going to change your position? My objection was to both. But I did
> agree about Lucy being---"cat bait" remember?
Yes, the evidence is pretty indisputable on this point, AFAICT. It
would be a problem for my hypothesis if the evidence did not indicate
that lucy was heavily preyed upon. Especially considering that
predation is essential to the group selective mechanism of my
hypothesis of early hominid evolution.
> But another problem was
> your statement that "Sabertoothed lion" (no such thing) were bigger and
> that was supposed to be a problem and you also proclaimed the lions
> speed was also a factor.
So, you're suggesting we should just pretend they are tame? Why not
let paleo-reconstruction of habitat based of fossil evidence dictate
your conclusion. Accordingly we can only come to one conclusion: there
were a lot of violent, vicious beasts in their habitat. Nothing you're
saying here amounts to a dispute with this supposition. So, get over
it.
> You are wrong on both counts. Saber-toothed cats were very specialized
> animals. They wouldn't have evolved giant canines just to stab a tiny
> apith.
Come come, now. That's a ridiculous assertion. Why would they not
want to eat A'pith. (And this directly contradicts the evidence that
indicates feline predation on A'pith (lucy).)
> They were geared for giant slow moving creatures.
So you theorize a slow moving feline? How do you expect anybody to
take this seriously?
> They had
> bob-tails, further indication they were slow ambush hunters. The only
> way they would be a threat to a hominid is if hominids were wandering
> around in tall grass or thick bush, otherwise they could be seen a
> mile away and would never be able to catch Lucy.
Obviously you're just making this up as you go along. As I explain in
my hypothesis, they would have been especially vulnerable to predation
in the dry season. As inidcated there, these would often result in
predatory massacres.
> As long as she stayed
> out of the ambush zones (and stayed near trees), saber-tooths would
> have been no problem. Lions weren't around early, so no matter how
> fast they were, what early apith would care?
True or false, Apith were preyed upon by feline predators?
(Let's see how this evasive twit tries to avoid answering this
question.)
>
> All the above demonstrates the lack of thought you have put into
> this. The same applies to your sci-fi hypothesis. You were told by
> qualified people (Greg Laden, Su Solomon etc.) in 1999 that you needed
> to go back to the library. You have made it very clear you didn't take
> their advice.
Answer the question you evasive twit.
Jim McGinn
It's unfortunate for you that you seem to lack the courage of your
convictions to let your argument stand on the merit of its content.
spiznet
Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> NOTICE: Jim McGinn is a registered liar here on sap.
>
> Message-ID: <1165113030.3...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
>
> Jim McGinn: "Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the
> predatory realities in treeless habitat."
>
> > >
> > > > > > > Apiths were doing about the same as baboons as far as % of victims in
> > > > > > > the South African caves. Lions are late in the record, they probably
> > > > > > > didn't have much impact on Apith evolution.
> > > >
> > > > > > We aren't talking about modern hunter gathers. Early man was communal,
> > > > > > not hunter gathering. The hunting/gathering assumption of early man
> > > > > > are little more than an anthropological old wives tale..
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?
> > > >
> > > > No response.
> > >
> Message-ID: <1164791885....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Uh, the grasslands of a savannah environment tend to be treeless,
> dimwit. This is all but common knowledge.
>
> http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/savanna.htm
> There are several different types of savannas around the world. The
> savannas we are most familiar with are the East African savannas
> covered with acacia trees.
>
> Too bad you didn't qualify your statement by pointing out that it is
> savanna plains that tend to be treeless. You need to be more more
> specific in the future.
Lee, I hate to defend JMc but here as you quote he says "Uh, the
grasslands of a savanna env.". These are the plains. So in this case
your own quote proves him right on this point.
-Spiznet
Will in New Haven
If he is talking about Smilodon and its near relatives, he is talking
about an animal that cannot, judging from its skeleton, have been
anywhere near as fast as a lion. The saber-toothed cats were
closely-coupled, short-leged ambush hunters. It is easy to imagine one
hunting the way a Black bear hunts deer, except much more often and
much more efficiently. It would crouch in concealment and rush out at
the last instant. It would be a very poor strategy for any of them to
rely much on catching small game, such as apiths.
The scimitar-toothed cats were somewhat more gracile and smaller, both
things making them MORE dangerous to a primate away from the trees.
Also, they are present in the African fossil record, while the true
saber-tooth is not. Still, we are talking about a hulking monster, much
less gracile than a jaguar, the least gracile modern cat, without many
of the qualities that say "cat" to the modern person.
Leopards were undoubtedly more of a danger. Although they hunt alone
and are not much danger to groups of armed men, leopards are very
dangerous to individual humans in the brush, to this day. And a modern
human in good shape would be more of a challenge to a leopard than an
a'pith.
The problem here is that treed environments are not very good
protection from leopards while hanging around in as large a group as
possible IS. Treed environments would be a wonderful defense against
scimitar-tooth cats, just as they are against lions, but hanging around
in groups would be a terrible defense for people without spears and the
mass to use them effectively. In fact, it would the recipe for a
massacre if lions were involved or if scimitar-tooth cats hunted in
groups. I don't believe that they did but there is an argument there.
A'pith had to either stay in treed environments and try to mob
leopards, accepting that they would lose individuals to leopards, or
move into more open environments and avoid the scimitar-tooth cats AND
the leopards, which are at home in the open. Leopards are especially at
home in open country where there are no lions.
>
> > They had
> > bob-tails, further indication they were slow ambush hunters. The only
> > way they would be a threat to a hominid is if hominids were wandering
> > around in tall grass or thick bush, otherwise they could be seen a
> > mile away and would never be able to catch Lucy.
>
> Obviously you're just making this up as you go along. As I explain in
> my hypothesis, they would have been especially vulnerable to predation
> in the dry season. As inidcated there, these would often result in
> predatory massacres.
Neither of those statements is really objectionable. Certainly there is
some truth to both of them. However, unless your hypothesis is that we
became extinct thereby, I don't know what it proves. He is not,
however, making up anything about the saber-toothed cats. The consensus
is that they were as he describes them.
>
>
> > As long as she stayed
> > out of the ambush zones (and stayed near trees), saber-tooths would
> > have been no problem. Lions weren't around early, so no matter how
> > fast they were, what early apith would care?
>
> True or false, Apith were preyed upon by feline predators?
Of course they were. Humans still are. It's rough to be the victim but
not a problem for the species. That it was a worse problem for Apiths
is clear. How MUCH worse is not clear.
Will in New Haven
--
Lee Olsen
No, there is a difference between JUST savanna and PLAINS savanna.
Grass is found in both.
>
> -Spiznet
Lee Olsen
Subject: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
Date: 2 Dec 2006 14:32:48
Message-ID: <1165098768.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "The supposition that early man,
including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
completely defenseless against the predators thereof."
Do you know what the words "including Homo" actually means? You started
this thread based on that claim. You can't even remember the statements
you made in your own thread.
Then just to make sure You really were making such a stupid claim I
asked:
Lee Olsen: "You realize he is talking about early Homo, not apiths?"
(meaning Dennell)
Jim McGinn: "Absolutely I realize that. There is no good reason for
homo to regularly travel through treeless habitat. They were
completely incapably of hunting any of the animals that resided there
and they had no defense against lions, dogs, and hyena.
Your quote: "Claudius Denk:
You're going to just continue believing that they hunted and scavenged
out in treeless habitat.
Lee Olsen:
Are you talking about Homo, apiths, or both?
Claudius Denk:
Both.
Lee Olsen:
Are you sure you mean that?
Jim McGinn: "To answer your question, Yes, I do mean that."
Yesterday it was Homo ("This would be apparent if you included the
context."), today it is "A'pith only.
You are so ignorant, you can't even remember what the premis of your
own thread is about.
Jim Mcginn: "The supposition that early man,
including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
completely defenseless against the predators thereof."
>
> >
> > Jim McGinn: "Both" (Meaning Homo). Which is it and how many times are
> > you going to change your position? My objection was to both. But I did
> > agree about Lucy being---"cat bait" remember?
>
> Yes, the evidence is pretty indisputable on this point, AFAICT. It
> would be a problem for my hypothesis if the evidence did not indicate
> that lucy was heavily preyed upon. Especially considering that
> predation is essential to the group selective mechanism of my
> hypothesis of early hominid evolution.
Then why do you keep babbling about Homo not being able to function out
on the treeless palin, when clearly they did?
>
> > But another problem was
> > your statement that "Sabertoothed lion" (no such thing) were bigger and
> > that was supposed to be a problem and you also proclaimed the lions
> > speed was also a factor.
>
> So, you're suggesting we should just pretend they are tame? Why not
> let paleo-reconstruction of habitat based of fossil evidence dictate
> your conclusion. Accordingly we can only come to one conclusion: there
> were a lot of violent, vicious beasts in their habitat. Nothing you're
> saying here amounts to a dispute with this supposition. So, get over
> it.
You are the lying clown that claims he is familiar with the literature.
I expect someone who claims to be familiar with the literature to know
the simplist of basics, just as I would expect a person claiming to be
a Christian to have heard about the Bible. Does your mother still have
to tell you when to blow your nose, does she still have to wipe your
ass? Does everything obvious have to be explained to you in detail? Get
to the library you illiterate sot.
