Bovid Mortality profiles indicate (ambush) Hunting 1.8mya

[RichTravsky]

(Scroll down a bit, or search on "bovid mortality")

http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf

Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
Henry Bunn, Travis Pickering, Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo

Paleoanthropologists seeking to reconstruct the meat-foraging capabilities
of early Pleistocene Homo have for the past several decades relied on two
principal classes of evidence: bone surface modifications and skeletal
element profiles. Bone surface modifications reveal some aspects of what
happened to large mammal fossils at early archaeological sites from butchery
by tool-using hominins, from carnivore feeding, and from other taphonomic
processes. Skeletal element profiles indicate whether the nutritionally best
elements or lesser carcass parts were available, and based on abundance and
proportions, whether bones accumulated in situ or from intentional, repeated
transport to preferred locations. Debates over the behavioral meaning of
particular archaeological patterns has inspired considerable actualistic
research to establish cause and effect relationships with greater clarity,
but lingering arguments of equifinality still yield interpretive impasse on
aspects of hominin meat-foraging capabilities. A few researchers still
allege that early Homo achieved no more than marginal passive scavenging of
felid-killed carcass remnants, but there is now compelling evidence of much
more sophisticated meat-foraging behavior by early Homo, including selective
ambush hunting. We add a third, decisive class of evidence - mortality
profiles of butchered prey animals from our studies of early Pleistocene
African sites - to effectively falsify any remnants of passive scavenging
hypotheses. One aspect of our team's current research at Olduvai Gorge
involves expanded excavations of key Bed I/II sites dating from 1.85-1.2 Ma,
to increase dental samples for combined mortality analysis with assemblages
from the Leakey's prior work. We have documented age at death of diverse
fossil mammals at each site using tooth eruption and occlusal wear and
grouped those data into a percentage of juveniles, prime adults, and old
adults at each site for plotting and analysis on modified triangular graphs.
We develop testable hypotheses for different scavenging and hunting
reconstructions for testing with mortality data. The FLK Zinj site, 1.84 Ma,
provides the largest and most anthropogenic site known from Olduvai
(possibly excepting BK). To test the passive scavenging hypothesis, or any
scavenging hypothesis, we argue: If early Homo scavenged from felid kills,
specifically of lions and leopards, then mortality profiles at FLK Zinj
should match what lions and leopards are known to kill based on modern
research. Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
adults. This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
most reasonable working hypothesis.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 23, 9:58 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (Scroll down a bit, or search on "bovid mortality")
>
> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>
> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
> Henry Bunn, Travis Pickering, Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo
>

> . . . lingering arguments of equifinality still yield interpretive impasse on

> aspects of hominin meat-foraging capabilities.

> . . . there is now compelling evidence of much

> more sophisticated meat-foraging behavior by early Homo, including selective
> ambush hunting.

> We add a third, decisive class of evidence - mortality
> profiles of butchered prey animals from our studies of early Pleistocene
> African sites - to effectively falsify any remnants of passive scavenging
> hypotheses.

Yay!

> We have documented age at death of diverse
> fossil mammals at each site using tooth eruption and occlusal wear and
> grouped those data into a percentage of juveniles, prime adults, and old
> adults at each site for plotting and analysis on modified triangular graphs.

> Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
> between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
> at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
> Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
> males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
> adults.

> This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
> larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
> first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
> running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
> most reasonable working hypothesis.

IOW, the results are inconsistent with them
(early homo) being long distance running,
nomadic hunters. It is consistent with them
being communally territorialistic, ambush
hunters, as is the case with my Ecological
Gatekeeper Hypothesis. They didn't go
chasing prey. They didn't need to. They
waited for the prey to enter their territory
(especially during the dry season) and they
took them by surprise in a coordinated
manner, many individuals attacking at once.
It may be the case that they originally
developed this behavior to take advantage of
bovids that were severely weakened by the
conditions of the dry season.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 24, 3:52 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:58 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > (Scroll down a bit, or search on "bovid mortality")
>
> >http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>
> > Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> > capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
> > Henry Bunn, Travis Pickering, Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo
>
> > . . . lingering arguments of equifinality still yield interpretive impasse on
> > aspects of hominin meat-foraging capabilities.
> > . . . there is now compelling evidence of much
> > more sophisticated meat-foraging behavior by early Homo, including selective
> > ambush hunting.
> > We add a third, decisive class of evidence - mortality
> > profiles of butchered prey animals from our studies of early Pleistocene
> > African sites - to effectively falsify any remnants of passive scavenging
> > hypotheses.
>
> Yay!

I second that, Yay!....not one word about agriculture, territories, or
African tigers.

>
> > We have documented age at death of diverse
> > fossil mammals at each site using tooth eruption and occlusal wear and
> > grouped those data into a percentage of juveniles, prime adults, and old
> > adults at each site for plotting and analysis on modified triangular graphs.
> > Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
> > between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
> > at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
> > Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
> > males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
> > adults.
> > This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
> > larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
> > first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
> > running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
> > most reasonable working hypothesis.
>
> IOW, the results are inconsistent with them
> (early homo) being long distance running,

Ah, what you are looking at is indirect evidence, hunting and biased
by water. Morphology is direct, sorry:
http://tinyurl.com/ahxe4f
"The Achilles tendon is the single strongest tendon in the human
body.
The primary function of the Achilles tendon is to transmit the power
of the calf to the foot enabling walking and running. If it has to do
with
upright, bipedal motion, the Achilles tendon is a part of that
activity."

and of course, how long have hominids been running? This long.
http://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt

> nomadic hunters.  It is consistent with them
> being communally territorialistic, ambush
> hunters, as is the case with my Ecological
> Gatekeeper Hypothesis.

The Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy says nothing about "Olduvai Gorge"
and the key sites

" Bed I/II sites dating from 1.85-1.2 Ma,"

> They didn't go
> chasing prey.  They didn't need to.  They
> waited for the prey to enter their territory

By the time of this study (which is all about meat eating and nothing
about garden-like patches) big Homo runners were already well
established outside of any imaginary territory.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/lower/dmanisi/dmanisi_postcrania_nature_2007.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/d3vfwcr

Bluntly put, the Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy explains nothing about
the evolution of the Achilles tendon or why someone sitting around
camp would even need large Achilles tendons at all.

Let's face it Jim, the Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy is nothing more
than a monument to vagueness.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_running_humans_2.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/cb9st9

You really should learn to look at all the available evidence, not
just filter out what you need.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 25, 8:00 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 3:52 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > > . . . there is now compelling evidence of much
> > > more sophisticated meat-foraging behavior by early Homo, including selective
> > > ambush hunting.
> > > We add a third, decisive class of evidence - mortality
> > > profiles of butchered prey animals from our studies of early Pleistocene
> > > African sites - to effectively falsify any remnants of passive scavenging
> > > hypotheses.
>
> > Yay!
>
> I second that, Yay!....not one word about agriculture, territories, or
> African tigers.

Facts mean nothing to a science groupie. Even when the evidence
plainly show them wrong they are sure they are right.

> > > We have documented age at death of diverse
> > > fossil mammals at each site using tooth eruption and occlusal wear and
> > > grouped those data into a percentage of juveniles, prime adults, and old
> > > adults at each site for plotting and analysis on modified triangular graphs.
> > > Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
> > > between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
> > > at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
> > > Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
> > > males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
> > > adults.
> > > This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
> > > larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
> > > first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
> > > running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
> > > most reasonable working hypothesis.
>
> > IOW, the results are inconsistent with them
> > (early homo) being long distance running,
>
> Ah, what you are looking at is indirect evidence, hunting and biased
> by water.

By water?

> Morphology is direct, sorry:http://tinyurl.com/ahxe4f
> "The Achilles tendon is the single strongest tendon in the human
> body.
> The primary function of the Achilles tendon is to transmit the power
> of the calf to the foot enabling walking and running. If it has to do
> with
>  upright, bipedal motion, the Achilles tendon is a part of that
> activity."

Absurd logic.

> and of course, how long have hominids been running? This long.http://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt

>
> > nomadic hunters.  It is consistent with them
> > being communally territorialistic, ambush
> > hunters, as is the case with my Ecological
> > Gatekeeper Hypothesis.
>
> The Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy says nothing about "Olduvai Gorge"
> and the key sites
> " Bed I/II sites dating from 1.85-1.2 Ma,"

EGH is applicable.

> > They didn't go
> > chasing prey.  They didn't need to.  They
> > waited for the prey to enter their territory
>
> By the time of this study (which is all about meat eating and nothing
> about garden-like patches) big Homo runners  were already well

> established outside of any imaginary territory.http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/lower/dmanisi/dmanisi_postcrania_...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/d3vfwcr

You are delusional.

>
> Bluntly put, the Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy explains nothing about
> the evolution of the Achilles tendon  or why someone sitting around
> camp would even need large Achilles tendons at all.
>
> Let's face it Jim, the Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy is nothing more
> than a monument to vagueness.
>

> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_running_h...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/cb9st9

>
> You really should learn to look at all the available evidence, not
> just filter out what you need.

Sour grapes.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 25, 8:38 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 8:00 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 3:52 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > . . . there is now compelling evidence of much
> > > > more sophisticated meat-foraging behavior by early Homo, including selective
> > > > ambush hunting.
> > > > We add a third, decisive class of evidence - mortality
> > > > profiles of butchered prey animals from our studies of early Pleistocene
> > > > African sites - to effectively falsify any remnants of passive scavenging
> > > > hypotheses.
>
> > > Yay!
>
> > I second that, Yay!....not one word about agriculture, territories, or
> > African tigers.
>
> Facts mean nothing to a science groupie.

Too bad you don't have any to share.

>  Even when the evidence
> plainly show them wrong they are sure they are right.

Your lights are on, but nobody's home.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > We have documented age at death of diverse
> > > > fossil mammals at each site using tooth eruption and occlusal wear and
> > > > grouped those data into a percentage of juveniles, prime adults, and old
> > > > adults at each site for plotting and analysis on modified triangular graphs.
> > > > Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
> > > > between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
> > > > at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
> > > > Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
> > > > males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
> > > > adults.
> > > > This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
> > > > larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
> > > > first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
> > > > running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
> > > > most reasonable working hypothesis.
>
> > > IOW, the results are inconsistent with them
> > > (early homo) being long distance running,
>
> > Ah, what you are looking at is indirect evidence, hunting and biased
> > by water.
>
> By water?

Do you think bones fossilize in the air?

>
> > Morphology is direct, sorry:http://tinyurl.com/ahxe4f
> > "The Achilles tendon is the single strongest tendon in the human
> > body.
> > The primary function of the Achilles tendon is to transmit the power
> > of the calf to the foot enabling walking and running. If it has to do
> > with
> >  upright, bipedal motion, the Achilles tendon is a part of that
> > activity."
>
> Absurd logic.

Try running without them. Of course those salad-eating chimps don't
need large Achillies tendons living in their gaden-like rain forest.
Are you sure you haven't got the wrong species in your EG scenario?

>
> > and of course, how long have hominids been running? This long.http://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt

No comment, I wonder why?

>
> > > nomadic hunters.  It is consistent with them
> > > being communally territorialistic, ambush
> > > hunters, as is the case with my Ecological
> > > Gatekeeper Hypothesis.
>
> > The Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy says nothing about "Olduvai Gorge"
> > and the key sites
> > " Bed I/II sites dating from 1.85-1.2 Ma,"
>
> EGH is applicable.

Data free, did you have something to say?

>
> > > They didn't go
> > > chasing prey.  They didn't need to.  They
> > > waited for the prey to enter their territory
>
> > By the time of this study (which is all about meat eating and nothing
> > about garden-like patches) big Homo runners  were already well
> > established outside of any imaginary territory.http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/lower/dmanisi/dmanisi_postcrania_...
> > orhttp://tinyurl.com/d3vfwcr
>
> You are delusional.

That may be, but Hawks at least can make a living at anthropology and
publish in real journals....not something you can say for yourself.

> > Bluntly put, the Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy explains nothing about
> > the evolution of the Achilles tendon  or why someone sitting around
> > camp would even need large Achilles tendons at all.

No comment again. Compare the salad-eating great apes Achillies
tendons with those of Homo and it all becomes perfectly clear.

>
> > Let's face it Jim, the Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy is nothing more
> > than a monument to vagueness.

>
> >http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_running_h...
> > orhttp://tinyurl.com/cb9st9
>
> > You really should learn to look at all the available evidence, not
> > just filter out what you need.
>
> Sour grapes.

That's what chimps eat in their patrolled, garden-like territories.


"The Turkana boy tells us that early H. erectus, besides being a tall
biped,
had arms and legs proportioned like a modern human's. For his height,
his
arms were not as long as those of Lucy, Lucy's Child or so far as we
know,
any other prior hominid. He lacked the apish details that, in earlier
bipeds,
suggest occasional tree climbing. The legs and hip bones of Homo
erectus
were buttressed by tremendous thickness and bulges, which denotes a
body geared toward endurance walking and running. An exclusive pact
had
been made with the terrestrial realm, and the boy's legs were
equipped to
cover ground in strides protracted in both length and hours."
Richard Potts from Humanity's Descent

You have a nice day now, Jim.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 25, 10:22 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 8:38 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > > > > . . . there is now compelling evidence of much
> > > > > more sophisticated meat-foraging behavior by early Homo, including selective
> > > > > ambush hunting.
> > > > > We add a third, decisive class of evidence - mortality
> > > > > profiles of butchered prey animals from our studies of early Pleistocene
> > > > > African sites - to effectively falsify any remnants of passive scavenging
> > > > > hypotheses.
>
> > > > Yay!
>
> > > I second that, Yay!....not one word about agriculture, territories, or
> > > African tigers.
>
> > Facts mean nothing to a science groupie.
>
> Too bad you don't have any to share.
>
> >  Even when the evidence
> > plainly show them wrong they are sure they are right.
>
> Your lights are on, but nobody's home.

Facts are irrelevant to a true believer.

> > > > > We have documented age at death of diverse
> > > > > fossil mammals at each site using tooth eruption and occlusal wear and
> > > > > grouped those data into a percentage of juveniles, prime adults, and old
> > > > > adults at each site for plotting and analysis on modified triangular graphs.
> > > > > Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
> > > > > between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
> > > > > at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
> > > > > Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
> > > > > males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
> > > > > adults.
> > > > > This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
> > > > > larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
> > > > > first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
> > > > > running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
> > > > > most reasonable working hypothesis.
>
> > > > IOW, the results are inconsistent with them
> > > > (early homo) being long distance running,
>
> > > Ah, what you are looking at is indirect evidence, hunting and biased
> > > by water.
>
> > By water?
>
>  Do you think bones fossilize in the air?

Tell us your point or kindly go away.

> > > Morphology is direct, sorry:http://tinyurl.com/ahxe4f
> > > "The Achilles tendon is the single strongest tendon in the human
> > > body.
> > > The primary function of the Achilles tendon is to transmit the power
> > > of the calf to the foot enabling walking and running. If it has to do
> > > with
> > >  upright, bipedal motion, the Achilles tendon is a part of that
> > > activity."
>
> > Absurd logic.
>
>  Try running without them.  Of course those salad-eating chimps don't
> need large Achillies tendons living in their gaden-like rain forest.
> Are you sure you haven't got the wrong species in your EG scenario?

You got nothing.

> > > and of course, how long have hominids been running? This long.http://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt
>
> No comment, I wonder why?

It's your fantasy.

> > > > nomadic hunters.  It is consistent with them
> > > > being communally territorialistic, ambush
> > > > hunters, as is the case with my Ecological
> > > > Gatekeeper Hypothesis.
>
> > > The Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy says nothing about "Olduvai Gorge"
> > > and the key sites
> > > " Bed I/II sites dating from 1.85-1.2 Ma,"
>
> > EGH is applicable.
>
> Data free, did you have something to say?

