Re: The Mystery of Agriculture's earliest origins

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> IA:
> How you can claim agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of
> years?
> CD:
> I do so because of parsimony.

Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
millions of years. - you

> IA:
> Scientists generally all agree that it started with us some 10,000
> years ago.
> CD:
> I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be
> limited by what anybody generally believes. When
> considered in the context of all of the evidence this
> notion that agriculture just appeared on the scene
> 10 thousand years ago is pretty absurd. Hominids have been
> around for millions of years. Doesn't it seem kind of silly to
> suggest that
> hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> thousand years? And then consider that there are other aspects
> of agriculture that they (see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> for details) may have practiced long before they took up the more
> deliberate practice of planting crops. Among these less deliberate
> agricultural practices are guarding garden habitat as a community's
> strategy to survive the dry season and it's dramatic predatory
> implications. (Again, see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> for details.)
> IA:
> And we did not drive animals out of our environment.
> Instead, we ate them!
> CD:
> The earliest hominids (tooth analysis proves) were primarily
> consumers of fruit and, in the dry seasons, hard, dessicated
> fruits and seeds. Keeping food competitor species out of their
> claimed garden habitat would have been an essential part of their
> larger strategy to survive the dry season. Hominids only came to
> consume meat after they became ecological dominant,which
> probably didn't happen for 2 to 4 mya *after* the LCA (5 to 6 mya).
> IOW, meat eating didn't develop until long after hominids had been
> successful at keeping these same species from consuming the
> resources in their garden habitat.
> Ultimately, what I'm saying here is that everything they teach you in
> school about hominids being, originally, a clever, small-banded,
> ever-mobile, hunting, scavenging, gathering kind of species that
> only recently discovered agriculture and civilization is wrong.
> Instead
> early hominids were highly situated, extremely communal, and
> extremely aggressive about collectively (communally) keeping other
> species out of the garden habitat as a strategy to preserve these
> vegetable resources therein so that they could survive the dry season
> and it's very real predatory implications.
> IA:
> We men were hunters and the women gatherers, a way of life that has
> subsided every since agriculture and animal husbandry began.
> CD:
> All animals are hunter gatherers. Hominids are *not* highly
> migratory. (Don't fall for the hype.) And we are, obviously,
> lacking
> in adaptations that would accomodate such. Hominid are highly
> situated, communal, and communally territorialistic. In fact, early
> hominids had no choice but to become communal in order to survive the
> dry season. There really is no other way to look at it.
> This notion that early hominids lived a hunter/gatherer existence
> (whatever that exactly means) is little more than a old-wives tale.
> It isn't supported by evidence it's supported by hearsay and anthro-
> groupies.

[JTEM]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

>  Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
>  millions of years. - you

Millions is impossible, hundreds of thousands is unlikely
but it's a given that agriculture didn't go viral the very first
time it popped up.

But there is an actual point here, and that is how would
you know when agriculture began?

Most of the dating is based on the DNA of our crops, but
there's two huge, screaming obvious problems with that.
They are 1) DNA is next to useless at making such
determinations and 2) agriculture had to begin BEFORE
one or more of the important mutations. In fact, it was
the agriculture which produced the mutations...

Yes, there are some C-14 dates out there, but that isn't
as authoritative as people represent. After all, you can
only date what you find -- not what you don't find -- and
it is excessively rare (to say the least) for organic
material such as grains to be preserved for thousands
of years. To reach the beginnings of even the conservative
dating for agriculture, we are talking about grains which
would have already been thousands of years old when
King Tut was on the throne.... and he died some 3,000
years ago.

To demonstrate just how complex these issues are I
usually ask this question:

Given a best case scenario, what kind of evidence would
you like to see in order to establish the beginnings of
agriculture?

The point of the question, of course, is to demonstrate
just how far away from a "best case scenario" the
evidence we have is.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 18, 6:22 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> >  Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> >  millions of years. - you
>
> Millions is impossible,

Well, if the first form of agriculture involved pest control using
rocks and sticks against large mammalian pests (as part of a
community's dry season survival strategy) then I don't think it's
unreasonable to state that agriculture goes all the way back to the
LCA. And that would be in the millions.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 18, 9:16 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 6:22 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > >  Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > >  millions of years. - you
>
> > Millions is impossible,
>
> Well, if the first form of agriculture involved pest control using
> rocks and sticks against large mammalian pests

So what did they do, throw rocks and sticks at tigers from the safety
of the trees?

> (as part of a
> community's dry season survival strategy)

Their strategy was to leave during the dry season.

> then I don't think

Yes, that seems to be a major problem with your just-so story....you
don't think.

> it's
> unreasonable to state that agriculture goes all the way back to the
> LCA.

What is reasonable is you are leading the evidence.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Well, if the first form of agriculture involved pest control using
> rocks and sticks against large mammalian pests (as part of a
> community's dry season survival strategy) then I don't think it's
> unreasonable to state that agriculture goes all the way back to the
> LCA.  And that would be in the millions.

Perhaps if you made some effort to communicate in an
acceptable fashion. You could call this idea of yours
"Proto-Agriculture" for example. What you're describing
isn't agriculture, so you're confusing (at best) when you
call it that.

The biggest and most obvious problem with your ideas is that
it's far too limited. There simply isn't the tight linear
progression that you imagine. Rather than a population that
learned certain things, evolved and then became us, we know
there were many populations, each following it's own line
of development, with some of them dying out but with many
of them intersecting and contributing to our gene pool.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 19, 2:41 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, if the first form of agriculture involved pest control using
> > rocks and sticks against large mammalian pests (as part of a
> > community's dry season survival strategy) then I don't think it's
> > unreasonable to state that agriculture goes all the way back to the
> > LCA.  And that would be in the millions.
>
> Perhaps if you made some effort to communicate in an
> acceptable fashion. You could call this idea of yours
> "Proto-Agriculture" for example. What you're describing
> isn't agriculture, so you're confusing (at best) when you
> call it that.

I use the word agriculture because--that's what it is.

>
> The biggest and most obvious problem with your ideas is that
> it's far too limited.

Too limited?

> There simply isn't the tight linear
> progression that you imagine. Rather than a population that
> learned certain things, evolved and then became us, we know
> there were many populations, each following it's own line
> of development, with some of them dying out but with many
> of them intersecting and contributing to our gene pool.

There were many populations but they were all dealing with the same
factors with regard to dry season and it's predatory implications.

It was much more linear than you are assuming. Hybridization is not
the magic bullet that you want it to be. To get them all evolving in
separate directions you'd have to explain why. And that would require
a lot of non-parsimonious assumptions. (Look up the term punctuated
equillibrium.)

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Perhaps if you made some effort to communicate in an
> > acceptable fashion. You could call this idea of yours
> > "Proto-Agriculture" for example. What you're describing
> > isn't agriculture, so you're confusing (at best) when you
> > call it that.
>
> I use the word agriculture because--that's what it is.

It's not agriculture. "Agriculture" is effectively the
domestication of plants. Agriculture changed both the
people and the plants. You can't show how this idea of
your would change anything, let alone what it specifically
changed.

> (Look up the term punctuated equillibrium.)

I am familiar with the term, and am not aware of anything
that contradicts what I stated.

"Punctuated Equilibrium" is an idea, a theory, not a law.
There is no reason to assume that it must occur at all,
let alone for every speciesization event... most of them...
a lot of them.

Secondly, "Punctuated Equilibrium" overlaps what I was
saying. Think of it like the weather: Sometimes it rains.
Sometimes it snows. Sometimes you get a mixture.

We know the earth changed numerous times over the
last few million years. We know that sea level rose and
fell. We know that weather patterns changed. We know
that forests grew only to be replaced by Savannah. We
also know for a fact that all these changes separated
groups only to later bring them back together. The Chimps
were our first clue: Separated from our line, evolved to
meet the forest environment and then, according to all
the evidence, brought back together to interbreed with
our line, only to separate once more.

We know that the separate lines which led to the
Chimp/Human was not unique. We know that Africa
was NOT a single homogeneous population, perhaps
even less so than Eurasia. After all, Africa was where
most of the human population was, and it presented
numerous environments for spreading humans to
exploit -- adapt to.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 19, 1:47 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps if you made some effort to communicate in an
> > > acceptable fashion. You could call this idea of yours
> > > "Proto-Agriculture" for example. What you're describing
> > > isn't agriculture, so you're confusing (at best) when you
> > > call it that.
>
> > I use the word agriculture because--that's what it is.
>
> It's not agriculture. "Agriculture" is effectively the
> domestication of plants. Agriculture changed both the
> people and the plants. You can't show how this idea of
> your would change anything, let alone what it specifically
> changed.

Well, you and I may have a difference of opinion about the flexibility
of the english language. But, AFAIC, I'm not basing my use of the
word agriculture in this instance on the flexibilty of the english
language. I'm basing it on the accuracy required by science. Surely
you don't dispute that my scenario involves pest control. Likewise, I
doubt that you dispute that pest control is a significant aspect of
agriculture. That said one can only wonder why you might dispute my
use of the word agriculture.

>
> > (Look up the term punctuated equillibrium.)
>
> I am familiar with the term, and am not aware of anything
> that contradicts what I stated.

> "Punctuated Equilibrium" is an idea, a theory, not a law.

Well, that's an interesting statement. And I agree with you--I
think. Moreover, there certainly are some significant exceptions,
humans being one and any animal domesticated by humans being another.
But these exceptions have associated explanations.

> There is no reason to assume that it must occur at all,
> let alone for every speciesization event... most of them...
> a lot of them.
>
> Secondly, "Punctuated Equilibrium" overlaps what I was
> saying. Think of it like the weather:  Sometimes it rains.
> Sometimes it snows. Sometimes you get a mixture.
>
> We know the earth changed numerous times over the
> last few million years. We know that sea level rose and
> fell.  We know that weather patterns changed. We know
> that forests grew only to be replaced by Savannah.

You seem to be setting yourself up for an argument along the lines
that since anything can happen that, therefore, anything did happen.
And since anything did happen therefore I'm right--this is not a
scientific argument. I'm only interested in discussing what most
likely did happen.

> We
> also know for a fact that all these changes separated
> groups only to later bring them back together. The Chimps
> were our first clue:  Separated from our line, evolved to
> meet the forest environment and then, according to all
> the evidence, brought back together to interbreed with
> our line, only to separate once more.

Hybridization again?

> We know that the separate lines which led to the
> Chimp/Human was not unique. We know that Africa
> was NOT a single homogeneous population, perhaps
> even less so than Eurasia. After all, Africa was where
> most of the human population was, and it presented
> numerous environments for spreading humans to
> exploit -- adapt to.

I think you need to focus. One method I have used to focus is to try
to answer a specific question. Along those lines what is your
explanation for the *selective* origins of bipedalism in the hominid
lineage? See if you can answer the question without referring to the
concept of hybridization.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Well, you and I may have a difference of opinion

There is no "Opinion" here. The word "Agriculture" had
been defined long before you stumbled upon usenet,
and you can either use the accepted definition or be
wrong. Your choice.

So, do you want to be wrong or do you want to start
using the language correctly?

> > "Punctuated Equilibrium" is an idea, a theory, not a law.
>
> Well, that's an interesting statement.  And I agree with you--I
> think.  Moreover, there certainly are some significant exceptions,
> humans being one and any animal domesticated by humans
> being another. But these exceptions have associated explanations.

In this case it's about the evidence. The DNA evidence may be
lousy at telling us WHERE and WHEN things happened, and
useless at telling us what happened before, but it does record
a lot. Amongst the things it records is various genes that have
entered the modern populations over the years. These tell us that
Africa wasn't a single homogeneous population, and that
periodic interbreeding spread genes between populations.

> > We know the earth changed numerous times over the
> > last few million years. We know that sea level rose and
> > fell.  We know that weather patterns changed. We know
> > that forests grew only to be replaced by Savannah.

> You seem to be setting yourself up for an argument along the lines
> that since anything can happen that, therefore, anything did happen.

That makes no sense. We know these things DID happen. Not
that they could have happened but that they did happen. As the
glaciers advanced sea levels dropped and weather patterns
shifted. As the Glaciers retreated sea levels rose and weather
patterns moved back.

> > We
> > also know for a fact that all these changes separated
> > groups only to later bring them back together. The Chimps
> > were our first clue:  Separated from our line, evolved to
> > meet the forest environment and then, according to all
> > the evidence, brought back together to interbreed with
> > our line, only to separate once more.
>
> Hybridization again?

Technically it's not "Hybridization," except in the very recent
sense of the word (Like the Toyota "Hybrid"). But it did
happen. We know it did. The evidence is there.

> > We know that the separate lines which led to the
> > Chimp/Human was not unique. We know that Africa
> > was NOT a single homogeneous population, perhaps
> > even less so than Eurasia. After all, Africa was where
> > most of the human population was, and it presented
> > numerous environments for spreading humans to
> > exploit -- adapt to.
>
> I think you need to focus.

I am focused.

> One method I have used to focus is to try
> to answer a specific question.

So you're focused on a tiny pixel and confusing that for
the picture.

> Along those lines what is your
> explanation for the *selective* origins of bipedalism in the hominid
> lineage?

Water, mostly. Amongst the different environments that
populations adapted to -- evolved to exploit -- was the sea.
Again, this much is not speculation. It happened. And it's
far more likely to have resulted in upright bipedalism than
just about anything else.

Later, perhaps as this population adapted to the sea grew
and spread, and certainly when an interglacial period
began and their environment was washed out, this population
mixed with some of the others with all of them picking
up traits from each other.

Again, we know this did happen. The only question you can
raise is "How much" it shaped our evolution. The fact that it
did so is certainly established in later human populations
(like our own).

I put to you: Is it the least bit scientific to toss out what we
know for a fact, begin anew as if we don't already know a
lot, just because you don't like the answer?

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 20, 12:36 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, you and I may have a difference of opinion
>
> There is no "Opinion" here. The word "Agriculture" had
> been defined long before you stumbled upon usenet,
> and you can either use the accepted definition or be
> wrong. Your choice.

Einstein theorized that gravity and momentum were the same thing.
Some people dispute this. But the math associated with them works out
exactly the same. So, in terms of empirical evidence, Einstein is
right: gravity and momentum are the same thing. But does that mean
Einstein is right? Are gravity and momentum the exact same thing? I
suppose it's a matter of opinion. I side with Einstein.

Regardless of whether one sides with with or against Einstein on this
issue, there is no disputing the fact that stating that gravity and
momentum are the same thing is provocative. Likewise, stating that
agriculture began millions of years ago is provocative. I like being
provocative.

> So, do you want to be wrong or do you want to start
> using the language correctly?

Given these choices I would prefer being wrong--like Einstein.

> > > "Punctuated Equilibrium" is an idea, a theory, not a law.
>
> > Well, that's an interesting statement.  And I agree with you--I
> > think.  Moreover, there certainly are some significant exceptions,
> > humans being one and any animal domesticated by humans
> > being another. But these exceptions have associated explanations.
>
> In this case it's about the evidence. The DNA evidence may be
> lousy at telling us WHERE and WHEN things happened, and
> useless at telling us what happened before, but it does record
> a lot. Amongst the things it records is various genes that have
> entered the modern populations over the years.