>
>
> > You are wrong on both counts. Saber-toothed cats were very specialized
> > animals. They wouldn't have evolved giant canines just to stab a tiny
> > apith.
>
> Come come, now. That's a ridiculous assertion. Why would they not
> want to eat A'pith. (And this directly contradicts the evidence that
> indicates feline predation on A'pith (lucy).)
So, you think saber-tooth cats chased down their prey with the speed of
a lion? Lions give up after on 50 to 100 yards, how far do you think a
saber-tooth is good for?
>
> > They were geared for giant slow moving creatures.
>
> So you theorize a slow moving feline?
Is your memory completely gone? You were the guy just forced to concede
that saber-tooths weren't ancestral to lions (a demonstration of how
little you know). I got that info from the same sources that forced you
into a retraction, now your are going to try for two embarrassements in
a row?
Homo can and does outrun any mammal alive given enough of a head start.
Nobody said these animals can't catch you from ambush, so the safest
place is still out in the open where you can see what's going on.
>
> > They had
> > bob-tails, further indication they were slow ambush hunters. The only
> > way they would be a threat to a hominid is if hominids were wandering
> > around in tall grass or thick bush, otherwise they could be seen a
> > mile away and would never be able to catch Lucy.
>
> Obviously you're just making this up as you go along. As I explain in
> my hypothesis, they would have been especially vulnerable to predation
> in the dry season. As inidcated there, these would often result in
> predatory massacres.
Cite from the literature, not from science fiction.
>
>
> > As long as she stayed
> > out of the ambush zones (and stayed near trees), saber-tooths would
> > have been no problem. Lions weren't around early, so no matter how
> > fast they were, what early apith would care?
>
> True or false, Apith were preyed upon by feline predators?
Is that question for me, or do you still hear voices? I cited CK Brain.
Since you know the literature so well, what did he say?
>
> (Let's see how this evasive twit tries to avoid answering this
> question.)
It's been answered before, at least three times, I think even you
should get it by now.
>
> >
> > All the above demonstrates the lack of thought you have put into
> > this. The same applies to your sci-fi hypothesis. You were told by
> > qualified people (Greg Laden, Su Solomon etc.) in 1999 that you needed
> > to go back to the library. You have made it very clear you didn't take
> > their advice.
>
>
> Answer the question you evasive twit.
It's already been answered you senile idiot.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the "difference," between
savanna and plains savanna is that grass if found in both? Can I quote
you on this?
Lee Olsen
Message-ID: <1165098768.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn: "The supposition that early man,
including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
completely defenseless against the predators thereof."
Oh, you looking for a quote?
OK... "the Serengeti Plains are basically treeless, just as they have
been for over a million years. Archaeological sites are found in the
treeless areas of these plains. Homo was not confined to the treed
areas of these plains as you have so stupidly implied. IOW, you are
full of it."
Anything else you need today? A library card maybe?
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Jim Mcginn: "The supposition that early man,
> including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
> treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
> completely defenseless against the predators thereof."
Homo was probably considerably better at surviving in treeless habitat
(especially after the discovery of fire). But even so the general PA
supposition that homo's stone tools would have been effective against
the large predators found in treeless savanna habitat is inconsistent
with reality as we know it, IMO. And this means that the general
notion that homo was a dedicated hunter, scavenger is nonsense.
This means that the stone tools found in association with homo serve
agricultural ends--keeping food-competitor species out of their
gardens--and not the hunting/scavenging lifestyle that has become
popularized. And the stone tool cut marks found on bones associate
with Homo fossils are the result of ambush hunting in the context of
their garden-like communal territory.
> > > Jim McGinn: "Both" (Meaning Homo). Which is it and how many times are
> > > you going to change your position? My objection was to both. But I did
> > > agree about Lucy being---"cat bait" remember?
> >
> > Yes, the evidence is pretty indisputable on this point, AFAICT. It
> > would be a problem for my hypothesis if the evidence did not indicate
> > that lucy was heavily preyed upon. Especially considering that
> > predation is essential to the group selective mechanism of my
> > hypothesis of early hominid evolution.
>
> Then why do you keep babbling about Homo not being able to function out
> on the treeless palin, when clearly they did?
You've already demonstrated a propensity to intepret (misinterpret IMO)
the evidence of homo based on the current climate. You have to make
more of an effort to rule out the possibility that the current climate
at these locations was not wetter and more heavily wooded when these
fossils were laid down than it is currently.
> > > But another problem was
> > > your statement that "Sabertoothed lion" (no such thing) were bigger and
> > > that was supposed to be a problem and you also proclaimed the lions
> > > speed was also a factor.
> >
> > So, you're suggesting we should just pretend they are tame? Why not
> > let paleo-reconstruction of habitat based of fossil evidence dictate
> > your conclusion. Accordingly we can only come to one conclusion: there
> > were a lot of violent, vicious beasts in their habitat. Nothing you're
> > saying here amounts to a dispute with this supposition. So, get over
> > it.
>
> You are the lying clown that claims he is familiar with the literature.
> I expect someone who claims to be familiar with the literature to know
> the simplist of basics, just as I would expect a person claiming to be
> a Christian to have heard about the Bible. Does your mother still have
> to tell you when to blow your nose, does she still have to wipe your
> ass? Does everything obvious have to be explained to you in detail? Get
> to the library you illiterate sot.
Nothing about the evidence is obvious. It has to be interpreted.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
> So, you think saber-tooth cats chased down their prey with the speed of
> a lion?
Of course. Only an idiot would assume otherwise.
> Lions give up after on 50 to 100 yards, how far do you think a
> saber-tooth is good for?
This seems like a desperately stupid argument.
>
> >
> > > They were geared for giant slow moving creatures.
> >
> > So you theorize a slow moving feline?
>
> Is your memory completely gone? You were the guy just forced to concede
> that saber-tooths weren't ancestral to lions (a demonstration of how
> little you know). I got that info from the same sources that forced you
> into a retraction, now your are going to try for two embarrassements in
> a row?
If you don't theorize a slow moving feline then what's your point?
> Homo can and does outrun any mammal alive given enough of a head start.
The same is true for tortoises.
> Nobody said these animals can't catch you from ambush, so the safest
> place is still out in the open where you can see what's going on.
Now your stupidity seems blatant, intentional.
> > > They had
> > > bob-tails, further indication they were slow ambush hunters. The only
> > > way they would be a threat to a hominid is if hominids were wandering
> > > around in tall grass or thick bush, otherwise they could be seen a
> > > mile away and would never be able to catch Lucy.
> >
> > Obviously you're just making this up as you go along. As I explain in
> > my hypothesis, they would have been especially vulnerable to predation
> > in the dry season. As inidcated there, these would often result in
> > predatory massacres.
>
> Cite from the literature, not from science fiction.
Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumptions that
underly my hypothesis?
> > > As long as she stayed
> > > out of the ambush zones (and stayed near trees), saber-tooths would
> > > have been no problem. Lions weren't around early, so no matter how
> > > fast they were, what early apith would care?
> >
> > True or false, Apith were preyed upon by feline predators?
>
> Is that question for me, or do you still hear voices? I cited CK Brain.
> Since you know the literature so well, what did he say?
>
>
> >
> > (Let's see how this evasive twit tries to avoid answering this
> > question.)
>
> It's been answered before, at least three times, I think even you
> should get it by now.
> >
> > >
> > > All the above demonstrates the lack of thought you have put into
> > > this. The same applies to your sci-fi hypothesis. You were told by
> > > qualified people (Greg Laden, Su Solomon etc.) in 1999 that you needed
> > > to go back to the library. You have made it very clear you didn't take
> > > their advice.
> >
> >
> > Answer the question you evasive twit.
>
> It's already been answered you senile idiot.
In this discipline if you are not honest with yourself about the
evidence you've already failed.
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> > Jim Mcginn: "The supposition that early man,
> > including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
> > treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
> > completely defenseless against the predators thereof."
>
> Homo was probably considerably better at surviving in treeless habitat
> (especially after the discovery of fire). But even so the general PA
"completely defenseless" does not translate into "considerably better"
in the English language. Do I take your revised view as a retraction of
the former?
> supposition that homo's stone tools would have been effective against
> the large predators found in treeless savanna habitat is inconsistent
> with reality as we know it, IMO. And this means that the general
> notion that homo was a dedicated hunter, scavenger is nonsense.
"Nonsense" is nothing more than a troll's fustrated response proving
his total ignorance of the literature.
>
> This means that the stone tools found in association with homo serve
> agricultural ends--keeping food-competitor species out of their
> gardens--and not the hunting/scavenging lifestyle that has become
> popularized. And the stone tool cut marks found on bones associate
> with Homo fossils are the result of ambush hunting in the context of
> their garden-like communal territory.
The reason you can't cite anything is because you don't know anything.
