Problems With Hunter-Gatherer Model

[Claudius Denk]

Explain to us the lifestyle of pre-homo erectus hominids
as you envision it? How do you explain the apparent
inability of early (pre HE) to out-sprint sabertoothed cats
and bear-sized hyena in the treeless habitat of your
hunter-gatherer model? This is pretty clear in the fossil
record. The earliest hominids were not very mobile by
any stretch of the imagination. How do you explain this
contradiction?

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 8, 4:31 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Explain

It has been explained to you dozens of times. If you are suffering
from dementia what are you doing on this list?
Your MO: start new thread after ignoring cited evidence to the
contrary of your blunders, then come back with more of same
pretending you didn't get stuffed for the last ten years of getting
caught in making up tripe.
Your ignorance-based scenarios are not science, they aren't even good
science fiction.

From: "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net>
Subject: Re: Female Proclivaties and Capital Madness. [was: gradualism
sucks]
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <376ED09C...@thegrid.net>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo:
"You really need to do some reading (and I've said this before). You
should read, and I mean read not just skim which seems to be the
thread of
your work here, Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth's Making Silent Stones
Speak
(1993). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data. You need
to
read the literature and find which ideas you have which are just plain
wrong
and which are worthy of development."

Dan Barnes:
"Unfortunately your theory is not in the position where it
can be directly addressed which is why a number of people
have suggested that the best thing you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and
come back again. This is what would happen if you were a
first year university student and I don't see why there
should be an exemption in your case."

Greg Laden:
"Jim: Regarding the above (culled) questions; Imagine yourself in a
graduate student seminar asking your professor these questions? Well,
I'm
not your professor, and you're not my student, but it is an
interesting
thought experiment. I think of myself as very thoughtful of my
students,
and helpful to them, but if a student came back at my questions or
comments
with this sort of response, I would be very unhappy, and there is no
telling what would happen!!! Read the stuff. If you have a vague
memory
of it, that is not good enough. You should be saying things like "No,
you
are wrong. McGrew is irrelevant, because...." etc.! I've given you
the
names of a half dozen scholars who have done important work related to
what
you are interested in. Hit the books, kid!"

Su Solomon:
"Jim I cannot see that this 'idea' of yours is in any ways much
different
to that which was posted almost a year ago on the old PalAnth List.
Once again we have unsubstantiated claims re your interepretation of
the
mechanisms of evolution and the palaeoanthropolgical literature.
I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four hundred words
of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time,
then if is not evident in this latest of postings."

[Claudius Denk]

On Feb 8, 5:27 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 4:31 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Explain
>
> It has been  explained to you  dozens of times. If you are suffering
> from dementia what are you doing on this list?
> Your MO: start  new thread after ignoring cited evidence to the
> contrary of your blunders, then come back with more of same
> pretending you didn't get stuffed for the last ten years of getting
> caught in making up tripe.
> Your ignorance-based scenarios are not science, they aren't even good
> science fiction.

Why don't you admit what is obvious to anybody reading this that you
don't currently have a good explanation for this contradiction and
move on. It's not like you're fooling anybody worth fooling anyway.

[Claudius Denk]

On Feb 8, 5:27 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Leave the subject header alone you child.

[Lee Olsen]

Then stop asking people to repeat arguments over and over year after
year like some senile imbecile.
Reference your claims like any other adult would do. There are no
tigers in Africa, you child. There are pigs on the savanna, and
people were on the savanna before the advent of jeeps and guns....on
and on, post after post of train wrecks.

You remind me of the Black Knight on Monte Python.
http://tinyurl.com/7gmm76s

You get your arm wacked off and you claim it's just a scratch.
Your legs get wacked off and you scream don't run away coward, stay
fight, I'll bite off your legs.
You are all bark and no bite.

[Claudius Denk]

> You remind me of the Black Knight on Monte Python.http://tinyurl.com/7gmm76s

>
> You get your arm wacked off and you claim it's just a scratch.
> Your legs get wacked off and you scream don't run away coward, stay
> fight, I'll bite off your legs.
> You are all bark and no bite.

You're babbling.

[Lee Olsen]

When can we expect evidence for your imaginary garden-like patches?

[Claudius Denk]

[Lee Olsen]

Why don't you just admit there is no contradiction if there were no
garden-like patches and that you don't know a tiger from a pig.

[RichTravsky]

How did they manage to range over most of Africa?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKpZUsRJWBg

[Claudius Denk]

Not as a result of seasonal migration, you idiot.

[RichTravsky]

Defense is independent of something like that. And how do you explain how
australopiths ranged over most of Africa?

[Claudius Denk]

So do some species of trees. Trees don't migrate. They stay at one
location their whole lives.

[RichTravsky]

But their SEEDS travel... You HAVE read of SEED DISPERSAL, haven't you????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Now - how do you explain how australopiths ranged over most of Africa?

[Claudius Denk]

On Feb 19, 10:09 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 8:22 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 8:09 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > > > Explain to us the lifestyle of pre-homo erectus hominids
> > > > > > as you envision it?  How do you explain the apparent
> > > > > > inability of early (pre HE) to out-sprint sabertoothed cats
> > > > > > and bear-sized hyena in the treeless habitat of your
> > > > > > hunter-gatherer model?  This is pretty clear in the fossil
> > > > > > record.  The earliest hominids were not very mobile by
> > > > > > any stretch of the imagination.  How do you explain this
> > > > > > contradiction?
>
> > > > > How did they manage to range over most of Africa?
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKpZUsRJWBg
>
> > > > Not as a result of seasonal migration, you idiot.
>
> > > Defense is independent of something like that. And how do you explain how
> > > australopiths ranged over most of Africa?
>
> > So do some species of trees.  Trees don't migrate.  They stay at one
> > location their whole lives.
>
> But their SEEDS travel... You HAVE read of SEED DISPERSAL, haven't you?

Exactly. Thus my point: recolonization can happen despite a lack of
seasonal migration.

> Now - how do you explain how australopiths ranged over most of Africa?

Nobody is saying that HE didn't venture into treeless habitat
occasionally, you simpleminded twerp. Obviously they were always
looking for opportunity to recolonize undiscovered garden habitat.
And that would involve occasionally travelling through treeless
habitat. But it would have been just that, a venture. It wouldn't be
how they made their living on a daily basis. The well-watered treed
localilities of the greater treeless savanna would have been the
places hominids resided. Only simpleminded twerps would assume that
since they ranged widely that therefore they resided in treeless
savanna habitat. Please endeavor to make an effort to not be a
simpleminded twerp.

[Lee Olsen]

Nobody said anything about "HE", he said "australopiths" you flame-
baiting, word-switching moron.

Here is what you you actually claimed:
Message-ID: <1165098768.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
McGinn: "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."

Not only are you incapable of understanding the meaning of science
terms, you can't even read correctly what others write or even your
own words.

Not only that, you also claimed:
Message-ID: <1164616361.922426.285...@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."

Which according to that psycho babble, no place in Africa could have
had trees farther apart than 100 yards or your early gatekeepers
couldn't have gotten there in the first place.


>  Obviously

You are a psycho-troll.

[Claudius Denk]

Well then I mispoke, I meant australopiths (A'piths).

Whatever the case we are not obligated to assume they were seasonally
migratory based on the observation that they were wide ranging.

> Here is what you you actually claimed:
> Message-ID: <1165098768.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
> McGinn: "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."

Yep.

> Not only are you incapable of  understanding  the meaning of science
> terms, you can't even read correctly what others write or even your
> own words.
>
> Not only that, you also claimed:
> Message-ID: <1164616361.922426.285...@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."
>
> Which according to that psycho babble, no place in Africa could have
> had trees farther apart than 100 yards or your early gatekeepers
> couldn't have gotten there in the first place.

You are just interpreting my words dogmatically and being
argumentative. Why not just ask for clarification?

>
> >  Obviously
>
> You are a psycho-troll.

Nobody is forcing you to read my posts.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 20, 4:07 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> You are just interpreting my words dogmatically and being
> argumentative.  Why not just ask for clarification?

Why? Will I learn pigs aren't found on the savanna? Or maybe you
will have an update on Miocene lions and tigers?

>Nobody is forcing you to read my posts.

And no one is forcing you to respond to mine.

[Claudius Denk]

On Feb 20, 4:26 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:07 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > You are just interpreting my words dogmatically and being
> > argumentative.  Why not just ask for clarification?
>
> Why? Will I learn  pigs  aren't found on the savanna? Or maybe you
> will have an update on Miocene lions and tigers?

All you do is whine.

> >Nobody is forcing you to read my posts.
>
> And no one is forcing you to respond to mine.

Backatcha.

[Claudius Denk]

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

[Lee Olsen]

So stop your whining and admit the evolution of pigs is one of the
best open woodland and savanna dating references anthropologists
have, almost as good as layers of ash.

[Claudius Denk]

Uh . . . pigs . . . dating reference . . . uh. What?

[Lee Olsen]

Message-ID: <ac6a5059.0405050657.421f9...@posting.google.com>
Jim McGinn: "And this example does a good job
of disputing savanna origins (not that such isn't already
thoroughly refuted by an overwhelming abundance of
comparative evidence) since pigs are not found in
treeless savanna habitat..."

Going into your favorite play-dumb routine again? Your ignorance is
really appalling.
And if that weren't enough, pigs are garden pests, in fact they are
garden destroyers.
The second your gatekeepers run 100 yards (or your latest:
"may have involved crossing longer distances.
Miles? Whose to say." ).
Goodbye garden, forget about lions and tigers.... pigs and those pesky
ground squirrels would tear the garden-like plot to shreads.

[Claudius Denk]

On Feb 20, 8:37 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:48 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > You are just interpreting my words dogmatically and being
> > > > > > > argumentative.  Why not just ask for clarification?
>
> > > > > > Why? Will I learn pigs aren't found on the savanna? Or maybe you
> > > > > > will have an update on Miocene lions and tigers?
>
> > > > > All you do is whine.
>
> > > > > > >Nobody is forcing you to read my posts.
>
> > > > > > And no one is forcing you to respond to mine.
>
> > > > > Backatcha.
>
> > > > Would you like some cheese with that whine?
>
> > > So stop your whining and admit the evolution of pigs is one of the
> > > best open woodland and savanna dating references anthropologists
> > > have,  almost as good as layers of ash.
>
> >  Uh . . . pigs . . . dating reference . . . uh.  What?
>
> Message-ID: <ac6a5059.0405050657.421f9...@posting.google.com>
> Jim McGinn: "And this example does a good job
> of disputing savanna origins (not that such isn't already
> thoroughly refuted by an overwhelming abundance of
> comparative evidence) since pigs are not found in
> treeless savanna habitat..."
>
> Going into your favorite play-dumb routine again? Your ignorance is
> really appalling.