I don't dispute this.

> These tell us that
> Africa wasn't a single homogeneous population,

Makes sense.

> and that
> periodic interbreeding spread genes between populations.
>
> > > We know the earth changed numerous times over the
> > > last few million years. We know that sea level rose and
> > > fell.  We know that weather patterns changed. We know
> > > that forests grew only to be replaced by Savannah.

> > You seem to be setting yourself up for an argument along the lines
> > that since anything can happen that, therefore, anything did happen.
>
> That makes no sense. We know these things DID happen. Not
> that they could have happened but that they did happen. As the
> glaciers advanced sea levels dropped and weather patterns
> shifted. As the Glaciers retreated sea levels rose and weather
> patterns moved back.
>
> > > We
> > > also know for a fact that all these changes separated
> > > groups only to later bring them back together. The Chimps
> > > were our first clue:  Separated from our line, evolved to
> > > meet the forest environment and then, according to all
> > > the evidence, brought back together to interbreed with
> > > our line, only to separate once more.
>
> > Hybridization again?
>
> Technically it's not "Hybridization," except in the very recent
> sense of the word (Like the Toyota "Hybrid"). But it did
> happen. We know it did. The evidence is there.

I never stated otherwise.

> > > We know that the separate lines which led to the
> > > Chimp/Human was not unique. We know that Africa
> > > was NOT a single homogeneous population, perhaps
> > > even less so than Eurasia. After all, Africa was where
> > > most of the human population was, and it presented
> > > numerous environments for spreading humans to
> > > exploit -- adapt to.
>
> > I think you need to focus.
>
> I am focused.
>
> > One method I have used to focus is to try
> > to answer a specific question.
>
> So you're focused on a tiny pixel and confusing that for
> the picture.

The "pixel" I'm looking at provides us a time and place reference
point from which be can begin to infer the *correct* pixels in the
rest of the picture. IOW, if you know how and why bipedalism was
selectively advantageous at that point in time you can more
confidently proceed to infer the other "pixels."

> > Along those lines what is your
> > explanation for the *selective* origins of bipedalism in the hominid
> > lineage?
>
> Water, mostly.

Surreal.

> Amongst the different environments that
> populations adapted to -- evolved to exploit -- was the sea.
> Again, this much is not speculation. It happened. And it's
> far more likely to have resulted in upright bipedalism than
> just about anything else.

Is your real name Algis Kuliakis?

> Later, perhaps as this population adapted to the sea grew
> and spread, and certainly when an interglacial period
> began and their environment was washed out, this population
> mixed with some of the others with all of them picking
> up traits from each other.
>
> Again, we know this did happen. The only question you can
> raise is "How much" it shaped our evolution. The fact that it
> did so is certainly established in later human populations
> (like our own).
>
> I put to you:  Is it the least bit scientific to toss out what we
> know for a fact, begin anew as if we don't already know a
> lot, just because you don't like the answer?

It's typical for aquatic ape theorists to imply some sort of prejudice
on the part of their detractors. I assure you I have no prejudice
against water. I drink it. I swim in it. I have ridden boards
through it in both its liquid and solid (ice, snow) state, I think
clouds are beautiful. I've eaten food cooked with steam and enjoyed
it. I just don't think that it in and of itself tells us much about
our origins from apes. Sorry.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Einstein theorized that

Einstein was communicating with his fellow physicists
using not only the language but the standards and
practices they all agreed on and understood. You, on
the other hand, are insisting that the entire world alter
it's understanding of certain terms just to grasp what
it is you're saying.

Without examining the details of your explanation,
let me just say that Einstein offered no redefinitions,
and he backed up his statements with mathematical
proofs.

This is entirely different from what you are doing, which
is simply rejecting the long established definition for a
word and replacing it with something that nobody on the
planet other than you understands.

[Claudius Denk]

At some point in hominid prehistory hominids started to become
conscious of the longer-term value of the resources associated with
garden habitat. This shift in consciousness also involves the
realization that other members of one's hominid community share this
interest and that by working cooperatively to guard these resources
the community can maximize the value therein--this "value" being part
of a dry season survival strategy. Conventional theory assumes that
this shift in consciousness happened a mere ten to twelve thousand
years ago. I'm saying that this shift consciousness happened millions
of years ago and can most appropriately be associated with a shift in
climate associated with the onset of the Asian Monsoon and significant
dry seasons thereof and the Ethiopian fauna (a dry season adapted
fauna). This shift in consciousness, millions of years ago,
represents the true origins of agriculture in hominids.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> At some point in hominid prehistory hominids started to become
> conscious of the longer-term value of the resources associated with
> garden habitat.

Correct.

>  This shift in consciousness also involves the
> realization that other members of one's hominid community share this
> interest and that by working cooperatively to guard these resources
> the community can maximize the value therein--this "value" being part
> of a dry season survival strategy.

You're not thinking, you're simply being logical. And that is
logical, but it's hardly fact. It's hardly sensible.

For example, we know for a fact that our ancestors learned that
resources were not a constant, that they could foresee the loss
of food sources with the changing seasons.

MIGRATION.

Our ancestors got from southern Africa to the north pole, and
virtually every point in between.

MIGRATION.

We know that so-called "Modern Man" migrated. We know that
Heidelberg Man migrated. We know that Homo erectus migrated.
We even have powerful evidence that Homo habilis migrated.

There is no blank here. There is no missing solution to the
problem you pose. Migration is a COMMON response to seasonal
resource fluctuation. It's found in no small number of "Lower
animals." Dinosaurs are believed to have migrated with the seasons.

MIGRATION.

>  Conventional theory assumes that
> this shift in consciousness happened a mere ten to twelve thousand
> years ago.

Do birds share such consciousness? Do Caribou? Did Dinosaurs?

MIGRATION in response to a seasonal fluctuation of resources has
never required this consciousness you speak of. Yet, it is a response
to the problem.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 22, 7:40 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > At some point in hominid prehistory hominids started to become
> > conscious of the longer-term value of the resources associated with
> > garden habitat.
>
> Correct.
>
> >  This shift in consciousness also involves the
> > realization that other members of one's hominid community share this
> > interest and that by working cooperatively to guard these resources
> > the community can maximize the value therein--this "value" being part
> > of a dry season survival strategy.
>
> You're not thinking, you're simply being logical. And that is
> logical, but it's hardly fact. It's hardly sensible.
>
> For example, we know for a fact that our ancestors learned that
> resources were not a constant, that they could foresee the loss
> of food sources with the changing seasons.
>
> MIGRATION.

Homnids show none of the adaptations of species that are seasonally
migratory. (Hominids aren't wildebeest.) Hominid migration has to do
with colonization not seasonal migration.

You have

>
> Our ancestors got from southern Africa to the north pole, and
> virtually every point in between.
>
> MIGRATION.

Yes, and they did all this within the last 2 mya, at most. I'm
talking about 5 to 7 mya. My hypothesis describes a shift to pest
control agricultrure, communal territorialism as a strategy to survive
the dry season and its dramatic predatory implications. Note the
subject title of this thread. If you want to discuss migrational
colonizatin at 2 mya and hence then you should start a new thread.
(Surely you are not suggesting seasonal migration as a strategy to
survive the dry season and its dramatic predatory implications at 5 to
7 mya, are you?)

> We know that so-called "Modern Man" migrated. We know that
> Heidelberg Man migrated. We know that Homo erectus migrated.
> We even have powerful evidence that Homo habilis migrated.

Yeah, so? All species have a mandate to recolonize.

> There is no blank here. There is no missing solution to the
> problem you pose. Migration is a COMMON response to seasonal
> resource fluctuation. It's found in no small number of "Lower
> animals." Dinosaurs are believed to have migrated with the seasons.

Early hominids were not seasonally migratory.

> MIGRATION.
>
> >  Conventional theory assumes that
> > this shift in consciousness happened a mere ten to twelve thousand
> > years ago.
>
> Do birds share such consciousness?  Do Caribou?  Did Dinosaurs?
>
> MIGRATION in response to a seasonal fluctuation of resources has
> never required this consciousness you speak of. Yet, it is a response
> to the problem.

Its as if you are making my point for me. If, as you concede,
seasonally migratory behavior does not explain the selective origins
of consciousness then why in the world are you asserting that hominids
(who are conscious) are seasonally migratory? You seem to be arguing
in direct opposition to the evidence.

[VtSkier]

One of the ways we infer how long dead communities/species maintained
themselves it to observe how present day communities/similar species do
it. In the Anthropological literature is there any record of present day
hunters/foragers practicing "pest control" as you describe it? Certainly
a hunter will shoo a carrion eater from a kill either he has made or
that he is claiming, but is that "pest control"?

Yes, you might argue that hunter/foragers of the so called "Archaic"
lifestyle practiced "pest control" and even nurturance of resources, but
there is little to no hard evidence that I'm aware of for this lifestyle
older than say 15,000 years ago. And yes, seasonal migration certainly
could be a strategy to survive unacceptable seasonal changes in
environment. Migration is also a strategy to survive overpopulation and
reduction in assets.

>
>> We know that so-called "Modern Man" migrated. We know that
>> Heidelberg Man migrated. We know that Homo erectus migrated.
>> We even have powerful evidence that Homo habilis migrated.
>
> Yeah, so? All species have a mandate to recolonize.

Mandate?

>
>> There is no blank here. There is no missing solution to the
>> problem you pose. Migration is a COMMON response to seasonal
>> resource fluctuation. It's found in no small number of "Lower
>> animals." Dinosaurs are believed to have migrated with the seasons.
>
> Early hominids were not seasonally migratory.

Oh? How do we know this?

>
>> MIGRATION.
>>
>>> Conventional theory assumes that
>>> this shift in consciousness happened a mere ten to twelve thousand
>>> years ago.
>>
>> Do birds share such consciousness? Do Caribou? Did Dinosaurs?
>>
>> MIGRATION in response to a seasonal fluctuation of resources has
>> never required this consciousness you speak of. Yet, it is a response
>> to the problem.
>
> Its as if you are making my point for me. If, as you concede,
> seasonally migratory behavior does not explain the selective origins
> of consciousness then why in the world are you asserting that hominids
> (who are conscious) are seasonally migratory? You seem to be arguing
> in direct opposition to the evidence.

No, he's not. Migratory habits are fairly easy to discern. Genetic drift
shows it. Consistently reducing age of a specific industry from a
original point show it. The fact that all geological areas of the globe
except Antarctica were inhabited by humans and in many cases by
pre-humans shows it. What more do you want.

The fact that humans are conscious does not prevent them from being
seasonally migratory. This, of course, does not mean that all
populations of humans must be seasonally migratory.

But it is true that consciousness is not a requirement for a population
of anything to be seasonally migratory.

[Claudius Denk]

And therein lies the problem. Observing extant hominids (who, by the
way, are ecologically dominant) can't possibly tell us much of
anything useful about the transition from ape to the original
hominids, A'pith (who, by the way, were *not* ecologically dominant)
that took place 5 to 7 million years ago.

> In the Anthropological literature is there any record of present day
> hunters/foragers practicing "pest control" as you describe it?

All extant hominids practice some kind of pest control. Fences, for
example, are a form thereof.

> Certainly
> a hunter will shoo a carrion eater from a kill either he has made or
> that he is claiming, but is that "pest control"?

Irrelevant.

> Yes, you might argue that hunter/foragers of the so called "Archaic"
> lifestyle practiced "pest control" and even nurturance of resources, but
> there is little to no hard evidence that I'm aware of for this lifestyle
> older than say 15,000 years ago.

There's little evidence of *any* lifestyle older than 15,000 years

ago.

> And yes, seasonal migration certainly
> could be a strategy to survive unacceptable seasonal changes in
> environment. Migration is also a strategy to survive overpopulation and
> reduction in assets.

Seasonal migration would have been absolutely impossible for the
earliest hominids--A'pith.

> >> We know that so-called "Modern Man" migrated. We know that
> >> Heidelberg Man migrated. We know that Homo erectus migrated.
> >> We even have powerful evidence that Homo habilis migrated.
>
> > Yeah, so?  All species have a mandate to recolonize.
>
> Mandate?
>
>
>
> >> There is no blank here. There is no missing solution to the
> >> problem you pose. Migration is a COMMON response to seasonal
> >> resource fluctuation. It's found in no small number of "Lower
> >> animals." Dinosaurs are believed to have migrated with the seasons.
>
> > Early hominids were not seasonally migratory.
>
> Oh? How do we know this?

They were completely dependent on trees to evade predators. Being
bipedal, they couldn't possibly outrun them. And in the savanna
(monsoon climate--significant dry season) treed habitat only existed
at patches. It was not contiguous as it had been in the rain-forest
habitat that existed before the climate changed to monsoon climate.
So they were largely isolated at these treed localities,

Seasonal migration was impossible. So they needed some kind of

strategy to survive the dry season and it's dramatic predatory
implications.

> >> MIGRATION.
>
> >>>   Conventional theory assumes that
> >>> this shift in consciousness happened a mere ten to twelve thousand
> >>> years ago.
>
> >> Do birds share such consciousness?  Do Caribou?  Did Dinosaurs?
>
> >> MIGRATION in response to a seasonal fluctuation of resources has
> >> never required this consciousness you speak of. Yet, it is a response
> >> to the problem.
>
> > Its as if you are making my point for me.  If, as you concede,
> > seasonally migratory behavior does not explain the selective origins
> > of consciousness then why in the world are you asserting that hominids
> > (who are conscious) are seasonally migratory?  You seem to be arguing
> > in direct opposition to the evidence.
>
> No, he's not. Migratory habits are fairly easy to discern. Genetic drift
> shows it.

You are making no sense. Genetic drift doesn't "show" anything.
(Genetic drift is the conceptual equivalent of spontaneous
generation. It's used by amateurs to explain anything that they can't
explain. Since it can explain anything it explains nothing.)

> Consistently reducing age of a specific industry from a
> original point show it. The fact that all geological areas of the globe
> except Antarctica were inhabited by humans and in many cases by
> pre-humans shows it. What more do you want.

Plainly absurd. What does any of this have to do with 5 to 7 mya?

> The fact that humans are conscious does not prevent them from being
> seasonally migratory. This, of course, does not mean that all
> populations of humans must be seasonally migratory.

Human consciousness, intelligence, and knowledge allows us to do a lot
of things. For example, the fact that we have machines that allow us
to fly doesn't mean we once had wings.

> But it is true that consciousness is not a requirement for a population
> of anything to be seasonally migratory.

Yep.