Semaw: "The recent cut-mark data from Bouri indicates that early
hominids c. 2.5 Ma began incorporating some amount of meat in their
diet.....It is not clear whether or not the first stone artifacts were
used for the processing of plant foods. There are certain indications
from microwear studies on artifacts from Koobi Fora (Keeley & Toth,
1981) and from Gona (Beyries, 1993), but strong cases have yet to be
made based on the archaeological record to demonstrate the use of
flaked stones for processing plant food items"
Sileshi Semaw 1999.
The World's Oldest Stone Artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their
Implications for Understanding Stone Technology and Patterns
of Human Evolution Between 2·6-1·5 Million Years Ago.
Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 1197-1214
This is article available on line (free).
You mean not obvious to an illiterate like you.
>
> > So, you think saber-tooth cats chased down their prey with the speed of
> > a lion?
>
> Of course. Only an idiot would assume otherwise.
Your knowledge of saber-tooth cats is well documented on this list.
Jim McGinn: "And then consider the fact that A'pith were shorter
and slighter than moden humans and the Sabertoothed lion ..."
ROTFL
>
> > Lions give up after on 50 to 100 yards, how far do you think a
> > saber-tooth is good for?
>
> This seems like a desperately stupid argument.
Your knowledge of saber-tooth cats is well documented on this list.
Jim McGinn: "And then consider the fact that A'pith were shorter
and slighter than moden humans and the Sabertoothed lion ..."
ROTFL
>
> >
> > >
> > > > They were geared for giant slow moving creatures.
> > >
> > > So you theorize a slow moving feline?
> >
> > Is your memory completely gone? You were the guy just forced to concede
> > that saber-tooths weren't ancestral to lions (a demonstration of how
> > little you know). I got that info from the same sources that forced you
> > into a retraction, now your are going to try for two embarrassements in
> > a row?
>
> If you don't theorize a slow moving feline then what's your point?
Cite your literature that says they were fast.
>
> > Homo can and does outrun any mammal alive given enough of a head start.
>
> The same is true for tortoises.
Well, one must have had a broken foot, because he ended up with
stone-tool cut marks in the neck area.
>
> > Nobody said these animals can't catch you from ambush, so the safest
> > place is still out in the open where you can see what's going on.
>
> Now your stupidity seems blatant, intentional.
No, you are just flat lying about your familiarity with the literature.
>
> > > > They had
> > > > bob-tails, further indication they were slow ambush hunters. The only
> > > > way they would be a threat to a hominid is if hominids were wandering
> > > > around in tall grass or thick bush, otherwise they could be seen a
> > > > mile away and would never be able to catch Lucy.
> > >
> > > Obviously you're just making this up as you go along. As I explain in
> > > my hypothesis, they would have been especially vulnerable to predation
> > > in the dry season. As inidcated there, these would often result in
> > > predatory massacres.
> >
> > Cite from the literature, not from science fiction.
>
> Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumptions that
> underly my hypothesis?
Your evidence for gardens is? There isn't any, it is a negative
argument. Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumption
that Lucy was making elaborate sand paintings, playing with string
cradles, or playing Hopscotch?
>
> > > > As long as she stayed
> > > > out of the ambush zones (and stayed near trees), saber-tooths would
> > > > have been no problem. Lions weren't around early, so no matter how
> > > > fast they were, what early apith would care?
> > >
> > > True or false, Apith were preyed upon by feline predators?
> >
> > Is that question for me, or do you still hear voices? I cited CK Brain.
> > Since you know the literature so well, what did he say?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > (Let's see how this evasive twit tries to avoid answering this
> > > question.)
> >
> > It's been answered before, at least three times, I think even you
> > should get it by now.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > All the above demonstrates the lack of thought you have put into
> > > > this. The same applies to your sci-fi hypothesis. You were told by
> > > > qualified people (Greg Laden, Su Solomon etc.) in 1999 that you needed
> > > > to go back to the library. You have made it very clear you didn't take
> > > > their advice.
> > >
> > >
> > > Answer the question you evasive twit.
> >
> > It's already been answered you senile idiot.
>
> In this discipline if you are not honest with yourself about the
> evidence you've already failed.
Is that why all those people back in 1999 gave you an F?
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> > Come come, now. That's a ridiculous assertion. Why would they not
> > want to eat A'pith. (And this directly contradicts the evidence that
> > indicates feline predation on A'pith (lucy).)
> >
> > > They were geared for giant slow moving creatures.
> >
> > So you theorize a slow moving feline? How do you expect anybody to
> > take this seriously?
>
> If he is talking about Smilodon
There it is. That's what I meant when I was referring to sabertooth.
> and its near relatives, he is talking
> about an animal that cannot, judging from its skeleton, have been
> anywhere near as fast as a lion.
There is no reason to assume it was not as fast, almost as fast, or
even faster. It was about the same size as modern lions, but more
muscular.
> The saber-toothed cats were
> closely-coupled, short-leged ambush hunters. It is easy to imagine one
> hunting the way a Black bear hunts deer, except much more often and
> much more efficiently. It would crouch in concealment and rush out at
> the last instant. It would be a very poor strategy for any of them to
> rely much on catching small game, such as apiths.
Obviously, you're just making this up. There is no reason for smilodon
to avoid apith. And it is generally believed that they were social
hunters, like lion. This fits perfectly with the dry-season, predatory
siege, massacre (feeding frenzy) assumptions that are part of my
hypothesis. Accordingly, in the event an A'pith community became
desperate and the predators had revealed to the predators their
desperation during the dry season the predators would realize that all
they had to do was hang around and eventually every last member (or
almost every last member) of the community would come out of the trees
for water or food and they'd be an easy meal at that time.
> The scimitar-toothed cats were somewhat more gracile and smaller, both
> things making them MORE dangerous to a primate away from the trees.
> Also, they are present in the African fossil record, while the true
> saber-tooth is not. Still, we are talking about a hulking monster, much
> less gracile than a jaguar, the least gracile modern cat, without many
> of the qualities that say "cat" to the modern person.
>
> Leopards were undoubtedly more of a danger. Although they hunt alone
> and are not much danger to groups of armed men, leopards are very
> dangerous to individual humans in the brush, to this day. And a modern
> human in good shape would be more of a challenge to a leopard than an
> a'pith.
>
> The problem here is that treed environments are not very good
> protection from leopards while hanging around in as large a group as
> possible IS. Treed environments would be a wonderful defense against
> scimitar-tooth cats, just as they are against lions, but hanging around
> in groups would be a terrible defense for people without spears and the
> mass to use them effectively. In fact, it would the recipe for a
> massacre if lions were involved or if scimitar-tooth cats hunted in
> groups. I don't believe that they did but there is an argument there.
>
> A'pith had to either stay in treed environments and try to mob
> leopards, accepting that they would lose individuals to leopards, or
> move into more open environments and avoid the scimitar-tooth cats AND
> the leopards, which are at home in the open. Leopards are especially at
> home in open country where there are no lions.
I'll defer to you when it comes to the specifics of late miocene and
pliocene predation. From my perspective it doesn't make a lot of
difference which of these cats were involved in my theoretical
predatory massacres.
>
> >
> > > They had
> > > bob-tails, further indication they were slow ambush hunters. The only
> > > way they would be a threat to a hominid is if hominids were wandering
> > > around in tall grass or thick bush, otherwise they could be seen a
> > > mile away and would never be able to catch Lucy.
> >
> > Obviously you're just making this up as you go along. As I explain in
> > my hypothesis, they would have been especially vulnerable to predation
> > in the dry season. As inidcated there, these would often result in
> > predatory massacres.
>
> Neither of those statements is really objectionable. Certainly there is
> some truth to both of them. However, unless your hypothesis is that we
> became extinct thereby, I don't know what it proves.
The difference doesn't involve proof, it involves explanatory power.
My hypothesis explains something that conventional theorists pretend to
ignore: the selective origins of the communal adaptations that are so
plainly apparent in our species and which so thoroughly (and
indisputably) distinguish us from other mammals of the same size.
> He is not,
> however, making up anything about the saber-toothed cats. The consensus
> is that they were as he describes them.
And it's irrelevant. Nothing he stated is inconsistent with the
dry-season, predatory massacre behavior that is so essential to my
hypothesis.
>
> >
> >
> > > As long as she stayed
> > > out of the ambush zones (and stayed near trees), saber-tooths would
> > > have been no problem. Lions weren't around early, so no matter how
> > > fast they were, what early apith would care?
> >
> > True or false, Apith were preyed upon by feline predators?
>
> Of course they were. Humans still are.
I know what you mean, but for all practical purposes humans are no
longer preyed upon by felines.
> It's rough to be the victim but
> not a problem for the species. That it was a worse problem for Apiths
> is clear. How MUCH worse is not clear.
It's also not clear as to whether or not the dry-season, predatory
massacre behavior that I hypothesize in the earliest years of hominid
evolution did or did not happen. And I suspect it will never be clear.
But if it was true it sure does explain a lot.
I appreciate the level-headedness of your response.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Mcginn: "The supposition that early man,
> > > including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
> > > treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
> > > completely defenseless against the predators thereof."
> >
> > Homo was probably considerably better at surviving in treeless habitat
> > (especially after the discovery of fire). But even so the general PA
>
> "completely defenseless" does not translate into "considerably better"
> in the English language. Do I take your revised view as a retraction of
> the former?