No. Trust me. I am not playing dumb. I truly do not comprehend your
fascination with out of context quotes . . . and pigs.

> And if that weren't enough, pigs are garden pests, in fact
> they are garden destroyers.

<snipped for incomprehensibility>

> Goodbye garden, forget about lions and tigers.... pigs and
> those pesky ground squirrels would tear the garden-like
> plot to shreads.

Well, this seems like a reasonable assertion. More explicitly,
you are saying that the large mammals of my Ecological
Gatekeeper Hypothesis would not be the only pests they would
have had to deal with. (One might look to paleo-habitat
reconstructions for specific species [pigs? squirrels?].) I don't
see this assertion as an objection to my hypothesis as much
as I see it as an astute observation that my hypothesis (or any
hypothesis, for that matter) must incorporate. Wouldn't you agree?

[Lee Olsen]

Your out-of-context quotes about Miocene lions and tigers are in
context?
Go back to school and try to learn something this time.

http://tinyurl.com/7dpnx5j

Quite frankly, I don't understand your fascination with posting lies
and misinformation.

[Claudius Denk]

You learn more about what people really think from the questions they
won't answer than you do from those they do answer.

[Claudius Denk]

Leave the subject header alone, you imbecile.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 22, 7:20 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Leave the subject header alone, you imbecile.

Message-ID: <ac6a5059.0405050657.421f9...@posting.google.com>
Jim McGinn: "And this example does a good job
of disputing savanna origins (not that such isn't already
thoroughly refuted by an overwhelming abundance of
comparative evidence) since pigs are not found in
treeless savanna habitat..."

You forgot to take out the trash again.

[Lee Olsen]

Good, so start with your curriculum vitae

and then tell us where you got this idea:

[Claudius Denk]

Troll alert.

[Lee Olsen]

Retraction alert:

[Claudius Denk]

Uh . . . let met get this straight, Lee. You are basing your dispute
of my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis on, I don't know, an offhand
comment I made years ago? And, I imagine, there is some deeper
(secret?) understanding that is beyond all of us. (I respect your
right to secrecy.)

Here's my question: Can you elaborate how pigs are a problem for my
ecological gatekeeper hypothesis? Or is that, too, a secret?

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 22, 11:45 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


> Here's my question: Can you elaborate how pigs are a problem for my
> ecological gatekeeper hypothesis?  Or is that, too, a secret?

Troll alert.

[Claudius Denk]

That's what I thought.

[Lee Olsen]

So why are you still here?

[RichTravsky]

Australopiths. AUSTRALOPITHS. Common Evo Whiz, keep up.

> occasionally, you simpleminded twerp. Obviously they were always
> looking for opportunity to recolonize undiscovered garden habitat.

"RE"colonize something that's undiscovered???? LOL

> And that would involve occasionally travelling through treeless
> habitat. But it would have been just that, a venture. It wouldn't be
> how they made their living on a daily basis. The well-watered treed
> localilities of the greater treeless savanna would have been the
> places hominids resided. Only simpleminded twerps would assume that
> since they ranged widely that therefore they resided in treeless
> savanna habitat. Please endeavor to make an effort to not be a
> simpleminded twerp.

Who said anything about savanna? I didn't.

[RichTravsky]

Tree seeds do the traveling, dum dum. But now you're confusing plants and
animals...evolution whiz...

[RichTravsky]

That's because Dimmie truly is dumb.

[RichTravsky]

It's a problem for your ... thought processes.

Here's a pig in treeless savann habitat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoyXB9NZUhI

[RichTravsky]

Like... what's your educational background? Eh?

[RichTravsky]

Silence...

[Claudius Denk]

On Feb 8, 5:31 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


CD:

Explain to us the lifestyle of pre-homo erectus hominids
as you envision it?  How do you explain the apparent
inability of early (pre HE) to out-sprint sabertoothed cats
and bear-sized hyena in the treeless habitat of your
hunter-gatherer model?  This is pretty clear in the fossil
record.  The earliest hominids were not very mobile by
any stretch of the imagination.  How do you explain this
contradiction?

LO:
It has been explained to you dozens of times. If you are suffering
from dementia what are you doing on this list?
Your MO: start new thread after ignoring cited evidence to the
contrary of your blunders, then come back with more of same
pretending you didn't get stuffed for the last ten years of getting
caught in making up tripe.
Your ignorance-based scenarios are not science, they aren't even good
science fiction.

CD:
So, let me get this straight. You are expecting us to accept that
you've answered this question, "dozens of times?" I can understand
why you'd be embarassed to have to repost what you've stated so far.

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]

Crickets...

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]

Still crickets...

[RichTravsky]

Giant ones.

[Claudius Denk]

[RichTravsky]

STILL crickets...

What are you afraid of JimJim?

[RichTravsky]

STILL crickets... BIG ones

[RichTravsky]

STILL crickets... paleo ones

[Claudius Denk]

[RichTravsky]

STILL crickets... BIG paleo ones

[Claudius Denk]

[RichTravsky]

I was asking for your educational background. It would appear you just
flunked.

[Claudius Denk]

There is more to science than pretending not to notice evidence that
disputes your model. Real scientists are constantly looking for
evidence that will dispute their larger model. They don't avoid it.
They don't pretend not to notice it. They delve into it. They wallow
in it.

[RichTravsky]

One more time: I was asking for your educational background.

REAL scientrists aren't afraid to state it.

[Claudius Denk]

Will knowing my educational background make any difference to the
validity of my hypothesis?

[Claudius Denk]

[Tom McDonald]

It would be useful to know what you actually studied, and what evidence
you have that you learned anything.

[Claudius Denk]

My education is considerable buy my expertise goes well beyond
anything you'll find in the educational system.

[RichTravsky]

Yes.

[RichTravsky]

You never post any evidence. In fact, you have stated there isn't any.

Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
years ago. - DimJim

[RichTravsky]

Prove. List degress and schools ->

[Claudius Denk]

I never stated there is no evidence, you fruitcake.

[RichTravsky]

Uh, Dimmie, you DID, the quote is right up above.

If you DO have evidence, why do you refuse to cite any of it, eh?

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]

We're waiting, DimJim...

[Claudius Denk]

Answer my question you evasive twit:

[Kermit]

What makes you think this is a contradiction?

Baboons do just fine in the savannah, and they can't out-sprint modern
cats or hyenas. Our ancestors were not only bigger, but armed. By the
time we left the forest, we were carrying rocks and sticks routinely.
We have also been using fire for a long time. No need to outsprint
them. Just make it expensive enough (i.e. dangerous enough) and an
alert band of hominids would avoid most encounters.

We eat more meat than any other primate, yet we have the smallest
canines. Our teeth are adapted to eating, not fighting. That's what
our weapons were for. I see our smaller canines as evidence that we
were already effectively tougher than other apes of comparable size
and numbers - our new weapons were better.

Kermit

[Tom McDonald]

Jim/Claudius appears to be driven by fear--and projects that fear back
onto our savanna-dwelling ancestors. (Not that he would agree that they
lived on the savanna.)

He consistently ignores evidence such as that you just gave, and such
evidence as a video of 3 modern humans armed only with spears chasing a
pride of lions off of a kill.

I think he thinks our ancestors were just sort of muddling around, not
particularly aware of their environment, its dangers and opportunities,
and just meat for any random carnivore.

Of course, it could be that he's just so damned committed to his garden
'hypothesis' that he can't admit evidence that runs counter to it.

In any case, he appears to be a polymath of a crank--as witness the
tornado business. He certainly leads with his chin, but he's an epitome
of the Black Knight. I wouldn't expect him to ever admit that he might
be on the wrong track about, well, anything.

[Claudius Denk]

Is it not obvious that hominids are very diffferent than baboon? You
about have to be retarded to draw parallels between hominids and
baboon.

[Claudius Denk]

You have to about be retarded to think that this qualifies as evidence
of hominid evolution.

>
> Of course, it could be that he's just so damned committed to his garden
> 'hypothesis' that he can't admit evidence that runs counter to it.
>
> In any case, he appears to be a polymath of a crank--as witness the
> tornado business. He certainly leads with his chin, but he's an epitome
> of the Black Knight. I wouldn't expect him to ever admit that he might
> be on the wrong track about, well, anything.

If your only game is to strenuously assert that you are right then you
don't have any game.

[Tom McDonald]

It is evidence that you are wrong about the ability of our kind to deal
with the dangers and opportunities of the savanna without simply running
up a tree. It's also more than you've ever been able to come up with to
support your 'hypothesis'.

>> Of course, it could be that he's just so damned committed to his garden
>> 'hypothesis' that he can't admit evidence that runs counter to it.
>>
>> In any case, he appears to be a polymath of a crank--as witness the
>> tornado business. He certainly leads with his chin, but he's an epitome
>> of the Black Knight. I wouldn't expect him to ever admit that he might
>> be on the wrong track about, well, anything.
>
> If your only game is to strenuously assert that you are right then you
> don't have any game.
>

Fortunately, that's not my only game. But it appears to be most of yours.

[Claudius Denk]

My hypothesis is supported by all of the evidence. People that
present evidence that supports their hypothesis only do so to draw
attention away from the fact that their hypothesis is not supported by
all the evidence, as is mine.

[Tom McDonald]

On 7/5/2012 5:29 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:44 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

<snip>

>> It is evidence that you are wrong about the ability of our kind to deal
>> with the dangers and opportunities of the savanna without simply running
>> up a tree. It's also more than you've ever been able to come up with to
>> support your 'hypothesis'.
>
> My hypothesis is supported by all of the evidence. People that
> present evidence that supports their hypothesis only do so to draw
> attention away from the fact that their hypothesis is not supported by
> all the evidence, as is mine.

OK, Denk. You go on believing that if it makes you feel important and
vindicated. I guess your retarded 'hypothesis' means more to you than,
for instance, facts.