*All* the relevant data points to and/or confirms the validity of my
EGH. None of the data confirms your silly long distance running/
hunting hominid notions.

> > > > They didn't go
> > > > chasing prey.  They didn't need to.  They
> > > > waited for the prey to enter their territory
>
> > > By the time of this study (which is all about meat eating and nothing
> > > about garden-like patches) big Homo runners  were already well
> > > established outside of any imaginary territory.http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/lower/dmanisi/dmanisi_postcrania_...
> > > orhttp://tinyurl.com/d3vfwcr
>
> > You are delusional.
>
> That may be, but Hawks at least can make a living at anthropology and
> publish in real journals....not something you can say for yourself.

Who cares.

> > > Bluntly put, the Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy explains nothing about
> > > the evolution of the Achilles tendon  or why someone sitting around
> > > camp would even need large Achilles tendons at all.
>
> No comment again. Compare the salad-eating great apes Achillies
> tendons with those of Homo and it all becomes perfectly clear.

Your desperation is all that is clear here.

> > > Let's face it Jim, the Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy is nothing more
> > > than a monument to vagueness.
>
> > >http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_running_h...
> > > orhttp://tinyurl.com/cb9st9
>
> > > You really should learn to look at all the available evidence, not
> > > just filter out what you need.
>
> > Sour grapes.
>
> That's what chimps eat in their patrolled, garden-like territories.

Relevance? Keep in mind that our audience does not have direct access
to your imagination.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 25, 2:32 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 10:22 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 8:38 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > > . . . there is now compelling evidence of much
> > > > > > more sophisticated meat-foraging behavior by early Homo, including selective
> > > > > > ambush hunting.
> > > > > > We add a third, decisive class of evidence - mortality
> > > > > > profiles of butchered prey animals from our studies of early Pleistocene
> > > > > > African sites - to effectively falsify any remnants of passive scavenging
> > > > > > hypotheses.
>
> > > > > Yay!
>
> > > > I second that, Yay!....not one word about agriculture, territories, or
> > > > African tigers.
>
> > > Facts mean nothing to a science groupie.
>
> > Too bad you don't have any to share.
>
> > >  Even when the evidence
> > > plainly show them wrong they are sure they are right.
>
> > Your lights are on, but nobody's home.
>
> Facts are irrelevant to a true believer.

What facts are those, the facts of your vagueness?

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > We have documented age at death of diverse
> > > > > > fossil mammals at each site using tooth eruption and occlusal wear and
> > > > > > grouped those data into a percentage of juveniles, prime adults, and old
> > > > > > adults at each site for plotting and analysis on modified triangular graphs.
> > > > > > Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
> > > > > > between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
> > > > > > at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
> > > > > > Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
> > > > > > males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
> > > > > > adults.
> > > > > > This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
> > > > > > larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
> > > > > > first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
> > > > > > running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
> > > > > > most reasonable working hypothesis.
>
> > > > > IOW, the results are inconsistent with them
> > > > > (early homo) being long distance running,
>
> > > > Ah, what you are looking at is indirect evidence, hunting and biased
> > > > by water.
>
> > > By water?
>
> >  Do you think bones fossilize in the air?
>
> Tell us your point or kindly go away.

Stop asking asinine questions or kindly go away.

>
> > > > Morphology is direct, sorry:http://tinyurl.com/ahxe4f
> > > > "The Achilles tendon is the single strongest tendon in the human
> > > > body.
> > > > The primary function of the Achilles tendon is to transmit the power
> > > > of the calf to the foot enabling walking and running. If it has to do
> > > > with
> > > >  upright, bipedal motion, the Achilles tendon is a part of that
> > > > activity."
>
> > > Absurd logic.
>
> >  Try running without them.  Of course those salad-eating chimps don't
> > need large Achillies tendons living in their gaden-like rain forest.
> > Are you sure you haven't got the wrong species in your EG scenario?
>
> You got nothing.

Your ignorance is showing again.

>
> > > > and of course, how long have hominids been running? This long.http://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt
>
> > No comment, I wonder why?
>
> It's your fantasy.

You should know about those better than anyone.

>
> > > > > nomadic hunters.  It is consistent with them
> > > > > being communally territorialistic, ambush
> > > > > hunters, as is the case with my Ecological
> > > > > Gatekeeper Hypothesis.
>
> > > > The Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy says nothing about "Olduvai Gorge"
> > > > and the key sites
> > > > " Bed I/II sites dating from 1.85-1.2 Ma,"
>
> > > EGH is applicable.
>
> > Data free, did you have something to say?
>
> *All* the relevant data points to and/or confirms the validity of my
> EGH.
> None of the data confirms your silly long distance running/
> hunting hominid notions.

More verbiage.

>
> > > > > They didn't go
> > > > > chasing prey.  They didn't need to.  They
> > > > > waited for the prey to enter their territory
>
> > > > By the time of this study (which is all about meat eating and nothing
> > > > about garden-like patches) big Homo runners  were already well
> > > > established outside of any imaginary territory.http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/lower/dmanisi/dmanisi_postcrania_...
> > > > orhttp://tinyurl.com/d3vfwcr
>
> > > You are delusional.
>
> > That may be, but Hawks at least can make a living at anthropology and
> > publish in real journals....not something you can say for yourself.
>
> Who cares.

Even if you aren't, try acting like a world-class evolutionary
theorist.

>
> > > > Bluntly put, the Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy explains nothing about
> > > > the evolution of the Achilles tendon  or why someone sitting around
> > > > camp would even need large Achilles tendons at all.
>
> > No comment again. Compare the salad-eating great apes Achillies
> > tendons with those of Homo and it all becomes perfectly clear.
>
> Your desperation is all that is clear here.

IOW, another no comment.

>
> > > > Let's face it Jim, the Ecological Gatekeeper Fallacy is nothing more
> > > > than a monument to vagueness.

The truth hurts, eh?

>
> > > >http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_running_h...
> > > > orhttp://tinyurl.com/cb9st9
>
> > > > You really should learn to look at all the available evidence, not
> > > > just filter out what you need.
>
> > > Sour grapes.
>
> > That's what chimps eat in their patrolled, garden-like territories.
>
> Relevance?  Keep in mind that our audience does not have direct access
> to your imagination.

Well, we certainly have access to yours.

[JTEM]

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen wrote:

> I second that, Yay!....not one word about
> agriculture, territories, or
> African tigers.

Hi, psycho! It usually takes you one or two
replies before spazzing out, but as we see in
that other thread it took exactly ZERO this
time. Not even one. You went mental, switched
to the "Lee Olsen" handle and posted your idiocy
after exactly ZERO responses.

Congratulations. I'm sure your mental institution
must be proud of you.

P.S. Why precisely does the type of large cat
matter? You clearly think it does -- making
numerous references to it over the years -- but
you never explained why you think it matters.

Could you swallow some meds and try to explain?

Thanks in advance, you twisted freak.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 25, 5:16 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fuck,
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
Sept 23, 10:20 pm
JTEM: "We weren't
us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
according to all the data."

http://tinyurl.com/cs2e8pg

[JTEM]

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen wrote:

[--I.P. Addresses that aren't mine--]

So, spazz, is Alaska still in Asia?

Oops, silly me: I meant "NE Asia."

Anyhow, is it still there or has it moved
yet? And did you finally figure out what
"Lip Service" means? No? Well, you are
fucked up...

Anyhow, those aren't my I.P. Address. And,
even if you somehow got something right
once in your life (which you didn't), how is
this going to change the fact that you are
a troll?

You know you're a troll. I know you're a troll.
And, yeah, we both know that you're a sick fuck
who posts under many personalities...

What on earth do you think you're changing, and
how?

Even if you fooled the whole world -- which
you haven't -- you still know you're an idiot
with a severe personality disorder. that can't
change. You won't let it.

i mean, just look at your obsession with me!

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 26, 9:15 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fuck
>

> i mean, just look at your obsession with me!

http://tinyurl.com/4v2ed4s
>Like I said, go on: Jump!
http://tinyurl.com/7vflru7

Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:36:39 -0800 (PST)
JTEM wrote:
>You must cut open your tongue with a razor.

Yes, I agree, the FBI must be notified.

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 28, 12:05 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fuck

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

Message-ID: <87ocvgs2...@nospam.pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009

"JTEM is repeating a number of his lies, hoping some will
stick including

1. lies about my identity (Bill Taylor is someone
else.)

(and, depending on the post)

2. lies about what I posted.

3. lies about what a discussion is about.

The extent to which he is lying is strong evidence that
he is in fact a pathlogical liar. He has reduced himself
to figuratively getting into bed with Bill Taylor, one of
the most rabid homophobes plaguing this/these newsgroups
while pretending to be just the opposite.

And he's been complaining that I'm giving him a default
response when he posts the same lies over and over in spite
of the obvious fact that he is posting his garbage merely
as harassment (and possibly as an indication that he suffers
from Tourette syndrome given the language he often uses).

Until he has something substantial to contribute and can
express himself civilly, this idiot will get this canned
reply."

Yep, same sick routine, different list, different person attacked.
JTEM, obviously, is pleading for help all over the net.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Sep 23, 9:58 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > (Scroll down a bit, or search on "bovid mortality")
> >
> > http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
> >
> > Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> > capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
> > Henry Bunn, Travis Pickering, Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo
> >
>
> > . . . lingering arguments of equifinality still yield interpretive impasse on
> > aspects of hominin meat-foraging capabilities.
>
> > . . . there is now compelling evidence of much
> > more sophisticated meat-foraging behavior by early Homo, including selective
> > ambush hunting.
>
> > We add a third, decisive class of evidence - mortality
> > profiles of butchered prey animals from our studies of early Pleistocene
> > African sites - to effectively falsify any remnants of passive scavenging
> > hypotheses.
>
> Yay!

Why? It doesn't preclude scavenging since humans can and do scavenge. It
only means that at this site it wasn't a major factor.

> > We have documented age at death of diverse
> > fossil mammals at each site using tooth eruption and occlusal wear and
> > grouped those data into a percentage of juveniles, prime adults, and old
> > adults at each site for plotting and analysis on modified triangular graphs.
>
> > Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
> > between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
> > at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
> > Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
> > males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
> > adults.
>
> > This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
> > larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
> > first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
> > running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
> > most reasonable working hypothesis.
>
> IOW, the results are inconsistent with them
> (early homo) being long distance running,
> nomadic hunters. It is consistent with them

No where is running precluded.

> being communally territorialistic, ambush
> hunters, as is the case with my Ecological
> Gatekeeper Hypothesis. They didn't go

This isn't "agriculture". It's hunting. Please learn the differnce.

> chasing prey. They didn't need to. They
> waited for the prey to enter their territory
> (especially during the dry season) and they

Why the dry season?

> took them by surprise in a coordinated
> manner, many individuals attacking at once.
> It may be the case that they originally
> developed this behavior to take advantage of
> bovids that were severely weakened by the
> conditions of the dry season.

Which would be... scavenging.

[JTEM]

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 28, 10:14 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Claudius Denk wrote:


> > > (Scroll down a bit, or search on "bovid mortality")
>
> > >http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>
> > > Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> > > capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

> > > Henry Bunn, Travis Pickering, Manuel Dom nguez-Rodrigo

>
> > > . . . lingering arguments of equifinality still yield interpretive impasse on
> > > aspects of hominin meat-foraging capabilities.
>
> > > . . . there is now compelling evidence of much
> > > more sophisticated meat-foraging behavior by early Homo, including selective
> > > ambush hunting.
>
> > > We add a third, decisive class of evidence - mortality
> > > profiles of butchered prey animals from our studies of early Pleistocene
> > > African sites - to effectively falsify any remnants of passive scavenging
> > > hypotheses.
>
> > Yay!
>
> Why?

Because it's a dumb theory/hypothesis.

> It doesn't preclude scavenging since humans can and do scavenge. It
> only means that at this site it wasn't a major factor.

The realization that, as scavengers, hominids would have to be
competing with bear-sized hyena pretty much puts that theory to rest.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 28, 10:20 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fuck
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

>    [--I.P. Addresses that aren't mine--]

So, chocolate licker, what difference would that make?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sock%20puppet
sock puppet
1: A fake personality, usually a 'friend' or 'sister,' created by a
drama queen/king for the sake of defending him/herself against others
in an online forum.

2: Someone who might be an actual person but behaves like the above,
defending someone who really deserves no defense.

>
> So, spazz, is Alaska still in Asia?

So, chocolate licker, still talking to yourself?

[JTEM]

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen wrote:

[---Insane rant---]

We both know that you suffer from
a severe personality disorder, that
you post under numerous names,
numerous personalities.

This is a fact. We both know it.

Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
you keep posting were mine (and they
are not), that couldn't change a thing.
You're still a mentally disturbed troll.
You still suffer from a severe
personality disorder, you still post
under a number of identities, a number
of different personalities.

...every last one of them a goddamn
idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
out this much on your own!

[Lee Olsen]

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

On Sep 30, 12:29 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fuck

A perfect example of sock puppet mentality.

> We both know that
only a sicko would make posts like this:

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 30, 11:33 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
> you keep posting were mine

Who cares if you used some other IP, a sock puppet is still a sock
puppet no matter what IP is used:

Received: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.archaeology
Subject: Look, everyone, look!
From: Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
>I need only crank the organ and the monkey will dance!

Mar 24, 5:23 pm
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Cranking your organ is the only job you ever had.

JTEM replies with this classic Freudian slip (forgetting to use his
'Seth' handle and using "I" instead):

On Mar 25, 5:03 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you a sick fuck because you sexualize everything
> I say, or do you sexualize everything I say because
> you're a sick fuck?

Everything "I" say? What happened to sock puppet 'Seth' who made the
post?
JTEM has proven himself to be the dumbest sock puppet and the biggest
liar on the planet.

JTEM 12 Dec 2007 04:18 GMT
"I've also posted many, many, many other "fake" articles in
other groups, which few people didn't recognize as parody.
Yes, even when posted under a different name people had
no problems seeing that they were parodies."

[JTEM]

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen wrote:
[---Insane rant---]

We both know that you suffer from
a severe personality disorder, that
you post under numerous names,
numerous personalities.

This is a fact. We both know it.

Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 1, 10:13 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
> you keep posting were mine (and they
> are not),

So what? That has some meaning in the real world where anyone can use
multiple IPs?

> ...every last one of them a goddamn
> idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
> out this much on your own!

Oh really?

Watch JTEM forget that he posted using one of his many sock puppets
(in this case Seth Dwight) , then answers my reply using the usual
pseud JTEM, forgetting to morph back into sock puppet Seth:

Received: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.archaeology
Subject: Look, everyone, look!
From: Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
>I need only crank the organ and the monkey will dance!

Mar 24, 5:23 pm
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Cranking your organ is the only job you ever had.

JTEM replies with this classic Freudian slip (forgetting to use his
'Seth' handle and using "I" instead):

On Mar 25, 5:03 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you a sick fuck because you sexualize everything
> I say, or do you sexualize everything I say because
> you're a sick fuck?

Everything "I" say? What happened to sock puppet 'Seth' who made the
post?

JTEM has proven himself to be the dumbest sock puppet on the planet.

JTEM 12 Dec 2007 04:18 GMT
"I've also posted many, many, many other "fake" articles in
other groups, which few people didn't recognize as parody.
Yes, even when posted under a different name people had
no problems seeing that they were parodies."

Multiple IPs, multiple emails, multiple-personality disorder.
Yes, just the type the FBI is looking for.