Sure.
>
> > supposition that homo's stone tools would have been effective against
> > the large predators found in treeless savanna habitat is inconsistent
> > with reality as we know it, IMO. And this means that the general
> > notion that homo was a dedicated hunter, scavenger is nonsense.
>
> "Nonsense" is nothing more than a troll's fustrated response proving
> his total ignorance of the literature.
>
> >
> > This means that the stone tools found in association with homo serve
> > agricultural ends--keeping food-competitor species out of their
> > gardens--and not the hunting/scavenging lifestyle that has become
> > popularized. And the stone tool cut marks found on bones associate
> > with Homo fossils are the result of ambush hunting in the context of
> > their garden-like communal territory.
>
> The reason you can't cite anything is because you don't know anything.
> Semaw: "The recent cut-mark data from Bouri indicates that early
> hominids c. 2.5 Ma began incorporating some amount of meat in their
> diet.....
This is perfectly consistent with what I stated.
> It is not clear whether or not the first stone artifacts were
> used for the processing of plant foods. There are certain indications
> from microwear studies on artifacts from Koobi Fora (Keeley & Toth,
> 1981) and from Gona (Beyries, 1993), but strong cases have yet to be
> made based on the archaeological record to demonstrate the use of
> flaked stones for processing plant food items"
I never asserted they used stone tools for plant processing. They used
their teeth for plant processing. I asserted stone weapons for pest
control, specifically as a deterent to large, mammalian herbivorous
pests. Pest control was part of their strategy to survive the dry
season and it's predatory implications.
> Sileshi Semaw 1999.
> The World's Oldest Stone Artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their
> Implications for Understanding Stone Technology and Patterns
> of Human Evolution Between 2·6-1·5 Million Years Ago.
> Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 1197-1214
> This is article available on line (free).
>
>
> >
> > > > > Jim McGinn: "Both" (Meaning Homo). Which is it and how many times are
> > > > > you going to change your position? My objection was to both. But I did
> > > > > agree about Lucy being---"cat bait" remember?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the evidence is pretty indisputable on this point, AFAICT. It
> > > > would be a problem for my hypothesis if the evidence did not indicate
> > > > that lucy was heavily preyed upon. Especially considering that
> > > > predation is essential to the group selective mechanism of my
> > > > hypothesis of early hominid evolution.
> > >
> > > Then why do you keep babbling about Homo not being able to function out
> > > on the treeless palin, when clearly they did?
> >
> > You've already demonstrated a propensity to intepret (misinterpret IMO)
> > the evidence of homo based on the current climate. You have to make
> > more of an effort to rule out the possibility that the current climate
> > at these locations was not wetter and more heavily wooded when these
> > fossils were laid down than it is currently.
>
> Then why do you keep babbling about Homo not being able to function out
> on the treeless palin, when clearly they did?
There is no evidence that indicates such.
Cite your literature that says they were slow.
>
> >
> > > Homo can and does outrun any mammal alive given enough of a head start.
> >
> > The same is true for tortoises.
>
> Well, one must have had a broken foot, because he ended up with
> stone-tool cut marks in the neck area.
?
>
>
> >
> > > Nobody said these animals can't catch you from ambush, so the safest
> > > place is still out in the open where you can see what's going on.
> >
> > Now your stupidity seems blatant, intentional.
>
> No, you are just flat lying about your familiarity with the literature.
So you don't dispute my hypothetical thinking you dispute the
hypothesizer, myself. Right?
>
>
>
> >
> > > > > They had
> > > > > bob-tails, further indication they were slow ambush hunters. The only
> > > > > way they would be a threat to a hominid is if hominids were wandering
> > > > > around in tall grass or thick bush, otherwise they could be seen a
> > > > > mile away and would never be able to catch Lucy.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously you're just making this up as you go along. As I explain in
> > > > my hypothesis, they would have been especially vulnerable to predation
> > > > in the dry season. As inidcated there, these would often result in
> > > > predatory massacres.
> > >
> > > Cite from the literature, not from science fiction.
> >
> > Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumptions that
> > underly my hypothesis?
>
> Your evidence for gardens is?
Is there any evidence that they did not have gardens, or something to
that effect?
> There isn't any, it is a negative
> argument. Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumption
> that Lucy was making elaborate sand paintings, playing with string
> cradles, or playing Hopscotch?
No.
>
>
> >
> > > > > As long as she stayed
> > > > > out of the ambush zones (and stayed near trees), saber-tooths would
> > > > > have been no problem. Lions weren't around early, so no matter how
> > > > > fast they were, what early apith would care?
> > > >
> > > > True or false, Apith were preyed upon by feline predators?
> > >
> > > Is that question for me, or do you still hear voices? I cited CK Brain.
> > > Since you know the literature so well, what did he say?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > (Let's see how this evasive twit tries to avoid answering this
> > > > question.)
> > >
> > > It's been answered before, at least three times, I think even you
> > > should get it by now.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > All the above demonstrates the lack of thought you have put into
> > > > > this. The same applies to your sci-fi hypothesis. You were told by
> > > > > qualified people (Greg Laden, Su Solomon etc.) in 1999 that you needed
> > > > > to go back to the library. You have made it very clear you didn't take
> > > > > their advice.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Answer the question you evasive twit.
> > >
> > > It's already been answered you senile idiot.
> >
> > In this discipline if you are not honest with yourself about the
> > evidence you've already failed.
>
> Is that why all those people back in 1999 gave you an F?
?
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> > Jim Mcginn: "The supposition that early man,
> > including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
> > treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not
> > completely defenseless against the predators thereof."
>
> Homo was probably considerably better at surviving in treeless habitat
> (especially after the discovery of fire). But even so the general PA
"completely defenseless" does not translate into "considerably better"
in the English language. Do I take your revised view as a retraction of
the former?
> supposition that homo's stone tools would have been effective against
> the large predators found in treeless savanna habitat is inconsistent
> with reality as we know it, IMO. And this means that the general
> notion that homo was a dedicated hunter, scavenger is nonsense.
The word "nonsense" is nothing more than a troll's fustrated response
proving his total ignorance of the literature.
>
> This means that the stone tools found in association with homo serve
> agricultural ends--keeping food-competitor species out of their
> gardens--and not the hunting/scavenging lifestyle that has become
> popularized. And the stone tool cut marks found on bones associate
> with Homo fossils are the result of ambush hunting in the context of
> their garden-like communal territory.
The reason you can't cite anything is because you don't know anything.
Semaw: "The recent cut-mark data from Bouri indicates that early
hominids c. 2.5 Ma began incorporating some amount of meat in their
diet.....It is not clear whether or not the first stone artifacts were
used for the processing of plant foods. There are certain indications
from microwear studies on artifacts from Koobi Fora (Keeley & Toth,
1981) and from Gona (Beyries, 1993), but strong cases have yet to be
made based on the archaeological record to demonstrate the use of
flaked stones for processing plant food items"
Sileshi Semaw 1999.
The World's Oldest Stone Artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their
Implications for Understanding Stone Technology and Patterns
of Human Evolution Between 2·6-1·5 Million Years Ago.
Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 1197-1214
This is article available on line (free).
> >
You mean not obvious to an illiterate like you.
>
> > So, you think saber-tooth cats chased down their prey with the speed of
> > a lion?
>
> Of course. Only an idiot would assume otherwise.
Your knowledge of saber-tooth cats is well documented on this list.
Jim McGinn: "And then consider the fact that A'pith were shorter
and slighter than moden humans and the Sabertoothed lion ..."
ROTFL
>
> > Lions give up after on 50 to 100 yards, how far do you think a
> > saber-tooth is good for?
>
> This seems like a desperately stupid argument.
Your knowledge of saber-tooth cats is well documented on this list.
Jim McGinn: "And then consider the fact that A'pith were shorter
and slighter than moden humans and the Sabertoothed lion ..."
ROTFL
>
> >
> > >
> > > > They were geared for giant slow moving creatures.
> > >
> > > So you theorize a slow moving feline?
> >
> > Is your memory completely gone? You were the guy just forced to concede
> > that saber-tooths weren't ancestral to lions (a demonstration of how
> > little you know). I got that info from the same sources that forced you
> > into a retraction, now your are going to try for two embarrassements in
> > a row?
>
> If you don't theorize a slow moving feline then what's your point?
Cite your literature that says they were fast.
>
> > Homo can and does outrun any mammal alive given enough of a head start.
>
> The same is true for tortoises.
Well, one must have had a broken foot, because he ended up with
stone-tool cut marks in the neck area.
>
> > Nobody said these animals can't catch you from ambush, so the safest
> > place is still out in the open where you can see what's going on.
>
> Now your stupidity seems blatant, intentional.
No, you are just flat lying about your familiarity with the literature.
>
> > > > They had
> > > > bob-tails, further indication they were slow ambush hunters. The only
> > > > way they would be a threat to a hominid is if hominids were wandering
> > > > around in tall grass or thick bush, otherwise they could be seen a
> > > > mile away and would never be able to catch Lucy.
> > >
> > > Obviously you're just making this up as you go along. As I explain in
> > > my hypothesis, they would have been especially vulnerable to predation
> > > in the dry season. As inidcated there, these would often result in
> > > predatory massacres.