Just don't expect anyone else to agree with you just because you make
that silly claim.

<snip>

[J.LyonLayden]

Claudius wrote:
> My education is considerable buy my expertise goes well beyond

anything you'll find in the educational system.

Did it come from somewhere esoteric...Blavatsky maybe? Did our garden ancestors lay eggs too?

Just kidding. I couldn't resist. I would much rather see this thread turn into a debate instead of a "let's beat up on Claudius" bandwagon.

I came to this war late, and have not been following the ongoing debate.

But, I can tell that Lee is more interested in pulling your chain than having a scientific debate. Repeatedly mentioning your supposed reference to Miocene lions and tigers is not helping the debate. No offense Lee, but this is childish.

We GET it, Lee. Claudius mentioned predators that didn't exist in Miocene Africa.
But guess what? There WERE predators in Africa the whole time hominids were evolving. They don't have to ne lions or tigers for his point to be addressed.

Also the argument of crocodiles and sharks to refute AAT is not valid. The "sea people" of south east asia spend most of their lives on the water, dive for their food, and have developed the ability to stay under water longer than anyone else on earth (except the rare diving athlete). There are lots of other reasons why AAT doesn't hold water, but predation isn't one of them. Just like savannah predators aren't sufficient to prove that man couldn't live on the savannahs.

Like someone else said, even some of the austros had weapons to fend off animals.

Now, if Claudius wanted to change his theory to say that early austros lived primarily in forested areas and that moving across the savannah to other forest areas was always a risk before they invented weapons to fend off animals with, although a risk they repeatedly undertook, I wouldn't see a huge problem with that.

In fact, isn't that how they used to teach it in school? Creation of the great rift valley created savannas between forests, and our ancestors had to run across savanna to the next forest each time he ate up all the fruit?

Going back to Claudius's original post and question FOR THIS THREAD:

"Explain to us the lifestyle of pre-homo erectus hominids
as you envision it?"

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and answer from the viewpoint of a theory....not MY theory, as I believe it was more complex than this. I am going to answer from the viewpoint of one type of afrocentrist to keep it sensible and allow this to become a debate instead of a feces throwing match.

The pre-erectus hominids (and I will specify these as pre-homo hominids...i.e. austros) ate up all the eggs and fruits in a forest, and then moved on across savanna to other forests when the resources had been used up.

"How do you explain the apparent
inability of early (pre HE) to out-sprint sabertoothed cats
and bear-sized hyena in the treeless habitat of your
hunter-gatherer model?"

I don't. Lots of hominids got eaten while travelling across the savannas. Especially the ones who weren't as good at running on two legs. The faster and more upright you were, the more chance you had of getting to the treeline while your buddy was getting gnawed.
Our ancestors also didn't have to ability to out climb predatory cats in the jungle or forest, and lots of them got eaten in there too. They also got eaten a lot when they went to the waterhole, and snakes and larger apes and cats and canines killed them a lot when they were walking through forested areas too.

"This is pretty clear in the fossil
record. The earliest hominids were not very mobile by
any stretch of the imagination. How do you explain this
contradiction?"

I just did, from one possible point of view. Austro was 99.9% a prey animal. He got eaten in every habitat he entered. But he fucked a lot too,and spit out lots of kids, and getting eaten for millions of years actually helped him evolve into a generalized but apex predator...because only the smartest and fastest(i.e. most upright) survived.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jul 5, 3:50 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 5:29 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 10:44 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> It is evidence that you are wrong about the ability of our kind to deal
> >> with the dangers and opportunities of the savanna without simply running
> >> up a tree. It's also more than you've ever been able to come up with to
> >> support your 'hypothesis'.
>
> > My hypothesis is supported by all of the evidence.  People that
> > present evidence that supports their hypothesis only do so to draw
> > attention away from the fact that their hypothesis is not supported by
> > all the evidence, as is mine.
>
> OK, Denk. You go on believing that if it makes you feel important and
> vindicated. I guess your retarded 'hypothesis' means more to you than,
> for instance, facts.

It's regrettable that the laws of reality prevent you from providing a
link to your imagination so that these alleged, "facts," can be
verified.

> Just don't expect anyone else to agree with you just because you make
> that silly claim.

In sharp contrast to yourself, I think it's silly to talk of evidence
without referencing it specifically.

Nevertheless, you have my sympathy: I can't even begin to imagine how
frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely
unable to say how or why.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jul 6, 10:06 am, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Claudius wrote:


> I came to this war late, and have not been following
> the ongoing debate.

If you want to get caught up you'll need to go to this site
and study it extensively: (I hope this link works.)
https://sites.google.com/site/ecologicalgatekeeperhy/

> But, I can tell that Lee is more interested in pulling your
> chain than having a scientific debate. Repeatedly mentioning
> your supposed reference to Miocene lions and tigers is not
> helping the debate. No offense Lee, but this is childish.

Was this ever not obvious?

> We GET it, Lee. Claudius mentioned predators that didn't
> exist in Miocene Africa. But guess what? There WERE
> predators in Africa the whole time hominids were evolving.

> They don't have to be lions or tigers for his point to be
> addressed.

Of course, Lee knows this also. He's just so emotionally
caught up in this that he can't bring himself to admit it. My
guess is that you yourself, J. Lyon Layden, will soon be
following in Lee's footsteps in this regard.

> Also the argument of crocodiles and sharks to refute
> AAT is not valid. The "sea people" of south east asia
> spend most of their lives on the water, dive for their food,
> and have developed the ability to stay under water longer
> than anyone else on earth (except the rare diving athlete).
> There are lots of other reasons why AAT doesn't hold
> water, but predation isn't one of them. Just like savannah
> predators aren't sufficient to prove that man couldn't live
> on the savannahs.

I disagree. Predation was a giant factor back then.

> Like someone else said, even some of the austros had
> weapons to fend off animals.

In the hands of A'pith (austros) these weapons would have
been useless against the large predators of late Miocene
and Plocene east Africa.

> Now, if Claudius wanted to change his theory to say that
> early austros lived primarily in forested areas and that
> moving across the savannah to other forest areas was
> always a risk before they invented weapons to fend off
> animals with, although a risk they repeatedly undertook,
> I wouldn't see a huge problem with that.

I've never had a problem with them occasionally crossing
through treeless habitat--especially during the rainy season
when the predators would be out in the grasslands.

> In fact, isn't that how they used to teach it in school?
> Creation of the great rift valley created savannas between
> forests, and our ancestors had to run across savanna to
> the next forest each time he ate up all the fruit?

This is a silly assertion in that we'd expect them to have
stayed quadrupedal .like all the other species that employ
this same strategy during the dry season.

> Going back to Claudius's original post and question
> FOR THIS THREAD: "Explain to us the lifestyle of
> pre-homo erectus hominids as you envision it?"
> I'm going to play devil's advocate here and answer
> from the viewpoint of a theory....not MY theory, as
> I believe it was more complex than this. I am going
> to answer from the viewpoint of one type of afrocentrist
> to keep it sensible and allow this to become a debate
> instead of a feces throwing match.
> The pre-erectus hominids (and I will specify these as
> pre-homo hominids...i.e. austros) ate up all the eggs
> and fruits in a forest, and then moved on across savanna
> to other forests when the resources had been used up.

And I'm saying that this is exactly wrong and *all* of the
evidence (most notably, the emergence of bipedalism) is
consistent with my assertion that they were highly situated,
communal. IOW, the dry season strategy that most
species at that time employed was to not put all their
eggs in one basket. When the food ran out at one location
they migrated over to the next location. Hominids (especially
pre-homo . . . i.e. austros) had exactly the opposite strategy.
Their strategy was to put all their eggs in one basket and to
watch that basket! They did not migrate when the food ran out.
They put all their efforts into making sure the food didn't run out.
And they did this by locating themselves at localties that had
garden habitat and they collectively worked to keep all food
competitor species out of their territorially claimed garden
habitat all year long. The rock-throwing, stick-wielding
techniques (threat displays) that they employed to achieve this
collective goal underlie the origins of bipedalism. (Note: the
origins of bipedalism had nothing at all to do with mobility,
they had everything to do with collective territorialism.)

> Claudius Denk asked, "How do you explain the apparent

> inability of early (pre HE) to out-sprint sabertoothed cats
> and bear-sized hyena in the treeless habitat of your
> hunter-gatherer model?"
>
> I don't.

You concede the argument?

> Lots of hominids got eaten while travelling across
> the savannas. Especially the ones who weren't as good
> at running on two legs. The faster and more upright you
> were, the more chance you had of getting to the treeline
> while your buddy was getting gnawed. Our ancestors also
> didn't have to ability to out climb predatory cats in the jungle
> or forest, and lots of them got eaten in there too. They also
> got eaten a lot when they went to the waterhole, and snakes
> and larger apes and cats and canines killed them a lot when
> they were walking through forested areas too.
>
>   "This is pretty clear in the fossil
> record.  The earliest hominids were not very mobile by
> any stretch of the imagination.  How do you explain this
> contradiction?"
>
> I just did, from one possible point of view. Austro was 99.9%
> a prey animal. He got eaten in every habitat he entered.

No. They used trees to avoid most predators. If anything is obvious
it is this.

> But he fucked a lot too,and spit out lots of kids,

This assertion is completely inconsistent with the slow pace of human
development after birth.

> and getting
> eaten for millions of years actually helped him evolve into a
> generalized but apex predator...because only the smartest
> and fastest(i.e. most upright) survived.

Vague. It seems your theory fails to explain the origins
of the most socially complex species ever know to exist.
My hypothesis doesn't fail in this regard.

Remember, we're talking about *human* evolution.

A hypothesis on hominid evolution must be consistent with *all* of the
evidence. It's scientifically amateurish to take any other approach.
You can't just pick and choose what evidence to consider and then
present and argument to that effect asking your audience to
temporarily ignore certain aspects of the evidence.

[Paul Crowley]

On 06/07/2012 18:06, J.LyonLayden wrote:

> Also the argument of crocodiles and sharks to refute AAT is not
> valid. The "sea people" of south east asia spend most of their lives
> on the water, dive for their food, and have developed the ability to
> stay under water longer than anyone else on earth (except the rare
> diving athlete). There are lots of other reasons why AAT doesn't hold
> water, but predation isn't one of them. Just like savannah predators
> aren't sufficient to prove that man couldn't live on the savannahs.