[JTEM]

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

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
> > you keep posting were mine (and they
> > are not),
>
> So what? That has some meaning in the real world where anyone can use
> multiple IPs?

So I.P. Addresses that aren't mine are the
same as I.P. Addresses which are.

Man, you're truly fucked up.

Ironically, you ARE a mentally ill twat! You
really are! You really do post under numerous
personalities -- each one of them an idiot.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 5, 10:18 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fuck

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/4v2ed4s
>Like I said, go on: Jump!

http://tinyurl.com/7vflru7
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:36:39 -0800 (PST)
JTEM wrote:
>You must cut open your tongue with a razor.

Sock puppets should be incarcerated.

[RichTravsky]

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 6, 10:54 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fuck

sock puppets:

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/4v2ed4s
>Like I said, go on: Jump!

http://tinyurl.com/7vflru7
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:36:39 -0800 (PST)
JTEM wrote:
>You must cut open your tongue with a razor.

New York.S 135.60 Coercion in the second degree.
A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he
compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the
latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to
abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right
to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the
demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:
1. Cause physical injury to a person; or
2. Cause damage to property; or
3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or
4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to
be instituted against him; or
5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true
or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt
or ridicule

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 13, 12:18 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fuck

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

http://tinyurl.com/bqpx5dp
"Findings point to common ancestry to explain genetic similarities
New research raises questions about the theory that modern humans and
Neanderthals at some point interbred, known as hybridisation. The
findings of a study by researchers at the University of Cambridge
suggests that common ancestry, not hybridisation, better explains the
average 1-4 per cent DNA that those of European and Asian descent
(Eurasians) share with Neanderthals."

[JTEM]

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

> "Findings point to common ancestry to explain genetic similarities
> New research raises questions about the theory that modern humans and
> Neanderthals at some point interbred, known as hybridisation.

It's not a theory.

It's not that Neanderthals and modern humans share some
common DNA, it's that Neanderthals and modern humans
OUTSIDE OF AFRICA share this DNA. If it was all about a
common ancestor than SubSaharan Africans should share
it as well.

What, you think they would lake the same "common ancestor"?
It that were the case than it would be "Common" to everybody,
now would it?

And it was never limited to "Just" DNA evidence. The morphological
evidence was beyond compelling.

And t was never about "Just" Neanderthals, either. There's also
Denisovan DNA outside of Africa.


In other words, as per your usual you're focused in on a
stupid opinion (one that ignores most of the evidence) and
you're pretending it's a fact.

Man, you're a fucking idiot.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 18, 7:31 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Findings point to common ancestry to explain genetic similarities
> > New research raises questions about the theory that modern humans and
> > Neanderthals at some point interbred, known as hybridisation.
>
> It's not a theory.

Lip service from a chocolate licker.

>
> It's not that Neanderthals and modern humans share some
> common DNA, it's that Neanderthals and modern humans
> OUTSIDE OF AFRICA share this DNA.  If it was all about a
> common ancestor than SubSaharan Africans should share
> it as well.

On Apr 26, 12:11 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
<Re: mtDNA is useless>

So, in one post DNA is usless evidence, another it is evidence. In
one post the clock is "bullshit", in another it's evidence. Get your
head out of your ass.

> What, you think they would lake the same "common ancestor"?
> It that were the case than it would be "Common" to everybody,
> now would it?

Not if there were more than one group of archaics in Africa.
Try reading the paper.

>
> And it was never limited to "Just" DNA evidence.  The morphological
> evidence was beyond compelling.

Another reference free, fact-free statement.

> And t was never about "Just" Neanderthals, either.  There's also
> Denisovan DNA outside of Africa.

And it never was about "Just" archaics inside Africa, either.

> Man, you're a fucking idiot.

And you're are a shit-licking moron.

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/14/study-doubt-human-neanderthal-interbreeding?INTCMP=SRCH
Study casts doubt on human-Neanderthal interbreeding theory

On Oct 26, 3:55 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not a theory.

Thank you professor Seth.

From: Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
>I need only crank the organ and the monkey will dance!

Mar 24, 5:23 pm
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Cranking your organ is the only job you ever had.

JTEM replies with this classic:

On Mar 25, 5:03 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you a sick fuck because you sexualize everything
> I say, or do you sexualize everything I say because
> you're a sick fuck?

"I"? You are so stupid you forgot which pseud you were using.

[Paul Crowley]

On 24/09/2012 05:58, RichTravsky wrote:

> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>
> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
> Henry Bunn, Travis Pickering, Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo

I see from Google groups that there are 40 posts in this
thread. I can see only three on my computer -- all from
Rich Travsky. How fortunate I am ! It's not luck; the
other posters are in my kill-file, and long will they remain
there. But, even though I know it's pointless, I'll ask those
twerps to take a look at the endless Ya-Boo garbage
they post. Who do they think they are impressing?
Silly question. They don't think. They are incapable
of thought. But they make this newsgroup a most
unattractive place to visit.
[..]

> Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
> between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
> at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
> Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
> males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
> adults. This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
> larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
> first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
> running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
> most reasonable working hypothesis.

A much more reasonable hypothesis is trapping.
Those hominids probably dug deep pits, put sharp
stakes in the bottom, and covered them over with
some kind of matting, disguised with mud or
whatever was appropriate. The prey animals fell
onto the stakes and died. Consequently selection
was largely random, although enabling smaller,
lighter-footed animals to escape more readily.

Ambush hunting of large bovids by a group of
bipeds would be crazily dangerous -- for the
bipeds. It would be even crazier to select fit
adults. Further, these animals move around in
large groups . . . . for safety against large
specialist predators, all of which fear to attack
fit adults. It would be plain suicide for a group
of bipeds to 'ambush' a herd of bovids (no matter
how few in the herd).


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On Oct 27, 11:24 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 24/09/2012 05:58, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>
> > Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> > capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

> > Henry Bunn, Travis Pickering, Manuel Dom nguez-Rodrigo

>
> I see from Google groups that there are 40 posts in this
> thread. I can see only three on my computer -- all from
> Rich Travsky.  How fortunate I am !   It's not luck; the
> other posters are in my kill-file, and long will they remain
> there. But, even though I know it's pointless, I'll ask those
> twerps to take a look at the endless Ya-Boo garbage
> they post.  Who do they think they are impressing?
> Silly question.  They don't think. They are incapable
> of thought.  But they make this newsgroup a most
> unattractive place to visit.

The only thing dumber than using a killfile is using a killfile and
admitting it. Declaration of a killfile is a declaration of the
weakness of your thinking. You are, literally, saying that you can't
deal with people having opinions that differ from your own. You might
as well be waving a white flag.

I've never used a killfile and never will. I will always laugh at
people that announce to the world that they will only listen to select
sources. People say a lot of stupid things. That's just normal.
Especially in this discipline.

Many of the conversations I've had on this NG (SAP) have been with
people that once claimed to have put me in their killfile.

"I love the smell of killfiles in the morning. It smells like . . .
victory."
Robert Duvall in 'Apocalypse Now'

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 28, 3:41 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Man, you're a fucking idiot.

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

Here are some facts:
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/13956
Abstract:
"Recent comparisons between anatomically modern humans and ancient
genomes of other hominins have raised the tantalizing, and hotly
debated, possibility of hybridization. Although several tests of
hybridization have been devised, they all rely on the degree to which
different modern populations share genetic polymorphisms with the
ancient genomes of other hominins. However, spatial population
structure is expected to generate genetic patterns similar to those
that might be attributed to hybridization. To investigate this
problem, we take Neanderthals as a case study, and build a spatially
explicit model of the shared history of anatomically modern humans and
this hominin. We show that the excess polymorphism shared between
Eurasians and Neanderthals is compatible with scenarios in which no
hybridization occurred, and is strongly linked to the strength of
population structure in ancient populations. Thus, we recommend
caution in inferring admixture from geographic patterns of shared
polymorphisms, and argue that future attempts to investigate ancient
hybridization between humans and other hominins should explicitly
account for population structure."

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 24/09/2012 05:58, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> > http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
> >
> > Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> > capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
> > Henry Bunn, Travis Pickering, Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo
>
> I see from Google groups that there are 40 posts in this
> thread. I can see only three on my computer -- all from
> Rich Travsky. How fortunate I am ! It's not luck; the
> other posters are in my kill-file, and long will they remain
> there. But, even though I know it's pointless, I'll ask those
> twerps to take a look at the endless Ya-Boo garbage
> they post. Who do they think they are impressing?
> Silly question. They don't think. They are incapable
> of thought. But they make this newsgroup a most
> unattractive place to visit.

Does this mean you'll finally answer why those poor lions didn't
starve to death waiting out those pesky hominids?

> [..]
>
> > Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
> > between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
> > at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
> > Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
> > males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
> > adults. This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
> > larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
> > first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
> > running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
> > most reasonable working hypothesis.
>
> A much more reasonable hypothesis is trapping.
> Those hominids probably dug deep pits, put sharp
> stakes in the bottom, and covered them over with
> some kind of matting, disguised with mud or
> whatever was appropriate. The prey animals fell
> onto the stakes and died. Consequently selection
> was largely random, although enabling smaller,
> lighter-footed animals to escape more readily.
>
> Ambush hunting of large bovids by a group of
> bipeds would be crazily dangerous -- for the

No. What do you think "ambush" means?

> bipeds. It would be even crazier to select fit
> adults. Further, these animals move around in
> large groups . . . . for safety against large
> specialist predators, all of which fear to attack

Lions take down elephants. And cape buffalo. You were saying?

[Paul Crowley]

On 29/10/2012 03:52, RichTravsky wrote:

>>> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>>>
>>> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
>>> capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

>> But they make this newsgroup a most
>> unattractive place to visit.
>
> Does this mean you'll finally answer why those poor lions
> didn't starve to death waiting out those pesky hominids?

I answered it several times. Poor lions do
regularly starve to death. They have a high
reproduction rate, and a high death rate,
most of which is due to starvation.

But populations can survive lean times by
feeding on whatever prey they can find.
Hominids would have made a very easy
lunch -- if they were available within that
pride's territory. Every last one would have
been gobbled up. That's why, for the first
few million years of hominid evolution, they
could only live in safe predator-free habitats,
mostly off-shore islands.

Of course, they got off the islands at some
point, and that is where the story gets
interesting. I'll post on that separately
at some time.

>>> Our results, however, reveal statistically significant differences
>>> between the mortality profiles of smaller and larger bovid mortality profiles
>>> at FLK Zinj and the profiles of modern leopard and lion prey, respectively.
>>> Unlike leopard prey, smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult
>>> males. Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly prime
>>> adults. This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at FLK Zinj. For
>>> larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is also inconsistent with
>>> first-access scavenging of natural, non-carnivore deaths, and with endurance
>>> running hunting. That leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the
>>> most reasonable working hypothesis.
>>
>> A much more reasonable hypothesis is trapping.
>> Those hominids probably dug deep pits, put sharp
>> stakes in the bottom, and covered them over with
>> some kind of matting, disguised with mud or
>> whatever was appropriate. The prey animals fell
>> onto the stakes and died. Consequently selection
>> was largely random, although enabling smaller,
>> lighter-footed animals to escape more readily.
>>
>> Ambush hunting of large bovids by a group of
>> bipeds would be crazily dangerous -- for the
>
> No. What do you think "ambush" means?

1. The act of lying in wait to attack by surprise.
2. A sudden attack made from a concealed position.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambush

How is that supposed to help? Would you
want to charge at a cape buffalo, armed only
with a spear? Would you want to charge
at a group of cape buffalo -- picking out one
of the largest and fittest bulls?

If your tribe was to adopt an ambush strategy
and mine had one of making traps (by digging
pits and putting in staves) which would have
the better life-expectancy?

>> bipeds. It would be even crazier to select fit
>> adults. Further, these animals move around in
>> large groups . . . . for safety against large
>> specialist predators, all of which fear to attack
>
> Lions take down elephants. And cape buffalo. You were saying?

They take down weak animals -- weakened
by age, injury or illness. They leave fit adults
alone, especially herds of fit adults. Buffalo
routinely chase lions away. Can you see a
group of hominids (with females with babies
and small infants) being able to run away
faster than the buffalo?


Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

Claudius Denk wrote on Oct 27
(recovered from Google)

>> I see from Google groups that there are 40 posts in this
>> thread. I can see only three on my computer -- all from
>> Rich Travsky. How fortunate I am ! It's not luck; the
>> other posters are in my kill-file, and long will they remain
>> there. But, even though I know it's pointless, I'll ask those
>> twerps to take a look at the endless Ya-Boo garbage
>> they post. Who do they think they are impressing?
>> Silly question. They don't think. They are incapable
>> of thought. But they make this newsgroup a most
>> unattractive place to visit.
>

> Declaration of a killfile is a declaration of the weakness of
> your thinking. You are, literally, saying that you can't deal
> with people having opinions that differ from your own.

I don't object to your opinions, or their expression,
I do object to your BEHAVIOUR.

Read those 37 posts and see how much of
them express any opinion on a PA issue.
I can't see how you think anyone would
waste their time reading ANY of that shit.

Why don't you and Olsen exchange your
worthless abuse of each other in emails?

I would NEVER read such posts. And
since, like Olsen, you post ONLY endlessly
repetitive boring abuse, you belong in a
kill-file.


Paul,

[Claudius Denk]

Your thing about earliest hominids only being able to survive on
predator free islands is obvious nonsense.

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 29, 11:40 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not a theory.

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

It's a fact.

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

On Oct 30, 3:36 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Findings point to common ancestry to explain genetic similarities
> > New research raises questions about the theory that modern humans and
> > Neanderthals at some point interbred, known as hybridisation.
>
> It's not a theory.

Yes it is.

> It's not that Neanderthals and modern humans share some
> common DNA, it's that Neanderthals and modern humans
> OUTSIDE OF AFRICA share this DNA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/14/study-doubt-human-neanderthal-interbreeding?INTCMP=SRCH
"Cambridge scientists claim DNA overlap between Neanderthals and
modern humans is a remnant of a common ancestor"

[Claudius Denk]

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 29/10/2012 03:52, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >>> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
> >>>
> >>> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> >>> capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
>
> >> But they make this newsgroup a most
> >> unattractive place to visit.
> >
> > Does this mean you'll finally answer why those poor lions
> > didn't starve to death waiting out those pesky hominids?
>
> I answered it several times. Poor lions do

Lie.

> regularly starve to death. They have a high
> reproduction rate, and a high death rate,
> most of which is due to starvation.

Predators have lower reproduction rates than prey.

> But populations can survive lean times by
> feeding on whatever prey they can find.

You mean like huge herds of animals? As opposed to primates small in size and
number?

> Hominids would have made a very easy
> lunch -- if they were available within that
> pride's territory. Every last one would have

What did they eat if there weren't any primates around?

> been gobbled up. That's why, for the first

Every last one? then how did the lions survive?

> few million years of hominid evolution, they
> could only live in safe predator-free habitats,
> mostly off-shore islands.

Geological evidence for these islands ->

Fossil evidence for hominids on these islands ->

How did they get there ->

How did they get back ->

> Of course, they got off the islands at some
> point, and that is where the story gets
> interesting. I'll post on that separately
> at some time.

Oh, PLEASE do ;)

You go after smaller bovids. Duh.

> want to charge at a cape buffalo, armed only
> with a spear? Would you want to charge
> at a group of cape buffalo -- picking out one
> of the largest and fittest bulls?
>
> If your tribe was to adopt an ambush strategy
> and mine had one of making traps (by digging
> pits and putting in staves) which would have
> the better life-expectancy?