[VtSkier]

I think that's irrelevant. You are claiming that the cognition changes
that led to long term planning necessary for agriculture to develop
occurred 5 to 7 mya. First of all there is not and can be no direct
evidence that this occurred. Then, even if it did, agriculture as it's
defined by those who study it and its beginnings did not begin until at
most, 30 thousand years ago. You are trying to make events that may or
may not have led up to the development of agriculture into a new
definition of agriculture. That may be OK, but you have to have the
agreement of the scientific community to change the definition or else
all you will have is a series of events which may or may not have led up
to the development of agriculture.

For instance. Your insistence that pest control in some form somehow
deserves the definition of agriculture. If you can convince the
scientific community that this is so, you have an argument. If not then
pest control is still something thay may or may not have led up to the
development of agriculture. I would probably agree that pest control is
something that had to develop before agriculture itself could develop.

>
>> In the Anthropological literature is there any record of present day
>> hunters/foragers practicing "pest control" as you describe it?
>
> All extant hominids practice some kind of pest control. Fences, for
> example, are a form thereof.
>
>> Certainly
>> a hunter will shoo a carrion eater from a kill either he has made or
>> that he is claiming, but is that "pest control"?
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> Yes, you might argue that hunter/foragers of the so called "Archaic"
>> lifestyle practiced "pest control" and even nurturance of resources, but
>> there is little to no hard evidence that I'm aware of for this lifestyle
>> older than say 15,000 years ago.
>
> There's little evidence of *any* lifestyle older than 15,000 years
> ago.

Oh? The fact that humans and hominins and even our ape cousins existed
and thrived for millions of years is evidence of a lifestyle older than
15,000 years.

>
>> And yes, seasonal migration certainly
>> could be a strategy to survive unacceptable seasonal changes in
>> environment. Migration is also a strategy to survive overpopulation and
>> reduction in assets.
>
> Seasonal migration would have been absolutely impossible for the
> earliest hominids--A'pith.

Oh? I don't see this at all. If (and I say if) humans developed on the
savannahs and their water holes dried up they moved or they died.
Simple. We're still here so I say they moved.

>
>>>> We know that so-called "Modern Man" migrated. We know that
>>>> Heidelberg Man migrated. We know that Homo erectus migrated.
>>>> We even have powerful evidence that Homo habilis migrated.
>>
>>> Yeah, so? All species have a mandate to recolonize.
>>
>> Mandate?

You didn't address this one.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> There is no blank here. There is no missing solution to the
>>>> problem you pose. Migration is a COMMON response to seasonal
>>>> resource fluctuation. It's found in no small number of "Lower
>>>> animals." Dinosaurs are believed to have migrated with the seasons.
>>
>>> Early hominids were not seasonally migratory.
>>
>> Oh? How do we know this?
>
> They were completely dependent on trees to evade predators. Being
> bipedal, they couldn't possibly outrun them. And in the savanna
> (monsoon climate--significant dry season) treed habitat only existed
> at patches. It was not contiguous as it had been in the rain-forest
> habitat that existed before the climate changed to monsoon climate.
> So they were largely isolated at these treed localities,
>
> Seasonal migration was impossible. So they needed some kind of
> strategy to survive the dry season and it's dramatic predatory
> implications.

See above. You keep asserting that seasonal migration was impossible yet
if the water hole dries up, you move or die. We're still here.

>
>>>> MIGRATION.
>>
>>>>> Conventional theory assumes that
>>>>> this shift in consciousness happened a mere ten to twelve thousand
>>>>> years ago.
>>
>>>> Do birds share such consciousness? Do Caribou? Did Dinosaurs?
>>
>>>> MIGRATION in response to a seasonal fluctuation of resources has
>>>> never required this consciousness you speak of. Yet, it is a response
>>>> to the problem.
>>
>>> Its as if you are making my point for me. If, as you concede,
>>> seasonally migratory behavior does not explain the selective origins
>>> of consciousness then why in the world are you asserting that hominids
>>> (who are conscious) are seasonally migratory? You seem to be arguing
>>> in direct opposition to the evidence.
>>
>> No, he's not. Migratory habits are fairly easy to discern. Genetic drift
>> shows it.
>
> You are making no sense. Genetic drift doesn't "show" anything.
> (Genetic drift is the conceptual equivalent of spontaneous
> generation. It's used by amateurs to explain anything that they can't
> explain. Since it can explain anything it explains nothing.)

My understanding of genetic drift, and maybe I'm using the wrong term,
is that mutation occurs and occurs at a predictable rate. If you can
determine that rate, you can date movements of a population over time.
That can certainly show a very broad picture of general (but not
seasonal) migratory habits.

>
>> Consistently reducing age of a specific industry from a
>> original point show it. The fact that all geological areas of the globe
>> except Antarctica were inhabited by humans and in many cases by
>> pre-humans shows it. What more do you want.
>
> Plainly absurd. What does any of this have to do with 5 to 7 mya?

I'm wondering what 5 to 7 mya has to do with it.

>
>> The fact that humans are conscious does not prevent them from being
>> seasonally migratory. This, of course, does not mean that all
>> populations of humans must be seasonally migratory.
>
> Human consciousness, intelligence, and knowledge allows us to do a lot
> of things. For example, the fact that we have machines that allow us
> to fly doesn't mean we once had wings.

So what? What does this have to do with my statement?

[Lee Olsen]

Irrelevant.

> can't possibly tell us much of
> anything useful about the transition from ape to the original
> hominids, A'pith (who, by the way, were *not* ecologically dominant)
> that took place 5 to 7 million years ago.

Since you are still an ape, what transition are you talking about?

>
> > In the Anthropological literature is there any record of present day
> > hunters/foragers practicing "pest control" as you describe it?
>
> All extant hominids practice some kind of pest control.

Slapping a mosquito is pest contol too, so what?

>  Fences, for
> example, are a form thereof.

And? Try to be specific.

>
> > Certainly
> > a hunter will shoo a carrion eater from a kill either he has made or
> > that he is claiming, but is that "pest control"?
>
> Irrelevant.

How so?

>
> > Yes, you might argue that hunter/foragers of the so called "Archaic"
> > lifestyle practiced "pest control" and even nurturance of resources, but
> > there is little to no hard evidence that I'm aware of for this lifestyle
> > older than say 15,000 years ago.
>
> There's little evidence of *any* lifestyle older than 15,000 years
> ago.

or agriculture.

>
> > And yes, seasonal migration certainly
> > could be a strategy to survive unacceptable seasonal changes in
> > environment. Migration is also a strategy to survive overpopulation and
> > reduction in assets.
>
> Seasonal migration would have been absolutely impossible for the
> earliest hominids--A'pith.

Actually, what little evidence there is favors the hypothesis for
seasonal A'pith migrations.

Laetoli: "The region would have been dry for most of the year,
except for the possible occurrence of permanent springs along
the margin of the Eyasi Plateau and ephemeral pools and rivers
during the rainy season (Harrison 2011)."

Long dry season, short wet season, not good for garden-like plots.

>
>
>
>
>
> > >> We know that so-called "Modern Man" migrated. We know that
> > >> Heidelberg Man migrated. We know that Homo erectus migrated.
> > >> We even have powerful evidence that Homo habilis migrated.
>
> > > Yeah, so?  All species have a mandate to recolonize.
>
> > Mandate?
>
> > >> There is no blank here. There is no missing solution to the
> > >> problem you pose. Migration is a COMMON response to seasonal
> > >> resource fluctuation. It's found in no small number of "Lower
> > >> animals." Dinosaurs are believed to have migrated with the seasons.
>
> > > Early hominids were not seasonally migratory.
>
> > Oh? How do we know this?
>
> They were completely dependent on trees to evade predators.

Message-ID: <fd0cb529-70e4-43e7-bf9b-
f5bdd8eb4...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Denk: "Well, if the first form of agriculture involved pest control
using
rocks and sticks against large mammalian pests....."

I guess the battles over territory was fought it the trees?

http://tinyurl.com/6qkxeoq


> Being
> bipedal,

Whoa Nelly. I thought this scenario of yours explained the transition
to bipedalism, now they were bipedal all along?

> they couldn't possibly outrun them.

So, do you run faster on the ground or in the trees?
http://tinyurl.com/6qkxeoq

>  And in the savanna
> (monsoon climate--significant dry season) treed habitat only existed
> at patches.

And at Laeotoli the dry season was most of the year, which means bye
bye full-time hominid residents.

>  It was not contiguous as it had been in the rain-forest
> habitat that existed before the climate changed to monsoon climate.
> So they were largely isolated at these treed localities,

How can you be isolated from trees and still be "completely dependent
on trees to evade predators."?

>
> Seasonal migration was impossible.

So what were the hominids doing walking down a migration trail at
Laetoli?

>  So they needed some kind of
> strategy to survive the dry season

Rather than struggle through dry season, which was most of the year,
the only logical explanation is they left.

> and it's dramatic predatory
> implications.

http://tinyurl.com/6qkxeoq

>
>
>
>
>
> > >> MIGRATION.
>
> > >>>   Conventional theory assumes that
> > >>> this shift in consciousness happened a mere ten to twelve thousand
> > >>> years ago.
>
> > >> Do birds share such consciousness?  Do Caribou?  Did Dinosaurs?
>
> > >> MIGRATION in response to a seasonal fluctuation of resources has
> > >> never required this consciousness you speak of. Yet, it is a response
> > >> to the problem.
>
> > > Its as if you are making my point for me.  If, as you concede,
> > > seasonally migratory behavior does not explain the selective origins
> > > of consciousness then why in the world are you asserting that hominids
> > > (who are conscious) are seasonally migratory?  You seem to be arguing
> > > in direct opposition to the evidence.
>
> > No, he's not. Migratory habits are fairly easy to discern. Genetic drift
> > shows it.
>
> You are making no sense.  Genetic drift doesn't "show" anything.
> (Genetic drift is the conceptual equivalent of spontaneous
> generation.  It's used by amateurs to explain anything that they can't
> explain.  Since it can explain anything it explains nothing.)

Remember folks, this is coming from the same person who wrote these
two nonsensical
quips:

On Jan 17, 9:17=A0pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Message-ID: <1164681497.889937.176...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn (alias C. Denk): "Spears are useless against hyena and
lions."

Message-ID: <fd0cb529-70e4-43e7-bf9b-
f5bdd8eb4...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Denk: "Well, if the first form of agriculture involved pest control
using
rocks and sticks against large mammalian pests....."

>
> > Consistently reducing age of a specific industry from a
> > original point show it. The fact that all geological areas of the globe
> > except Antarctica were inhabited by humans and in many cases by
> > pre-humans shows it. What more do you want.
>
> Plainly absurd.  What does any of this have to do with 5 to 7 mya?

What does agriculture have to do with anything 5 to 7 mya?

>
> > The fact that humans are conscious does not prevent them from being
> > seasonally migratory. This, of course, does not mean that all
> > populations of humans must be seasonally migratory.
>
> Human consciousness, intelligence, and knowledge allows us to do a lot
> of things.  For example, the fact that we have machines that allow us
> to fly doesn't mean we once had wings.

Great, just because we practice agriculture today doesn't mean A'piths
did millions of years ago.

[Claudius Denk]

Well, no. You are misconstruing my thinking.

> First of all there is not and can be no direct
> evidence that this occurred.

But there sure is a lot of indirect evidence, isn't there? And it's
not like you have a theory that does a better job of explaining the
evidence. Right?

> Then, even if it did, agriculture as it's
> defined by those who study it and its beginnings did not begin until at
> most, 30 thousand years ago. You are trying to make events that may or
> may not have led up to the development of agriculture into a new
> definition of agriculture. That may be OK, but you have to have the
> agreement of the scientific community to change the definition

That's a silly argument. Normally the scientific community is not
dogmatic about semantics. (Did you read upthread?)

> or else
> all you will have is a series of events which may or may not have led up
> to the development of agriculture.

Isn't this better than just saying it spontaneously appeared?

> For instance. Your insistence that pest control in some form somehow
> deserves the definition of agriculture. If you can convince the
> scientific community that this is so, you have an argument. If not then
> pest control is still something thay may or may not have led up to the
> development of agriculture.

You're not being logical here. Read what you wrote and you'll see
what I mean.

> I would probably agree that pest control is
> something that had to develop before agriculture itself could develop.

You are being logical here.

> >> In the Anthropological literature is there any record of present day
> >> hunters/foragers practicing "pest control" as you describe it?
>
> > All extant hominids practice some kind of pest control.  Fences, for
> > example, are a form thereof.
>
> >> Certainly
> >> a hunter will shoo a carrion eater from a kill either he has made or
> >> that he is claiming, but is that "pest control"?
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> >> Yes, you might argue that hunter/foragers of the so called "Archaic"
> >> lifestyle practiced "pest control" and even nurturance of resources, but
> >> there is little to no hard evidence that I'm aware of for this lifestyle
> >> older than say 15,000 years ago.
>
> > There's little evidence of *any* lifestyle older than 15,000 years
> > ago.
>
> Oh? The fact that humans and hominins and even our ape cousins existed
> and thrived for millions of years is evidence of a lifestyle older than
> 15,000 years.

Yeah, so? What's your point then?

> >> And yes, seasonal migration certainly
> >> could be a strategy to survive unacceptable seasonal changes in
> >> environment. Migration is also a strategy to survive overpopulation and
> >> reduction in assets.
>
> > Seasonal migration would have been absolutely impossible for the
> > earliest hominids--A'pith.
>
> Oh? I don't see this at all. If (and I say if) humans developed on the
> savannahs and their water holes dried up they moved or they died.
> Simple. We're still here so I say they moved.

That's way too simplistic.

> >>>> We know that so-called "Modern Man" migrated. We know that
> >>>> Heidelberg Man migrated. We know that Homo erectus migrated.
> >>>> We even have powerful evidence that Homo habilis migrated.
>
> >>> Yeah, so?  All species have a mandate to recolonize.
>
> >> Mandate?
>
> You didn't address this one.

Yep.

> >>>> There is no blank here. There is no missing solution to the
> >>>> problem you pose. Migration is a COMMON response to seasonal
> >>>> resource fluctuation. It's found in no small number of "Lower
> >>>> animals." Dinosaurs are believed to have migrated with the seasons.
>
> >>> Early hominids were not seasonally migratory.
>
> >> Oh? How do we know this?
>
> > They were completely dependent on trees to evade predators.  Being
> > bipedal, they couldn't possibly outrun them.  And in the savanna
> > (monsoon climate--significant dry season) treed habitat only existed
> > at patches.  It was not contiguous as it had been in the rain-forest
> > habitat that existed before the climate changed to monsoon climate.
> > So they were largely isolated at these treed localities,
>
> > Seasonal migration was impossible.  So they needed some kind of
> > strategy to survive the dry season and it's dramatic predatory
> > implications.
>
> See above. You keep asserting that seasonal migration was impossible yet
> if the water hole dries up, you move or die. We're still here.

Waaaay too simplistic.