Predation -- or more exactly, the presence of huge,
immensely powerful predators -- can certainly be a
major part of any evolutionary theory or evolutionary
explanation. Animals like dodos don't evolve or
survive in the presence of mainland predators.
If your theory posits the existence of a dodo-like
animal on the African savanna you really should have
some better 'explanation' than " . . it was there, and
all living species must have survived predation . . so
it must have been there and it must have survived . . ".
Because that's exactly the nature of your current
'theory'.

> Like someone else said, even some of the austros had weapons to
> fend off animals.

The weapons they had would not have fended off squat.

[..]

> "How do you explain the apparent
> inability of early (pre HE) to out-sprint sabertoothed cats
> and bear-sized hyena in the treeless habitat of your
> hunter-gatherer model?"
>
> I don't. Lots of hominids got eaten while travelling across the
> savannas. Especially the ones who weren't as good at running on
> two legs. The faster and more upright you were, the more chance
> you had of getting to the treeline while your buddy was getting
> gnawed.

This 'theory' is also not viable. There has clearly been
NO selection -- or almost no selection -- in humans
(and in their ancestors) for anything that could help in
the avoidance of predators. Adult males are about the
slowest land animal in existence - except for those
which have highly evident means of protection or
defence -- huge claws (in ant-eaters), thick shells
(for tortoises) poisonous quills (for porcupines), etc.,
etc. Adult females and hominid infants and juveniles
are pathetically vulnerable. and have an extra-
ordinarily long period of maturation. The taxon has
an extremely slow replacement rate.

> Our ancestors also didn't have to ability to out climb predatory cats
> in the jungle or forest, and lots of them got eaten in there too.

To reinforce my argument about the absence of any
features that might help hominids cope with predators,
compare them with chimps. Chimpanzees are -- in
every apparent respect -- superior to hominids. They
can run on land much faster -- especially for females
carrying infants. They can climb much better and
much more quickly. There is nothing on the savanna
that a hominid could eat, that a chimp could not.

> They also got eaten a lot when they went to the waterhole, and
> snakes and larger apes and cats and canines killed them a lot when
> they were walking through forested areas too.

You have no evidence for this statement, and every-
thing about human anatomy and behaviour is in
violent contradiction.

> "This is pretty clear in the fossil
> record. The earliest hominids were not very mobile by
> any stretch of the imagination. How do you explain this
> contradiction?"
>
> I just did, from one possible point of view.

Sorry, but you did not. When you don't have a viable
theory in science, it is absolutely essential to admit
it. You _might_ then find one that does work. But,
if you can't admit your current theory is bad, there
is no hope for you as a scientist. (There is, of course,
no hope for the great bulk of PA practitioners.)

> Austro was 99.9% a prey animal.. He got eaten in every habitat he

> entered. But he fucked a lot too,and spit out lots of kids,

Sheer nonsense -- in every respect. Homo is an
extraordinarily slow breeder.

> and getting eaten for millions of years actually helped him evolve into
> a generalized but apex predator...

A more ill-designed animal for this purpose can
scarcely be imagined.

> because only the smartest and fastest(i.e. most upright) survived.

Homo (and australos) competed with each other.
That was almost the only context in which an
upright stance was useful.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jul 6, 10:06 am, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius wrote:

> Also the argument of crocodiles and sharks to refute AAT is not valid.

Well, you do have to take these into account, don't you?

> The "sea people" of south east asia spend most of
> their lives on the water, dive for their food, and have
> developed the ability to stay under water longer than
> anyone else on earth (except the rare diving athlete).
> There are lots of other reasons why AAT doesn't hold
> water, but predation isn't one of them.

I disagree, predation is one of them.

> Just like savannah predators aren't sufficient to prove
> that man couldn't live on the savannahs.

I suppose, if that's your criteria.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Friday, July 6, 2012 2:55:58 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 18:06, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > Also the argument of crocodiles and sharks to refute AAT is not
> > valid. The "sea people" of south east asia spend most of their lives
> > on the water, dive for their food, and have developed the ability to
> > stay under water longer than anyone else on earth (except the rare
> > diving athlete). There are lots of other reasons why AAT doesn't hold
> > water, but predation isn't one of them. Just like savannah predators
> > aren't sufficient to prove that man couldn't live on the savannahs.
>
> Predation -- or more exactly, the presence of huge,
> immensely powerful predators -- can certainly be a
> major part of any evolutionary theory or evolutionary
> explanation. Animals like dodos don't evolve or
> survive in the presence of mainland predators.
> If your theory posits the existence of a dodo-like
> animal on the African savanna you really should have
> some better 'explanation' than " . . it was there, and
> all living species must have survived predation . . so
> it must have been there and it must have survived . . ".
> Because that's exactly the nature of your current
> 'theory'.
>
> > Like someone else said, even some of the austros had weapons to
> > fend off animals.
>
> The weapons they had would not have fended off squat.

I myself have defended myself from two large dogs with a tree limb. No reason to think austro's didn't have clubs or even sharpened wooden spears. Wooden clubs and spears are found late because it's almost impossible for them to survive a few thousand years, much less millions.

Let me be clear, though. I am not arguing that homo evolved in african forests or savannahs. I think that it inhabited a multitude of environments...some of it's descendents failed in those environments and others didn't.
Zhoukudian is closer to georgicus than it is to ergaster or habilis, for instance.
There are people in India that have 3 million year old alleles, similar to the ones found in papua new guineans. And yet, those Indians don't have the corresponding Denisovan genes that the Papuans have. Since about 3 million years ago, homo has been diversifying all across the old world. Africa and Europe and even China and South East Asia are backwaters. The fiersest competition, and therefore the strongest evolutionary impetus, is going to come from the densist most central population...not the pioneers and those driven out of the main population.

>
> [..]
> > "How do you explain the apparent
> > inability of early (pre HE) to out-sprint sabertoothed cats
> > and bear-sized hyena in the treeless habitat of your
> > hunter-gatherer model?"
> >
> > I don't. Lots of hominids got eaten while travelling across the
> > savannas. Especially the ones who weren't as good at running on
> > two legs. The faster and more upright you were, the more chance
> > you had of getting to the treeline while your buddy was getting
> > gnawed.
>
> This 'theory' is also not viable. There has clearly been
> NO selection -- or almost no selection -- in humans
> (and in their ancestors) for anything that could help in
> the avoidance of predators.

Oh really? So you're saying we have brains the same size as austros and procinsuls or that being smarter can't help you avoid predators?

Adult males are about the
> slowest land animal in existence - except for those

I dunno. Man can outrun certain savannah animals in the 50 yard dash (to a tree or back to the club wielding group?) He also has very high endurance in running compared to a lot of animals.

> which have highly evident means of protection or
> defence -- huge claws (in ant-eaters), thick shells
> (for tortoises) poisonous quills (for porcupines), etc.,
> etc. Adult females and hominid infants and juveniles
> are pathetically vulnerable. and have an extra-
> ordinarily long period of maturation. The taxon has
> an extremely slow replacement rate.
>
> > Our ancestors also didn't have to ability to out climb predatory cats
> > in the jungle or forest, and lots of them got eaten in there too.
>
> To reinforce my argument about the absence of any
> features that might help hominids cope with predators,
> compare them with chimps. Chimpanzees are -- in
> every apparent respect -- superior to hominids. They
> can run on land much faster -- especially for females
> carrying infants. They can climb much better and
> much more quickly. There is nothing on the savanna
> that a hominid could eat, that a chimp could not.

Yeah we'd probably even have to grow a bigger brain than chimps to be able to compete with them.

>
> > They also got eaten a lot when they went to the waterhole, and
> > snakes and larger apes and cats and canines killed them a lot when
> > they were walking through forested areas too.
>
> You have no evidence for this statement, and every-
> thing about human anatomy and behaviour is in
> violent contradiction.

EVERY land species in the world that's worth eating and has to drink at a waterhole has been eaten at water holes. Or are you referring to forested areas?
If so, do you truely believe that your idea that homo evolved on savannas makes it impossible for them to ever no never walk through a forest? What, were they allergic to forests or something?
Please explain your statement.

>
> > "This is pretty clear in the fossil
> > record. The earliest hominids were not very mobile by
> > any stretch of the imagination. How do you explain this
> > contradiction?"
> >
> > I just did, from one possible point of view.
>
> Sorry, but you did not. When you don't have a viable
> theory in science, it is absolutely essential to admit
> it. You _might_ then find one that does work. But,
> if you can't admit your current theory is bad, there
> is no hope for you as a scientist. (There is, of course,
> no hope for the great bulk of PA practitioners.)

I'm not a scientist I am a historic fiction writer. I don't really care enough about this part of human evolution to form any real theory. I'm just pointing out that you guys' arguments are inadequate on both sides, and that insulting people for theories is counter-productive. Now, if you want to insult someone for being a douche (like Olsen continually re-using his Miocene Lion joke) then I can appreciate that, no problem.

>
> > Austro was 99.9% a prey animal.. He got eaten in every habitat he
> > entered. But he fucked a lot too,and spit out lots of kids,
>
> Sheer nonsense -- in every respect. Homo is an
> extraordinarily slow breeder.

Compared to what, and what is your evidence on the breeding practices of hominids 2 million years old which have left few remains?

>
> > and getting eaten for millions of years actually helped him evolve into
> > a generalized but apex predator...
>
> A more ill-designed animal for this purpose can
> scarcely be imagined.

Really? There are other animals whose appendages remained so generalized that they could wield guns and knives, and who also evolved the brains to make them? What species is that?

I'm not saying that austro or homo habilis were apex predators, or that they evolved in order to become one. But if you're arguing that we haven't become the apex predator on the planet you're just ill-informed.

Homo was really low on the totem pole for most of his existence. Being low kept him generalized. Being generalized helped him to become an apex predator ONLY after he had gotten smart enough to take advantage of his body structure- the only body structure that allows for the wielding and manufacturing of complex tools.

>
> > because only the smartest and fastest(i.e. most upright) survived.
>
> Homo (and australos) competed with each other.
> That was almost the only context in which an
> upright stance was useful.

Not in entire agreement, but what's your point?