What would they dig with?

> >> bipeds. It would be even crazier to select fit
> >> adults. Further, these animals move around in
> >> large groups . . . . for safety against large
> >> specialist predators, all of which fear to attack
> >
> > Lions take down elephants. And cape buffalo. You were saying?
>
> They take down weak animals -- weakened
> by age, injury or illness. They leave fit adults

Lions attack elephants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZA2HnUp3SI

Lions attack hippo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iJMaezaiG8

Lions attack giraffe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH1RQqjxD-I

Lions attack cape buffalo (note the herds in the background)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyxaoJ04Roo

> alone, especially herds of fit adults. Buffalo
> routinely chase lions away. Can you see a
> group of hominids (with females with babies
> and small infants) being able to run away
> faster than the buffalo?
>
> Paul.

Ge back to us after you watch the videos.

[RichTravsky]

Damn, just broke another Irony Meter...

[RichTravsky]

[Paul Crowley]

On 20/11/2012 00:50, RichTravsky wrote:

>>>>> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
>>>>> capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

>>> Does this mean you'll finally answer why those poor lions
>>> didn't starve to death waiting out those pesky hominids?
>>
>> I answered it several times. Poor lions do
>
> Lie.
>
>> regularly starve to death. They have a high
>> reproduction rate, and a high death rate,
>> most of which is due to starvation.
>
> Predators have lower reproduction rates than prey.

Not true. Lion females often have four cubs.
Antelope typically have one calf each year

>> But populations can survive lean times by
>> feeding on whatever prey they can find.
>
> You mean like huge herds of animals?

As I have told you before, such huge herds
move on. Only a small proportion get predated.
As you probably don't know, droughts often
result in the starvation of millions of wilde-
beeste and gazelles.

> As opposed to primates small in size and number?

Your understanding of animal ecology would
disgrace an eight-year-old. Prey animals co-
evolve with their predators over millions of
years, and can cope with them. Juvenile
predators (e.g. young lions) those that are
injured or sick or old, often can't catch their
regular prey, and will go for 'easier' targets.
A foolish primate, just down from the trees,
would be very tempting, being hopelessly
slow on open ground. When it has 'forgotten'
how to run for trees and climb up them
quickly (with infants clinging to their mothers'
bellies) it becomes an apparently ridiculously
easy target.

It is the task of paleo-anthropology to explain
how and why hominids were not an easy
target. It has conspicuously failed to do so.
All it can do (and all it ever has done) is try
to pretend that the question does not exist.

>> Hominids would have made a very easy
>> lunch -- if they were available within that
>> pride's territory. Every last one would have
>
> What did they eat if there weren't any primates
> around?

Wart-hog, small antelope, porcupine, tortoise.
None of them easy.

>> been gobbled up. That's why, for the first
>
> Every last one? then how did the lions survive?

Many don't.

>> few million years of hominid evolution, they
>> could only live in safe predator-free habitats,
>> mostly off-shore islands.
>
> Geological evidence for these islands ->

Eh? Do you deny that eustatic sea-levels
constantly (over geological time-scales) go
up and down? And that at every stage --
based on irregularities and undulations in
the terrestrial firmament, islands appear and
disappear?

> Fossil evidence for hominids on these islands ->

As I have explained, numerous times, as the sea
moves in to cover (and as it later moves out from)
these islands, it creates coast-lines. These grind
up the ground and pulverise (and re-pulverize and
re-re-pulverize) potential fossils.

> How did they get there ->

Walking on dry land (rising seas then creating
islands).

> How did they get back ->

By walking on dry land (falling seas re-joining
islands to the mainland), or by wading, or by
swimming.

I accept that it's only about 90 years since it
was realised that 'ice-ages' caused sea-levels
to rise and fall over geological time-scales, and
that we should not expect PA to absorb such
radically new ideas within so short a period.
So nothing about the creation and elimination
of such islands would ever have appeared in
any of your text-books.

>> Of course, they got off the islands at some
>> point, and that is where the story gets
>> interesting. I'll post on that separately
>> at some time.
>
> Oh, PLEASE do ;)

Done. See thread
Re: "Early Humans Doomed Large Carnivores Two Million Years Ago,Scientists Say"

You might have missed it -- amid all the
useless pointless Ya-Boh postings that
constitute this (supposedly scientific)
news-group.

>>>> A much more reasonable hypothesis is trapping.
>>>> Those hominids probably dug deep pits, put sharp
>>>> stakes in the bottom, and covered them over with
>>>> some kind of matting, disguised with mud or
>>>> whatever was appropriate. The prey animals fell
>>>> onto the stakes and died. Consequently selection
>>>> was largely random, although enabling smaller,
>>>> lighter-footed animals to escape more readily.
>>>>
>>>> Ambush hunting of large bovids by a group of
>>>> bipeds would be crazily dangerous -- for the
>>>
>>> No. What do you think "ambush" means?
>>
>> 1. The act of lying in wait to attack by surprise.
>> 2. A sudden attack made from a concealed position.
>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambush
>>
>> How is that supposed to help? Would you
>
> You go after smaller bovids. Duh.

Goats? Don't you think that they might be a bit too
fast and agile? If they can avoid being ambushed by
cats at night, what chance does a hominid have at
trying to do it by day?

>> If your tribe was to adopt an ambush strategy
>> and mine had one of making traps (by digging
>> pits and putting in staves) which would have
>> the better life-expectancy?
>
> What would they dig with?

Animal horn (for 'picks') and brain-cases, or
rib-cages, for 'shovels',

> Ge back to us after you watch the videos.

As I say, you have a seven-year-old's conception
of animal ecology. Groups of fit lions can take
down large adult prey, but usually only when
weakened by age or injury. In any case, one
old injured sick lion could take out half-a-dozen
adult humans without thinking about it.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On Nov 22, 4:24 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 20/11/2012 00:50, RichTravsky wrote:


> It is the task of paleo-anthropology to explain
> how and why hominids were not an easy
> target.  It has conspicuously failed to do so.
> All it can do (and all it ever has done) is try
> to pretend that the question does not exist.

True. A pattern we see with all paleoanthropological pretenders is
that they focus on the aspects of hominid characteristics that their
model explains and then pretend that the aspects that their model
fails to explain do not exist. Aquatic apist go into great detail
about how hominids are the best swimmers amongst the apes.
Conventional dodos go into great details about the "amazing" long
distance running abilities of hominds. The pattern is very distinct.
Talks about the things your model explains and ignore (minimize) those
it does not.

But, Paul, are you really any different? Tell us the selective
origins of hominid social adaptations or go away.

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 20/11/2012 00:50, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >>>>> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> >>>>> capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
>
> >>> Does this mean you'll finally answer why those poor lions
> >>> didn't starve to death waiting out those pesky hominids?
> >>
> >> I answered it several times. Poor lions do
> >
> > Lie.
> >
> >> regularly starve to death. They have a high
> >> reproduction rate, and a high death rate,
> >> most of which is due to starvation.
> >
> > Predators have lower reproduction rates than prey.
>
> Not true. Lion females often have four cubs.
> Antelope typically have one calf each year

How many survive? Esp. when a new alpha male takes over?

Now, for extra credit, how does that compare with herds of THOUSANDS
of animals?

Your claim is: not true.

> >> But populations can survive lean times by
> >> feeding on whatever prey they can find.
> >
> > You mean like huge herds of animals?
>
> As I have told you before, such huge herds
> move on. Only a small proportion get predated.

Other herds move in.

> As you probably don't know, droughts often
> result in the starvation of millions of wilde-
> beeste and gazelles.

And hominids were immune from drought? Doubtful. There would be
even fewer of them as prey.

> > As opposed to primates small in size and number?
>
> Your understanding of animal ecology would
> disgrace an eight-year-old. Prey animals co-

An 8 year old can tell

http://image1.masterfile.com/em_w/00/55/34/700-00553469w.jpg

is a LOT of meat on the hoof.

> evolve with their predators over millions of
> years, and can cope with them. Juvenile
> predators (e.g. young lions) those that are
> injured or sick or old, often can't catch their
> regular prey, and will go for 'easier' targets.
> A foolish primate, just down from the trees,
> would be very tempting, being hopelessly
> slow on open ground. When it has 'forgotten'
> how to run for trees and climb up them
> quickly (with infants clinging to their mothers'
> bellies) it becomes an apparently ridiculously
> easy target.

And hominids would have been quickly wiped out then. But guess what -
that didn't happen. Oh, and guess further:


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/07/1204209109.full.pdf+html
Isotopic evidence for an early shift to C4 resources by Pliocene hominins in
Chad
Julia Lee-Thorp, Andossa Likius, Hassane T. Mackaye, Patrick Vignaud,
Matt Sponheimer, and Michel Brunet
...
The Chadian australopithecines occupied a largely open landscape
dominated by C4 plants, in which traditional hominoid woodland or
forest-derived resources were sparse, so a significant C4 dietary
component might be considered unsurprising.
...
Our data show that by ~3.5 Ma A. bahrelghazali was fully
engaged in exploiting C4 biomass. The results imply that australopithecines
had become broad generalists foraging opportunistically
for locally abundant resources that included significant
quantities of savanna resources, unlike chimps.
...

> It is the task of paleo-anthropology to explain
> how and why hominids were not an easy
> target. It has conspicuously failed to do so.
> All it can do (and all it ever has done) is try
> to pretend that the question does not exist.

On the contrary, they have indeed considered the issue. Go look
up Kortlandt, for example.

> >> Hominids would have made a very easy
> >> lunch -- if they were available within that
> >> pride's territory. Every last one would have
> >
> > What did they eat if there weren't any primates
> > around?
>
> Wart-hog, small antelope, porcupine, tortoise.
> None of them easy.

Gazelles, wildebeest, etc. Huge herds of them, one moves on,
another moves in. That's how predators there today live. DUH

> >> been gobbled up. That's why, for the first
> >
> > Every last one? then how did the lions survive?
>
> Many don't.

What, not enough hominids to eat?

> >> few million years of hominid evolution, they
> >> could only live in safe predator-free habitats,
> >> mostly off-shore islands.
> >
> > Geological evidence for these islands ->
>
> Eh? Do you deny that eustatic sea-levels
> constantly (over geological time-scales) go
> up and down? And that at every stage --
> based on irregularities and undulations in
> the terrestrial firmament, islands appear and
> disappear?

Eh? Do you have any geologic AND fossil evidence for these Fantasy Islands?

Boss boss, the hominids!

> > Fossil evidence for hominids on these islands ->
>
> As I have explained, numerous times, as the sea
> moves in to cover (and as it later moves out from)
> these islands, it creates coast-lines. These grind
> up the ground and pulverise (and re-pulverize and
> re-re-pulverize) potential fossils.

And yet we do find fossils in such environments. Try again.

> > How did they get there ->
>
> Walking on dry land (rising seas then creating
> islands).

What, those mean ol lions didn't get them before they could make it?

> > How did they get back ->
>
> By walking on dry land (falling seas re-joining
> islands to the mainland), or by wading, or by
> swimming.

What, those mean ol lions didn't get them before they could make it?

> I accept that it's only about 90 years since it
> was realised that 'ice-ages' caused sea-levels
> to rise and fall over geological time-scales, and
> that we should not expect PA to absorb such
> radically new ideas within so short a period.
> So nothing about the creation and elimination
> of such islands would ever have appeared in
> any of your text-books.

Good heavens, geology has never considered that islands come and
go? Since when? Heard of Pangea? Whole continents coming and going...

> >> Of course, they got off the islands at some
> >> point, and that is where the story gets
> >> interesting. I'll post on that separately
> >> at some time.
> >
> > Oh, PLEASE do ;)
>
> Done. See thread
> Re: "Early Humans Doomed Large Carnivores Two Million Years Ago,Scientists Say"
>
> You might have missed it -- amid all the
> useless pointless Ya-Boh postings that
> constitute this (supposedly scientific)
> news-group.

Saw it when it came out. That's a popular press rendition. Better

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/wheres-the-beef-early-humans-took.html

and more at

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/04/25/rise-of-humans-two-million-years-ago-doomed-large-carnivores/

and better still

http://www.nature.com/news/early-humans-linked-to-large-carnivore-extinctions-1.10508

This was not a paper, it was a presentation at a symposium, and consequently
there
is no associated paper. From the last link

"It could be true," Bobe says of Werdelin's hypothesis, "but we certainly
don't have the data to show it."

Next?

> >>>> A much more reasonable hypothesis is trapping.
> >>>> Those hominids probably dug deep pits, put sharp
> >>>> stakes in the bottom, and covered them over with
> >>>> some kind of matting, disguised with mud or
> >>>> whatever was appropriate. The prey animals fell
> >>>> onto the stakes and died. Consequently selection
> >>>> was largely random, although enabling smaller,
> >>>> lighter-footed animals to escape more readily.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ambush hunting of large bovids by a group of
> >>>> bipeds would be crazily dangerous -- for the
> >>>
> >>> No. What do you think "ambush" means?
> >>
> >> 1. The act of lying in wait to attack by surprise.
> >> 2. A sudden attack made from a concealed position.
> >> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambush
> >>
> >> How is that supposed to help? Would you
> >
> > You go after smaller bovids. Duh.
>
> Goats? Don't you think that they might be a bit too
> fast and agile? If they can avoid being ambushed by

Gee, they can catch gazelles...

> cats at night, what chance does a hominid have at
> trying to do it by day?

Could you make less sense? First you claim they were easy prey, then
that they wiped out predators.

> >> If your tribe was to adopt an ambush strategy
> >> and mine had one of making traps (by digging
> >> pits and putting in staves) which would have
> >> the better life-expectancy?
> >
> > What would they dig with?
>
> Animal horn (for 'picks') and brain-cases, or
> rib-cages, for 'shovels',

A pit big enough for large bovids? > koff koff <

> > Ge back to us after you watch the videos.
>
> As I say, you have a seven-year-old's conception
> of animal ecology. Groups of fit lions can take
> down large adult prey, but usually only when
> weakened by age or injury. In any case, one
> old injured sick lion could take out half-a-dozen
> adult humans without thinking about it.
>
> Paul.

Haven't watched the videos yet, eh?

Here they are again

[Paul Crowley]

On 26/11/2012 05:03, RichTravsky wrote:

>>>>>>> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
>>>>>>> capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

>> Not true. Lion females often have four cubs.
>> Antelope typically have one calf each year
>
> How many survive? Esp. when a new alpha male takes over?
>
> Now, for extra credit, how does that compare with herds of
> THOUSANDS of animals?

If those _thousands_ of herd animals were
regularly available to predators, then there would
be thousands of predators. But, of course, they
are NOT regularly available.

>>>> But populations can survive lean times by
>>>> feeding on whatever prey they can find.
>>>
>>> You mean like huge herds of animals?
>>
>> As I have told you before, such huge herds
>> move on. Only a small proportion get predated.
>
> Other herds move in.

As I say, you have a small child's understanding
of animal ecology.

The huge herds arrive (or congregate) only after
the rains, when there is lush growth of grass.
They rapidly eat it up, and move on, following
the rains, or (sometimes) dispersing to forage
elsewhere.

>> As you probably don't know, droughts often
>> result in the starvation of millions of wilde-
>> beeste and gazelles.
>
> And hominids were immune from drought? Doubtful. There
> would be even fewer of them as prey.

Insofar as hominids were present in that kind of
habitat, they were much less vulnerable to drought.
They did not (and could not) live in the open, on
high (and often dry) plains. Unlike the bovids,
their numbers did not expand rapidly when there
was a succession of good years (i.e. those with
plentiful rainfall). So their (tiny) numbers would
not be liable to catastrophical collapses when
bad years arrived (i.e. those with little or no
rainfall).