> >>>> MIGRATION.
>
> >>>>>    Conventional theory assumes that
> >>>>> this shift in consciousness happened a mere ten to twelve thousand
> >>>>> years ago.
>
> >>>> Do birds share such consciousness?  Do Caribou?  Did Dinosaurs?
>
> >>>> MIGRATION in response to a seasonal fluctuation of resources has
> >>>> never required this consciousness you speak of. Yet, it is a response
> >>>> to the problem.
>
> >>> Its as if you are making my point for me.  If, as you concede,
> >>> seasonally migratory behavior does not explain the selective origins
> >>> of consciousness then why in the world are you asserting that hominids
> >>> (who are conscious) are seasonally migratory?  You seem to be arguing
> >>> in direct opposition to the evidence.
>
> >> No, he's not. Migratory habits are fairly easy to discern. Genetic drift
> >> shows it.
>
> > You are making no sense.  Genetic drift doesn't "show" anything.
> > (Genetic drift is the conceptual equivalent of spontaneous
> > generation.  It's used by amateurs to explain anything that they can't
> > explain.  Since it can explain anything it explains nothing.)
>
> My understanding of genetic drift, and maybe I'm using the wrong term,

Now I see what you meant: molecular clock.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/molecular%20clock

> is that mutation occurs and occurs at a predictable rate. If you can
> determine that rate, you can date movements of a population over time.
> That can certainly show a very broad picture of general (but not
> seasonal) migratory habits.

I don't see how it tells us anything useful in this instance.

> >> Consistently reducing age of a specific industry from a
> >> original point show it. The fact that all geological areas of the globe
> >> except Antarctica were inhabited by humans and in many cases by
> >> pre-humans shows it. What more do you want.
>
> > Plainly absurd.  What does any of this have to do with 5 to 7 mya?
>
> I'm wondering what 5 to 7 mya has to do with it.

Read the first post in this thread.

> >> The fact that humans are conscious does not prevent them from being
> >> seasonally migratory. This, of course, does not mean that all
> >> populations of humans must be seasonally migratory.
>
> > Human consciousness, intelligence, and knowledge allows us to do a lot
> > of things.  For example, the fact that we have machines that allow us
> > to fly doesn't mean we once had wings.
>
> So what? What does this have to do with my statement?

Well, all I'm saying is that observations of modern day humans don't
tell you much about the earliest hominids.

[Lee Olsen]

You did some thinking, when was that?

>
> > First of all there is not and can be no direct
> > evidence that this occurred.
>
> But there sure is a lot of indirect evidence, isn't there?  And it's
> not like you have a theory that does a better job of explaining the
> evidence.  Right?

Whether he does or doesn't have a theory is irrelevant to the validity
of yours.

>
> > Then, even if it did, agriculture as it's
> > defined by those who study it and its beginnings did not begin until at
> > most, 30 thousand years ago. You are trying to make events that may or
> > may not have led up to the development of agriculture into a new
> > definition of agriculture. That may be OK, but you have to have the
> > agreement of the scientific community to change the definition
>
> That's a silly argument.

Says who?

>Normally the scientific community is not
> dogmatic about semantics.

Nonsense.

>(Did you read upthread?)

Where?

>
> > or else
> > all you will have is a series of events which may or may not have led up
> > to the development of agriculture.
>
> Isn't this better than just saying it spontaneously appeared?

Besides yourself, do you have a direct quote of anyone using the word
"spontaneously" in these discussions?

>
> > For instance. Your insistence that pest control in some form somehow
> > deserves the definition of agriculture. If you can convince the
> > scientific community that this is so, you have an argument. If not then
> > pest control is still something thay may or may not have led up to the
> > development of agriculture.
>
> You're not being logical here.

Like you are?

Message-ID: <1164681497.889937.176...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn (alias C. Denk): "Spears are useless against hyena and
lions."

Message-ID: <fd0cb529-70e4-43e7-bf9b-
f5bdd8eb4...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Denk: "Well, if the first form of agriculture involved pest control
using
rocks and sticks against large mammalian pests....."

> Read what you wrote and you'll see
> what I mean.

So why don't you explain how sticks are superior to spears against
large mamalian pests?

>
> > I would probably agree that pest control is
> > something that had to develop before agriculture itself could develop.
>
> You are being logical here.
>
> > >> In the Anthropological literature is there any record of present day
> > >> hunters/foragers practicing "pest control" as you describe it?
>
> > > All extant hominids practice some kind of pest control.  Fences, for
> > > example, are a form thereof.
>
> > >> Certainly
> > >> a hunter will shoo a carrion eater from a kill either he has made or
> > >> that he is claiming, but is that "pest control"?
>
> > > Irrelevant.
>
> > >> Yes, you might argue that hunter/foragers of the so called "Archaic"
> > >> lifestyle practiced "pest control" and even nurturance of resources, but
> > >> there is little to no hard evidence that I'm aware of for this lifestyle
> > >> older than say 15,000 years ago.
>
> > > There's little evidence of *any* lifestyle older than 15,000 years
> > > ago.
>
> > Oh? The fact that humans and hominins and even our ape cousins existed
> > and thrived for millions of years is evidence of a lifestyle older than
> > 15,000 years.
>
> Yeah, so?  What's your point then?

You have to ask?

>
> > >> And yes, seasonal migration certainly
> > >> could be a strategy to survive unacceptable seasonal changes in
> > >> environment. Migration is also a strategy to survive overpopulation and
> > >> reduction in assets.
>
> > > Seasonal migration would have been absolutely impossible for the
> > > earliest hominids--A'pith.
>
> > Oh? I don't see this at all. If (and I say if) humans developed on the
> > savannahs and their water holes dried up they moved or they died.
> > Simple. We're still here so I say they moved.
>
> That's way too simplistic.

Not as simplistic as your reply.

No it's not.

>
> > >>>> MIGRATION.
>
> > >>>>>    Conventional theory assumes that
> > >>>>> this shift in consciousness happened a mere ten to twelve thousand
> > >>>>> years ago.
>
> > >>>> Do birds share such consciousness?  Do Caribou?  Did Dinosaurs?
>
> > >>>> MIGRATION in response to a seasonal fluctuation of resources has
> > >>>> never required this consciousness you speak of. Yet, it is a response
> > >>>> to the problem.
>
> > >>> Its as if you are making my point for me.  If, as you concede,
> > >>> seasonally migratory behavior does not explain the selective origins
> > >>> of consciousness then why in the world are you asserting that hominids
> > >>> (who are conscious) are seasonally migratory?  You seem to be arguing
> > >>> in direct opposition to the evidence.
>
> > >> No, he's not. Migratory habits are fairly easy to discern. Genetic drift
> > >> shows it.
>
> > > You are making no sense.  Genetic drift doesn't "show" anything.
> > > (Genetic drift is the conceptual equivalent of spontaneous
> > > generation.  It's used by amateurs to explain anything that they can't
> > > explain.  Since it can explain anything it explains nothing.)
>
> > My understanding of genetic drift, and maybe I'm using the wrong term,
>

> Now I see what you meant: molecular clock.http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/molecular%20clock

>
> > is that mutation occurs and occurs at a predictable rate. If you can
> > determine that rate, you can date movements of a population over time.
> > That can certainly show a very broad picture of general (but not
> > seasonal) migratory habits.
>
> I don't see how it tells us anything useful in this instance.

You haven't said anything useful in the last ten years and you are
complaining about him?

>
> > >> Consistently reducing age of a specific industry from a
> > >> original point show it. The fact that all geological areas of the globe
> > >> except Antarctica were inhabited by humans and in many cases by
> > >> pre-humans shows it. What more do you want.
>
> > > Plainly absurd.  What does any of this have to do with 5 to 7 mya?
>
> > I'm wondering what 5 to 7 mya has to do with it.
>
> Read the first post in this thread.

Why?

[Tom McDonald]

On 1/24/2012 10:10 AM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> On Jan 23, 7:05 pm, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 11:15 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:

<snip>

>>> Then, even if it did, agriculture as it's
>>> defined by those who study it and its beginnings did not begin until at
>>> most, 30 thousand years ago. You are trying to make events that may or
>>> may not have led up to the development of agriculture into a new
>>> definition of agriculture. That may be OK, but you have to have the
>>> agreement of the scientific community to change the definition
>>
>> That's a silly argument.
>
> Says who?
>
>> Normally the scientific community is not
>> dogmatic about semantics.
>
> Nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense. I am pretty sure Jim has never had to go through
peer review for a scientific publication, or even written a paper for a
science class that had to pass a professor's muster.

He seems to think science is a 'near enough is good enough' enterprise,
when in fact it depends critically on semantic accuracy and precision
for all but the most informal communications.

But of course, he exempts himself from this requirement because it would
show him to be full of beans about, among other things, the actual
definition of agriculture.

You'd think that a super-genius with at least a decade to review and
improve his 'hypothesis' would have gotten his definitions right in a
manner that would facilitate useful communication. But then he'd not be
able to maunder on about his vague, evasive notions ad nauseum.

It'd be nice if he'd keep his maunder to a minimum. :-)

<snip>

[Claudius Denk]

Have you ever heard the exression, "A rose by any other name will
still smell the same?" What do you think it means? Think real hard.

[Tom McDonald]

You'll have to be more specific. There are at least 6,500 varieties of
roses, and they *don't* all smell the same.

http://www.everyrose.com/everyrose/sitemap.lasso

"Looking for a specific rose? EveryRose.com, an online Web database of
over 6500 roses, searchable by name, color, variety, classification and
many more characteristics."

Do you know why real scientists use Latin binomials? Think real hard.

[Claudius Denk]

I measure the value of a rhetorical question by the amount of trouble
my opponents have to go through to avoid answering it.

[Tom McDonald]

Thank you for letting us know you don't know why real scientists use
Latin binomials. And, of course, that you prefer to be vague and evasive
in what you probably consider to be your genius scientific fashion.

[Claudius Denk]

Well, Tom, instead of being continually frustrated by the fact that
other people don't use words the way you want them to why don't you
take the initiative and come up with your own scenario to describe the
origins of hominid features and behaviors. It's way too easy to sit
on the sidelines and nitpick. Why don't you, for example, put forth
an explanation for the origins of bipedalism, manipulative abilities,
communal territorialism, consciousness, communicative abilities. We
all have access to the same evidence. You could, for example, offer
up some kind of explanation for why tooth enamels evolved to be so
thick and why we see the evidence of striations thereof. To me these
seem like obvious indications of the onset of climate that has a
significant dry season. What's your theory? Or you could try to
explain why bipedalism seems to have emerged while the earliest
hominids were still tree dwelling as seems to be indicated by the
curved falanges of the fingers in the earliest hominid fossils. I
mean, seriously, why bother with these desperate arguments about
semantics.

[Tom McDonald]

On 1/24/2012 8:17 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:03 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2012 2:12 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>> Thank you for letting us know you don't know why real scientists use
>> Latin binomials. And, of course, that you prefer to be vague and evasive
>> in what you probably consider to be your genius scientific fashion.
>
> Well, Tom, instead of being continually frustrated by the fact that
> other people don't use words the way you want them to why don't you
> take the initiative and come up with your own scenario to describe the
> origins of hominid features and behaviors. It's way too easy to sit
> on the sidelines and nitpick. Why don't you, for example, put forth
> an explanation for the origins of bipedalism, manipulative abilities,
> communal territorialism, consciousness, communicative abilities. We
> all have access to the same evidence. You could, for example, offer
> up some kind of explanation for why tooth enamels evolved to be so
> thick and why we see the evidence of striations thereof. To me these
> seem like obvious indications of the onset of climate that has a
> significant dry season. What's your theory?

Please identify, by Latin binomial, one hominid that shows such
thickened enamel and striations. That way I could have something with
which to work. Your vague observations are too nebulous to deal with
effectively.

As to my theory, I need to know more specifically what you're talking
about, as per my request above. Once you tell me the genus and species
of one of the thickened enamel, with striations, hominids, I'll tell you
what I think of the available evidence and hypotheses that have been
studied.

I have no need to develop my own theory; you, on the other hand, have a
duty to apply specific evidence to your 'hypothesis'.

> Or you could try to
> explain why bipedalism seems to have emerged while the earliest
> hominids were still tree dwelling as seems to be indicated by the
> curved falanges of the fingers in the earliest hominid fossils.

Specify, by Latin binomial, one of the hominids that show this set of
characteristics. If you mean Ardipithecus ramidus, say so. But, of
course, Ardi is fairly late, at about 4.4 mya. Do you have an earlier
example you'd like to discuss?

> I
> mean, seriously, why bother with these desperate arguments about
> semantics.

My argument about semantics is far from desperate. I've studied
archaeology at the graduate level, and know from first-hand experience
the imperative requirement to be clear, accurate and precise in use of
language in science. You appear to think it's just fine to use vague,
misleading, non-standard, terms in a scientific forum. If we have to
agree to disagree, then folks can choose which approach is more useful
and scientific. You, Jim, will lose.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 24, 6:39 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 1/24/2012 8:17 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

> >> Thank you for letting us know you don't know why real scientists use
> >> Latin binomials. And, of course, that you prefer to be vague and evasive
> >> in what you probably consider to be your genius scientific fashion.
>
> > Well, Tom, instead of being continually frustrated by the fact that
> > other people don't use words the way you want them to why don't you
> > take the initiative and come up with your own scenario to describe the
> > origins of hominid features and behaviors.  It's way too easy to sit
> > on the sidelines and nitpick.  Why don't you, for example, put forth
> > an explanation for the origins of bipedalism, manipulative abilities,
> > communal territorialism, consciousness, communicative abilities.  We
> > all have access to the same evidence.  You could, for example, offer
> > up some kind of explanation for why tooth enamels evolved to be so
> > thick and why we see the evidence of striations thereof.  To me these
> > seem like obvious indications of the onset of climate that has a
> > significant dry season.  What's your theory?
>
> Please identify, by Latin binomial, one hominid that shows such
> thickened enamel and striations. That way I could have something with
> which to work. Your vague observations are too nebulous to deal with
> effectively.

Do your own homework.

> As to my theory, I need to know more specifically what you're talking
> about, as per my request above. Once you tell me the genus and species
> of one of the thickened enamel, with striations, hominids, I'll tell you
> what I think of the available evidence and hypotheses that have been
> studied.

So . . ., uh, its my fault you don't have a hypothesis on early
hominid evolution?

> I have no need to develop my own theory; you, on the other hand, have a
> duty to apply specific evidence to your 'hypothesis'.

You have nothing specific with which you can dispute my hypothesis.

> > Or you could try to
> > explain why bipedalism seems to have emerged while the earliest
> > hominids were still tree dwelling as seems to be indicated by the
> > curved falanges of the fingers in the earliest hominid fossils.
>
> Specify, by Latin binomial, one of the hominids that show this set of
> characteristics. If you mean Ardipithecus ramidus, say so. But, of
> course, Ardi is fairly late, at about 4.4 mya. Do you have an earlier
> example you'd like to discuss?

No.

> > I
> > mean, seriously, why bother with these desperate arguments about
> > semantics.
>
> My argument about semantics is far from desperate. I've studied
> archaeology at the graduate level, and know from first-hand experience
> the imperative requirement to be clear, accurate and precise in use of
> language in science. You appear to think it's just fine to use vague,
> misleading, non-standard, terms in a scientific forum. If we have to
> agree to disagree, then folks can choose which approach is more useful
> and scientific. You, Jim, will lose.