[J.LyonLayden]

On Saturday, July 7, 2012 3:49:49 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:06 am, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius wrote:
>
>
> > Also the argument of crocodiles and sharks to refute AAT is not valid.
>
> Well, you do have to take these into account, don't you?
>
> > The "sea people" of south east asia spend most of
> > their lives on the water, dive for their food, and have
> > developed the ability to stay under water longer than
> > anyone else on earth (except the rare diving athlete).
> > There are lots of other reasons why AAT doesn't hold
> > water, but predation isn't one of them.
>
> I disagree, predation is one of them.

Luckily, I have the proof of the Sea People of South East Asia. Some of them have been seperated from the rest of us for 60,000 years, and most likely have been swimming in the ocean for that long too. They swim in the most shark infested waters of the world, with maybe a short spear and a knife in their hand. their children hitch rides on sharks by grabbing their tails.
So please explain to me why scrawny ass iron-challenged modern humans can avoid sea predators but ultra-robust, super strong ancient hominids could not?

Again, I don't adhere to AAT just pointing out that marine predators are not a valid argument.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Friday, July 6, 2012 2:17:24 PM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
.
>
> I disagree. Predation was a giant factor back then.

Were there no predators in the jungle or forest, just the savannas?
or are you saying that no African predators could ever climb a tree?

>
> > Like someone else said, even some of the austros had
> > weapons to fend off animals.
>
> In the hands of A'pith (austros) these weapons would have
> been useless against the large predators of late Miocene
> and Plocene east Africa.

Even though we've seen videos of modern Africans chasing off lions from a kill with sticks?
How's that? Please explain.
What I don't think some scientist gety is that most animals are not like humans. They don't have pride. You don't have to kill them to get away from them, you just have to hurt them most of the time in order to get them to leave you alone or run off. 8 men hit a lion with thrown stones, I'm betting he runs off...unless he's starving or it's a lioness protecting her cubs.

I just don't see why this would make them bipedal. It seems to me that gorillas do the same thing, pretty much...and yet they aren't bipedal.

>
> > Claudius Denk asked, "How do you explain the apparent
> > inability of early (pre HE) to out-sprint sabertoothed cats
> > and bear-sized hyena in the treeless habitat of your
> > hunter-gatherer model?"
> >
> > I don't.
>
> You concede the argument?

No. I don't think the fact that homo was prey in the savanna means that man couldn't BE on the savanna. Large herbivores in the savanna, and it's true that for some of them, their only defense is running (a lot faster than we do over moderate distances). But those species don't have the organizational skills that we do. they can't throw rocks. they can't climb trees (and the savanna has some of those). They can't wield clubs.
Man was prey in the jungle and forest too. The Sea People are STILL prey in the water, yet in the water they ARE, and they aren't extinct.

> > I just did, from one possible point of view. Austro was 99.9%
> > a prey animal. He got eaten in every habitat he entered.
>
> No. They used trees to avoid most predators. If anything is obvious
> it is this.

Why is it obvious again? Don't doubt it happened, but I've seen gorillas use intimidation tactics to keep animals out, and we were once as strong and fierce as gorillas.

>
> > But he fucked a lot too,and spit out lots of kids,
>
> This assertion is completely inconsistent with the slow pace of human
> development after birth.

And yet perfectly consistent with geneology of our various haplogroups.

>
> > and getting
> > eaten for millions of years actually helped him evolve into a
> > generalized but apex predator...because only the smartest
> > and fastest(i.e. most upright) survived.
>
> Vague. It seems your theory fails to explain the origins
> of the most socially complex species ever know to exist.
> My hypothesis doesn't fail in this regard.

I'll have to go read your hypothesis. Right now I'm only debating things I read on this page.

>
> Remember, we're talking about *human* evolution.
>
> A hypothesis on hominid evolution must be consistent with *all* of the
> evidence. It's scientifically amateurish to take any other approach.
> You can't just pick and choose what evidence to consider and then
> present and argument to that effect asking your audience to
> temporarily ignore certain aspects of the evidence.

Not sure what you mean here. I have not afforded a hypothesis of my own to explain bipedalism, I have only stated mainstream and fringe hypothesis and pointed out how certain facts used as evidence do not survive scrutiny.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jul 7, 2:12 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2012 2:17:24 PM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:

> > I disagree.  Predation was a giant factor back then.
>
> Were there no predators in the jungle or forest, just the savannas?

Both.

> or are you saying that no African predators could ever climb a tree?

No.

>
>
>
> > > Like someone else said, even some of the austros had
> > > weapons to fend off animals.
>
> > In the hands of A'pith (austros) these weapons would have
> > been useless against the large predators of late Miocene
> > and Plocene east Africa.
>
> Even though we've seen videos of modern Africans chasing off lions from a kill with sticks?
> How's that? Please explain.
> What I don't think some scientist gety is that most animals are not like humans.  They don't have pride. You don't have to kill them to get away from them, you just have to hurt them most of the time in order to get them to leave you alone or run off. 8 men hit a lion with thrown stones, I'm betting he runs off...unless he's starving or it's a lioness protecting her cubs.

Even though the video you mention is anecdotal, I don't disagree with
your main point here. Just the threat of being attacked enforce by 8
stick wielding, rock throwing apes would be all the deterent most
animals would need to steer clear of them.

I guess it would just be that they did their threat displays--guarding
the garden--more regularly than do apes.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Paul Crowley]

On 07/07/2012 21:41, J.LyonLayden wrote:

>> Predation -- or more exactly, the presence of huge,
>> immensely powerful predators -- can certainly be a
>> major part of any evolutionary theory or evolutionary
>> explanation. Animals like dodos don't evolve or
>> survive in the presence of mainland predators.
>> If your theory posits the existence of a dodo-like
>> animal on the African savanna you really should have
>> some better 'explanation' than " . . it was there, and
>> all living species must have survived predation . . so
>> it must have been there and it must have survived . . ".
>> Because that's exactly the nature of your current
>> 'theory'.
>>
>>> Like someone else said, even some of the austros had weapons to
>>> fend off animals.
>>
>> The weapons they had would not have fended off squat.
>
> I myself have defended myself from two large dogs with a tree
> limb.

Firstly, the potential predators faced by early homo
would have made large dogs look like pussy cats;
secondly, you could see what you were doing -- it
was not night, when the story would be very different;
thirdly, you were not protecting your wife and small
infants, who would readily have provided supper to
any significant predators.

>>> I don't. Lots of hominids got eaten while travelling across the
>>> savannas. Especially the ones who weren't as good at running on
>>> two legs. The faster and more upright you were, the more chance
>>> you had of getting to the treeline while your buddy was getting
>>> gnawed.
>>
>> This 'theory' is also not viable. There has clearly been
>> NO selection -- or almost no selection -- in humans
>> (and in their ancestors) for anything that could help in
>> the avoidance of predators.
>
> Oh really? So you're saying we have brains the same size as
> austros and procinsuls or that being smarter can't help you
> avoid predators?

Not really -- or not until you (and others who maintain
this line) can tell us how -- maybe by outlining some
conceivable scenario. Large brains might help you
memorise the Koran or the Iliad, but it's hard to see
how that (or similar abilities) are much use against
a bear-sized hyena.

>> Adult males are about the
>> slowest land animal in existence - except for those
>
> I dunno. Man can outrun certain savannah animals in the 50
> yard dash (to a tree

Which ones?

> or back to the club wielding group?) He
> also has very high endurance in running compared to a lot of
> animals.

I just don't believe this. In any case, portable water
supplies are essential for it. They are scarce on
the savanna.

>> To reinforce my argument about the absence of any
>> features that might help hominids cope with predators,
>> compare them with chimps. Chimpanzees are -- in
>> every apparent respect -- superior to hominids. They
>> can run on land much faster -- especially for females
>> carrying infants. They can climb much better and
>> much more quickly. There is nothing on the savanna
>> that a hominid could eat, that a chimp could not.
>
> Yeah we'd probably even have to grow a bigger brain than
> chimps to be able to compete with them.

I might accept that big brains are essential for
language, and for establishing a society that
can make guns and organise supplies of gun-
powder. But they are damn-all use in typical
one-on-one or dozen-on-dozen situations in
the wild. You might hear of a unarmed tracker
meeting a bear and claiming he 'out-smarted
the bear' -- but it's not one you hear often, and
the trackers who didn't do any 'out-smarting'
don't live to make the claim.

>>> They also got eaten a lot when they went to the waterhole, and
>>> snakes and larger apes and cats and canines killed them a lot when
>>> they were walking through forested areas too.
>>
>> You have no evidence for this statement, and every-
>> thing about human anatomy and behaviour is in
>> violent contradiction.
>
> EVERY land species in the world that's worth eating and has
> to drink at a waterhole has been eaten at water holes. Or are
> you referring to forested areas?

While this kind of confrontation is routine for all
(or almost all) land animals, I'm saying that
humans and their ancestors somehow avoided
it. Can you imagine your kids playing by water-
holes when there are predators around? Can
you imagine human kids being by water-holes
and not usually playing?

> If so, do you truely believe that your idea that homo
> evolved on savannas makes it impossible for them to
> ever no never walk through a forest? What, were they
> allergic to forests or something?

I see humans (and their ancestors) almost always
living somewhere safe from predation. Firstly, on
off-shore islands, later on mainland locations that
they somehow made safe.

>>> I just did, from one possible point of view.
>>
>> Sorry, but you did not. When you don't have a viable
>> theory in science, it is absolutely essential to admit
>> it. You _might_ then find one that does work. But,
>> if you can't admit your current theory is bad, there
>> is no hope for you as a scientist. (There is, of course,
>> no hope for the great bulk of PA practitioners.)
>
> I'm not a scientist I am a historic fiction writer. I don't
> really care enough about this part of human evolution to
> form any real theory. I'm just pointing out that you
> guys' arguments are inadequate on both sides, and
> that insulting people for theories is counter-productive.

I'm not insulting anyone AFAIK -- except for bog-
standard PA types. But then they are not doing
the job they pretend to do.

> Now, if you want to insult someone for being a douche
> (like Olsen continually re-using his Miocene Lion joke)
> then I can appreciate that, no problem.

Olsen has been in my kill-file for years. I doubt
if he is capable of change, or will ever get out
of it.

>>> Austro was 99.9% a prey animal.. He got eaten in every habitat he
>>> entered. But he fucked a lot too,and spit out lots of kids,
>>
>> Sheer nonsense -- in every respect. Homo is an
>> extraordinarily slow breeder.
>
> Compared to what, and what is your evidence on the
> breeding practices of hominids 2 million years old
> which have left few remains?