> ....

> The Chadian australopithecines occupied a largely open
> landscape dominated by C4 plants, in which traditional
> hominoid woodland or forest-derived resources were sparse, so
> a significant C4 dietary component might be considered

> unsurprising..... Our data show that by ~3.5 Ma A.

> bahrelghazali was fully engaged in exploiting C4 biomass. The
> results imply that australopithecines had become broad
> generalists foraging opportunistically for locally abundant
> resources that included significant quantities of savanna
> resources, unlike chimps.

The 'researchers' found 'data' that exactly
matched their assumptions and reinforced
conventional thinking.

What a surprise!

If they had found anything else, (a) they would not
have been allowed to write it up; (b) it would not
have got published. So (somewhat 'surprisingly')
they did not look for it, let alone 'find' it.

>> It is the task of paleo-anthropology to explain
>> how and why hominids were not an easy
>> target. It has conspicuously failed to do so.
>> All it can do (and all it ever has done) is try
>> to pretend that the question does not exist.
>
> On the contrary, they have indeed considered the issue.
> Go look up Kortlandt, for example.

He showed that chimps disliked leopards, and
were prepared to chase them away. Amazing!

That did NOT begin to constitute any kind of
explanation of how hominids could LIVE AND
SLEEP ON THE GROUND and survive predation
-- by day and by night -- from leopards and from
much larger carnivores.

>>>> Hominids would have made a very easy
>>>> lunch -- if they were available within that
>>>> pride's territory. Every last one would have
>>>
>>> What did they eat if there weren't any primates
>>> around?
>>
>> Wart-hog, small antelope, porcupine, tortoise.
>> None of them easy.
>
> Gazelles, wildebeest, etc. Huge herds of them, one moves
> on, another moves in. That's how predators there today
> live. DUH

You have not got a clue about ecology. Prey
species LIKE to be in herds, the bigger the
better -- since for each animal it reduces the
likelihood of predation. But the grazing animals
are then competing more intensely for the food
(here the grass). It will be consumed rapidly
and the herd will have to move on. The local
predators have a few good weeks, but must
starve for the rest of the year -- until the rain
comes back, the grass grows again and the
huge herds return.

See
http://www.expertafrica.com/tanzania/info/serengeti-wildebeest-migration
http://www.ultimateafrica.com/travel/Wildebeest_migration.html

>>> Geological evidence for these islands ->
>>
>> Eh? Do you deny that eustatic sea-levels
>> constantly (over geological time-scales) go
>> up and down? And that at every stage --
>> based on irregularities and undulations in
>> the terrestrial firmament, islands appear and
>> disappear?
>
> Eh? Do you have any geologic AND fossil evidence for
> these Fantasy Islands?

Look at a globe. You will see numerous islands
(like Britain, or Borneo, or Sulawesi, or Papua
NG) that were not islands 12 kya. They were
then joined to large continents. OK, if you are
a Creationist -- and believe in the Biblical Flood
-- or are just plain ignorant, you may deny this.
But no real scientist regards them as fantasies.

>>> Fossil evidence for hominids on these islands ->
>>
>> As I have explained, numerous times, as the sea
>> moves in to cover (and as it later moves out from)
>> these islands, it creates coast-lines. These grind
>> up the ground and pulverise (and re-pulverize and
>> re-re-pulverize) potential fossils.
>
> And yet we do find fossils in such environments. Try
> again.

The most that can be found are fossils of marine
animals tossed up on to beaches immediately
after their latest re-creation (and then covered
by sand or mud).

>>> How did they get there ->
>>
>> Walking on dry land (rising seas then creating
>> islands).
>
> What, those mean ol lions didn't get them before they
> could make it?

In the first instance, they were 'chimps' in the
trees. The relatively few large carnivores died
off, as they have on Borneo, Sulawesi, and on
all other large islands, within the last 12 kya.
The numbers and genetic pool gets too small.
The 'chimps' then became bipeds, and a few
hundred thousand years later were so strange
so rare and so peculiar that mainland carnivores
did not know what to make of them. So -- for a
very limited time -- they could get around on the
mainland, and a few of them found other off-
shore refuges.

>> I accept that it's only about 90 years since it
>> was realised that 'ice-ages' caused sea-levels
>> to rise and fall over geological time-scales, and
>> that we should not expect PA to absorb such
>> radically new ideas within so short a period.
>> So nothing about the creation and elimination
>> of such islands would ever have appeared in
>> any of your text-books.
>
> Good heavens, geology has never considered that islands
> come and go? Since when? Heard of Pangea? Whole
> continents coming and going...

I'm not talking about Geology, but about that
vastly more ignorant specialism, called Paleo-
Anthropology -- one that has not the slightest
awareness of relevant changes in the landscape.

>>>> Of course, they got off the islands at some
>>>> point, and that is where the story gets
>>>> interesting. I'll post on that separately
>>>> at some time.
>>>
>>> Oh, PLEASE do ;)
>>
>> Done. See thread
>> Re: "Early Humans Doomed Large Carnivores Two Million Years Ago,Scientists Say"
>>
>> You might have missed it -- amid all the
>> useless pointless Ya-Boh postings that
>> constitute this (supposedly scientific)
>> news-group.
>
> Saw it when it came out.

But you skipped reading it.

> That's a popular press rendition. Better
>
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/wheres-the-beef-early-humans-took.html

The ignorant fools (i.e. PA types) who wrote that
(a) have no clue as to how hominids managed to
cope with the predators at the time they were
supposedly taking their prey off them;
(b) have no clue as to how hominids of 2.5 mya
could actually capture large bovids and antelope;
(c) have no clue as to where the hominids were
before that, and how they managed to escape
the large (or any) predators when they had
recently come down from the trees;
(d) have no clue as to how the bipeds survived
sleeping on the ground at night at any stage of
their existence (before they invented guns, trucks
and lights).

> Next?

An explanation of (a) to (d) above, please.

And saying "we survived, so we must have
survived somehow" does NOT constitute an
'explanation'.

>>>>> No. What do you think "ambush" means?
>>>>
>>>> 1. The act of lying in wait to attack by surprise.
>>>> 2. A sudden attack made from a concealed position.
>>>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambush
>>>>
>>>> How is that supposed to help? Would you
>>>
>>> You go after smaller bovids. Duh.
>>
>> Goats? Don't you think that they might be a bit too
>> fast and agile? If they can avoid being ambushed by
>
> Gee, they can catch gazelles...

Yeah, yeah. Yer hominids run really
REALLY fast. You jest love paleo-fantasy,
don'tcher? You and the wet-ape theorists
have exactly the same SORT of 'theories'.
each with as little connection to any reality,
and each with as much awareness of
evolutionary theory (such as the concept
of 'niche', or as much understanding of
recent geological change, e.g. eustatic
changes in sea-level).

In any case, the original paper (referred to
in the title of this thread) specifically makes
the point that there was NO selection for
smaller prey animals in the fossil assemblage.
They were of all ages and larger ones were
more common than the smaller.

>> cats at night, what chance does a hominid have at
>> trying to do it by day?
>
> Could you make less sense? First you claim they were
> easy prey, then that they wiped out predators.

I am asking for YOUR explanation, within
YOUR conceptual scheme, about how YOU
think it might have happened.

Don't confuse your non--explanation with the
theory I propose. I set out a highly particular
method as to how it happened. It may be right;
it may be wrong; but I do provide a theory.

>>>> If your tribe was to adopt an ambush strategy
>>>> and mine had one of making traps (by digging
>>>> pits and putting in staves) which would have
>>>> the better life-expectancy?
>>>
>>> What would they dig with?
>>
>> Animal horn (for 'picks') and brain-cases, or
>> rib-cages, for 'shovels',
>
> A pit big enough for large bovids? > koff koff <

How long would it take a dozen men to dig
such a pit? (Maybe two hours? -- generally
they would have dug a number of them.) How
long would they survive on the meat they would
get from a large bovid? Set that against how
long YOUR hominids would have survived
(under your idiotic theory) given that a broken
leg or a broken arm or other serious injury
(e.g. a stomach wound from a horn) would
have meant almost certain death?


Paul.

[Jim McGinn]

On Nov 25, 9:03 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > On 20/11/2012 00:50, RichTravsky wrote:

> > A foolish primate, just down from the trees,
> > would be very tempting, being hopelessly
> > slow on open ground. When it has 'forgotten'
> > how to run for trees and climb up them
> > quickly (with infants clinging to their mothers'
> > bellies) it becomes an apparently ridiculously
> > easy target.
>
> And hominids would have been quickly wiped out then. But guess what -
> that didn't happen. Oh, and guess further:
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/07/1204209109.full.pdf+html
> Isotopic evidence for an early shift to C4 resources by Pliocene hominins in
> Chad
> Julia Lee-Thorp, Andossa Likius, Hassane T. Mackaye, Patrick Vignaud,
> Matt Sponheimer, and Michel Brunet

Hominid fossils are *always* found at locations with easy access to
fresh water and trees (which themselves are found near access to fresh
water). So all this intellectual hand-wringing about how early
hominids ("early" hominids being, in this instance, anything prior to
about 12 kya) persisted in treeless savanna habitat is nonsense.

> The Chadian australopithecines occupied a largely open landscape
> dominated by C4 plants, in which traditional hominoid woodland or
> forest-derived resources were sparse, so a significant C4 dietary
> component might be considered unsurprising.

You are, typically, over-interpreting the "C4 plant" evidence. All
this evidence does is differentiate the habitat from a closed canopy
rainforest--an environment where sunlight never reaches the ground,
without which "C4" grasses can't grow. "C4" grasses grow abundantly
in the monsoon forest habitat where the earliest hominids first
emerged. Thus this is a non-issue.

Obviously hominid resided in the treed, well-watered zones of a
monsoon/savanna habitat. Not only did they have little chance of
surviving predation out in treeless habitat but there was nothing for
them to eat or drink out there. And there was no shortage of hunting
opportunities in the communal setting of their treed, well-watered
community sites.

> ...
> Our data show that by ~3.5 Ma A. bahrelghazali was fully
> engaged in exploiting C4 biomass. The results imply that australopithecines
> had become broad generalists foraging opportunistically
> for locally abundant resources that included significant
> quantities of savanna resources, unlike chimps.
> ...

> > It is the task of paleo-anthropology to explain
> > how and why hominids were not an easy
> > target.  It has conspicuously failed to do so.
> > All it can do (and all it ever has done) is try
> > to pretend that the question does not exist.
>
> On the contrary, they have indeed considered the issue. Go look
> up Kortlandt, for example.

Your imagination notwithstanding, there is nothing in Kortlandt that
suggests hominids did not reside in treed habitat. Nothing.

> > >> Hominids would have made a very easy
> > >> lunch -- if they were available within that
> > >> pride's territory.  Every last one would have
>
> > > What did they eat if there weren't any primates
> > > around?
>
> > Wart-hog, small antelope, porcupine, tortoise.
> > None of them easy.
>
> Gazelles, wildebeest, etc. Huge herds of them, one moves on,
> another moves in. That's how predators there today live. DUH

The biggest clue of all: hominids do not live there today.

> > >> been gobbled up.  That's why, for the first
>
> > > Every last one? then how did the lions survive?
>
> > Many don't.
>
> What, not enough hominids to eat?



>
> > >> few million years of hominid evolution, they
> > >> could only live in safe predator-free habitats,
> > >> mostly off-shore islands.
>
> > > Geological evidence for these islands ->
>
> > Eh?  Do you deny that eustatic sea-levels
> > constantly (over geological time-scales) go
> > up and down?  And that at every stage --
> > based on irregularities and undulations in
> > the terrestrial firmament, islands appear and
> > disappear?

Paul, do you deny that these, "eustatic sea-level irregularities and
undulations" only began about 2 mya? Do you deny this? (Answer the
question you evasive jackass.)

> Eh? Do you have any geologic AND fossil evidence for these Fantasy Islands?
>
> Boss boss, the hominids!
>
> > > Fossil evidence for hominids on these islands ->
>
> > As I have explained, numerous times, as the sea
> > moves in to cover (and as it later moves out from)
> > these islands, it creates coast-lines.  These grind
> > up the ground and pulverise (and re-pulverize and
> > re-re-pulverize) potential fossils.
>
> And yet we do find fossils in such environments. Try again.

This is a valid point, Paul. And frankly we've seen nothing from you
that amounts to much more than sweeping the issue under the rug.
Hominid fossils are often found in proximity of many of the species
associated with the Ethiopian Fauna, including some very formidable
predators: feline, hyena, dog/wolf, even otters as big as a small
bear. This evidence completely contradicts your supposition that
early hominids could not survive predatory pressure from apex
predators during the late Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene.

Paul, IMO your tendency to ignore issues that contradict your scenario
puts you in the same category of the conventional theorist to whom for
which you are, rightly, so critical.

> > > How did they get there ->
>
> > Walking on dry land (rising seas then creating
> > islands).
>
> What, those mean ol lions didn't get them before they could make it?

Stupid question.

>
> > > How did they get back ->
>
> > By walking on dry land (falling seas re-joining
> > islands to the mainland), or by wading, or by
> > swimming.
>
> What, those mean ol lions didn't get them before they could make it?
>
> > I accept that it's only about 90 years since it
> > was realised that 'ice-ages' caused sea-levels
> > to rise and fall over geological time-scales,

Paul, the ice ages didn't start until 2mya (Pleistocene). By this
time hominids had been in existence for 2 to 4 mya.

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2012 05:03, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> >>>>>>> capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
>
> >> Not true. Lion females often have four cubs.
> >> Antelope typically have one calf each year
> >
> > How many survive? Esp. when a new alpha male takes over?

No answer

> > Now, for extra credit, how does that compare with herds of
> > THOUSANDS of animals?
>
> If those _thousands_ of herd animals were
> regularly available to predators, then there would
> be thousands of predators. But, of course, they
> are NOT regularly available.

Wrong again. Prey always outnumbers predators in the wild. Otherwise,
the prey would be wiped out.

> >>>> But populations can survive lean times by
> >>>> feeding on whatever prey they can find.
> >>>
> >>> You mean like huge herds of animals?
> >>
> >> As I have told you before, such huge herds
> >> move on. Only a small proportion get predated.
> >
> > Other herds move in.
>
> As I say, you have a small child's understanding
> of animal ecology.
>
> The huge herds arrive (or congregate) only after
> the rains, when there is lush growth of grass.
> They rapidly eat it up, and move on, following
> the rains, or (sometimes) dispersing to forage
> elsewhere.

You need to tell that to the herds:

http://image1.masterfile.com/em_w/00/55/34/700-00553469w.jpg

> >> As you probably don't know, droughts often
> >> result in the starvation of millions of wilde-
> >> beeste and gazelles.
> >
> > And hominids were immune from drought? Doubtful. There
> > would be even fewer of them as prey.
>
> Insofar as hominids were present in that kind of
> habitat, they were much less vulnerable to drought.

Really? Your evidence? Do you know about savanna chimps?

> They did not (and could not) live in the open, on
> high (and often dry) plains. Unlike the bovids,
> their numbers did not expand rapidly when there
> was a succession of good years (i.e. those with
> plentiful rainfall). So their (tiny) numbers would
> not be liable to catastrophical collapses when
> bad years arrived (i.e. those with little or no
> rainfall).