> >
> > Cite from the literature, not from science fiction.
>
> Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumptions that
> underly my hypothesis?
Your evidence for gardens is? There isn't any, it is a negative
argument. Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumption
that Lucy was making elaborate sand paintings, playing with string
cradles, or playing Hopscotch?
> >
> > It's already been answered you senile idiot.
>
> In this discipline if you are not honest with yourself about the
> evidence you've already failed.
Is that why all those people in 1999 gave you an F?
Lee Olsen
Lee Olsen wrote:
Ignore this second post, I got a "internal sever error" message when I
hit "post message."
The first one did not show up until after I sent the second one.
Will in New Haven
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > > Come come, now. That's a ridiculous assertion. Why would they not
> > > want to eat A'pith. (And this directly contradicts the evidence that
> > > indicates feline predation on A'pith (lucy).)
> > >
> > > > They were geared for giant slow moving creatures.
> > >
> > > So you theorize a slow moving feline? How do you expect anybody to
> > > take this seriously?
> >
> > If he is talking about Smilodon
>
> There it is. That's what I meant when I was referring to sabertooth.
There is no evidence of Smilodon or any of his very near relatives in
Africa. Of course, the scimitar-tooth cats were found in Africa and
were actually MORE suitable for hunting small prey.
> > and its near relatives, he is talking
> > about an animal that cannot, judging from its skeleton, have been
> > anywhere near as fast as a lion.
>
> There is no reason to assume it was not as fast, almost as fast, or
> even faster. It was about the same size as modern lions, but more
> muscular.
It was extremely close-coupled, which is not consistent with speed in a
feline and is even less consistent with endurance on the run. The
scimitar-tooths were less close-coupled but still not as sleek as a
modern cat, ANY modern cat. Chasing was almost certainly not their
preferred hunting method. Small prey was almost certainly not their
preference. You can remove the "almost certainly" when talking about
Smilodon.
> > The saber-toothed cats were
> > closely-coupled, short-leged ambush hunters. It is easy to imagine one
> > hunting the way a Black bear hunts deer, except much more often and
> > much more efficiently. It would crouch in concealment and rush out at
> > the last instant. It would be a very poor strategy for any of them to
> > rely much on catching small game, such as apiths.
>
> Obviously, you're just making this up.
Obviously, I haven't handled saber-tooth fossils and done measurements
and compared them to modern predators. Oh wait, I have. I don't do
scientific papers on them because I admittedly am an amateur in a field
Professionals are, I admit, more cautious in coming to conclusions but
still, this
"The sabertooth had short, powerful legs. These animals were not built
to run fast or far. The sabertooth was probably an ambush hunter. It
would have stalked its prey or attacked large animals from a hiding
place."
is from this museum website:
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/smilodon.html
There is no reason for smilodon
> to avoid apith.
Except that it wasn't on the same continent. The question of niche,
however, is more important because Smilodon had relatives, not very
close relatives, in Africa. They apparently hunted large prey. Animals
that hunt large prey WILL take smaller prey but not by preference.
Despite what Farley Mowat says, for instance, North American wolves
almost never hunt Whitetail deer if moose are available, let alone hunt
mice.
And it is generally believed that they were social
> hunters, like lion. This fits perfectly with the dry-season, predatory
> siege, massacre (feeding frenzy) assumptions that are part of my
> hypothesis.
Sounds like hanging around in large groups would be the ONLY way that
Apith could be useful prey for scimitar-tooth cats OR lions. Chasing
down one or two Apith could not possibly be worth the trouble, except
in very bad times.
> Accordingly, in the event an A'pith community became
> desperate and the predators had revealed to the predators their
> desperation during the dry season the predators would realize that all
> they had to do was hang around and eventually every last member (or
> almost every last member) of the community would come out of the trees
> for water or food and they'd be an easy meal at that time.
Your scenario certainly might have happened once or twice. However, no
predator would be able to make a living doing that.
One leopard, and they don't hunt in groups, would be helpless against
half a dozen male primates of baboon size or larger defending the
females or young, so you need a bigger and/or more social predator.
Fortunately for your hypothesis, there are hyenas to do the job. For
variety, you could propose scimitar-tooth cats but they probably would
stick to the big ungalates except when those were unaivable. Lions
would work fine but they hadn't arrived in Africa yet.
Hyenas are bad enough, you don't need to move Smilodon to Africa. Also,
trees are perfect defense against hyenas.
Will in New Haven
--
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I
would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a
quiet place and kill him."
- Mark Twain
MClark
news:1165556532.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Dimmy [aka Claudius] 12/07/2006
Classic.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
--Voltaire
Lee Olsen
Yes, you are right, I simply don't do well reading science fiction, I
tend to rush through it giving it the little time it deserves. Modern
hunter gatherers use stone tools for plant-food processing. I expect
data consistent with the evidence. In this case, you have failed to
supply any evidence. Moreover, there is no direct evidence that any of
the apiths were tool users. If you read the paper I cited there is a
discussion on who might have made the first tools, but there is no
proof of who made the tools. If it turns out apiths were not tool
users, then they also couldn't have been using stone tools to drive all
those mean preadators out of their garden.
>
> > Sileshi Semaw 1999.
> > The World's Oldest Stone Artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their
> > Implications for Understanding Stone Technology and Patterns
> > of Human Evolution Between 2·6-1·5 Million Years Ago.
> > Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 1197-1214
> > This is article available on line (free).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > Jim McGinn: "Both" (Meaning Homo). Which is it and how many times are
> > > > > > you going to change your position? My objection was to both. But I did
> > > > > > agree about Lucy being---"cat bait" remember?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, the evidence is pretty indisputable on this point, AFAICT. It
> > > > > would be a problem for my hypothesis if the evidence did not indicate
> > > > > that lucy was heavily preyed upon. Especially considering that
> > > > > predation is essential to the group selective mechanism of my
> > > > > hypothesis of early hominid evolution.
> > > >
> > > > Then why do you keep babbling about Homo not being able to function out
> > > > on the treeless palin, when clearly they did?
> > >
> > > You've already demonstrated a propensity to intepret (misinterpret IMO)
> > > the evidence of homo based on the current climate. You have to make
> > > more of an effort to rule out the possibility that the current climate
> > > at these locations was not wetter and more heavily wooded when these
> > > fossils were laid down than it is currently.
> >
> > Then why do you keep babbling about Homo not being able to function out
> > on the treeless palin, when clearly they did?
>
> There is no evidence that indicates such.
Nice to be talking with a member of the Flat Earth Society.
> >
> > Cite your literature that says they were fast.
>
> Cite your literature that says they were slow.
Fat chance, since you have decided that under no circumstances are you
going to cite anything. You expect others to cite, but you have no
intention of citing anything. IOW, you are just a pompous ass.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Homo can and does outrun any mammal alive given enough of a head start.
> > >
> > > The same is true for tortoises.
> >
> > Well, one must have had a broken foot, because he ended up with
> > stone-tool cut marks in the neck area.
>
> ?
You said the same is true for tortoises, they couls also outrun
anything, yet early Homo managed to catch one. Homo must be faster.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Nobody said these animals can't catch you from ambush, so the safest
> > > > place is still out in the open where you can see what's going on.
> > >
> > > Now your stupidity seems blatant, intentional.
> >
> > No, you are just flat lying about your familiarity with the literature.
>
> So you don't dispute my hypothetical thinking you dispute the
> hypothesizer, myself. Right?
Anyone can hypothesize/imagine anything, proving it is something qiute
different. As I explained to Paul, who doesn't understand anymore about
science than you do, imagination only gets you started. The burden is
on the hypothesizer to gather the evidence, not the other way around.
> >
> > Your evidence for gardens is?
>
> Is there any evidence that they did not have gardens, or something to
> that effect?
"Did not have"? That is classic negative argument. The burden is on you
to show some sort of evidence. Even weak evidence might work if you
have several independent lines of it. So other than you said so, what
is your evidence?
>
> > There isn't any, it is a negative
> > argument. Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumption
> > that Lucy was making elaborate sand paintings, playing with string
> > cradles, or playing Hopscotch?
>
> No.
Well then, we can just sit here and ponder gardens and hopscotch.
> > >
> > > In this discipline if you are not honest with yourself about the
> > > evidence you've already failed.
> >
> > Is that why all those people back in 1999 gave you an F?
>
> ?
Your hypothetical thinking was not very well received.
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> There is no reason to assume it was not as fast, almost as fast, or
> even faster. It was about the same size as modern lions, but more
> muscular.
http://www.megafauna.com/chapter12.htm
"Megantereon was about the size of a present-day jaguar, but very
powerfully built. Its front legs, shoulders and chest were, in
particular, massively developed. That, and the fact that it could open
its jaws much wider than any modern cat can, suggests that it may have
used its front limbs, together with its powerful neck muscles, to push
or pull its teeth into vulnerable parts of its prey like large blood
vessels or the trachea. Megantereon's stocky build tell us that it
was probably an ambush hunter which only pursued its prey for short
distances. It had a short, bobcat-like tail. Its six-inch upper canines
were laterally flattened so that they could slice through muscle and
skin."