If your only challenge is semantic then I have already won.

[JTEM]

VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:

> And yes, seasonal migration certainly
> could be a strategy to survive unacceptable seasonal changes in
> environment. Migration is also a strategy to survive overpopulation and
> reduction in assets.

Yes, excellent. I'm not really saying "This has to be the
answer." What I'm pointing out is that we have a better
answer than the one previously suggested.

Our ancestors did migrate. "Motivation" may be unknown
to us, but they did migrate and we know this for a fact. And
if you want to press the matter it gets even more complicated.

Neanderthals, for example, don't appear to have seasonally
migrated. The had different strategies for dealing with the
fluctuations of the weather and food sources. Their range either
represents population growth or the extant of gene flow. In other
words, beyond points [A] and [B] there was was no longer
enough gene flow to maintain homogamy.

If anyone has missed it from by millions of other posts over
many years, allow me to spell it out again:

Our ancestors weren't an "it," they were not a group. They
were many groups, all spread out and adapting to their
unique conditions/challenges, all coming together at least
occasionally and passing useful or now distinctive traits to
one another.

Evolution is traditionally viewed as layers. We are spoonfed
the notion of a linear progression, each step adding further
refinement. For human evolution, this no doubt occurred to
some extant to the micro level, but on a macro scale we are
not layers but a mosaic. We are a patchwork. Populations
split, evolved along their own separate paths and then later
came back together. No, not just in Europe or "Eurasia" but
everywhere, starting in Africa. Africa produced numerous
separate populations, many of them contributing to what
would become erectus... Neanderthal... the so-called
"Moderns"... us.

Our ancestors did NOT stick to "Garden Habitats." Some
population that contributed to our present form most likely
did -- the set {Ancestors} would likely include them -- but
there were many other populations as well.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 24, 9:30 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:39 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/24/2012 8:17 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > >> Thank you for letting us know you don't know why real scientists use
> > >> Latin binomials. And, of course, that you prefer to be vague and evasive
> > >> in what you probably consider to be your genius scientific fashion.
>
> > > Well, Tom, instead of being continually frustrated by the fact that
> > > other people don't use words the way you want them to why don't you
> > > take the initiative and come up with your own scenario to describe the
> > > origins of hominid features and behaviors.  It's way too easy to sit
> > > on the sidelines and nitpick.  Why don't you, for example, put forth
> > > an explanation for the origins of bipedalism, manipulative abilities,
> > > communal territorialism, consciousness, communicative abilities.  We
> > > all have access to the same evidence.  You could, for example, offer
> > > up some kind of explanation for why tooth enamels evolved to be so
> > > thick and why we see the evidence of striations thereof.  To me these
> > > seem like obvious indications of the onset of climate that has a
> > > significant dry season.  What's your theory?
>
> > Please identify, by Latin binomial, one hominid that shows such
> > thickened enamel and striations. That way I could have something with
> > which to work. Your vague observations are too nebulous to deal with
> > effectively.
>
> Do your own homework.

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."

>
> > As to my theory, I need to know more specifically what you're talking
> > about, as per my request above. Once you tell me the genus and species
> > of one of the thickened enamel, with striations, hominids, I'll tell you
> > what I think of the available evidence and hypotheses that have been
> > studied.
>
> So . . ., uh, its my fault you don't have a hypothesis on early
> hominid evolution?

So a train wreck like yours is an argument?

>
> > I have no need to develop my own theory; you, on the other hand, have a
> > duty to apply specific evidence to your 'hypothesis'.
>
> You have nothing specific with which you can dispute my hypothesis.

Let's start with African tigers....

>
> > > Or you could try to
> > > explain why bipedalism seems to have emerged while the earliest
> > > hominids were still tree dwelling as seems to be indicated by the
> > > curved falanges of the fingers in the earliest hominid fossils.
>
> > Specify, by Latin binomial, one of the hominids that show this set of
> > characteristics. If you mean Ardipithecus ramidus, say so. But, of
> > course, Ardi is fairly late, at about 4.4 mya. Do you have an earlier
> > example you'd like to discuss?
>
> No.

So you made it up.

>
> > > I
> > > mean, seriously, why bother with these desperate arguments about
> > > semantics.
>
> > My argument about semantics is far from desperate. I've studied
> > archaeology at the graduate level, and know from first-hand experience
> > the imperative requirement to be clear, accurate and precise in use of
> > language in science. You appear to think it's just fine to use vague,
> > misleading, non-standard, terms in a scientific forum. If we have to
> > agree to disagree, then folks can choose which approach is more useful
> > and scientific. You, Jim, will lose.
>
> If your only challenge is semantic then I have already won.

Which is as delusional as your African tigers.

Message-ID: <1164681497.889937.176...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn (alias C. Denk): "Spears are useless against hyena and
lions."

Message-ID: <fd0cb529-70e4-43e7-bf9b-
f5bdd8eb4...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Denk: "Well, if the first form of agriculture involved pest control
using
rocks and sticks against large mammalian pests....."

> Drats. I hate that when my own words refute me.

[VtSkier]

"If it doesn't smell like a rose, it probably isn't a rose." What do you
think this means? To me it means that something that isn't part of the
whole definition of agriculture, probably isn't agriculture. It doesn't
smell the same and that's the point.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 25, 2:32 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> > And yes, seasonal migration certainly
> > could be a strategy to survive unacceptable seasonal changes in
> > environment. Migration is also a strategy to survive overpopulation and
> > reduction in assets.
>
> Yes, excellent. I'm not really saying "This has to be the
> answer." What I'm pointing out is that we have a better
> answer than the one previously suggested.

Did you not see this:

Well, Tom, instead of being continually frustrated by the fact that
other people don't use words the way you want them to why don't you
take the initiative and come up with your own scenario to describe
the
origins of hominid features and behaviors. It's way too easy to sit
on the sidelines and nitpick. Why don't you, for example, put forth
an explanation for the origins of bipedalism, manipulative abilities,
communal territorialism, consciousness, communicative abilities. We
all have access to the same evidence. You could, for example, offer
up some kind of explanation for why tooth enamels evolved to be so
thick and why we see the evidence of striations thereof. To me these
seem like obvious indications of the onset of climate that has a

significant dry season. What's your theory? Or you could try to

explain why bipedalism seems to have emerged while the earliest
hominids were still tree dwelling as seems to be indicated by the

curved falanges of the fingers in the earliest hominid fossils. I

mean, seriously, why bother with these desperate arguments about
semantics.

> Our ancestors did migrate. "Motivation" may be unknown
> to us, but they did migrate and we know this for a fact. And
> if you want to press the matter it gets even more complicated.

IOW, you don't have an evidence-based argument.

>
> Neanderthals, for example, don't appear to have seasonally
> migrated. The had different strategies for dealing with the
> fluctuations of the weather and food sources. Their range either
> represents population growth or the extant of gene flow. In other
> words, beyond points [A] and [B] there was was no longer
> enough gene flow to maintain homogamy.

If we are discussing the LCA why would you mention Neadertals?

>
> If anyone has missed it from by millions of other posts over
> many years, allow me to spell it out again:
>
> Our ancestors weren't an "it," they were not a group. They
> were many groups, all spread out and adapting to their
> unique conditions/challenges, all coming together at least
> occasionally and passing useful or now distinctive traits to
> one another.
>
> Evolution is traditionally viewed as layers.

What? Layers?

> We are spoonfed
> the notion of a linear progression, each step adding further
> refinement. For human evolution, this no doubt occurred to
> some extant to the micro level, but on a macro scale we are
> not layers but a mosaic. We are a patchwork. Populations
> split, evolved along their own separate paths and then later
> came back together. No, not just in Europe or "Eurasia" but
> everywhere, starting in Africa. Africa produced numerous
> separate populations, many of them contributing to what
> would become erectus... Neanderthal... the so-called
> "Moderns"... us.
>
> Our ancestors did NOT stick to "Garden Habitats." Some
> population that contributed to our present form most likely
> did -- the set {Ancestors} would likely include them --  but
> there were many other populations as well.

You are not making an evidence based argument. Address the evidence.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Our ancestors did migrate. "Motivation" may be unknown
> > to us, but they did migrate and we know this for a fact. And
> > if you want to press the matter it gets even more complicated.
>
> IOW, you don't have an evidence-based argument.

This is perplexing to say the least. There is no scientific means
for ascertaining motives, and yet your "theory" (if I may
laughingly refer to it as such) is 100% dependent on your doing
just that.

As for the fact that our ancestors did migrate, that is what the
evidence tells us. It doesn't tell us motives, but it tells us that
they migrated.

What I'm pointing out here is that everything is exactly the
opposite of how you see it. This should bother you.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 25, 6:46 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Did you not see this:

> Well, Tom, ...
[...]

That's rich, did you not see this?
Laetoli "was dry most of the year (Harrison 2011)."
That's right, so much for garden-like patches.

Did you not remember writing this?
"Seasonal migration was impossible."
What pray tell were hominids doing walking down a migration trail at
the end of the wet season?

Then of course there is this rat's nest of contradictions:

On Jan 17, 9:17=A0pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Message-ID: <1164681497.889937.176...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn (alias C. Denk): "Spears are useless against hyena and
lions."

Message-ID: <fd0cb529-70e4-43e7-bf9b-
f5bdd8eb4...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Denk: "Well, if the first form of agriculture involved pest control
using
rocks and sticks against large mammalian pests....."

Message-ID: <a6fc2a3b-6d14-4244-8a1e-
ee59b8...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>

>They were completely dependent on trees to evade predators.

So are the readers of this list to conclude hominds were safe in the
African trees throwing useless sticks and rocks down on tigers,
clearing away these predators from non-existant garden-like patches
only during the wet season?

[Tom McDonald]

On 1/24/2012 11:30 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:39 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2012 8:17 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>>>> Thank you for letting us know you don't know why real scientists use
>>>> Latin binomials. And, of course, that you prefer to be vague and evasive
>>>> in what you probably consider to be your genius scientific fashion.
>>
>>> Well, Tom, instead of being continually frustrated by the fact that
>>> other people don't use words the way you want them to why don't you
>>> take the initiative and come up with your own scenario to describe the
>>> origins of hominid features and behaviors. It's way too easy to sit
>>> on the sidelines and nitpick. Why don't you, for example, put forth
>>> an explanation for the origins of bipedalism, manipulative abilities,
>>> communal territorialism, consciousness, communicative abilities. We
>>> all have access to the same evidence. You could, for example, offer
>>> up some kind of explanation for why tooth enamels evolved to be so
>>> thick and why we see the evidence of striations thereof. To me these
>>> seem like obvious indications of the onset of climate that has a
>>> significant dry season. What's your theory?
>>
>> Please identify, by Latin binomial, one hominid that shows such
>> thickened enamel and striations. That way I could have something with
>> which to work. Your vague observations are too nebulous to deal with
>> effectively.
>
> Do your own homework.

I have. Have you?

>> As to my theory, I need to know more specifically what you're talking
>> about, as per my request above. Once you tell me the genus and species
>> of one of the thickened enamel, with striations, hominids, I'll tell you
>> what I think of the available evidence and hypotheses that have been
>> studied.
>
> So . . ., uh, its my fault you don't have a hypothesis on early
> hominid evolution?

Of course not. I was asking you to put some meat on the bones of your
'hypothesis' so I'd have something to chew on. And I don't have a
personal hypothesis about early hominid evolution--I prefer to read the
work of scientists in the field and see what the evidence suggests.

>> I have no need to develop my own theory; you, on the other hand, have a
>> duty to apply specific evidence to your 'hypothesis'.
>
> You have nothing specific with which you can dispute my hypothesis.
>
>>> Or you could try to
>>> explain why bipedalism seems to have emerged while the earliest
>>> hominids were still tree dwelling as seems to be indicated by the
>>> curved falanges of the fingers in the earliest hominid fossils.
>>
>> Specify, by Latin binomial, one of the hominids that show this set of
>> characteristics. If you mean Ardipithecus ramidus, say so. But, of
>> course, Ardi is fairly late, at about 4.4 mya. Do you have an earlier
>> example you'd like to discuss?
>
> No.

OK, so let's take the case of Ardipithecus ramidus. It shows some
thickening of tooth enamel vs. the probable ancestral line, but less so
than later hominids such as Australopithicenes, and earlier bipedal
hominins such as Orrorin tugenensis (ca. 6 mya).

In a quick google look-see, I don't see much in the way of reference to
striations on the teeth of these early hominids/hominins, though there
are some indications that the later examples do show pitting (in the
Paranthropus lineage), and scratch marks (in the Australopithecines).
Are the scratch marks what you meant by 'striations'?

>
>>> I
>>> mean, seriously, why bother with these desperate arguments about
>>> semantics.
>>
>> My argument about semantics is far from desperate. I've studied
>> archaeology at the graduate level, and know from first-hand experience
>> the imperative requirement to be clear, accurate and precise in use of
>> language in science. You appear to think it's just fine to use vague,
>> misleading, non-standard, terms in a scientific forum. If we have to
>> agree to disagree, then folks can choose which approach is more useful
>> and scientific. You, Jim, will lose.
>
> If your only challenge is semantic then I have already won.

Well, since it's not, then your declaration of victory is a bit premature.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 25, 7:10 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > Our ancestors did migrate. "Motivation" may be unknown
> > > to us, but they did migrate and we know this for a fact. And
> > > if you want to press the matter it gets even more complicated.
>
> > IOW, you don't have an evidence-based argument.
>
> This is perplexing to say the least. There is no scientific means
> for ascertaining motives, and yet your "theory" (if I may
> laughingly refer to it as such) is 100% dependent on your doing
> just that.

Well, no. My theory is just an attempt to explain the evidence. You
should try it sometime.

> As for the fact that our ancestors did migrate, that is what the
> evidence tells us. It doesn't tell us motives, but it tells us that
> they migrated.

You must be confused. Obviously evidence of my migration after 2 mya
doesn't tell us anything about what happend at 5 to 7 mya. How is
this not obvious to you?

> What I'm pointing out here is that everything is exactly the
> opposite of how you see it. This should bother you.

Does the fact that it doesn't bother me bother you?

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 25, 9:01 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 1/24/2012 11:30 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

> >>>> Thank you for letting us know you don't know why real scientists use
> >>>> Latin binomials. And, of course, that you prefer to be vague and evasive
> >>>> in what you probably consider to be your genius scientific fashion.
>
> >>> Well, Tom, instead of being continually frustrated by the fact that
> >>> other people don't use words the way you want them to why don't you
> >>> take the initiative and come up with your own scenario to describe the
> >>> origins of hominid features and behaviors.  It's way too easy to sit
> >>> on the sidelines and nitpick.  Why don't you, for example, put forth
> >>> an explanation for the origins of bipedalism, manipulative abilities,
> >>> communal territorialism, consciousness, communicative abilities.  We
> >>> all have access to the same evidence.  You could, for example, offer
> >>> up some kind of explanation for why tooth enamels evolved to be so
> >>> thick and why we see the evidence of striations thereof.  To me these
> >>> seem like obvious indications of the onset of climate that has a
> >>> significant dry season.  What's your theory?
>
> >> Please identify, by Latin binomial, one hominid that shows such
> >> thickened enamel and striations. That way I could have something with
> >> which to work. Your vague observations are too nebulous to deal with
> >> effectively.
>
> > Do your own homework.
>
> I have. Have you?