You're not keeping up - here it is AGAIN:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/07/1204209109.full.pdf+html
Isotopic evidence for an early shift to C4 resources by Pliocene hominins in
Chad
Julia Lee-Thorp, Andossa Likius, Hassane T. Mackaye, Patrick Vignaud,
Matt Sponheimer, and Michel Brunet

Abstract
Foods derived from C4 plants were important in the dietary ecology
of early Pleistocene hominins in southern and eastern Africa,
but the origins and geographic variability of this relationship remain
unknown. Carbon isotope data show that Australopithecus
bahrelghazali individuals from Koro Toro in Chad are significantly
enriched in 13C, indicating a dependence on C4 resources.
As these sites are over 3 million years in age, the results extend the
pattern of C4 dependence seen in Paranthropus boisei in East Africa
by more than 1.5 million years. The Koro Toro hominin fossils were
found in argillaceous sandstone levels along with abundant grazing
and aquatic faunal elements that, in combination, indicate the
presence of open to wooded grasslands and stream channels associated
with a greatly enlarged Lake Chad. In such an environment,
the most abundant C4 plant resources available to A. bahrelghazali
were grasses and sedges, neither of which is usually considered as
standard great ape fare. The results suggest an early and fundamental
shift in hominin dietary ecology that facilitated the exploitation
of new habitats.

...
Relative abundances of bovids at KT13 show a
predominance of open-country grazers, including Reduncini
indicative of edaphic grasslands.
...
Together, the paleoenvironmental data indicate a northern Chad Basin
landscape with extensive grasslands and sparser trees, bordering an
expanded lake and associated stream channels.

Hence, A. bahrelghazali survived in an environment more open
than that inhabited by most other Pliocene taxa including its
contemporary A. afarensis in eastern Africa. Their
survival in such a habitat was possibly facilitated by dietary niche
expansion to include novel C4 resources, the exploitation of
which is uncommon among extant great apes including savannadwelling
chimpanzees, although more common among
many savanna baboons.

...
The Chadian australopithecines occupied a largely open landscape
dominated by C4 plants, in which traditional hominoid woodland or
forest-derived resources were sparse, so a significant C4 dietary
component might be considered unsurprising.
...

Our data show that by ~3.5 Ma A. bahrelghazali was fully
engaged in exploiting C4 biomass. The results imply that australopithecines
had become broad generalists foraging opportunistically
for locally abundant resources that included significant
quantities of savanna resources, unlike chimps.

...

> > ....
> > The Chadian australopithecines occupied a largely open
> > landscape dominated by C4 plants, in which traditional
> > hominoid woodland or forest-derived resources were sparse, so
> > a significant C4 dietary component might be considered
> > unsurprising..... Our data show that by ~3.5 Ma A.
> > bahrelghazali was fully engaged in exploiting C4 biomass. The
> > results imply that australopithecines had become broad
> > generalists foraging opportunistically for locally abundant
> > resources that included significant quantities of savanna
> > resources, unlike chimps.
>
> The 'researchers' found 'data' that exactly
> matched their assumptions and reinforced
> conventional thinking.
>
> What a surprise!

No, they researched and THEN drew conclusions. Feel free to
post references to counter evidence...

> If they had found anything else, (a) they would not
> have been allowed to write it up; (b) it would not

Not allowed by WHO? LOL

> have got published. So (somewhat 'surprisingly')
> they did not look for it, let alone 'find' it.

Pollie, posting from Conspiracy Land. How are you and Ed Conrad getting
along?

> >> It is the task of paleo-anthropology to explain
> >> how and why hominids were not an easy
> >> target. It has conspicuously failed to do so.
> >> All it can do (and all it ever has done) is try
> >> to pretend that the question does not exist.
> >
> > On the contrary, they have indeed considered the issue.
> > Go look up Kortlandt, for example.
>
> He showed that chimps disliked leopards, and
> were prepared to chase them away. Amazing!
>
> That did NOT begin to constitute any kind of
> explanation of how hominids could LIVE AND
> SLEEP ON THE GROUND and survive predation
> -- by day and by night -- from leopards and from
> much larger carnivores.

Leopards climb trees - ooops, can't sleep in the trees now!

> >>>> Hominids would have made a very easy
> >>>> lunch -- if they were available within that
> >>>> pride's territory. Every last one would have
> >>>
> >>> What did they eat if there weren't any primates
> >>> around?
> >>
> >> Wart-hog, small antelope, porcupine, tortoise.
> >> None of them easy.
> >
> > Gazelles, wildebeest, etc. Huge herds of them, one moves
> > on, another moves in. That's how predators there today
> > live. DUH
>
> You have not got a clue about ecology. Prey
> species LIKE to be in herds, the bigger the

Hominids are in herds? LOL

> better -- since for each animal it reduces the
> likelihood of predation. But the grazing animals
> are then competing more intensely for the food
> (here the grass). It will be consumed rapidly
> and the herd will have to move on. The local
> predators have a few good weeks, but must
> starve for the rest of the year -- until the rain
> comes back, the grass grows again and the
> huge herds return.

So now you're claiming the herds shrink to nothing????? LOL

> See
> http://www.expertafrica.com/tanzania/info/serengeti-wildebeest-migration

These move in an annual pattern which is fairly predictable.

> http://www.ultimateafrica.com/travel/Wildebeest_migration.html

And the predators feed on them and to not die out. Try again.

> >>> Geological evidence for these islands ->
> >>
> >> Eh? Do you deny that eustatic sea-levels
> >> constantly (over geological time-scales) go
> >> up and down? And that at every stage --
> >> based on irregularities and undulations in
> >> the terrestrial firmament, islands appear and
> >> disappear?
> >
> > Eh? Do you have any geologic AND fossil evidence for
> > these Fantasy Islands?
>
> Look at a globe. You will see numerous islands
> (like Britain, or Borneo, or Sulawesi, or Papua
> NG) that were not islands 12 kya. They were
> then joined to large continents. OK, if you are

Goodness! And those predators didn't go there either?

Come on, Pollie, try harder.

> a Creationist -- and believe in the Biblical Flood
> -- or are just plain ignorant, you may deny this.
> But no real scientist regards them as fantasies.
>
> >>> Fossil evidence for hominids on these islands ->
> >>
> >> As I have explained, numerous times, as the sea
> >> moves in to cover (and as it later moves out from)
> >> these islands, it creates coast-lines. These grind
> >> up the ground and pulverise (and re-pulverize and
> >> re-re-pulverize) potential fossils.
> >
> > And yet we do find fossils in such environments. Try
> > again.
>
> The most that can be found are fossils of marine
> animals tossed up on to beaches immediately
> after their latest re-creation (and then covered
> by sand or mud).

Marine fossils are found well inland too. Keep trying!

> >>> How did they get there ->
> >>
> >> Walking on dry land (rising seas then creating
> >> islands).

No answer.

> > What, those mean ol lions didn't get them before they
> > could make it?
>
> In the first instance, they were 'chimps' in the
> trees. The relatively few large carnivores died
> off, as they have on Borneo, Sulawesi, and on
> all other large islands, within the last 12 kya.

Worthless. 12 kya would involved MODERN HUMANS. DUH

Can't believe you've made such a STUPID mistake.

So what about the time period of millions of years ago UP TO
12kya???????????????????

> The numbers and genetic pool gets too small.
> The 'chimps' then became bipeds, and a few

Why did they become bipeds on these magic islands?

> hundred thousand years later were so strange
> so rare and so peculiar that mainland carnivores
> did not know what to make of them. So -- for a

They would not see them as anything different. Predators go
after humans today. Your argument about them being confused
is crap.

> very limited time -- they could get around on the
> mainland, and a few of them found other off-
> shore refuges.

More magic islands?

News flash: tiger range

http://awsassets.panda.org/img/tiger_range_362721.jpg

> >> I accept that it's only about 90 years since it
> >> was realised that 'ice-ages' caused sea-levels
> >> to rise and fall over geological time-scales, and
> >> that we should not expect PA to absorb such
> >> radically new ideas within so short a period.
> >> So nothing about the creation and elimination
> >> of such islands would ever have appeared in
> >> any of your text-books.
> >
> > Good heavens, geology has never considered that islands
> > come and go? Since when? Heard of Pangea? Whole
> > continents coming and going...
>
> I'm not talking about Geology, but about that
> vastly more ignorant specialism, called Paleo-
> Anthropology -- one that has not the slightest
> awareness of relevant changes in the landscape.

HAHHAH - paleo ecology and landscape changes are highly
central in paleo anth. What do think drives evolutionary
scenarios???

> >>>> Of course, they got off the islands at some
> >>>> point, and that is where the story gets
> >>>> interesting. I'll post on that separately
> >>>> at some time.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, PLEASE do ;)
> >>
> >> Done. See thread
> >> Re: "Early Humans Doomed Large Carnivores Two Million Years Ago,Scientists Say"
> >>
> >> You might have missed it -- amid all the
> >> useless pointless Ya-Boh postings that
> >> constitute this (supposedly scientific)
> >> news-group.
> >
> > Saw it when it came out.
>
> But you skipped reading it.

Then I couldn't have posted the following:

> > That's a popular press rendition. Better
> >
> > http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/wheres-the-beef-early-humans-took.html
>
> The ignorant fools (i.e. PA types) who wrote that

LOL - they all covered the SAME material! Material you snipped. Here it
is again

and more at

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/04/25/rise-of-humans-two-million-years-ago-doomed-large-carnivores/

and better still

http://www.nature.com/news/early-humans-linked-to-large-carnivore-extinctions-1.10508

This was not a paper, it was a presentation at a symposium, and consequently
there
is no associated paper. From the last link

"It could be true," Bobe says of Werdelin's hypothesis, "but we certainly
don't have the data to show it."

How's that feel Pollie? No data.

> (a) have no clue as to how hominids managed to
> cope with the predators at the time they were
> supposedly taking their prey off them;

And you do? Oh that's right - the magic islands. As opposed
to work by Kortlandt.

> (b) have no clue as to how hominids of 2.5 mya
> could actually capture large bovids and antelope;

Scavenging. Taking down the weak and injured. Plain old
hunting. DUH

> (c) have no clue as to where the hominids were
> before that, and how they managed to escape
> the large (or any) predators when they had
> recently come down from the trees;

Predators climb trees too. Ooops.

> (d) have no clue as to how the bipeds survived
> sleeping on the ground at night at any stage of
> their existence (before they invented guns, trucks
> and lights).

Predators climb trees too. Double oops.

> > Next?
>
> An explanation of (a) to (d) above, please.

Some actual facts, please.

> And saying "we survived, so we must have
> survived somehow" does NOT constitute an
> 'explanation'.

That is actual proof, unlike Magic Islands.

> >>>>> No. What do you think "ambush" means?
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. The act of lying in wait to attack by surprise.
> >>>> 2. A sudden attack made from a concealed position.
> >>>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambush
> >>>>
> >>>> How is that supposed to help? Would you
> >>>
> >>> You go after smaller bovids. Duh.
> >>
> >> Goats? Don't you think that they might be a bit too
> >> fast and agile? If they can avoid being ambushed by
> >
> > Gee, they can catch gazelles...
>
> Yeah, yeah. Yer hominids run really
> REALLY fast. You jest love paleo-fantasy,

They don't have to. They used cooperative behavior, just like
hunting chimps today.

> don'tcher? You and the wet-ape theorists
> have exactly the same SORT of 'theories'.
> each with as little connection to any reality,
> and each with as much awareness of
> evolutionary theory (such as the concept
> of 'niche', or as much understanding of
> recent geological change, e.g. eustatic
> changes in sea-level).
>
> In any case, the original paper (referred to
> in the title of this thread) specifically makes
> the point that there was NO selection for
> smaller prey animals in the fossil assemblage.
> They were of all ages and larger ones were
> more common than the smaller.

http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf

It wasn't supposed to, dum dum. All sizes and ages are
suitable prey. They can only study what was found.

> >> cats at night, what chance does a hominid have at
> >> trying to do it by day?
> >
> > Could you make less sense? First you claim they were
> > easy prey, then that they wiped out predators.
>
> I am asking for YOUR explanation, within
> YOUR conceptual scheme, about how YOU
> think it might have happened.

And I pointed out, predators can also climb trees. So much for your
worries.

> Don't confuse your non--explanation with the
> theory I propose. I set out a highly particular
> method as to how it happened. It may be right;
> it may be wrong; but I do provide a theory.

Theories are supposed to rely on facts... let us know when you come up
with some for the magic islands. Also, explain why predators did not
also follow any escaping hominids to these islands.

> >>>> If your tribe was to adopt an ambush strategy
> >>>> and mine had one of making traps (by digging
> >>>> pits and putting in staves) which would have
> >>>> the better life-expectancy?
> >>>
> >>> What would they dig with?
> >>
> >> Animal horn (for 'picks') and brain-cases, or
> >> rib-cages, for 'shovels',
> >
> > A pit big enough for large bovids? > koff koff <
>
> How long would it take a dozen men to dig
> such a pit? (Maybe two hours? -- generally

Try it and let us know how long it took. Oh, and have them use
"animal horns" "brain cases" and "rib cages".

> they would have dug a number of them.) How
> long would they survive on the meat they would
> get from a large bovid? Set that against how

A long time - DUH.

> long YOUR hominids would have survived
> (under your idiotic theory) given that a broken
> leg or a broken arm or other serious injury
> (e.g. a stomach wound from a horn) would
> have meant almost certain death?

These can happen without hunting - like falling from a tree. DUH

Now, jsut to rub your nose in things:

> of animal ecology. Groups of fit lions can take
> down large adult prey, but usually only when
> weakened by age or injury. In any case, one

Here are lions attacking LARGE ADULT PREY

[Paul Crowley]

On 30/11/2012 20:22, Jim McGinn wrote:

> On Nov 25, 9:03 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul Crowley wrote:

>>>> Geological evidence for these islands ->
>>
>>> Eh? Do you deny that eustatic sea-levels
>>> constantly (over geological time-scales) go
>>> up and down? And that at every stage --
>>> based on irregularities and undulations in
>>> the terrestrial firmament, islands appear and
>>> disappear?
>
> Paul, do you deny that these, "eustatic sea-level
> irregularities and undulations" only began about 2
> mya? Do you deny this?

To say that they began 2 mya is like saying
that weather began 2 mya. Ice-ages certainly
magnified them, but they were always present.

See
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/124/1-2/35/F15.large.jpg

>>>> Fossil evidence for hominids on these islands ->
>>
>>> As I have explained, numerous times, as the sea
>>> moves in to cover (and as it later moves out from)
>>> these islands, it creates coast-lines. These grind
>>> up the ground and pulverise (and re-pulverize and
>>> re-re-pulverize) potential fossils.
>>
>> And yet we do find fossils in such environments. Try again.
>
> This is a valid point, Paul.

How can it be a valid point? It's like saying that
fossils can be found in the cement that makes
up buildings -- in the ground up sand, gravel
and cement powder. Of course nothing of more
than microscopic size can be found it it. The
most you will get is the very occasional body
(e.g.of Jimmy Hoffa) encased in it.

> And frankly we've seen nothing from you that amounts
> to much more than sweeping the issue under the rug.
> Hominid fossils are often found in proximity of many
> of the species associated with the Ethiopian Fauna,
> including some very formidable predators: feline,
> hyena, dog/wolf, even otters as big as a small bear.

If there are any such, I'd suggest that
(a) before about 3.5 mya hominids were very
thin on the ground in such places (i.e. the
predators out-numbered them 1,000 to one
-- or more) but that hominids deliberately buried
their deceased, for all the usual reasons, but
especially since they did not want animals
getting a taste for human flesh; and
(b) after about (very roughly) 3.5 mya, local
predators had good reasons to avoid the
hominids. The latter had found effective ways
to poison the predators, and keeping their
numbers down.