Chimps (and other large primates) are also
slow breeders. It would be most unlikely
that our intermediate ancestors were
significantly different. Postulating a 'fast-
breeding' period would be a desperate step.

>>> and getting eaten for millions of years actually helped him evolve into
>>> a generalized but apex predator...
>>
>> A more ill-designed animal for this purpose can
>> scarcely be imagined.
>
> Really? There are other animals whose appendages
> remained so generalized that they could wield guns
> and knives, and who also evolved the brains to make
> them? What species is that?

As I suggested above, guns and knives come
from a society that has language and a complex
structure. All very well, but not much use to
an animal that is a long way from having such
a society.

> I'm not saying that austro or homo habilis were apex
> predators, or that they evolved in order to become one.

Hardly. Leaving us with a conundrum. The
first stage in any science is that when you
have a puzzle you admit it -- and don't claim
to have answers when you don't.

> Homo was really low on the totem pole for most of his
> existence. Being low kept him generalized.

Sorry, but I don't go along with this in any
way. Essentially it's a cop-out. It's a way
of saying "I don't know what X feature -- or
the combination of X features -- was for".
If you asked someone "What's that
machine for?" and he replied: "It's general-
purpose", you'd know he was either ignorant
or bullshitting or both.

Homo is an extraordinary creature, and
his most peculiar features need good
explanations. "Being generalised" is not
one.

>>> because only the smartest and fastest(i.e. most upright) survived.
>>
>> Homo (and australos) competed with each other.
>> That was almost the only context in which an
>> upright stance was useful.
>
> Not in entire agreement, but what's your point?

In this matter, it's that an upright stance is
useful for one major purpose -- the carrying
of weapons, usually clubs, but maybe also
spears. Neither are really of much use
against large predators (especially at night),
and to explain that we need a very different
story from any usually provided -- not that
there is much of a supply, since the subject
is almost always ducked. But there is a huge
problem and it has to be faced.

Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

In order to put the square peg of A'pith (pre-homo hominids) into the
round hole of extensive treeless, savanna grasslands of a monsoon
(significant dry season) climate habitat modern anthropology has
fallen into the fantasy based explanations of the capability of
A'pith. It gets pretty comical. People just want to believe that
early hominids lived a nomadic existence. It's a romantic notion
popularized by observation of modern-day nomads and its been accepted
unexamined by many science based researchers who you'd think would
know better.

> >>> I don't. Lots of hominids got eaten while travelling across the
> >>> savannas. Especially the ones who weren't as good at running on
> >>> two legs. The faster and more upright you were, the more chance
> >>> you had of getting to the treeline while your buddy was getting
> >>> gnawed.
>
> >> This 'theory' is also not viable.  There has clearly been
> >> NO selection -- or almost no selection -- in humans
> >> (and in their ancestors) for anything that could help in
> >> the avoidance of predators.
>
> > Oh really? So you're saying we have brains the same size as
> > austros and procinsuls or that being smarter can't help you
> > avoid predators?
>
> Not really -- or not until you (and others who maintain
> this line) can tell us how -- maybe by outlining some
> conceivable scenario. Large brains might help you
> memorise the Koran or the Iliad, but it's hard to see
> how that (or similar abilities) are much use against
> a bear-sized hyena.

Well stated. Obviously J. Lyon Layden is new to this subject. So
we'll give him some leeway. But if anything is obvious from the
fossil record and from examination of extent species increased head
size is a social adaptation, not an adaptation to evade predators.

This is only possible within the territorial extent of an A'pith
community. And such a community would only exist at localities that
were well watered, well treed, and well guarded. Vigilance of an
A'pith community would have been constant (this is the origins of
endurantism, not running). They were always on the lookout for
predators and, primarily, food competitor species who if left
unchecked would deplete the resources in the community rendering the
community vulnerable during the dry season.

> > If so, do you truely believe that your idea that homo
> > evolved on savannas makes it impossible for them to
> > ever no never walk through a forest? What, were they
> > allergic to forests or something?
>
> I see humans (and their ancestors) almost always
> living somewhere safe from predation.   Firstly, on
> off-shore islands, later on mainland locations that
> they somehow made safe.

Treed habitat is all that is necessary. (Extant chimps aren't
decimated by jaguar.)

Contrived notions like predator free islands are unnecessary.

>
> >>> I just did, from one possible point of view.
>
> >> Sorry, but you did not. When you don't have a viable
> >> theory in science, it is absolutely essential to admit
> >> it.  You _might_ then find one that does work. But,
> >> if you can't admit your current theory is bad, there
> >> is no hope for you as a scientist.  (There is, of course,
> >> no hope for the great bulk of PA practitioners.)
>
> > I'm not a scientist I am a historic fiction writer. I don't
> > really care enough about this part of human evolution to
> > form any real theory. I'm just pointing out that you
> > guys' arguments are inadequate on both sides, and
> > that insulting people for theories is counter-productive.
>
> I'm not insulting anyone AFAIK -- except for bog-
> standard PA types.  But then they are not doing
> the job they pretend to do.

If you are concerned about being insulted I have two suggestions: 1)
Go find another hobby; 2) Improve your hypothetical thinking so that
any absurdities and contrivances are factored out of your scenario.

> > Now, if you want to insult someone for being a douche
> > (like Olsen continually re-using his Miocene Lion joke)
> > then I can appreciate that, no problem.
>
> Olsen has been in my kill-file for years. I doubt
> if he is capable of change, or will ever get out
> of it.

Olsen is a perfect reflection of the current paradigm. It's not a
honest discipline. They go through the motions of pretending to be
scientific but there are certain subjects that are taboo which made
advancement impossible.

> >>> Austro was 99.9% a prey animal.. He got eaten in every habitat he
> >>> entered. But he fucked a lot too,and spit out lots of kids,
>
> >> Sheer nonsense -- in every respect. Homo is an
> >> extraordinarily slow breeder.
>
> > Compared to what, and what is your evidence on the
> > breeding practices of hominids 2 million years old
> > which have left few remains?
>
> Chimps (and other large primates) are also
> slow breeders.  It would be most unlikely
> that our intermediate ancestors were
> significantly different.  Postulating a 'fast-
> breeding' period would be a desperate step.

Is it more desperate than the comical endurance running notions that
they are on about lately?

> >>> and getting eaten for millions of years actually helped him evolve into
> >>> a generalized but apex predator...
>
> >> A more ill-designed animal for this purpose can
> >> scarcely be imagined.
>
> > Really? There are other animals whose appendages
> > remained so generalized that they could wield guns
> > and knives, and who also evolved the brains to make
> > them? What species is that?
>
> As I suggested above, guns and knives come
> from a society that has language and a complex
> structure.  All very well, but not much use to
> an animal that is a long way from having such
> a society.

Right. And this is so obvious that one can only assume that J. Lyon
Layden knows better.

> > I'm not saying that austro or homo habilis were apex
> > predators, or that they evolved in order to become one.
>
> Hardly.  Leaving us with a conundrum.  The
> first stage in any science is that when you
> have a puzzle you admit it -- and don't claim
> to have answers when you don't.

Well stated.

> > Homo was really low on the totem pole for most of his
> > existence. Being low kept him generalized.
>
> Sorry, but I don't go along with this in any
> way.  Essentially it's a cop-out.  It's a way
> of saying "I don't know what X feature -- or
> the combination of X features  -- was for".
> If you asked someone "What's that
> machine for?" and he replied: "It's general-
> purpose", you'd know he was either ignorant
> or bullshitting or both.
>
> Homo is an extraordinary creature, and
> his most peculiar features need good
> explanations.  "Being generalised" is not
> one.

The selective origins of "being generalized" is easily explained as a
result of human/hominid consciousness. But the selective origins of
human consciousness *cannot* be explained by "being generalized."

The selective origins of human consciousness *can* I contend be
explained as a result of communal territorialism, such as that
indicated in my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis.

> >>> because only the smartest and fastest(i.e. most upright) survived.
>
> >> Homo (and australos) competed with each other.
> >> That was almost the only context in which an
> >> upright stance was useful.
>
> > Not in entire agreement, but what's your point?
>
> In this matter, it's that an upright stance is
> useful for one major purpose -- the carrying
> of weapons, usually clubs, but maybe also
> spears.  Neither are really of much use
> against large predators (especially at night),
> and to explain that we need a very different
> story from any usually provided -- not that
> there is much of a supply, since the subject
> is almost always ducked. But there is a huge
> problem and it has to be faced.

Communal territorialism as a strategy to survive the very dramatic
predatory implications of the dry season, is a perfect explanation of
the origins of bipedalism (and consciousness, and other social
adaptations).

Paul seems ignorant or even deliberately dismissive of the existence
of a dry season as a factor in this environment and how this factor
was of overriding importance to the survival of any and all species in
savanna habitat.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, July 8, 2012 7:03:50 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:

> > I myself have defended myself from two large dogs with a tree
> > limb.
>
> Firstly, the potential predators faced by early homo
> would have made large dogs look like pussy cats;

Yeah and the muscles of early hominids would make mine look like noodles. They could also hear, smell, and see better than I can, so they'd be better able to tell when a predator is on it's way.

> secondly, you could see what you were doing -- it
> was not night, when the story would be very different;
> thirdly, you were not protecting your wife and small
> infants, who would readily have provided supper to
> any significant predators.

But I was alone, whereas I doubt many early homos would brave dangerousareas by themselves if they could help it.

>
> >>> I don't. Lots of hominids got eaten while travelling across the
> >>> savannas. Especially the ones who weren't as good at running on
> >>> two legs. The faster and more upright you were, the more chance
> >>> you had of getting to the treeline while your buddy was getting
> >>> gnawed.
> >>
> >> This 'theory' is also not viable. There has clearly been
> >> NO selection -- or almost no selection -- in humans
> >> (and in their ancestors) for anything that could help in
> >> the avoidance of predators.
> >
> > Oh really? So you're saying we have brains the same size as
> > austros and procinsuls or that being smarter can't help you
> > avoid predators?
>
> Not really -- or not until you (and others who maintain
> this line) can tell us how -- maybe by outlining some
> conceivable scenario. Large brains might help you
> memorise the Koran or the Iliad, but it's hard to see
> how that (or similar abilities) are much use against
> a bear-sized hyena.