Well, it appears you were unable to find anything to contradict what I
said.

> >> As to my theory, I need to know more specifically what you're talking
> >> about, as per my request above. Once you tell me the genus and species
> >> of one of the thickened enamel, with striations, hominids, I'll tell you
> >> what I think of the available evidence and hypotheses that have been
> >> studied.
>
> > So . . ., uh, its my fault you don't have a hypothesis on early
> > hominid evolution?
>
> Of course not. I was asking you to put some meat on the bones of your
> 'hypothesis' so I'd have something to chew on. And I don't have a
> personal hypothesis about early hominid evolution--I prefer to read the
> work of scientists in the field and see what the evidence suggests.

Feel free to quote something from them any of these "scientists in the
field" that is relevant. I'm sure they won't mind. (Be sure to
explain the relevance.)

> >> I have no need to develop my own theory; you, on the other hand, have a
> >> duty to apply specific evidence to your 'hypothesis'.
>
> > You have nothing specific with which you can dispute my hypothesis.

No response.

> >>> Or you could try to
> >>> explain why bipedalism seems to have emerged while the earliest
> >>> hominids were still tree dwelling as seems to be indicated by the
> >>> curved falanges of the fingers in the earliest hominid fossils.
>
> >> Specify, by Latin binomial, one of the hominids that show this set of
> >> characteristics. If you mean Ardipithecus ramidus, say so. But, of
> >> course, Ardi is fairly late, at about 4.4 mya. Do you have an earlier
> >> example you'd like to discuss?
>
> > No.
>
> OK, so let's take the case of Ardipithecus ramidus. It shows some
> thickening of tooth enamel vs. the probable ancestral line, but less so
> than later hominids such as Australopithicenes, and earlier bipedal
> hominins such as Orrorin tugenensis (ca. 6 mya).

Well that's great, Tom. And I do appreciate you bringing this to our
attention. But it doesn't seem you are disputing what I'm saying. Or
am I misinterpreting you?

> In a quick google look-see, I don't see much in the way of reference to
> striations on the teeth of these early hominids/hominins, though there
> are some indications that the later examples do show pitting (in the
> Paranthropus lineage), and scratch marks (in the Australopithecines).
> Are the scratch marks what you meant by 'striations'?

Yes.

> >>> I
> >>> mean, seriously, why bother with these desperate arguments about
> >>> semantics.
>
> >> My argument about semantics is far from desperate. I've studied
> >> archaeology at the graduate level, and know from first-hand experience
> >> the imperative requirement to be clear, accurate and precise in use of
> >> language in science. You appear to think it's just fine to use vague,
> >> misleading, non-standard, terms in a scientific forum. If we have to
> >> agree to disagree, then folks can choose which approach is more useful
> >> and scientific. You, Jim, will lose.
>
> > If your only challenge is semantic then I have already won.
>
> Well, since it's not, then your declaration of victory is a bit premature.

If it's not semantic then how would you categorize your challenge?

[Tom McDonald]

Scientific.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 25, 5:21 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 7:10 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > Our ancestors did migrate. "Motivation" may be unknown
> > > > to us, but they did migrate and we know this for a fact. And
> > > > if you want to press the matter it gets even more complicated.
>
> > > IOW, you don't have an evidence-based argument.
>
> > This is perplexing to say the least. There is no scientific means
> > for ascertaining motives, and yet your "theory" (if I may
> > laughingly refer to it as such) is 100% dependent on your doing
> > just that.
>
> Well, no.  My theory is just an attempt to explain the evidence.

You mean the evidence you make up?

> You
> should try it sometime.
>
> > As for the fact that our ancestors did migrate, that is what the
> > evidence tells us. It doesn't tell us motives, but it tells us that
> > they migrated.
>
> You must be confused.  Obviously evidence of my migration after 2 mya
> doesn't tell us anything about what happend at 5 to 7 mya.

Since there is good evidence for migrating hominids at 3.66 mya, can
you prove migrations didn't happen 5 to 7 mya?

>  How is
> this not obvious to you?

How is it not obvious to you that it is a long ways from Hadar to
Laetoli?

>
> > What I'm pointing out here is that everything is exactly the
> > opposite of how you see it. This should bother you.
>
> Does the fact that it doesn't bother me bother you?

Message-ID: <376ED09C...@thegrid.net>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo:

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > This is perplexing to say the least. There is no scientific means
> > for ascertaining motives, and yet your "theory" (if I may
> > laughingly refer to it as such) is 100% dependent on your doing
> > just that.
>
> Well, no.  My theory is just an attempt to explain the evidence.

No. There is ZERO evidence for what you imagine Nothing. There
is not one shred of evidence for the behavior you talk about. You
begin with your motive -- protecting resources -- and then simply
imagine the behavior that conforms to this.

[Claudius Denk]

This is the typical argument I get from people that have no hypothesis
of their own and who have no dispute with my hypothesis. Suddenly,
when faced with a hypothesis they can't dispute, all of the evidence
disappears from their consciousness. No longer can they acknowledge
that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
known to exist. No longer does it matter how and when consciousness
and communicativeness emerged. No longer does it matter why

bipedalism seems to have emerged while the earliest hominids were

still tree dwelling. It's as if somebody flipped a switch and all the
evidence just disappeared.

By the way, the evidence isn't for or against any particular
hypothesis. It's just evidence. It's the job of a theorist to put
forth a scenario that is both explanatory of the evidence and not
contradicted by it, the ultimate goal being parsimony, not proof.

Make an effort to not become another of the frequent whiners on this
newsgroup and admit that you really have no evidence-based dispute
with my hypothesis and no alternative of your own.

I've said it before I'll say it again:
Instead of being continually frustrated by the fact that

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 26, 7:10 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Suddenly,
> when faced with a hypothesis they can't dispute,

Well one thing for sure, you don't have a hypothesis, you have a just-
so story based on imaginary creatures like
African "tigers" and "etc.". And what about those sticks that are
superior to spears, just exactly what do those look like?

On Jan 17, 9:17=A0pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Message-ID: <1164681497.889937.176...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Jim McGinn (alias C. Denk): "Spears are useless against hyena and
lions."

Message-ID: <fd0cb529-70e4-43e7-bf9b-
f5bdd8eb4...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Denk: "Well, if the first form of agriculture involved pest control
using
rocks and sticks against large mammalian pests....."

> all of the evidence
> disappears from their consciousness.

What evidence is that?

[...]

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > No. There is ZERO evidence for what you imagine Nothing. There
> > is not one shred of evidence for the behavior you talk about. You
> > begin with your motive -- protecting resources -- and then simply
> > imagine the behavior that conforms to this.
>
> This is the typical argument

It's not an argument. It's an observable fact.

You are claiming a motive here. You use that claim of
a motive to then justify the claim of behavior.

And all so backwards!

You have to have us evolving to the point where we foresee
future needs, assess resources and reason out the need
for protective action to do all this just so can become
precisely what you have us already being.

Put it this way: There's no Human/Chimp split in your
dumb idea. Human ancestors of living in pretty much
the same environment as chimps, facing the same
ordeal, and yet they somehow move in to entirely different
direction....

That makes no sense. Plus there's the fact that we had to
already evolve quite some distance from the chimps, just
so we can evolve quite some distance from chimps..

See? You have the results of your evolution as the
mechanism for your evolution.

Doesn't matter though, because it's all hogwash. You
have conjecture sprouting conjecture to justify
conjecture, and you call that science...

[VtSkier]

On 1/26/2012 10:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jan 26, 4:31 am, JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> This is perplexing to say the least. There is no scientific means
>>>> for ascertaining motives, and yet your "theory" (if I may
>>>> laughingly refer to it as such) is 100% dependent on your doing
>>>> just that.
>>
>>> Well, no. My theory is just an attempt to explain the evidence.
>>
>> No. There is ZERO evidence for what you imagine Nothing. There
>> is not one shred of evidence for the behavior you talk about. You
>> begin with your motive -- protecting resources -- and then simply
>> imagine the behavior that conforms to this.
>
> This is the typical argument I get from people that have no hypothesis
> of their own and who have no dispute with my hypothesis. Suddenly,
> when faced with a hypothesis they can't dispute, all of the evidence
> disappears from their consciousness. No longer can they acknowledge
> that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
> known to exist.

<cough><cough><bullshit>
Start with ants, graduate to bees down through canids and some large
herbivores. You can also include many primates other than humans in this
group.

By "territorialistic" I assume you mean an animal which claims and
defends a piece of real estate. And ants certainly qualify as an animal
which lives communally.

Ardi was apparently bipedal AND tree dwelling or at least a frequent
tree climber.

Many of the traits you are listing above and not unique to humans.
Further, you do yourself a disservice by using words in ways which are
not recognized by the discipline you are trying to communicate with.
Science may use words differently or "beyond" what is defined in a
common usage dictionary, but then it's called "jargon" and the
definitions are defined and agreed to within the discipline. You appear
to be taking words well beyond jargon and then insisting on definitions
which only you understand because you failed to publish your definitions
before using them, and then wonder why others do not understand what you
are talking about and dis your hypothesis, which may or may not have
merit but fail to impress because people don't know what you are talking
about.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 27, 10:19 am, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> On 1/26/2012 10:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

> >>>> This is perplexing to say the least. There is no scientific means
> >>>> for ascertaining motives, and yet your "theory" (if I may
> >>>> laughingly refer to it as such) is 100% dependent on your doing
> >>>> just that.
>
> >>> Well, no.  My theory is just an attempt to explain the evidence.
>
> >> No. There is ZERO evidence for what you imagine Nothing. There
> >> is not one shred of evidence for the behavior you talk about. You
> >> begin with your motive -- protecting resources -- and then simply
> >> imagine the behavior that conforms to this.
>
> > This is the typical argument I get from people that have no hypothesis
> > of their own and who have no dispute with my hypothesis.  Suddenly,
> > when faced with a hypothesis they can't dispute, all of the evidence
> > disappears from their consciousness.  No longer can they acknowledge
> > that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
> > known to exist.
>
> <cough><cough><bullshit>
> Start with ants, graduate to bees down through canids and some large
> herbivores. You can also include many primates other than humans in this
> group.

You are just being argumentative to no good effect. Human society is
unique in the animal world. And it came into existence (starting at
the same time and place as the asian monsoon BTW) in an incredibly
brief 7 million years. You can pretend to ignore these facts if you
like but it only makes you look stupid.

>
> By "territorialistic" I assume you mean an animal which claims and
> defends a piece of real estate. And ants certainly qualify as an animal
> which lives communally.

Who cares.

I meant hominids.

> Further, you do yourself a disservice by using words in ways which are
> not recognized by the discipline you are trying to communicate with.
> Science may use words differently or "beyond" what is defined in a
> common usage dictionary, but then it's called "jargon" and the
> definitions are defined and agreed to within the discipline. You appear
> to be taking words well beyond jargon and then insisting on definitions
> which only you understand because you failed to publish your definitions
> before using them, and then wonder why others do not understand what you
> are talking about and dis your hypothesis, which may or may not have
> merit but fail to impress because people don't know what you are talking
> about.

I find it strange that you would continue to quibble about my
denotation of one word. My advice to you is, deal with it, it's not
that big of a deal.

I suspect, however, that you may not be clear on the specifics of my
scenario, some of which were last mentioned years ago. Sometime soon
I am gong to put forth a post that will link back to some of those
previous posts and allow you and others to get caught up.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 27, 12:45 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> You are just being argumentative to no good effect.

[Tom McDonald]

On 1/26/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

<snip>

> No longer can they acknowledge
> that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
> known to exist.

Good. Finally a quantitative claim.

Ok, what parameters do you use to quantify "communally
territorialistic"? Be specific.

List five quantifiable ways animals can be communally territorialistic.

For each parameter, specify how communal territorialism can be measured,
and on what type of scale or metric.

Then list as many communally territorialistic animals as you can think
of, and apply your chosen metric to each parameter.

This is the sort of thing real scientists do all the time. Since you're
the greatest genius scientist in the history of human evolution, this
should be a snap for you.

<snip>

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 27, 4:49 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 1/26/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > No longer can they acknowledge
> > that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
> > known to exist.
>
> Good. Finally a quantitative claim.
>
> Ok, what parameters do you use to quantify "communally
> territorialistic"? Be specific.

Why bother. It's not like you have any dispute with the assertion,
right?

> List five quantifiable ways animals can be communally territorialistic.

Be my guest.

> For each parameter, specify how communal territorialism can be measured,
> and on what type of scale or metric.
>
> Then list as many communally territorialistic animals as you can think
> of, and apply your chosen metric to each parameter.
>
> This is the sort of thing real scientists do all the time. Since you're
> the greatest genius scientist in the history of human evolution, this
> should be a snap for you.

Don't sell yourself short, Tom. You are no dummy. If you had any
dispute with this assertion I'm sure a smart guy like you would have
already presented it. But you don't.

[Tom McDonald]

On 1/27/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jan 27, 4:49 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 1/26/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> No longer can they acknowledge
>>> that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
>>> known to exist.
>>
>> Good. Finally a quantitative claim.
>>
>> Ok, what parameters do you use to quantify "communally
>> territorialistic"? Be specific.
>
> Why bother. It's not like you have any dispute with the assertion,
> right?

Of course I do! You have thrown a staggeringly broad statement into the
ether, and expect us to accept it at face value. I don't. Without going
through the process I outlined, we have no way of knowing whether the
assertion is correct or not.

For instance, how are humans more communally territorial than ants? Than
bees? Than wolves?

Well? How are we more communally territorial than any other animal.

Although, actually, you wrote "species", so I suppose you also have to
deal with bacteria and, for instance, corals.

>> List five quantifiable ways animals can be communally territorialistic.
>
> Be my guest.

Your assertion, your job to specify exactly how you quantify it.

>> For each parameter, specify how communal territorialism can be measured,
>> and on what type of scale or metric.
>>
>> Then list as many communally territorialistic animals as you can think
>> of, and apply your chosen metric to each parameter.
>>
>> This is the sort of thing real scientists do all the time. Since you're
>> the greatest genius scientist in the history of human evolution, this
>> should be a snap for you.
>
> Don't sell yourself short, Tom. You are no dummy. If you had any
> dispute with this assertion I'm sure a smart guy like you would have
> already presented it. But you don't.