> This evidence completely contradicts your supposition
> that early hominids could not survive predatory
> pressure from apex predators during the late Miocene,
> Pliocene, and Pleistocene.

You have to say how and why. Waving your
arms in the dark at large predators is not going
to make them go away.

> Paul, the ice ages didn't start until 2mya (Pleistocene).
> By this time hominids had been in existence for 2 to 4
> mya.

Ice-ages introduced rises (and falls) of 100 metres
or so. Before then rises and falls of 20 to 40 metres
were common. Go to any coast, and see what
effect a rise (or fall) of 20 metres would have.
Nearly all modern cities would become un-
inhabitable with a rise. Many existing islands
would be destroyed; many new ones would
be created.

Such processes have been a constant feature
of every geologic era.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 3, 9:32 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 30/11/2012 20:22, Jim McGinn wrote:


> >>> As I have explained, numerous times, as the sea
> >>> moves in to cover (and as it later moves out from)
> >>> these islands, it creates coast-lines.  These grind
> >>> up the ground and pulverise (and re-pulverize and
> >>> re-re-pulverize) potential fossils.
>
> >> And yet we do find fossils in such environments. Try again.
>
> > This is a valid point, Paul.
>
> How can it be a valid point? It's like saying that
> fossils can be found in the cement that makes
> up buildings -- in the ground up sand, gravel
> and cement powder.  Of course nothing of more
> than microscopic size can be found it it.  The
> most you will get is the very occasional body
> (e.g.of  Jimmy Hoffa) encased in it.

How is this relevant?

Hominid fossils are found at inland locations. Facts are facts.

> > And frankly we've seen nothing from you that amounts
> > to much more than sweeping the issue under the rug.
> > Hominid fossils are often found in proximity of many
> > of the species associated with the Ethiopian Fauna,
> > including some very formidable predators: feline,
> > hyena, dog/wolf, even otters as big as a small bear.
>
> If there are any such,

So, you are admitting that you don't know?

> I'd suggest that
> (a) before about 3.5 mya hominids were very
> thin on the ground in such places (i.e. the
> predators out-numbered them 1,000 to one
> -- or more) but that hominids deliberately buried
> their deceased, for all the usual reasons, but
> especially since they did not want animals
> getting a taste for human flesh; and
> (b) after about (very roughly) 3.5 mya, local
> predators had good reasons to avoid the
> hominids.  The latter had found effective ways
> to poison the predators, and keeping their
> numbers down.

Your assertion is out of touch with statistical reality. If you find
a fossil you have to assume it was a "one in a million" (rare) and
that, therefore "millions" of other individual existed. We've found
hundreds if not thousands of hominid fossils (though most of them
consist of a piece of a single bone). If hominids were as rare as you
suggest then statistical reality suggests we would never find even one
fossil.

> > This evidence completely contradicts your supposition
> > that early hominids could not survive predatory
> > pressure from apex predators during the late Miocene,
> > Pliocene, and Pleistocene.
>
> You have to say how and why.  Waving your
> arms in the dark at large predators is not going
> to make them go away.

We may never know exactly how and why, and that's an argument for a
different thread, AFAIC. But we do know that they must have had some
means of escaping annihilation from predators in that if they didn't
then their fossil wouldn't have been found where they've been found.

Some things are simple. This is one of them.

[Paul Crowley]

On 03/12/2012 04:31, RichTravsky wrote:

>>>>>>>>> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
>>>>>>>>> capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

>> The huge herds arrive (or congregate) only after
>> the rains, when there is lush growth of grass.
>> They rapidly eat it up, and move on, following
>> the rains, or (sometimes) dispersing to forage
>> elsewhere.

>> He showed that chimps disliked leopards, and
>> were prepared to chase them away. Amazing!
>>
>> That did NOT begin to constitute any kind of
>> explanation of how hominids could LIVE AND
>> SLEEP ON THE GROUND and survive predation
>> -- by day and by night -- from leopards and from
>> much larger carnivores.
>
> Leopards climb trees - ooops, can't sleep in the trees now!

When did humans (or their ancestral bipeds) last
regularly sleep in trees? Our primate relatives
(including chimps) can cope with leopard attacks
by night -- but not without difficulty; i.e. they take
much care and trouble to manage their sleeping
arrangements. Chimps have four prehensile
(grasping) limbs. The mother holds on to four
fairly thin branches, and her infant holds on to
her. So she can go higher in the tree than the
leopards, which need larger (about 6 4 inch
diameter) branches along which they can creep.
Males sleep lower down, providing protection.
(Leopards are not after adults, knowing that
adults can inflict severe injuries on them; they
are trying to get the young and babies.)

When our ancestors lost their four prehensile
limbs (i.e. when they adapted to bipedalism)
they also lost the ability to sleep in trees . . .
and lost the ancient (and predominant among
primates) means of avoiding nocturnal predation.
This could only have happened in a location
where there were no such predators.

>> You have not got a clue about ecology. Prey
>> species LIKE to be in herds, the bigger the

>> better -- since for each animal it reduces the
>> likelihood of predation. But the grazing animals
>> are then competing more intensely for the food
>> (here the grass). It will be consumed rapidly
>> and the herd will have to move on. The local
>> predators have a few good weeks, but must
>> starve for the rest of the year -- until the rain
>> comes back, the grass grows again and the
>> huge herds return.
>
> So now you're claiming the herds shrink to nothing????? LOL
>
>> See
>> http://www.expertafrica.com/tanzania/info/serengeti-wildebeest-migration
>
> These move in an annual pattern which is fairly predictable.

All migratory herds (as well as migratory flocks
(or birds) and shoals (of fish)) move move around
in an annual pattern that is fairly predictable.
They do it for two reasons -- (A) to find seasonally
available food, and (B) to minimise predation.
Their predators simply can't keep up with them.

You don't know this (after all, why should a PA
type know anything at all about natural history?)
but it is a theoretically necessary and routinely
observed fact that -- from these migratory herds,
flocks and shoals -- local predators have a few
good weeks, but must then starve for the rest
of the year, or survive on relatively meagre
stocks of permanently-resident prey.

>>>>> Geological evidence for these islands ->
>>>>
>>>> Eh? Do you deny that eustatic sea-levels
>>>> constantly (over geological time-scales) go
>>>> up and down? And that at every stage --
>>>> based on irregularities and undulations in
>>>> the terrestrial firmament, islands appear and
>>>> disappear?
>>>
>>> Eh? Do you have any geologic AND fossil evidence for
>>> these Fantasy Islands?

But why should a PA type know anything at all
about routine geology?

>> Look at a globe. You will see numerous islands
>> (like Britain, or Borneo, or Sulawesi, or Papua
>> NG) that were not islands 12 kya. They were
>> then joined to large continents. OK, if you are
>
> Goodness! And those predators didn't go there either?

There were plenty of tigers on (what were)
Borneo and Sulawesi 12 kya. The sea-levels
rose, and they became islands. The populations
of tigers (and other large predators) became too
small, with too limited a genetic pool to survive for
more than a few thousand years.

But why should a PA type know anything at all
about basic genetics?

>> In the first instance, they were 'chimps' in the
>> trees. The relatively few large carnivores died
>> off, as they have on Borneo, Sulawesi, and on
>> all other large islands, within the last 12 kya.
>
> Worthless. 12 kya would involved MODERN HUMANS. DUH

Are you seriously claiming that stone-age H/G on
Borneo, Papua NG and Sulawesi, ELIMINATED
every last tiger on those islands?

> Can't believe you've made such a STUPID mistake.

I can't believe that you are so stupid as to
think it was a mistake.

> So what about the time period of millions of years ago UP TO
> 12kya???????????????????

God help us! I am _referring_ to the last 12 Kyr
as ONE EXAMPLE of what happens when sea-
levels rise. I was (quite foolishly) expecting that
you might have some slight awareness of the
events of the last 12 kya.

But, in any case, such events have been common
(indeed, almost routine) throughout geological
and evolutionary history. Islands like Borneo and
Zanzibar have been created (and later destroyed)
time and time again within the last 10 or 100 or
1000 million years.

>> The numbers and genetic pool gets too small.
>> The 'chimps' then became bipeds, and a few
>
> Why did they become bipeds on these magic islands?

Because they could come down from the trees
and sleep on the ground -- there being no large
predators around. That made possible (and
essential) the bearing of weapons and tools,
which, in turn, needed better bipedalism.

>> hundred thousand years later were so strange
>> so rare and so peculiar that mainland carnivores
>> did not know what to make of them. So -- for a
>
> They would not see them as anything different. Predators go
> after humans today. Your argument about them being confused
> is crap.

Nonsense. If sharks routinely saw humans as
their prey, deaths would be in their millions every
year -- or people would stop swimming in the sea.
As it is, human deaths almost invariably occur
because the sharks mistake the swimmer (often
on a surf-board) for a seal, or one of their usual
prey.

>> I'm not talking about Geology, but about that
>> vastly more ignorant specialism, called Paleo-
>> Anthropology -- one that has not the slightest
>> awareness of relevant changes in the landscape.
>
> HAHHAH - paleo ecology and landscape changes are highly
> central in paleo anth. What do think drives evolutionary
> scenarios???

You must have read this in a book sometime.
Shame that you don't actually know anything
relevant from those disciplines. (But don't be
downhearted. Every other PA type is just as
ignorant as you.)

>> (a) have no clue as to how hominids managed to
>> cope with the predators at the time they were
>> supposedly taking their prey off them;
>
> And you do? Oh that's right - the magic islands. As opposed
> to work by Kortlandt.

What did Kortlandt say -- "the predators
must have preferred to ignore bipeds" . . ?

>> (b) have no clue as to how hominids of 2.5 mya
>> could actually capture large bovids and antelope;
>
> Scavenging. Taking down the weak and injured. Plain old
> hunting. DUH

Sure -- hominids are just as good at this as
lions, leopards and hyena. WE are GOOD
at EVERYTHING. We are really really great,
We are the best thing since sliced bread.

(That WAS in the Garden of Eden, wasn't it?
After all, how else could Adam and Eve have
enjoyed Paradise?)

>> (c) have no clue as to where the hominids were
>> before that, and how they managed to escape
>> the large (or any) predators when they had
>> recently come down from the trees;
>
> Predators climb trees too. Ooops.

All other primates get a good night's sleep
-- almost every night -- in trees. When did
you last sleep in a tree?

>> (d) have no clue as to how the bipeds survived
>> sleeping on the ground at night at any stage of
>> their existence (before they invented guns, trucks
>> and lights).
>
> Predators climb trees too. Double oops.

All other primates get a good night's sleep
-- almost every night -- in trees. When did
you last sleep in a tree?

>> And saying "we survived, so we must have
>> survived somehow" does NOT constitute an
>> 'explanation'.
>
> That is actual proof

And you regard THIS as a statement in Science?

PA clearly makes you stupid -- especially as
regards questions within your own 'discipline'.



Paul.

[Jim McGinn]

On Dec 5, 10:06 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 04:31, RichTravsky wrote:


> When our ancestors lost their four prehensile
> limbs (i.e. when they adapted to bipedalism)
> they also lost the ability to sleep in trees . . .
> and lost the ancient (and predominant among
> primates) means of avoiding nocturnal predation.
> This could only have happened in a location
> where there were no such predators.

The inner regions of a community site in my Ecological Gatekeeper
Hypothesis would have been predator free most of the time.

> Because they could come down from the trees
> and sleep on the ground -- there being no large
> predators around.  That made possible  (and
> essential) the bearing of weapons and tools,
> which, in turn, needed better bipedalism.

Excellent observation.

> >> I'm not talking about Geology, but about that
> >> vastly more ignorant specialism, called Paleo-
> >> Anthropology -- one that has not the slightest
> >> awareness of relevant changes in the landscape.
>
> > HAHHAH - paleo ecology and landscape changes are highly
> > central in paleo anth. What do think drives evolutionary
> > scenarios???
>
> You must have read this in a book sometime.

Travsky is such an obvious phoney. Note how he tries to claim to have
superior understanding of "what drives evolutionary scenarios" to draw
attention away from the fact that, by his own admission, he has no
scenario whatsoever. Nor can he point to anything from the (always
silent) professional PA's other than his vague, and plainly silly,
long distance running notions.

> Shame that you don't actually know anything
> relevant from those disciplines.  (But don't be
> downhearted. Every other PA type is just as
> ignorant as you.)

They are totally committed to maintaining vagueness.

> >> (a) have no clue as to how hominids managed to
> >> cope with the predators at the time they were
> >> supposedly taking their prey off them;
>
> > And you do? Oh that's right - the magic islands. As opposed
> > to work by Kortlandt.
>
> What did Kortlandt say -- "the predators
> must have preferred to ignore bipeds" . . ?

Note how Travsky keeps dropping the name, Kortlandt, but he won't
explicate what it is that he, supposedly, finds so significant about
Kordtlands work? It' shows how desperate they are to maintain the
veil of vagueness.

> >> (b) have no clue as to how hominids of 2.5 mya
> >> could actually capture large bovids and antelope;
>
> > Scavenging. Taking down the weak and injured. Plain old
> > hunting. DUH
>
> Sure -- hominids are just as good at this as
> lions, leopards and hyena.  WE are GOOD
> at EVERYTHING.  We are really really great,
> We are the best thing since sliced bread.

LOL. (You are on target here, Paul).

Sorry, Paul, but the location that hominid fossils are found is
inconsistent with the "predator free islands" aspects of your
scenario. You need to confront this fact head on. Don't fall into
the trap of using vagueness to make your case for you. Don't become
like them.

[Paul Crowley]

On 06/12/2012 18:41, Jim McGinn wrote:

> Sorry, Paul, but the location that hominid fossils are found
> is inconsistent with the "predator free islands" aspects of
> your scenario.

It is not inconsistent in any way, as I have
explained time and time again.

It is inept to regard the location of fossils as a
reliable guide to the usual habitat of the living
species. The survival of a corpse after death
and its long-term fossilisation depend, more
than anything, on the immediate conditions in
which the body was placed, on or immediately
after, death (i.e. in effect it has to be buried)
and the nature of that ground -- it has to
remain substantially undisturbed, and not be
subject to leaching from heavy rainfall.

Many species, known or assumed to have
been numerous, leave no or very few fossils.
Take chimpanzees and gorilla, for example;
our two closest cousins. They leave no fossils.
Let's say that a few are found in some
unexpected location -- such as, say, high in
some paleo-desert. No one would (I hope)
maintain that they lived in such a place. It
would merely indicate that a few individuals
died in a place where their were quickly
covered by sand or earth, and thus preserved,
and then became fossilized.

Coastal regions are the most hostile to such
preservation, as (over geological periods)
coasts move backwards and forwards over
the landscape, grinding up the ground to
depths of many metres, dispersing it along
the coast, and usually re-grinding it up again
many times.

> You need to confront this fact head on.

I have -- numerous times.

> Don't fall into the trap of using vagueness to
> make your case for you. Don't become like them.

The vagueness is often in your own head.
The word does not mean 'disagrees with my
ideas'.


Paul.

[Jim McGinn]

Look at some of the caves in South Africa where hominid fossils are
found. Explain to us how these were once islands.

Good luck.