I could give you millions of examples, without even resorting to the advent of tool making. A smart animal is better equipped to remember when big animals hunt. Even deer are smart enough to have changed their habits and cycles from fear of man.
Rubbing scents into your body to disguise your own is an invention of homo, and I don't know of any other animal who does it. Using fire (whether procured from forest fires and kept alive or created) is the domain of man. Throwing rocks strategically and with a group plan in mind can keep predators away. Using distraction isn't something I've known other animals to use effectively, or at all, really. The old trick of throwing out a stake to get a predator off your track isn't used by other animals besides hominids. I'd have to type for days to tell you all the ways intelligence helps things to survive. Etc, etc, and if I were in a savanna scared for my life I bet I could come up with millions more ways that haven't even occurred to me yet in order to survive because necessity is the mother of invention.

>
> >> Adult males are about the
> >> slowest land animal in existence - except for those
> >
> > I dunno. Man can outrun certain savannah animals in the 50
> > yard dash (to a tree
>
> Which ones?

I'm not going to look it up because I'm lazy but I recently read in an article that an athletic man can outrun a horse in the 50, but after that the horse blows him away. It makes sense because the horse weighs so much more. Contrary to popular belief, men can outrun alligators on land...the zig-zag bullshit is a wives tail that will get you killed though. Also, remember that homo ergaster could run much faster than us due to it's long legs and hips suited better for running.

>
> > or back to the club wielding group?) He
> > also has very high endurance in running compared to a lot of
> > animals.
>
> I just don't believe this. In any case, portable water
> supplies are essential for it. They are scarce on
> the savanna.

You don't believe we have higher endurance than some animals?
Why can't we put water in animal stomach bags?

>
> >> To reinforce my argument about the absence of any
> >> features that might help hominids cope with predators,
> >> compare them with chimps. Chimpanzees are -- in
> >> every apparent respect -- superior to hominids. They
> >> can run on land much faster -- especially for females
> >> carrying infants. They can climb much better and
> >> much more quickly. There is nothing on the savanna
> >> that a hominid could eat, that a chimp could not.
> >
> > Yeah we'd probably even have to grow a bigger brain than
> > chimps to be able to compete with them.
>
> I might accept that big brains are essential for
> language, and for establishing a society that
> can make guns and organise supplies of gun-
> powder. But they are damn-all use in typical
> one-on-one or dozen-on-dozen situations in
> the wild. You might hear of a unarmed tracker
> meeting a bear and claiming he 'out-smarted
> the bear' -- but it's not one you hear often, and
> the trackers who didn't do any 'out-smarting'
> don't live to make the claim.

yeah if you were alone in the wilderness facing a large animal in the pleistocene you were probably dead. Just like today. But who would be fool enough to be alone? being alone was a death sentence back then. I have heard reports of groups of people avoiding animal attacks just by waving hands, surrounding the beast in a semi-circle, and confusing/scaring it so much that it just lopes away in search of easier prey.

>
> >>> They also got eaten a lot when they went to the waterhole, and
> >>> snakes and larger apes and cats and canines killed them a lot when
> >>> they were walking through forested areas too.
> >>
> >> You have no evidence for this statement, and every-
> >> thing about human anatomy and behaviour is in
> >> violent contradiction.
> >
> > EVERY land species in the world that's worth eating and has
> > to drink at a waterhole has been eaten at water holes. Or are
> > you referring to forested areas?
>
> While this kind of confrontation is routine for all
> (or almost all) land animals, I'm saying that
> humans and their ancestors somehow avoided
> it. Can you imagine your kids playing by water-
> holes when there are predators around? Can
> you imagine human kids being by water-holes
> and not usually playing?

certain australian aborigines still will not let children or women go to water holes alone for fear of the wanambi, a giant snake of legend. We thought it was JUST a legend until scientists started finding fossils of giant snakes all over australia. Where do you they found them? Yup, waterholes. These snakes were big enough that they'd be a match for several men. Sometimes you have to take the risk if you don't want to die of thirst, even if you only have a few mates with you to defend against potential monsters.
Have you ever seen a croc sneak up and take an animal at a waterhole? I guarantee it couldn't ALWAYS be avoided by homos.

>
> > If so, do you truely believe that your idea that homo
> > evolved on savannas makes it impossible for them to
> > ever no never walk through a forest? What, were they
> > allergic to forests or something?
>
> I see humans (and their ancestors) almost always
> living somewhere safe from predation. Firstly, on
> off-shore islands, later on mainland locations that
> they somehow made safe.

This is starting to seem like AAT, is that your bag?
When would this have been?
5 million years ago before austros were rampant in africa? Is that when they were on the island? I guess they made all of east and south africa safe by 3 million years ago? And all of the old world southern hemisphere safe by 1.8?

I don't agree. Chimps are a lot faster breeders than elephants. So again I ask, compared to what?

>
> >>> and getting eaten for millions of years actually helped him evolve into
> >>> a generalized but apex predator...
> >>
> >> A more ill-designed animal for this purpose can
> >> scarcely be imagined.
> >
> > Really? There are other animals whose appendages
> > remained so generalized that they could wield guns
> > and knives, and who also evolved the brains to make
> > them? What species is that?
>
> As I suggested above, guns and knives come
> from a society that has language and a complex
> structure. All very well, but not much use to
> an animal that is a long way from having such
> a society.

You are buying into the pseudo-science that claims that they know a date for language, probably the Foxp2 gene? Since hand-axes have been around for over 2.5 million years, it's probable that easier worked wood was used earlier.
Throwing stones, clubs, spears sharpened with bone, the horn of an animal, all were available to early homo. Some scientists claim that even the austros were using fire.

>
> > I'm not saying that austro or homo habilis were apex
> > predators, or that they evolved in order to become one.
>
> Hardly. Leaving us with a conundrum. The
> first stage in any science is that when you
> have a puzzle you admit it -- and don't claim
> to have answers when you don't.
>
> > Homo was really low on the totem pole for most of his
> > existence. Being low kept him generalized.
>
> Sorry, but I don't go along with this in any
> way. Essentially it's a cop-out. It's a way
> of saying "I don't know what X feature -- or
> the combination of X features -- was for".
> If you asked someone "What's that
> machine for?" and he replied: "It's general-
> purpose", you'd know he was either ignorant
> or bullshitting or both.

You're looking at it the wrong way. Whales may be more intelligent than us- they have bigger brains and more folds. Yet before they got their big brains, their hands evolved into flippers. So now they will never be able to make tools because they lost any vestige that might one day turn into a hand.
We on the other hand never developed claws or flippers, and instead evolved our hands in the primate way- to climb and grab and such.
For some reason we obtained bigger brains than the other hominids. Any other species in the world could have gotten big brains, but only a primate could have put that to use in tool making. Only a hominid could have made the most use of it, because he could walk and carry.
Other primates did not stay as generalized as our ancestors did. The robust austros, for instance, filled a niche for eating huge amounts of vegetation. They got super uber strong to be able to hold their own against predators. Hence, they didn't need bigger brains to survive their niche, and had no reason to make any tools.

>
> Homo is an extraordinary creature, and
> his most peculiar features need good
> explanations. "Being generalised" is not
> one.

Bullshit. We are amazingly less specialized than most animals. This is the reason that even becoming apex predators we were one of the the animals on earth that was most widespread across the continents. We're adapted to all environments on earth, and no environments on earth, at the same time.

>
> >>> because only the smartest and fastest(i.e. most upright) survived.
> >>
> >> Homo (and australos) competed with each other.
> >> That was almost the only context in which an
> >> upright stance was useful.
> >
> > Not in entire agreement, but what's your point?
>
> In this matter, it's that an upright stance is
> useful for one major purpose -- the carrying
> of weapons, usually clubs, but maybe also
> spears. Neither are really of much use
> against large predators (especially at night),
> and to explain that we need a very different
> story from any usually provided -- not that
> there is much of a supply, since the subject
> is almost always ducked. But there is a huge
> problem and it has to be faced.
>
> Paul.

Agreed. But neither waving sticks in gardens nor evolving on islands is any better than the standard savanna theory. All these theories have problems, as we've outlines here.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jul 8, 9:49 am, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 8, 2012 7:03:50 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > I myself have defended myself from two large dogs with a tree
> > > limb.
>
> > Firstly, the potential predators faced by early homo
> > would have made large dogs look like pussy cats;
>
> Yeah and the muscles of early hominids would make
> mine look like noodles. They could also hear, smell,
> and see better than I can, so they'd be better able to
> tell when a predator is on it's way.

Not even remotely possible. The large predators of late Miocene and
Pliocene Africa were no match for A'pith. Their only defense was to
keep these animals away from them by way of keeping the prey of these
predators out of their territorial claim so that these predators never
had a reason to come into their communal territory in the first
place. If and when that broke down their only defense was to stay
high in trees.

> > secondly, you could see what you were doing -- it
> > was not night, when the story would be very different;
> > thirdly, you were not protecting your wife and small
> > infants, who would readily have provided supper to
> > any significant predators.
>
> But I was alone, whereas I doubt many early homos would brave dangerousareas by themselves if they could help it.

Sure, but this requires the existence of a (situated--non-mobile)
community.

> > >>> I don't. Lots of hominids got eaten while travelling across the
> > >>> savannas. Especially the ones who weren't as good at running on
> > >>> two legs. The faster and more upright you were, the more chance
> > >>> you had of getting to the treeline while your buddy was getting
> > >>> gnawed.
>
> > >> This 'theory' is also not viable.  There has clearly been
> > >> NO selection -- or almost no selection -- in humans
> > >> (and in their ancestors) for anything that could help in
> > >> the avoidance of predators.
>
> > > Oh really? So you're saying we have brains the same size as
> > > austros and procinsuls or that being smarter can't help you
> > > avoid predators?
>
> > Not really -- or not until you (and others who maintain
> > this line) can tell us how -- maybe by outlining some
> > conceivable scenario. Large brains might help you
> > memorise the Koran or the Iliad, but it's hard to see
> > how that (or similar abilities) are much use against
> > a bear-sized hyena.
>
> I could give you millions of examples,

Save your breath. If there was any possibility that what you are
saying is/was true we'd expect to find hundreds of large-brained
species. But we don't. We only find one, ourselves. And--in sharp
contrast to what most anthro-groupies wish to believe--humans are the
most social complex and communal species ever know to exist.