Well, in fact, I do. I don't know the basis on which you make this
sweeping assertion. Until I do, it remains vague and evasive, two things
you tell us you hate--in other people. Apparently you're a hypocrite. Or
just too damned stupid to do science.

I understand flower pressing can be relaxing, and does not make the sort
of demands on you that your flailing around trying to do science does.

You are the one making the assertion. It's up to you to support it with
evidence.

Why am I not surprised that you don't want to, or can't? Can it be that
you have no idea how science is really done? Quelle horreur!

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 27, 10:00 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > No. There is ZERO evidence for what you imagine Nothing. There
> > > is not one shred of evidence for the behavior you talk about. You
> > > begin with your motive -- protecting resources -- and then simply
> > > imagine the behavior that conforms to this.
>

> > This is the typical argument.

>
> It's not an argument. It's an observable fact.

That's funny because to me it seems like it is neither.

> You are claiming a motive here. You use that claim of
> a motive to then justify the claim of behavior.

Well, no I'm claiming some preadaptive behavior/traits (do
you want me to list them?) and I'm claiming a shift in
selective factors (which are initiated by a change in
climate) which emphasize those preadaptive behaviors
as a result of a process (a process you don't believe in)
called natural selection.

(*Note: if the phrase, "preadaptive behavior/traits" is not
clear to you I suggest looking it up.)

> And all so backwards!

Can you be more specific?

> You have to have us evolving to the point where we foresee
> future needs, assess resources and reason out the need
> for protective action to do all this just so can become
> precisely what you have us already being.

I suppose that's a charge that can be leveled at any
evolutionary explanation.

> Put it this way:  There's no Human/Chimp split in your
> dumb idea. Human ancestors of living in pretty much
> the same environment as chimps, facing the same
> ordeal, and yet they somehow move in to entirely different
> direction....

You couldn't be more wrong. I have them living in a radically
different environment from chimps. (How in the world is this
not obvious to you?)

As I mentioned to VTSkier, I suspect, that you may not be

clear on the specifics of my scenario, some of which were

last mentioned years ago. Sometime soon I am going to

put forth a post that will link back to some of those
previous posts and allow you and others to get caught up.

> That makes no sense. Plus there's the fact that we had to
> already evolve quite some distance from the chimps, just
> so we can evolve quite some distance from chimps..

You lost me.

> See?  You have the results of your evolution as the
> mechanism for your evolution.

No, I don't. And I don't know why you think that. It's
regrettable that you seem so reluctant to explain why
you believe this.

> Doesn't matter though, because it's all hogwash.

Your hybridization notions are hogwash. Really.

> You have conjecture sprouting conjecture to justify
> conjecture, and you call that science...

Well, that's what an evolutionary hypothesis is about.
(The primary conjecture being the viability of natural
selection itself.) I do my best to make sure my
conjectures are as explicit and specific as possible
so that you can find something wrong with them.
Because all you have to do is find one little thing
wrong with one of them and my whole hypothesis is
shot down.

Keep trying.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 27, 7:50 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 1/27/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:


> >>> No longer can they acknowledge
> >>> that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
> >>> known to exist.
>
> >> Good. Finally a quantitative claim.
>
> >> Ok, what parameters do you use to quantify "communally
> >> territorialistic"? Be specific.
>
> > Why bother.  It's not like you have any dispute with the assertion,
> > right?
>
> Of course I do!

Actually, no you don't.

> You have thrown a staggeringly broad statement into the
> ether, and expect us to accept it at face value.

I'm not expecting you to accept it. I'm asking you to attempt to
dispute it knowing from my own experiences that that is very unlikely.

> I don't. Without going
> through the process I outlined, we have no way of knowing whether the
> assertion is correct or not.

It's like you are asking me to prove/demonstrate that water is wet.

> For instance, how are humans more communally territorial than ants? Than
> bees? Than wolves?

First things first. Surely you don't dispute that they are more
communally territorialistic than chimpanzee, right?

> Well? How are we more communally territorial than any other animal.
>
> Although, actually, you wrote "species", so I suppose you also have to
> deal with bacteria and, for instance, corals.
>
> >> List five quantifiable ways animals can be communally territorialistic.

Do you dispute that water is wet?

> > Be my guest.
>
> Your assertion, your job to specify exactly how you quantify it.

Nah.

> >> For each parameter, specify how communal territorialism can be measured,
> >> and on what type of scale or metric.
>
> >> Then list as many communally territorialistic animals as you can think
> >> of, and apply your chosen metric to each parameter.
>
> >> This is the sort of thing real scientists do all the time. Since you're
> >> the greatest genius scientist in the history of human evolution, this
> >> should be a snap for you.
>
> > Don't sell yourself short, Tom.  You are no dummy.  If you had any
> > dispute with this assertion I'm sure a smart guy like you would have
> > already presented it.  But you don't.
>
> Well, in fact, I do. I don't know the basis on which you make this
> sweeping assertion. Until I do, it remains vague and evasive, two things
> you tell us you hate--in other people. Apparently you're a hypocrite. Or
> just too damned stupid to do science.
>
> I understand flower pressing can be relaxing, and does not make the sort
> of demands on you that your flailing around trying to do science does.
>
> You are the one making the assertion. It's up to you to support it with
> evidence.
>
> Why am I not surprised that you don't want to, or can't? Can it be that
> you have no idea how science is really done? Quelle horreur!

Stick your head under a faucet, turn it on, and tell us what happens.

[Tom McDonald]

On 1/28/2012 12:03 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:50 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 1/27/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>>>>> No longer can they acknowledge
>>>>> that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
>>>>> known to exist.
>>
>>>> Good. Finally a quantitative claim.
>>
>>>> Ok, what parameters do you use to quantify "communally
>>>> territorialistic"? Be specific.
>>
>>> Why bother. It's not like you have any dispute with the assertion,
>>> right?
>>
>> Of course I do!
>
> Actually, no you don't.

Astounding! You know what I think, and I don't. What a maroon you are.

>> You have thrown a staggeringly broad statement into the
>> ether, and expect us to accept it at face value.
>
> I'm not expecting you to accept it. I'm asking you to attempt to
> dispute it knowing from my own experiences that that is very unlikely.
>
>> I don't. Without going
>> through the process I outlined, we have no way of knowing whether the
>> assertion is correct or not.
>
> It's like you are asking me to prove/demonstrate that water is wet.

No, you are perpetrating a logical fallacy.

It's like I'm asking you to prove/demonstrate that water is the wettest
liquid in the universe.

I assert that the wettest liquid in the universe is ethyl alcohol.

Do you dispute that? If so, on what basis?

If not, why don't you dispute it?

>> For instance, how are humans more communally territorial than ants? Than
>> bees? Than wolves?
>
> First things first. Surely you don't dispute that they are more
> communally territorialistic than chimpanzee, right?

Yes, I do. Show me how we are more communally territorial than chimps.

>> Well? How are we more communally territorial than any other animal.
>>
>> Although, actually, you wrote "species", so I suppose you also have to
>> deal with bacteria and, for instance, corals.
>>
>>>> List five quantifiable ways animals can be communally territorialistic.
>
> Do you dispute that water is wet?
>
>>> Be my guest.
>>
>> Your assertion, your job to specify exactly how you quantify it.
>
> Nah.

Science is too hard for most people. You should try finger-painting.

>>>> For each parameter, specify how communal territorialism can be measured,
>>>> and on what type of scale or metric.
>>
>>>> Then list as many communally territorialistic animals as you can think
>>>> of, and apply your chosen metric to each parameter.
>>
>>>> This is the sort of thing real scientists do all the time. Since you're
>>>> the greatest genius scientist in the history of human evolution, this
>>>> should be a snap for you.
>>
>>> Don't sell yourself short, Tom. You are no dummy. If you had any
>>> dispute with this assertion I'm sure a smart guy like you would have
>>> already presented it. But you don't.
>>
>> Well, in fact, I do. I don't know the basis on which you make this
>> sweeping assertion. Until I do, it remains vague and evasive, two things
>> you tell us you hate--in other people. Apparently you're a hypocrite. Or
>> just too damned stupid to do science.
>>
>> I understand flower pressing can be relaxing, and does not make the sort
>> of demands on you that your flailing around trying to do science does.
>>
>> You are the one making the assertion. It's up to you to support it with
>> evidence.
>>
>> Why am I not surprised that you don't want to, or can't? Can it be that
>> you have no idea how science is really done? Quelle horreur!
>
> Stick your head under a faucet, turn it on, and tell us what happens.

My head would get wet, IFF the faucet is operational, and IFF there is a
liquid in the pipes, and IFF the pipes are hooked up to the faucet, and
IFF there is some pressure in the pipes.

Of course, my head would get wetter if there were alcohol in the pipes
rather than water. Do you dispute that?

[Claudius Denk]

Let it soak a little longer.

[Trond Engen]

Tom McDonald:

> On 1/28/2012 12:03 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>> On Jan 27, 7:50 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/27/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Be my guest.
>>>
>>> Your assertion, your job to specify exactly how you quantify it.
>>
>> Nah.

Tom, please. This answer alone should throw him into your loony filter
never to be let out.

> Science is too hard for most people. You should try finger-painting.

What have finger-painters done to deserve him?

--
Trond Engen

[Tom McDonald]

On 1/28/2012 4:28 AM, Trond Engen wrote:
> Tom McDonald:
>
>> On 1/28/2012 12:03 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 27, 7:50 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/27/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Be my guest.
>>>>
>>>> Your assertion, your job to specify exactly how you quantify it.
>>>
>>> Nah.
>
> Tom, please. This answer alone should throw him into your loony filter
> never to be let out.

Good idea. I'll try that. It can take me a while to give up on another
poster, but you're right--he seems pretty hopeless.

>> Science is too hard for most people. You should try finger-painting.
>
> What have finger-painters done to deserve him?
>

Nothing I know of. I had in mind that he'd do it alone, behind locked
doors, where he could pretend to be Jackson Pollock, and bitterly deny
his artistic genius to the world by having shows only for himself and
his mice in his mom's basement.

[VtSkier]

On 1/28/2012 1:03 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:50 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 1/27/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>>>>> No longer can they acknowledge
>>>>> that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
>>>>> known to exist.
>>
>>>> Good. Finally a quantitative claim.
>>
>>>> Ok, what parameters do you use to quantify "communally
>>>> territorialistic"? Be specific.
>>
>>> Why bother. It's not like you have any dispute with the assertion,
>>> right?
>>
>> Of course I do!
>
> Actually, no you don't.

Well yes and no. He didn't disagree with you as such, he DID however,
ask for the source material for your assertion. That is a reasonable
questions which you should answer to stay in the discussion.

>
>> You have thrown a staggeringly broad statement into the
>> ether, and expect us to accept it at face value.
>
> I'm not expecting you to accept it. I'm asking you to attempt to
> dispute it knowing from my own experiences that that is very unlikely.

Your experiences are what? You were there to observe behavior of early
humans? On what do you base your assertions. And I for one don't think
"experience" can be a basis.

>
>> I don't. Without going
>> through the process I outlined, we have no way of knowing whether the
>> assertion is correct or not.
>
> It's like you are asking me to prove/demonstrate that water is wet.
>
>> For instance, how are humans more communally territorial than ants? Than
>> bees? Than wolves?
>
> First things first. Surely you don't dispute that they are more
> communally territorialistic than chimpanzee, right?

Not necessarily. Chimps claim and defend a piece of real estate and live
in communal groups, the size of which are on a par with early humans.

>
>> Well? How are we more communally territorial than any other animal.
>>
>> Although, actually, you wrote "species", so I suppose you also have to
>> deal with bacteria and, for instance, corals.
>>
>>>> List five quantifiable ways animals can be communally territorialistic.
>
> Do you dispute that water is wet?

Well water is certainly wet, but it can be made wetter by the addition
of chemicals (detergents).

>
>>> Be my guest.
>>
>> Your assertion, your job to specify exactly how you quantify it.
>
> Nah.
>
>>>> For each parameter, specify how communal territorialism can be measured,
>>>> and on what type of scale or metric.
>>
>>>> Then list as many communally territorialistic animals as you can think
>>>> of, and apply your chosen metric to each parameter.
>>
>>>> This is the sort of thing real scientists do all the time. Since you're
>>>> the greatest genius scientist in the history of human evolution, this
>>>> should be a snap for you.
>>
>>> Don't sell yourself short, Tom. You are no dummy. If you had any
>>> dispute with this assertion I'm sure a smart guy like you would have
>>> already presented it. But you don't.
>>
>> Well, in fact, I do. I don't know the basis on which you make this
>> sweeping assertion. Until I do, it remains vague and evasive, two things
>> you tell us you hate--in other people. Apparently you're a hypocrite. Or
>> just too damned stupid to do science.
>>
>> I understand flower pressing can be relaxing, and does not make the sort
>> of demands on you that your flailing around trying to do science does.
>>
>> You are the one making the assertion. It's up to you to support it with
>> evidence.
>>
>> Why am I not surprised that you don't want to, or can't? Can it be that
>> you have no idea how science is really done? Quelle horreur!
>
> Stick your head under a faucet, turn it on, and tell us what happens.

If it were that easy everybody would do it. Apples and Oranges.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 28, 8:38 am, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> On 1/28/2012 1:03 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:

> >>>>> No longer can they acknowledge
> >>>>> that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
> >>>>> known to exist.
>
> >>>> Good. Finally a quantitative claim.
>
> >>>> Ok, what parameters do you use to quantify "communally
> >>>> territorialistic"? Be specific.
>
> >>> Why bother.  It's not like you have any dispute with the assertion,
> >>> right?
>
> >> Of course I do!
>
> > Actually, no you don't.
>
> Well yes and no. He didn't disagree with you as such, he DID however,
> ask for the source material for your assertion. That is a reasonable
> questions which you should answer to stay in the discussion.

The evidence for anything prior to 8 thousand years is both scant and
disparate. I'm not running a hand holding service here. It's the
responsibility of each and every individual to know the evidence.

> >> You have thrown a staggeringly broad statement into the
> >> ether, and expect us to accept it at face value.
>
> > I'm not expecting you to accept it.  I'm asking you to attempt to
> > dispute it knowing from my own experiences that that is very unlikely.
>
> Your experiences are what? You were there to observe behavior of early
> humans? On what do you base your assertions. And I for one don't think
> "experience" can be a basis.

Geez, do I have to spell out everything for you? My own experiences
are that I too have attempted to find evidence that disputes/
challenges the parsimony of my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis and,
like yourselves, my efforts have fallen short.

> >> I don't. Without going
> >> through the process I outlined, we have no way of knowing whether the
> >> assertion is correct or not.
>
> > It's like you are asking me to prove/demonstrate that water is wet.
>
> >> For instance, how are humans more communally territorial than ants? Than
> >> bees? Than wolves?
>
> > First things first.  Surely you don't dispute that they are more
> > communally territorialistic than chimpanzee, right?
>
> Not necessarily. Chimps claim and defend a piece of real estate and live
> in communal groups, the size of which are on a par with early humans.