If they were as fast as you claim, why are they extinct?
Jim McGinn
Well, I think your comments only bolster my claim that my hypothesis is
indisputable. You do admit, don't you, that you have not presented any
kind of dispute of my assertions. Are you saying that stone tipped
spears would not be useful to a community of Apiths that wished to keep
inmigrating herbivorous species from getting access to their garden
habitat? Are you saying that a community of Apiths that wished to keep
inmigrating herbivorous species out of their garden habitat would not,
as a result of maintaining their general health and well being through
the depth of the dry season, be less likely to be a target for
predators during the dry season? Are you saying that predators would
not instinctively key in on communities (of Apith and other species)
that are the most starving, desperate and, therefore vulnerable? Are
you saying anything at all?
> Modern
> hunter gatherers use stone tools for plant-food processing.
Relevance?
> I expect
> data consistent with the evidence. In this case, you have failed to
> supply any evidence.
In this discipline we all use the same evidence.
> Moreover, there is no direct evidence that any of
> the apiths were tool users.
Relevance. You seem to not be following the gist of the thread.
> If you read the paper I cited there is a
> discussion on who might have made the first tools, but there is no
> proof of who made the tools.
Relevance?
> If it turns out apiths were not tool
> users,
Well, according to my hypothesis they employed rocks and sticks to head
off or drive out these large, mammalian pests. So if what you're
saying is true it effectively refutes my whole hypothesis.
> then they also couldn't have been using stone tools to drive all
> those mean preadators out of their garden.
Are you saying that A'pith could not have used rocks and sticks? Are
you saying that even if they could they would not have been (or could
not have been) effective preventing the inmigration of large mammallian
pests and thereby preserving territorial resources? Are you saying
that even if it did preserve territorial resources in the manner I
indicate that it would make no difference because A'pith were typically
not confined to patches of treed habitat in the manner I specified and
therefore they would just meander over and across treeless habitat to ?
Are you saying anthing? Or are you, again, saying that you are saying
something but really you aren't saying anthing or, at least, not
anything relevant to the issue at hand?
<snip>
> > > Cite your literature that says they were fast.
> >
> > Cite your literature that says they were slow.
>
> Fat chance, since you have decided that under no circumstances are you
> going to cite anything. You expect others to cite, but you have no
> intention of citing anything. IOW, you are just a pompous ass.
It is only ever necessary to site something if it is disputed. You
have dismissed much of my thinking. But you haven't disputed any of
it.
> > So you don't dispute my hypothetical thinking you dispute the
> > hypothesizer, myself. Right?
>
> Anyone can hypothesize/imagine anything, proving it is something qiute
> different. As I explained to Paul, who doesn't understand anymore about
> science than you do, imagination only gets you started. The burden is
> on the hypothesizer to gather the evidence, not the other way around.
No. It's the burden of those critical of a hypothesis to dispute it.
When they fail, as you have done here, this is the best indicator of
scientific validity. (Once again, retard, we all use the same
evidence.)
> > > Your evidence for gardens is?
> >
> > Is there any evidence that they did not have gardens, or something to
> > that effect?
>
> "Did not have"? That is classic negative argument. The burden is on you
> to show some sort of evidence. Even weak evidence might work if you
> have several independent lines of it. So other than you said so, what
> is your evidence?
Obviously this is a wash, retard. So you only look even more stupid
(and desperate) to even bring it up. Obviously I have no direct
evidence of these gardens. And obviously you have no direct evidence
that disputes their existence.
> > > There isn't any, it is a negative
> > > argument. Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumption
> > > that Lucy was making elaborate sand paintings, playing with string
> > > cradles, or playing Hopscotch?
> >
> > No.
>
> Well then, we can just sit here and ponder gardens and hopscotch.
I'll leave that to you.
> > > > In this discipline if you are not honest with yourself about the
> > > > evidence you've already failed.
> > >
> > > Is that why all those people back in 1999 gave you an F?
> >
> > ?
>
> Your hypothetical thinking was not very well received.
They appear to be a bit threatened, don't they.
How about your own hypothesis, Lee. Is it threatened by any of this?
Do you have a hypothesis of early hominid evolution? Yes? No? Maybe?
Not yet? I haven't thought about it yet? Anything?
Jim McGinn
Your assertion is idiotic. It's obvious to everybody that even a slow
predator is going to be at least twice as fast as a bipedal,
fruit-eating Apith that still maintained tree climbing adaptations.
The only issue that remains is why this wasn't obvious to you ten posts
ago.
Lee Olsen
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There is no reason to assume it was not as fast, almost as fast, or
> > > even faster. It was about the same size as modern lions, but more
> > > muscular.
> >
> > http://www.megafauna.com/chapter12.htm
> > "Megantereon was about the size of a present-day jaguar, but very
> > powerfully built. Its front legs, shoulders and chest were, in
> > particular, massively developed. That, and the fact that it could open
> > its jaws much wider than any modern cat can, suggests that it may have
> > used its front limbs, together with its powerful neck muscles, to push
> > or pull its teeth into vulnerable parts of its prey like large blood
> > vessels or the trachea. Megantereon's stocky build tell us that it
> > was probably an ambush hunter which only pursued its prey for short
> > distances. It had a short, bobcat-like tail. Its six-inch upper canines
> > were laterally flattened so that they could slice through muscle and
> > skin."
>
> Your assertion is idiotic. It's obvious to everybody that even a slow
> predator is going to be at least twice as fast as a bipedal,
> fruit-eating Apith that still maintained tree climbing adaptations.
If that is the case, then you should have no trouble providing evidence
that they were a threat to apiths or Homo. You can't because no such
evidence exists. You made all that up, just like you made up
"saber-tooth lion." I will tell you again, the reason they are gone
and we are not is they specialized themselves into a corner and that
specialization wasn't eating hominids.
>
> The only issue that remains is why this wasn't obvious to you ten posts
> ago.
Your citations for your lunatic assertions? How do you think 1808 OD'd
on carnivore liver? There is more hard evidence out there that Homo was
eating cats than the other way around.
Lee Olsen
Of course it's indisputable, so is the Hopscotch Theory, prove me
wrong. You can't.
> kind of dispute of my assertions. Are you saying that stone tipped
> spears would not be useful to a community of Apiths that wished to keep
> inmigrating herbivorous species from getting access to their garden
> habitat? Are you saying that a community of Apiths that wished to keep
> inmigrating herbivorous species out of their garden habitat would not,
> as a result of maintaining their general health and well being through
> the depth of the dry season, be less likely to be a target for
> predators during the dry season? Are you saying that predators would
> not instinctively key in on communities (of Apith and other species)
> that are the most starving, desperate and, therefore vulnerable? Are
> you saying anything at all?
You made every bit of that up. It is sci-fiction at it's worst. Think
about a career in stand-up comedy.
>
> > Modern
> > hunter gatherers use stone tools for plant-food processing.
>
> Relevance?
You are an idiot.
>
> > I expect
> > data consistent with the evidence. In this case, you have failed to
> > supply any evidence.
>
> In this discipline we all use the same evidence.
Then how have you managed to hide this evidence from the world for so
long?
>
> > Moreover, there is no direct evidence that any of
> > the apiths were tool users.
>
> Relevance. You seem to not be following the gist of the thread.
There is no evidence that any apith ever used a stone tool. You made
all that up, just like you made up "saber-tooth lion."
>
> > If you read the paper I cited there is a
> > discussion on who might have made the first tools, but there is no
> > proof of who made the tools.
>
> Relevance?
You don't have even the basics for understanding science, get to the
library.
>
> > If it turns out apiths were not tool
> > users,
>
> Well, according to my hypothesis they employed rocks and sticks to head
> off or drive out these large, mammalian pests. So if what you're
> saying is true it effectively refutes my whole hypothesis.
Unsuported, undocumented demented ramblings. Chimps throw rocks. This
has been known for years. There is nothing new about this, so what is
your point?
>
> > then they also couldn't have been using stone tools to drive all
> > those mean preadators out of their garden.
>
> Are you saying that A'pith could not have used rocks and sticks? Are
Idiot, you have simply copied what the entire field has said for years.
What is new about that that you couldn't have gotten from Nova?
> you saying that even if they could they would not have been (or could
> not have been) effective preventing the inmigration of large mammallian
> pests and thereby preserving territorial resources? Are you saying
> that even if it did preserve territorial resources in the manner I
> indicate that it would make no difference because A'pith were typically
> not confined to patches of treed habitat in the manner I specified and
> therefore they would just meander over and across treeless habitat to ?
> Are you saying anthing? Or are you, again, saying that you are saying
> something but really you aren't saying anthing or, at least, not
> anything relevant to the issue at hand?
I'm saying that you made up gardens. There is no more evidence for
gardens than there is the Hopscotch Theory.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Cite your literature that says they were fast.
> > >
> > > Cite your literature that says they were slow.
> >
> > Fat chance, since you have decided that under no circumstances are you
> > going to cite anything. You expect others to cite, but you have no
> > intention of citing anything. IOW, you are just a pompous ass.