> without even resorting to the advent of tool making.
> A smart animal is better equipped to remember
> when big animals hunt. Even deer are smart enough
> to have changed their habits and cycles from fear of
> man. Rubbing scents into your body to disguise your
> own is an invention of homo, and I don't know of any
> other animal who does it. Using fire (whether procured

> fro m forest fires and kept alive or created) is the

Speculative nonsense that ignores the origins of intelligence which
could only be a social adaptation.

> ...
>
> read more »

[RichTravsky]

Answer this - they thrived and spread over Africa and southern Asia.

This is pretty clear in the fossil record.

Your explanation? Hmmm?

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 10:44 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On 7/5/2012 11:33 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> >
> > It is evidence that you are wrong about the ability of our kind to deal
> > with the dangers and opportunities of the savanna without simply running
> > up a tree. It's also more than you've ever been able to come up with to
> > support your 'hypothesis'.
>
> My hypothesis is supported by all of the evidence. People that

The evidence says there was no agriculture until a few thousand years
ago.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 9:49 am, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 8, 2012 7:03:50 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > > I myself have defended myself from two large dogs with a tree
> > > > limb.
> >
> > > Firstly, the potential predators faced by early homo
> > > would have made large dogs look like pussy cats;
> >
> > Yeah and the muscles of early hominids would make
> > mine look like noodles. They could also hear, smell,
> > and see better than I can, so they'd be better able to
> > tell when a predator is on it's way.
>
> Not even remotely possible. The large predators of late Miocene and
> Pliocene Africa were no match for A'pith. Their only defense was to
> keep these animals away from them by way of keeping the prey of these
> predators out of their territorial claim so that these predators never
> had a reason to come into their communal territory in the first
> place. If and when that broke down their only defense was to stay
> high in trees.

LOL. First, "large predators of late Miocene and Pliocene Africa were no match
for A'pith."

Then, "Their only defense was to keep these animals away from them by way of

keeping the prey of these predators out of their territorial claim so that
these predators never had a reason to come into their communal territory in
the first place."

Duh, if other animals were the predators prey, then what did the
hominids have to worry about? DUH?

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 2:12 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 6, 2012 2:17:24 PM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > I disagree. Predation was a giant factor back then.
> >
> > Were there no predators in the jungle or forest, just the savannas?
>
> Both.
>
> > or are you saying that no African predators could ever climb a tree?
>
> No.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Like someone else said, even some of the austros had
> > > > weapons to fend off animals.
> >
> > > In the hands of A'pith (austros) these weapons would have
> > > been useless against the large predators of late Miocene
> > > and Plocene east Africa.
> >
> > Even though we've seen videos of modern Africans chasing off lions from a kill with sticks?
> > How's that? Please explain.
> > What I don't think some scientist gety is that most animals are not like humans. They don't have pride. You don't have to kill them to get away from them, you just have to hurt them most of the time in order to get them to leave you alone or run off. 8 men hit a lion with thrown stones, I'm betting he runs off...unless he's starving or it's a lioness protecting her cubs.
>
> Even though the video you mention is anecdotal, I don't disagree with
> your main point here. Just the threat of being attacked enforce by 8
> stick wielding, rock throwing apes would be all the deterent most
> animals would need to steer clear of them.

Ooops, what happened to

[RichTravsky]

Kortlandt has researched this and in a remarkable experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKpZUsRJWBg

How might early hominids have defended themselves against large predators
and food competitors?
Journal of Human Evolution
Volume 9, Issue 2, February 1980, Pages 79-112
Adriaan Kortlandt

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 3:50 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On 7/5/2012 5:29 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 5, 10:44 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> It is evidence that you are wrong about the ability of our kind to deal
> > >> with the dangers and opportunities of the savanna without simply running
> > >> up a tree. It's also more than you've ever been able to come up with to
> > >> support your 'hypothesis'.
> >
> > > My hypothesis is supported by all of the evidence. People that
> > > present evidence that supports their hypothesis only do so to draw
> > > attention away from the fact that their hypothesis is not supported by
> > > all the evidence, as is mine.
> >
> > OK, Denk. You go on believing that if it makes you feel important and
> > vindicated. I guess your retarded 'hypothesis' means more to you than,
> > for instance, facts.
>
> It's regrettable that the laws of reality prevent you from providing a
> link to your imagination so that these alleged, "facts," can be
> verified.

Oooh, another keeper.

[Claudius Denk]

[Paul Crowley]

On 08/07/2012 17:49, J.LyonLayden wrote:

>>> Oh really? So you're saying we have brains the same size as
>>> austros and procinsuls or that being smarter can't help you
>>> avoid predators?
>>
>> Not really -- or not until you (and others who maintain
>> this line) can tell us how -- maybe by outlining some
>> conceivable scenario. Large brains might help you
>> memorise the Koran or the Iliad, but it's hard to see
>> how that (or similar abilities) are much use against
>> a bear-sized hyena.
>
> I could give you millions of examples, without even
> resorting to the advent of tool making. A smart animal is
> better equipped to remember when big animals hunt.

Every prey species knows when its predators
are around -- or likely to be around.

> Rubbing scents into your body to disguise your own is
> an invention of homo

You must have never owned a dog. The first thing
that many I have known do, on being taken to
open fields, is to find a patch of animal droppings
and do their best to cover themselves in it -- an
instinct to disguise their own scent with that of
a prey animal.

> and I don't know of any other
> animal who does it. Using fire (whether procured from
> forest fires and kept alive or created) is the domain of
> man. Throwing rocks strategically and with a group plan
> in mind can keep predators away. Using distraction isn't
> something I've known other animals to use effectively, or
> at all, really. The old trick of throwing out a stake to get
> a predator off your track isn't used by other animals
> besides hominids. I'd have to type for days to tell you all
> the ways intelligence helps things to survive. Etc, etc,

There would be nothing in your list that requires
'brain power' and is not routinely exhibited in
dozens of ways by numerous other species.

> and if I were in a savanna scared for my life I bet I could
> come up with millions more ways that haven't even
> occurred to me yet in order to survive because
> necessity is the mother of invention.

You would do no better than all the other
species on the savanna. In fact, you'd be a lot
worse.

>>>> Adult males are about the
>>>> slowest land animal in existence - except for those
>>>
>>> I dunno. Man can outrun certain savannah animals in the 50
>>> yard dash (to a tree
>>
>> Which ones?
>
> I'm not going to look it up because I'm lazy

If there were any, you'd recall them without
having to look them up.

[..]

> Also, remember that homo ergaster could run much
> faster than us due to it's long legs and hips suited better
> for running.

How about homo ergaster females, infants
and children? They are all necessary to the
survival of the species.

>> I see humans (and their ancestors) almost always
>> living somewhere safe from predation. Firstly, on
>> off-shore islands, later on mainland locations that
>> they somehow made safe.
>
> This is starting to seem like AAT, is that your bag?

Certainly not. But humans (and their ancestors)
are so vulnerable -- and have manifestly NOT
evolved useful predator-deterring, predator-
detection or predator-avoidance features or
techniques, that all other natural species
demonstrate in abundance -- that they clearly
evolved in a location where predators were rare
or unknown.

> When would this have been?

I reckon from the start of the bipedal taxon
(? ~ 6mya ?) to about 2 mya. Then hominids
found some way of surviving on the African
mainland -- at least for various episodes.

> 5 million years ago before austros were rampant in
> africa?

If Australos (and their descendants) were 'rampant
in Africa', what do you reckon was their density per
square mile? Or their average total population?

Btw, the European explorers found that the
African uplands were devoid of humans.
So what happened to them all?

> Is that when they were on the island?

IslandS. But -- as the European, Arab (and
occasional Chinese) explorers found, humans
had made some of the coastal areas relatively
safe. The Cape area was substantially empty
though -- only a few Bushmen.

> I guess they made all of east and south africa safe by 3
> million years ago? And all of the old world southern
> hemisphere safe by 1.8?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

>> Chimps (and other large primates) are also
>> slow breeders. It would be most unlikely
>> that our intermediate ancestors were
>> significantly different. Postulating a 'fast-
>> breeding' period would be a desperate step.
>
> I don't agree. Chimps are a lot faster breeders than
> elephants. So again I ask, compared to what?

There's not much difference. Wild elephant
mothers can have a new baby every four years
-- which is about the same as for chimps -- and
for H/G humans

The comparison is with other mammals of
about the same size. Pigs and deer breed
faster -- and can sustain very much higher
rates of predation. Many infant deaths
among chimps are caused by chimp-on-
chimp violence -- often a very rough form of
birth control. Hominids, on leaving the trees,
did NOT encounter the much higher rates of
predation that we should expect to see.

>> As I suggested above, guns and knives come
>> from a society that has language and a complex
>> structure. All very well, but not much use to
>> an animal that is a long way from having such
>> a society.
>
> You are buying into the pseudo-science that claims that
> they know a date for language, probably the Foxp2
> gene? Since hand-axes have been around for over 2.5
> million years, it's probable that easier worked wood was
> used earlier.

Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
The control of predators with advanced weapons
was not possible until they were available --
and they only came with advanced human
society.

> Throwing stones, clubs, spears sharpened with bone,
> the horn of an animal, all were available to early homo.

And none of which were any use against large
predators.

[..]

>> Homo is an extraordinary creature, and
>> his most peculiar features need good
>> explanations. "Being generalised" is not
>> one.
>
> Bullshit. We are amazingly less specialized than most
> animals.

Take a look at the weird shape, the weird
skin, the weird manner of locomotion, the
weird inability to sprint, the weird incapacity
to move of its infants in its early years, the
weird inability to detect predators, the
weird weaknesses in olfaction, sight and
hearing, the weird reliance of copious
supplies of salt and water -- for the weird
form of heat control, and you will see an
extraordinary animal -- clearly designed for
some most peculiar way of life.

>> But there is a huge
>> problem and it has to be faced.
>

> Agreed. But neither waving sticks in gardens nor
> evolving on islands is any better than the standard
> savanna theory. All these theories have problems, as
> we've outlines here.

'Waving sticks in gardens' is as bad a theory
as 'waving sticks in the dark on the savanna'.
At least my early humans could have survived
on their predator-free islands (which can be
quite large, btw, Borneo is predator-free).


Paul.