It seems to me you are conceding my point. You say that early hominid
group size is on par with that of chimpanzee. Despite the fact that
we have no evidence to indicate one way or another I tend to agree
with you on this point. But I don't see you saying that early hominid
group size is on par with that of later hominids, which reason would
suggest would only be bigger.

> >> Well? How are we more communally territorial than any other animal.
>
> >> Although, actually, you wrote "species", so I suppose you also have to
> >> deal with bacteria and, for instance, corals.
>
> >>>> List five quantifiable ways animals can be communally territorialistic.
>
> > Do you dispute that water is wet?
>
> Well water is certainly wet, but it can be made wetter by the addition
> of chemicals (detergents).

If you say so.

Some people may have to find a larger sink.

[Claudius Denk]

What brings you to our forum, Trond. Is World of Warcraft on hiatus?

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> That's funny because to me it seems like it is neither.

It's not as funny as how you imagine a scenario sands
evidence, and don't even know it.

You can't read the minds of modern people, let alone
pre-human ancestors.

[Claudius Denk]

Since the evidence is a matter of public record no scenario is sans
(not sands) evidence. You statements about mind reading are just
stupid.

[VtSkier]

Public record of how people thought a million or more years ago?

[Claudius Denk]

Quote me directly you strawbaiting nitwit.

[VtSkier]

Well, I guess you've just shown that you are not worth trying to have a
rational conversation with.
<plonk>

[Tom McDonald]

Congratulations. You learned this much faster than I did.

[Claudius Denk]

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

[Claudius Denk]

Having myself tried to dispute my ecological gatekeeper hypothesis I
completely understand your frustration.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Since the evidence is a matter of public record

There isn't enough oxygen reaching your brain.

[Claudius Denk]

Yet, strangely, I seem to have formulated a hypothesis that you cannot
dispute and you have, well . . . what exactly is it you have?

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 9:23 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

Recent exchange...

You: I measure the value of a rhetorical question by the amount of trouble
my opponents have to go through to avoid answering it.

Degrees are good--for starters.

Me: What's yours?

Remember, you claim to be a scientist...

Waiting...

You: Keep waiting.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 1:03 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On 1/24/2012 2:12 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > Thank you for letting us know you don't know why real scientists use
> > Latin binomials. And, of course, that you prefer to be vague and evasive
> > in what you probably consider to be your genius scientific fashion.
>
> Well, Tom, instead of being continually frustrated by the fact that

> other people don't use words the way you want them to why don't you

Science defines the terms it uses so that all can work on the same page.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 6:39 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

> > On 1/24/2012 8:17 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > >> Thank you for letting us know you don't know why real scientists use
> > >> Latin binomials. And, of course, that you prefer to be vague and evasive
> > >> in what you probably consider to be your genius scientific fashion.
> >
> > > Well, Tom, instead of being continually frustrated by the fact that
> > > other people don't use words the way you want them to why don't you

> > > take the initiative and come up with your own scenario to describe the
> > > origins of hominid features and behaviors. It's way too easy to sit
> > > on the sidelines and nitpick. Why don't you, for example, put forth
> > > an explanation for the origins of bipedalism, manipulative abilities,
> > > communal territorialism, consciousness, communicative abilities. We
> > > all have access to the same evidence. You could, for example, offer
> > > up some kind of explanation for why tooth enamels evolved to be so
> > > thick and why we see the evidence of striations thereof. To me these
> > > seem like obvious indications of the onset of climate that has a
> > > significant dry season. What's your theory?
> >

> > Please identify, by Latin binomial, one hominid that shows such
> > thickened enamel and striations. That way I could have something with
> > which to work. Your vague observations are too nebulous to deal with
> > effectively.
>
> Do your own homework.

Who or what is "Oceania?" - Dimmie, begging others to do his homework

[RichTravsky]

Clod is Dense wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2:32 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> >
> > Evolution is traditionally viewed as layers.
>
> What? Layers?

Do your own homework. Your education is not our responsibility. Google
is you friend - all JimJim quotes

> > We are spoonfed
> > the notion of a linear progression, each step adding further
> > refinement. For human evolution, this no doubt occurred to
> > some extant to the micro level, but on a macro scale we are
> > not layers but a mosaic. We are a patchwork. Populations
> > split, evolved along their own separate paths and then later
> > came back together. No, not just in Europe or "Eurasia" but
> > everywhere, starting in Africa. Africa produced numerous
> > separate populations, many of them contributing to what
> > would become erectus... Neanderthal... the so-called
> > "Moderns"... us.
> >
> > Our ancestors did NOT stick to "Garden Habitats." Some
> > population that contributed to our present form most likely
> > did -- the set {Ancestors} would likely include them -- but
> > there were many other populations as well.
>
> You are not making an evidence based argument. Address the evidence.

What evidence are you using? Oh wait, you've said there isn't any

It's appears to not be necessary to support it.

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

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:

>
> On Jan 25, 7:10 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > > > Our ancestors did migrate. "Motivation" may be unknown
> > > > to us, but they did migrate and we know this for a fact. And
> > > > if you want to press the matter it gets even more complicated.
> >
> > > IOW, you don't have an evidence-based argument.
> >
> > This is perplexing to say the least. There is no scientific means
> > for ascertaining motives, and yet your "theory" (if I may
> > laughingly refer to it as such) is 100% dependent on your doing
> > just that.
>
> Well, no. My theory is just an attempt to explain the evidence. You
> should try it sometime.

What evidence is that?

It's appears to not be necessary to support it. - you

Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of

years ago. - you

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:

>
> On Jan 26, 4:31 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > This is perplexing to say the least. There is no scientific means
> > > > for ascertaining motives, and yet your "theory" (if I may
> > > > laughingly refer to it as such) is 100% dependent on your doing
> > > > just that.
> >
> > > Well, no. My theory is just an attempt to explain the evidence.
> >

> > No. There is ZERO evidence for what you imagine Nothing. There
> > is not one shred of evidence for the behavior you talk about. You
> > begin with your motive -- protecting resources -- and then simply
> > imagine the behavior that conforms to this.
>

> This is the typical argument I get from people that have no hypothesis
> of their own and who have no dispute with my hypothesis. Suddenly,
> when faced with a hypothesis they can't dispute, all of the evidence
> disappears from their consciousness. No longer can they acknowledge

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 7:50 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On 1/27/2012 9:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > >>> No longer can they acknowledge
> > >>> that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
> > >>> known to exist.
> >
> > >> Good. Finally a quantitative claim.
> >
> > >> Ok, what parameters do you use to quantify "communally
> > >> territorialistic"? Be specific.
> >
> > > Why bother. It's not like you have any dispute with the assertion,
> > > right?
> >
> > Of course I do!
>
> Actually, no you don't.
>
> > You have thrown a staggeringly broad statement into the
> > ether, and expect us to accept it at face value.
>
> I'm not expecting you to accept it. I'm asking you to attempt to
> dispute it knowing from my own experiences that that is very unlikely.

Easy to dispute, as we all have done repeatedly. You see, your own words
about evidence suffice:

It's appears to not be necessary to support it.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 8:38 am, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> > On 1/28/2012 1:03 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > >>>>> No longer can they acknowledge
> > >>>>> that humans are the most communally territorialistic species ever
> > >>>>> known to exist.
> >
> > >>>> Good. Finally a quantitative claim.
> >
> > >>>> Ok, what parameters do you use to quantify "communally
> > >>>> territorialistic"? Be specific.
> >
> > >>> Why bother. It's not like you have any dispute with the assertion,
> > >>> right?
> >
> > >> Of course I do!
> >
> > > Actually, no you don't.
> >
> > Well yes and no. He didn't disagree with you as such, he DID however,
> > ask for the source material for your assertion. That is a reasonable
> > questions which you should answer to stay in the discussion.
>
> The evidence for anything prior to 8 thousand years is both scant and
> disparate. I'm not running a hand holding service here. It's the
> responsibility of each and every individual to know the evidence.

And share it? Good. Then tell us a couple cites for the evidence you're using:

Oh wait, there isn't any!

It's appears to not be necessary to support it. - you

Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of

years ago. - you

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Yet, strangely, I seem to have formulated a hypothesis that you cannot
> dispute

How many more times do you have to say this
before you start believing it?

[Claudius Denk]

Keep working at it. Someday you'll have a point.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 27, 12:45 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 10:19 am, VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:


I suspect, however, that you may not be clear on the specifics of my
scenario, some of which were last mentioned years ago.  Sometime soon
I am gong to put forth a post that will link back to some of those
previous posts and allow you and others to get caught up.

See my newest post entitled: Links to Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 29, 7:59 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Yet, strangely, I seem to have formulated a hypothesis that you cannot
> dispute and you have, well . . . what exactly is it you have?

Message-ID: <a6fc2a3b-6d14-4244-8a1e-
ee59b8...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
McGinn (alias C. Denk): "Seasonal migration would
have been absolutely impossible for the earliest
hominids--A'pith."

Since A'piths ranged from Hadar to South Africa
and our tree-dependent cousins, chimps/gorillas,
did not it is impossible to falsify the
possibility A'piths migrated to South Africa on
the grasslands.

The evidence at Laetoli shows the tracks were made
on a migration trail and the isotopes of their teeth
show they were eating C4 (savanna) grass or eating
something that was eating C4 grass (like the migrating
fauna who made the trails in the first place).

Message-ID: <a6fc2a3b-6d14-4244-8a1e-
ee59b8...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
McGinn (alias C. Denk): "They were completely
dependent on trees to evade predators."

Predators defined by McGinn as being:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=53654
"lions, tigers, hyenas, dogs, etc."

The claim of lions and tigers 7 mya can be construed as
nothing less than falsifying data.

One might evade a dog by climing a tree, but since
lions or tigers had not evolved 7 mya, and the ancestors
of panthera could climb trees, one can be sure A'piths were
not tree dependent anymore than baboons are today,
even though baboons can climb trees, they do just
fine on the grasslands also.

Jan 23, 7:19 am
McGinn (alias C. Denk): "My hypothesis describes a shift
to pest control agricultrure, communal territorialism as
a strategy to survive the dry season and its dramatic
predatory implications."

Since the evidence at Laetoli clearly shows hominids were not
present during the dry season, there were no communities of
hominids left to shift to territorialism at that location.

Without a permanent source of water (and a dry season lasting
most of the year) it would be impossible for year-round
garden-like occupation for hominids at Laetoli, territorial,
communal,
or otherwise.

"Thus, the balance of evidence suggests that the Laetoli
paleoenvironment was predominantly open woodland, with
significant portions of open bushland, shrubland,
and grassland (Su and Harrison 2008:7)."

"Reconstructed depositional environments and the absence of
aquatic elements in the fauna and flora at Laetoli indicate that there
were no permanent rivers or lakes. Water sources were apparently
restricted to springs and small seasonal rivers, streams, and ponds
(Hay, 1981, 1987; Harris, 1987; Bonnevlle and Riollet, 1987:8)."

Denise F. Su, Terry Harrison
Ecological implications of the relative rarity of fossil hominins at
Laetoli
Journal of Human Evolution 55 (2008) 672–681

[JTEM]

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

Hey, you dumb spazz, I figured that as you're
in full psycho mode anyway, I might as well
tell you what a fucking douche you are...

> Message-ID: <a6fc2a3b-6d14-4244-8a1e-
> ee59b8141...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
> McGinn

So, like, how's that working out for you? Re-re-re-re
-re-re-re-re-posting shit that you never understood
in the first place? Cleared everything up, has it?

Fine. That's fine.

Anyhow, please chew on a high voltage line. Thanks
in advance.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 29, 7:59 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Yet, strangely, I seem to have formulated a hypothesis that you cannot
> dispute and you have, well . . . what exactly is it you have?

Message-ID: <a6fc2a3b-6d14-4244-8a1e-

ee59b8141...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>

McGinn (alias C. Denk): "Seasonal migration would
have been absolutely impossible for the earliest
hominids--A'pith."

Since A'piths ranged from Hadar to South Africa
and our tree-dependent cousins, chimps/gorillas,
did not it is impossible to falsify the
possibility A'piths migrated to South Africa on
the grasslands.


The evidence at Laetoli shows the tracks were made
on a migration trail and the isotopes of their teeth
show they were eating C4 (savanna) grass or eating
something that was eating C4 grass (like the migrating
fauna who made the trails in the first place).


Message-ID: <a6fc2a3b-6d14-4244-8a1e-

ee59b8141...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>

On Jan 31, 5:45 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fine. That's fine.

Thanks, I kind of thought so too.

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]

As Jimmie runs from his humiliation.

[Claudius Denk]

There is nothing here that is not consistent with garden habitat being
in the vicinity. Nothing. Deal with it.

[Claudius Denk]

[Claudius Denk]

Yep. Keep waiting.

[Lee Olsen]

There is nothing here that is consistent with garden habitat being

in the vicinity. Nothing. Deal with it.

> There is nothing here that is not consistent with garden habitat being
> in the vicinity.  Nothing.  Deal with it.

There is nothing there that is not consistent with mythical
creatures being
in the vicinity. Nothing.

Where is this mythical garden habitat during the lengthy dry season,
maybe a person could find it with other mythical evidence like tigers
and unicorns?

[Claudius Denk]

You vague-minded anthro groupies can never formulate much of an
argument. Why do you even bother?

[Lee Olsen]

McGinn: "...lions, tigers, hyenas, dogs, etc."

I guess you are an expert on vagueness.

>-minded anthro groupies can never formulate much of an
> argument.

Well, you are also an expert on formulating mythical creatures.

> Why do you even bother?

You missed your calling, you should be a movie producer:
'McGrimm's Fairy Tales II' would be a catchy title.
You would probably rake in millions.

[Claudius Denk]

Instead of just whining all the time why not just explain to us the
lifestyle of pre-homo erectus hominids as you envision it? And how do
you explain the apparent -inability 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]

Thanks for the admission you aren't a scientist as you claimed. In
your upsidedown world of mythical creatures referenced evidence
becomes whining.

McGinn: "Thanks in advance for any and all well-thought-out, non-
emotional, content
oriented, non-dismissive, non ad hominen, and discussion oriented
comments."

So in the face of referenced facts you resort to flame baiting. Now
why don't you take your McGrimm's fairy tales
over to a UFO forum?

[Claudius Denk]

Do you think it's not obvious that you are completely evading my
questions, you fruit loop.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 8, 3:51 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Do you think it's not obvious that you are completely evading my
> questions, you fruit loop.

I'm evading your mythical creatures and your mythical just-so
stories.
Who do you think I am, your mother? Your education is your
responsibility.

Name calling is the only argument you ever had.

[RichTravsky]

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

Do you think it's not obvious that you are completely evading my

questions, you fruit loop. - you

Why come to a discussion group if you don't want to discuss anything?

So, once again - What evidence is that?

[RichTravsky]

Do you think it's not obvious that you are completely evading my
questions, you fruit loop. - you

Why come to a discussion group if you don't want to discuss anything?

A real scientist would not be afraid to answer such a simple question.

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]