>
> It is only ever necessary to site something if it is disputed. You
> have dismissed much of my thinking. But you haven't disputed any of
> it.
Gardens are negative evidence, sci-fi. You have been watching too much
TV.
>
>
> > > So you don't dispute my hypothetical thinking you dispute the
> > > hypothesizer, myself. Right?
> >
> > Anyone can hypothesize/imagine anything, proving it is something qiute
> > different. As I explained to Paul, who doesn't understand anymore about
> > science than you do, imagination only gets you started. The burden is
> > on the hypothesizer to gather the evidence, not the other way around.
>
> No. It's the burden of those critical of a hypothesis to dispute it.
> When they fail, as you have done here, this is the best indicator of
> scientific validity. (Once again, retard, we all use the same
> evidence.)
Congradulations, you are the only person on the planet (besides the
other sci-illiterates) that believes that. Do you hear voices often?
>
> > > > Your evidence for gardens is?
> > >
> > > Is there any evidence that they did not have gardens, or something to
> > > that effect?
> >
> > "Did not have"? That is classic negative argument. The burden is on you
> > to show some sort of evidence. Even weak evidence might work if you
> > have several independent lines of it. So other than you said so, what
> > is your evidence?
>
> Obviously this is a wash, retard. So you only look even more stupid
> (and desperate) to even bring it up. Obviously I have no direct
> evidence of these gardens. And obviously you have no direct evidence
> that disputes their existence.
Then cite anyone besides you that thinks so, besides the creationists
that is.
>
> > > > There isn't any, it is a negative
> > > > argument. Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumption
> > > > that Lucy was making elaborate sand paintings, playing with string
> > > > cradles, or playing Hopscotch?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Well then, we can just sit here and ponder gardens and hopscotch.
>
> I'll leave that to you.
Can't refute the Hopscotch Theory eh? Didn't think you could.
>
> > > > > In this discipline if you are not honest with yourself about the
> > > > > evidence you've already failed.
> > > >
> > > > Is that why all those people back in 1999 gave you an F?
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > Your hypothetical thinking was not very well received.
>
> They appear to be a bit threatened, don't they.
Prove it, Mr. Lip Service.
>
> How about your own hypothesis, Lee. Is it threatened by any of this?
>
> Do you have a hypothesis of early hominid evolution? Yes? No? Maybe?
> Not yet? I haven't thought about it yet? Anything?
You are confusing science fiction and unsupported imagination with
science. Get a library card and try to get an education.
spiznet
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Who are we talking about? If "they" is a'pith, that is ridiculoous.
> > >
> > > "They" is A'pith, homo and all hominids prior to the development of
> > > metal weapons.
> > >
> > > > . . . there were people, long before the arrival of jeeps and
> > > > guns, who could do it. The question is who and when and how did they
> > > > arrive at the point they could do it.
> > >
> > > I agree. This is the question. I think it's more recent than people
> > > wish to believe. I don't think stone age man would have been able to
> > > pull it off, except occasionally.
> >
> > What major advantages did the high-plains Cheyenne, Crow or Lakota
> > have over stone-age man when they hunted bison with bows and lances?
> > Yes, using the lance was a show-off trick and the bow was their major
> > weapon but still, they killed bison and faced off or killled the plains
> > grizzly and the wolf. Sure, they could only have done this year-round
> > with horses but they got horses and started doing it LONG before they
> > got any number of useful rifles.
>
> Point taken. (And previously conceded.) I agree that horses may have
> been the difference.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Well, that's three questions but
> > > > it doesn't help us answer them if we think men with spears and bows are
> > > > helpless against predators. Men without guns EXTERMINATED many species
> > > > of predator.
> > >
> > > I agree that spears, and bow and arrow would be very useful against
> > > lions, hyena, and other large predators, but only in treed habitat and
> > > only as a deterent. Regardless of whether they were confronting these
> > > beasts in open habitat or treed habitat the best they could hope for is
> > > to injure one or two of them. And the only safe place against an
> > > injured, pissed-off lion or hyena is high in a tree.
> >
> > I think that you over-rate the importance of safety to a hunting band.
> > If there is a treed habitat where one can leave the kids, the old, the
> > women and the infirm, you take your chances. This is the same species
> > that fights insane wars today, the same species that has people ride
> > bulls for a living and real idiots do it as a hobby, and you are
> > thinking that the loss of a number of (primarily) young males over the
> > years is going to be a major limiting factor.
>
> I agree that the level of technology of Homo was enough that we might
> envision them being able to travel through such habitat much more often
> than A'pith. Except for travelling there would really be no good
> reason for them to be out there. There was nothing out there they
> could hunt. And they certainly weren't competing with dedicated
> scavengers.
>
> >
> > The social predators are horribly dangerous but so are men with spears
> > and bows. Not wanting to take casualties cuts both ways and lions and,
> > especially, hyenas are smart. The Native Americans seem to have taught
> > the grey wolf to "seven times never kill man" <Kipling, as I am sure
> > you know> because it is such a dangerous undertaking because the people
> > of this continent did not habitually go around unarmed. Wolves being
> > very smart and more vulnerable to stone-age weapons learned this more
> > readily that the solitary brown bear. Wolves in India, where going
> > around unarmed is very common, have never learned this lesson.
> >
> > I think you are absolutely on to something about the importance of
> > treed habitats but you negate some of that when you overstate your
> > case.
>
> I agree. And that is why I refined my position.
>
> > A hominid with enough mass and muscle to wield a spear well
> > enough to injure a lion badly and enough of a social structure that
> > several of them would stand their ground must be a fairly recent
> > developement but men like that could and I think would leave their
> > treed enviornments to hunt the larger and more plentiful hoofed game on
> > the plains.
>
> I agree that eventually humans did, but not until after domestication
> of horses and metal weapons. IOW, not pre holocene.
>
> > For the most part they would attempt to avoid lions and
> > hyenas but they could inflict enough harm on attackers that they would
> > not be a prey of choice.
> >
> > Will in New Haven
Jimm has done it again, except that now he believes these 8mya communes
lasted until 4300 BC, when the Copper Age began AFTER the Neolithic.
(Then he said and retracted that men needed JEEPS (1900 AD) and
guns...)
-Spiznet
Will in New Haven
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There is no reason to assume it was not as fast, almost as fast, or
> > > even faster. It was about the same size as modern lions, but more
> > > muscular.
> >
> > http://www.megafauna.com/chapter12.htm
> > "Megantereon was about the size of a present-day jaguar, but very
> > powerfully built. Its front legs, shoulders and chest were, in
> > particular, massively developed. That, and the fact that it could open
> > its jaws much wider than any modern cat can, suggests that it may have
> > used its front limbs, together with its powerful neck muscles, to push
> > or pull its teeth into vulnerable parts of its prey like large blood
> > vessels or the trachea. Megantereon's stocky build tell us that it
> > was probably an ambush hunter which only pursued its prey for short
> > distances. It had a short, bobcat-like tail. Its six-inch upper canines
> > were laterally flattened so that they could slice through muscle and
> > skin."
>
> Your assertion is idiotic. It's obvious to everybody that even a slow
> predator is going to be at least twice as fast as a bipedal,
> fruit-eating Apith that still maintained tree climbing adaptations.
It SHOULD be obvious that a predator adapted for the ambush-hunting of
large prey is not going to be spending a lot of time and effort chasing
liittle ape-critters that can escape by getting to the nearest trees.
Except in very hard times, I don't think that they would try very much.
The issue isn't only speed but quickness and endurance. "Quick as a
cat" does not work for scimitar-tooth cats, let alone for the
saber-tooth cats that weren't in Africa anyway. They could, for a very
short distance, run. Their skeletons are massive and "front-loaded." I
don't think they would find chasing small prey an efficient way to get
food. All of these problems are less so for scimitar-tooth but it was
nowhere near as gracile as even a jaguar, and you know that you need to
put a jaguar into the shop every few months or it falls apart.
Life would be tough enough without the very large cats. An apith alone
would have no defense against a leopard. A band of them could, if they
were always vigilant, protect themselves against a leopard much of the
time. If they went into the open, hyenas would be the big danger, not
the big cats, and would be a big enough danger to suit anyon.
Will in New Haven
--
"Pot-Limit has more thinking involved; young people can't think"
Norm Chad
MClark
[...hokum]
>> then they also couldn't have been using stone tools to drive all
>> those mean preadators out of their garden.
>
> Are you saying that A'pith could not have used rocks and sticks? Are
> you saying that even if they could they would not have been (or could
> not have been) effective preventing the inmigration of large mammallian
> pests and thereby preserving territorial resources? Are you saying
> that even if it did preserve territorial resources in the manner I
> indicate that it would make no difference because A'pith were typically
> not confined to patches of treed habitat in the manner I specified and
> therefore they would just meander over and across treeless habitat to ?
> Are you saying anthing? Or are you, again, saying that you are saying
> something but really you aren't saying anthing or, at least, not
> anything relevant to the issue at hand?
"Or are you, again, saying that you are saying something but
really you aren't saying anthing or, at least, not anything relevant
to the issue at hand?" --Dimmy [aka Claudius] 12/09/2006
[...hooey]
Jim McGinn
You have no hypothesis at all.
>
>
>
>
> > kind of dispute of my assertions. Are you saying that stone tipped
> > spears would not be useful to a community of Apiths that wished to keep
> > inmigrating herbivorous species from getting access to their garden
> > habitat? Are you saying that a community of Apiths that wished to keep
> > inmigrating herbivorous species out of their garden habitat would not,
> > as a result of maintaining their general health and well being through
> > the depth of the dry season, be less likely to be a target for
> > predators during the dry season? Are you saying that predators would
> > not instinctively key in on communities (of Apith and other species)
> > that are the most starving, desperate and, therefore vulnerable? Are
> > you saying anything at all?
>
>
> You made every bit of that up. It is sci-fiction at it's worst. Think
> about a career in stand-up comedy.
>
> >
> > > Modern
> > > hunter gatherers use stone tools for plant-food processing.
> >
> > Relevance?
>
> You are an idiot.
IOW, it's irrelevant.
>
> >
> > > I expect
> > > data consistent with the evidence. In this case, you have failed to
> > > supply any evidence.
> >
> > In this discipline we all use the same evidence.
>
> Then how have you managed to hide this evidence from the world for so
> long?
?
>
> >
> > > Moreover, there is no direct evidence that any of
> > > the apiths were tool users.
> >
> > Relevance. You seem to not be following the gist of the thread.
>
> There is no evidence that any apith ever used a stone tool. You made
> all that up, just like you made up "saber-tooth lion."
Is there any evidence that they didn't? No?
>
> >
> > > If you read the paper I cited there is a
> > > discussion on who might have made the first tools, but there is no
> > > proof of who made the tools.
> >
> > Relevance?
>
> You don't have even the basics for understanding science, get to the
> library.
You can't even answer simple questions.
> >
> > > If it turns out apiths were not tool
> > > users,
> >
> > Well, according to my hypothesis they employed rocks and sticks to head
> > off or drive out these large, mammalian pests. So if what you're
> > saying is true it effectively refutes my whole hypothesis.
>
> Unsuported, undocumented demented ramblings. Chimps throw rocks. This
> has been known for years. There is nothing new about this, so what is
> your point?
Do you have any evidence that A'pith didn't employ rocks and sticks in
the manner I indicate?
>
>
> >
> > > then they also couldn't have been using stone tools to drive all
> > > those mean preadators out of their garden.
> >
> > Are you saying that A'pith could not have used rocks and sticks? Are
>
> Idiot, you have simply copied what the entire field has said for years.
> What is new about that that you couldn't have gotten from Nova?
Oh, so now, all of a sudden, you realize that they could have used
rocks and sticks in the manner I stipulate. Right?
>
>
>
> > you saying that even if they could they would not have been (or could
> > not have been) effective preventing the inmigration of large mammallian
> > pests and thereby preserving territorial resources? Are you saying
> > that even if it did preserve territorial resources in the manner I
> > indicate that it would make no difference because A'pith were typically
> > not confined to patches of treed habitat in the manner I specified and
> > therefore they would just meander over and across treeless habitat to ?
> > Are you saying anthing? Or are you, again, saying that you are saying
> > something but really you aren't saying anthing or, at least, not
> > anything relevant to the issue at hand?
>
> I'm saying that you made up gardens. There is no more evidence for
> gardens than there is the Hopscotch Theory.
Well, there's a lot of evidence of modern humans preferring garden
habitat. And, in fact, biblical understandings of human origins
indicate that we are a garden species. I suppose you could refer to
this evidence as circumstantial. Are you aware of any evidence that
human are not associated with garden habitat?
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > Cite your literature that says they were fast.
> > > >
> > > > Cite your literature that says they were slow.
> > >
> > > Fat chance, since you have decided that under no circumstances are you
> > > going to cite anything. You expect others to cite, but you have no
> > > intention of citing anything. IOW, you are just a pompous ass.
> >
> > It is only ever necessary to site something if it is disputed. You
> > have dismissed much of my thinking. But you haven't disputed any of
> > it.
>
> Gardens are negative evidence, sci-fi. You have been watching too much
> TV.
But you admit, don't you, that you have no evidence-based dispute with
this assertion?
>
>
> >
> >
> > > > So you don't dispute my hypothetical thinking you dispute the
> > > > hypothesizer, myself. Right?
> > >
> > > Anyone can hypothesize/imagine anything, proving it is something qiute
> > > different. As I explained to Paul, who doesn't understand anymore about
> > > science than you do, imagination only gets you started. The burden is
> > > on the hypothesizer to gather the evidence, not the other way around.
> >
> > No. It's the burden of those critical of a hypothesis to dispute it.
> > When they fail, as you have done here, this is the best indicator of
> > scientific validity. (Once again, retard, we all use the same
> > evidence.)
>
> Congradulations, you are the only person on the planet (besides the
> other sci-illiterates) that believes that. Do you hear voices often?
No. This is the way all sciences word, dimwit.
>
> >
> > > > > Your evidence for gardens is?
> > > >
> > > > Is there any evidence that they did not have gardens, or something to
> > > > that effect?
> > >
> > > "Did not have"? That is classic negative argument. The burden is on you
> > > to show some sort of evidence. Even weak evidence might work if you
> > > have several independent lines of it. So other than you said so, what
> > > is your evidence?
> >
> > Obviously this is a wash, retard. So you only look even more stupid
> > (and desperate) to even bring it up. Obviously I have no direct
> > evidence of these gardens. And obviously you have no direct evidence
> > that disputes their existence.
>
> Then cite anyone besides you that thinks so, besides the creationists
> that is.
What would that prove?
>
>
> >
> > > > > There isn't any, it is a negative
> > > > > argument. Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumption
> > > > > that Lucy was making elaborate sand paintings, playing with string
> > > > > cradles, or playing Hopscotch?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > Well then, we can just sit here and ponder gardens and hopscotch.
> >
> > I'll leave that to you.
>
> Can't refute the Hopscotch Theory eh? Didn't think you could.
I can't refute it
Jim McGinn
Will in New Haven wrote:
Really. Why? Lions are adapted to large prey, yet they will not pass
up an easy meal from small prey. Why should we pretend it was
different back in the late miocene.
>
>
> The issue isn't only speed but quickness and endurance. "Quick as a
> cat" does not work for scimitar-tooth cats, let alone for the
> saber-tooth cats that weren't in Africa anyway. They could, for a very
> short distance, run. Their skeletons are massive and "front-loaded." I
> don't think they would find chasing small prey an efficient way to get
> food. All of these problems are less so for scimitar-tooth but it was
> nowhere near as gracile as even a jaguar, and you know that you need to
> put a jaguar into the shop every few months or it falls apart.
What you are saying is interresting, but irrelevant to the issue at
hand. It's obvious to everybody that even a slow predator is going to
be at least twice as fast as a bipedal, fruit-eating Apith that still
maintained tree climbing adaptations. Do you deny this? (Answer the
question you evasive twit.)
> Life would be tough enough without the very large cats. An apith alone
> would have no defense against a leopard. A band of them could, if they
> were always vigilant, protect themselves against a leopard much of the
> time. If they went into the open, hyenas would be the big danger, not
> the big cats, and would be a big enough danger to suit anyon.
Relevance?
Jim McGinn
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There is no reason to assume it was not as fast, almost as fast, or
> > > > even faster. It was about the same size as modern lions, but more
> > > > muscular.
> > >
> > > http://www.megafauna.com/chapter12.htm
> > > "Megantereon was about the size of a present-day jaguar, but very
> > > powerfully built. Its front legs, shoulders and chest were, in
> > > particular, massively developed. That, and the fact that it could open
> > > its jaws much wider than any modern cat can, suggests that it may have
> > > used its front limbs, together with its powerful neck muscles, to push
> > > or pull its teeth into vulnerable parts of its prey like large blood
> > > vessels or the trachea. Megantereon's stocky build tell us that it
> > > was probably an ambush hunter which only pursued its prey for short
> > > distances. It had a short, bobcat-like tail. Its six-inch upper canines
> > > were laterally flattened so that they could slice through muscle and
> > > skin."
> >
> > Your assertion is idiotic. It's obvious to everybody that even a slow
> > predator is going to be at least twice as fast as a bipedal,
> > fruit-eating Apith that still maintained tree climbing adaptations.
>
> If that is the case, then you should have no trouble providing evidence
> that they were a threat to apiths or Homo.
Why do you assume this?
> You can't because no such
> evidence exists.
Proof?
> You made all that up, just like you made up
> "saber-tooth lion." I will tell you again, the reason they are gone
> and we are not is they specialized themselves into a corner and that
> specialization wasn't eating hominids.
Pure nonsense. Now you're revealing your simplistic understanding of
extinction.
>
> >
> > The only issue that remains is why this wasn't obvious to you ten posts
> > ago.
>
> Your citations for your lunatic assertions? How do you think 1808 OD'd
> on carnivore liver? There is more hard evidence out there that Homo was
> eating cats than the other way around.
When, where? (Lee was hoping I wouldn't ask these questions.) Go
aheas, Lee, tell us when and where. (C'mon you evasive twit.)