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2012 04:31, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
> >>>>>>>>> capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
>
> >> The huge herds arrive (or congregate) only after
> >> the rains, when there is lush growth of grass.
> >> They rapidly eat it up, and move on, following
> >> the rains, or (sometimes) dispersing to forage
> >> elsewhere.
>
> >> He showed that chimps disliked leopards, and
> >> were prepared to chase them away. Amazing!
> >>
> >> That did NOT begin to constitute any kind of
> >> explanation of how hominids could LIVE AND
> >> SLEEP ON THE GROUND and survive predation
> >> -- by day and by night -- from leopards and from
> >> much larger carnivores.
> >
> > Leopards climb trees - ooops, can't sleep in the trees now!
>
> When did humans (or their ancestral bipeds) last
> regularly sleep in trees? Our primate relatives

Tell us. We await your evidence wih baited breath.

> (including chimps) can cope with leopard attacks
> by night -- but not without difficulty; i.e. they take
> much care and trouble to manage their sleeping
> arrangements. Chimps have four prehensile
> (grasping) limbs. The mother holds on to four

Humans only have two grasping limbs. Hmmm!

> fairly thin branches, and her infant holds on to
> her. So she can go higher in the tree than the
> leopards, which need larger (about 6 4 inch
> diameter) branches along which they can creep.
> Males sleep lower down, providing protection.
> (Leopards are not after adults, knowing that
> adults can inflict severe injuries on them; they
> are trying to get the young and babies.)
>
> When our ancestors lost their four prehensile
> limbs (i.e. when they adapted to bipedalism)
> they also lost the ability to sleep in trees . . .

Humans can sleep in trees quite fine if they want.

> and lost the ancient (and predominant among
> primates) means of avoiding nocturnal predation.
> This could only have happened in a location
> where there were no such predators.

Pollie - you DO know that chimps and gorillas build nests???

So, you have evidence of starving 90% of the year? You
know, actual numbers???

> >>>>> Geological evidence for these islands ->
> >>>>
> >>>> Eh? Do you deny that eustatic sea-levels
> >>>> constantly (over geological time-scales) go
> >>>> up and down? And that at every stage --
> >>>> based on irregularities and undulations in
> >>>> the terrestrial firmament, islands appear and
> >>>> disappear?
> >>>
> >>> Eh? Do you have any geologic AND fossil evidence for
> >>> these Fantasy Islands?
>
> But why should a PA type know anything at all
> about routine geology?

Why would a kook dream things up without evidence?

> >> Look at a globe. You will see numerous islands
> >> (like Britain, or Borneo, or Sulawesi, or Papua
> >> NG) that were not islands 12 kya. They were
> >> then joined to large continents. OK, if you are
> >
> > Goodness! And those predators didn't go there either?
>
> There were plenty of tigers on (what were)
> Borneo and Sulawesi 12 kya. The sea-levels
> rose, and they became islands. The populations
> of tigers (and other large predators) became too
> small, with too limited a genetic pool to survive for
> more than a few thousand years.
>
> But why should a PA type know anything at all
> about basic genetics?

Twelve kya? Modern humans? DUH?

But why should a kook type know when genetically modern humans were around?

> >> In the first instance, they were 'chimps' in the
> >> trees. The relatively few large carnivores died
> >> off, as they have on Borneo, Sulawesi, and on
> >> all other large islands, within the last 12 kya.
> >
> > Worthless. 12 kya would involved MODERN HUMANS. DUH
>
> Are you seriously claiming that stone-age H/G on
> Borneo, Papua NG and Sulawesi, ELIMINATED
> every last tiger on those islands?

You are.

> > Can't believe you've made such a STUPID mistake.
>
> I can't believe that you are so stupid as to
> think it was a mistake.

Those were modern humans. Quite capable of hunting and
defending themselves. DUH

> > So what about the time period of millions of years ago UP TO
> > 12kya???????????????????
>
> God help us! I am _referring_ to the last 12 Kyr
> as ONE EXAMPLE of what happens when sea-

It's your ONLY example, and you blew it.

> levels rise. I was (quite foolishly) expecting that
> you might have some slight awareness of the
> events of the last 12 kya.
>
> But, in any case, such events have been common
> (indeed, almost routine) throughout geological
> and evolutionary history. Islands like Borneo and
> Zanzibar have been created (and later destroyed)
> time and time again within the last 10 or 100 or
> 1000 million years.
>
> >> The numbers and genetic pool gets too small.
> >> The 'chimps' then became bipeds, and a few
> >
> > Why did they become bipeds on these magic islands?
>
> Because they could come down from the trees
> and sleep on the ground -- there being no large
> predators around. That made possible (and
> essential) the bearing of weapons and tools,
> which, in turn, needed better bipedalism.

Predators climb trees. DUH

> >> hundred thousand years later were so strange
> >> so rare and so peculiar that mainland carnivores
> >> did not know what to make of them. So -- for a
> >
> > They would not see them as anything different. Predators go
> > after humans today. Your argument about them being confused
> > is crap.
>
> Nonsense. If sharks routinely saw humans as
> their prey, deaths would be in their millions every

They do see humans as prey. DUH The difference is that there's more
hunting territory and prey out in the open water. DUH

> year -- or people would stop swimming in the sea.
> As it is, human deaths almost invariably occur
> because the sharks mistake the swimmer (often
> on a surf-board) for a seal, or one of their usual
> prey.
>
> >> I'm not talking about Geology, but about that
> >> vastly more ignorant specialism, called Paleo-
> >> Anthropology -- one that has not the slightest
> >> awareness of relevant changes in the landscape.
> >
> > HAHHAH - paleo ecology and landscape changes are highly
> > central in paleo anth. What do think drives evolutionary
> > scenarios???
>
> You must have read this in a book sometime.
> Shame that you don't actually know anything
> relevant from those disciplines. (But don't be
> downhearted. Every other PA type is just as
> ignorant as you.)

You must not have done any reading at all.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&q=climate+influence+evolution&oq=climate+influence+evolution&gs_l=serp.3..0i10i30j0i8i30l6.9778.10308.0.10554.4.4.0.0.0.0.130.417.1j3.4.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.6rBz-ltYfkI

Search terms climate influence evolution

Twenty nine million plus hits. Connect the dots there, DUH

> >> (a) have no clue as to how hominids managed to
> >> cope with the predators at the time they were
> >> supposedly taking their prey off them;
> >
> > And you do? Oh that's right - the magic islands. As opposed
> > to work by Kortlandt.
>
> What did Kortlandt say -- "the predators
> must have preferred to ignore bipeds" . . ?

Kortlandt tested chimpanzee response to a mechanical leopard.

The chimps trashed it.

DUH

> >> (b) have no clue as to how hominids of 2.5 mya
> >> could actually capture large bovids and antelope;
> >
> > Scavenging. Taking down the weak and injured. Plain old
> > hunting. DUH
>
> Sure -- hominids are just as good at this as

And that is what humans do as well.

> lions, leopards and hyena. WE are GOOD
> at EVERYTHING. We are really really great,
> We are the best thing since sliced bread.
>
> (That WAS in the Garden of Eden, wasn't it?
> After all, how else could Adam and Eve have
> enjoyed Paradise?)
>
> >> (c) have no clue as to where the hominids were
> >> before that, and how they managed to escape
> >> the large (or any) predators when they had
> >> recently come down from the trees;
> >
> > Predators climb trees too. Ooops.
>
> All other primates get a good night's sleep
> -- almost every night -- in trees. When did
> you last sleep in a tree?

All other primates are not obligate bipeds. DUH

> >> (d) have no clue as to how the bipeds survived
> >> sleeping on the ground at night at any stage of
> >> their existence (before they invented guns, trucks
> >> and lights).
> >
> > Predators climb trees too. Double oops.
>
> All other primates get a good night's sleep
> -- almost every night -- in trees. When did
> you last sleep in a tree?

All other primates are not obligate bipeds. DUH

> >> And saying "we survived, so we must have
> >> survived somehow" does NOT constitute an
> >> 'explanation'.
> >
> > That is actual proof
>
> And you regard THIS as a statement in Science?
>
> PA clearly makes you stupid -- especially as
> regards questions within your own 'discipline'.
>
> Paul.

Let's see - you rely on magical islands that someone hominids went
to without ANY predators following them...

Lack of PA makes you a moron.

[Paul Crowley]

On 10/12/2012 04:42, RichTravsky wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging

>>> Leopards climb trees - ooops, can't sleep in the trees now!
>>
>> When did humans (or their ancestral bipeds) last
>> regularly sleep in trees? Our primate relatives
>
> Tell us. We await your evidence wih baited breath.

You'll find the first item of evidence breathtaking --
and never noticed (nor noted) in any standard PA
publication. It's this: Out of every 24 hours on
this planet, there are, on average, 12 hours of
darkness. You don't know this because you are
asleep for most of them, as are your colleagues.

A second fact, of which you are probably unaware,
is that modern hominids (i.e. us) sleep in a different
manner from that of all other primates; i.e. we do
not sleep in trees. A third fact is that this change
in behaviour in the hominid line took place at some
quite definite time, for a distinct reason.

A fourth fact is that the sleeping behaviour, with
sleeping posture, is a crucial aspect of the niche
of every species. (You don't know about this, nor
does any other PA person, since you have never
grasped the concept of niche with regards to
humans/hominids.) A drastic change in that
behaviour or posture will be reflected in its
anatomy. The last major change in the anatomy
of the hominid line came with the adoption of
bipedalism around 6 mya. THAT was around
the time our ancestors stopped sleeping in trees.

>> (including chimps) can cope with leopard attacks
>> by night -- but not without difficulty; i.e. they take
>> much care and trouble to manage their sleeping
>> arrangements. Chimps have four prehensile
>> (grasping) limbs. The mother holds on to four
>
> Humans only have two grasping limbs. Hmmm!

Yes. I'm glad to see that you have noticed that.
It means that they cannot sleep in trees while
holding on to branches while also holding on
to their infants. As you so sagely remark,
leopards can climb trees too. Hominids could
never sleep in trees, let alone above the height
at which a leopard could easily hunt.

>> fairly thin branches, and her infant holds on to
>> her. So she can go higher in the tree than the
>> leopards, which need larger (about 6 4 inch
>> diameter) branches along which they can creep.
>> Males sleep lower down, providing protection.
>> (Leopards are not after adults, knowing that
>> adults can inflict severe injuries on them; they
>> are trying to get the young and babies.)
>>
>> When our ancestors lost their four prehensile
>> limbs (i.e. when they adapted to bipedalism)
>> they also lost the ability to sleep in trees . . .
>
> Humans can sleep in trees quite fine if they want.

See above. Also tell us (a) when you last slept
in a tree; (b) when someone you personally
know last slept in a tree; (c) how a human
mother would hold on to an infant when up a
tree, and manage to get a night's sleep? and
(d) which tribes are known to do this
routinely -- or regularly -- or ever.

>> and lost the ancient (and predominant among
>> primates) means of avoiding nocturnal predation.
>> This could only have happened in a location
>> where there were no such predators.
>
> Pollie - you DO know that chimps and gorillas build nests???

They build nests at whatever height they find safe
(in the time and circumstances) and comfortable.
In the presence of hunting leopards they will sacrifice
comfort for safety.

>> You don't know this (after all, why should a PA
>> type know anything at all about natural history?)
>> but it is a theoretically necessary and routinely
>> observed fact that -- from these migratory herds,
>> flocks and shoals -- local predators have a few
>> good weeks, but must then starve for the rest
>> of the year, or survive on relatively meagre
>> stocks of permanently-resident prey.
>
> So, you have evidence of starving 90% of the year? You
> know, actual numbers???

It is well known, and commonly observed, that
predators starve. Do you find that hard to believe?
Are you under the impression that predators
expand their numbers indefinitely? Or do they
exercise contraception unless they are certain
their infants will prosper?

>>>> In the first instance, they were 'chimps' in the
>>>> trees. The relatively few large carnivores died
>>>> off, as they have on Borneo, Sulawesi, and on
>>>> all other large islands, within the last 12 kya.
>>>
>>> Worthless. 12 kya would involved MODERN HUMANS. DUH
>>
>> Are you seriously claiming that stone-age H/G on
>> Borneo, Papua NG and Sulawesi, ELIMINATED
>> every last tiger on those islands?
>
> You are.

I am claiming no such thing. I could not be as
ignorant as your bog-standard PA type.

>>> Can't believe you've made such a STUPID mistake.
>>
>> I can't believe that you are so stupid as to
>> think it was a mistake.
>
> Those were modern humans. Quite capable of hunting and
> defending themselves. DUH

So the stone-age natives of Borneo, Sulawesi, the
Philippines, Taiwan, etc., etc., went into thick jungle
to hunt tigers, and were so successful that they got
every last one of them? And on every one of those
islands . . ?

>>> They would not see them as anything different. Predators go
>>> after humans today. Your argument about them being confused
>>> is crap.
>>
>> Nonsense. If sharks routinely saw humans as
>> their prey, deaths would be in their millions every
>
> They do see humans as prey. DUH The difference is that there's more
> hunting territory and prey out in the open water. DUH

Not true. Most of their prey is inshore.

In any case, look at tigers. Those which become
'man-eaters' are rare, and nearly all become well-
known:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-eating_tigers

> You must not have done any reading at all.
>
>
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&q=climate+influence+
evolution&oq=climate+influence+evolution&gs_l=serp.
3..0i10i30j0i8i30l6.9778.10308.0.10554.4.4.0.0.0.0.
130.417.1j3.4.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.6rBz-ltYfkI

> Search terms climate influence evolution
>
> Twenty nine million plus hits. Connect the dots there, DUH

That must make it true. Btw, 'God' produces
1,820,000,000 hits. So HIS / HER existence
is 60 times more true.

> Let's see - you rely on magical islands that someone
> hominids went to without ANY predators following them...

Fact (unknown to PA) large predators go extinct
on islands. (There are a few thousand in the world,
so it's easy to check the rule.)

Fact (unknown to PA) A primate that loses its
ability to move quickly, AND to shin up trees,
AND to carry its young while running, fighting,
climbing, etc., and which has yet to acquire
sophistication in running or walking bipedally,
would be exceedingly vulnerable to predation.

It would not (and could not) change its behaviour
and its anatomy unless it was in a predator-free
environment.


Paul.

[Jim McGinn]

Hominid's relationship and strategy of dealing with predation upon
themselves changed significantly over millions of years as they
gradually evolved the social and communal adaptations that define
hominids. Ground sleeping probably evolved gradually over millions of
years and probably, especially at first, only involved sleeping on the
ground part of the year and/or involved sleeping close to trees so
that when the alert was sounded they could quickly scramble to the
trees.

As I've explained previously, it was their success in pest control
agriculture that allowed them some degree of stealth from predation in
that predators tended to target localities that had starving or
weakened prey and a community's pest control agricultural practices
brought insurance that their locality would not have starving or
weakened prey. So, hominid's pest control agricultural practices had
the additional benefit of taking them off the radar screen of
predators, in general.

It's important to understand that hominid predator avoidance strategy
was very much a communal endeavor. A community that failed to
maintain its wealth would lose it's stealth from predation and could
very well draw the attention of predators which could result in the
extinction of the whole community as the predators moved in and stayed
for weeks at a time (during the depths of the dry season), picking
them off one individual at a time.

The communal selection indicated in the above paragraph was the
selective engine underlying the emergence of symbolic thought and the
other social adaptations that are so unique to our species.

Paul, the problem with taking predators out of the picture altogether
(ala your predator free islands) is it eliminates the one thing that
can possibly explain the selective emergence of the highly social,
communal, communicative, and intellectually sophisticated species that
hominids are: predatory massacres during the dry season. IOW, without
predatory massacres that eliminated the less cooperative, dumber, less
communicative, and less socially sophisticated communal entities then
those that were more cooperative, smarter, more communicative, and
more socially sophisticated--our ancestors--would not have had a
selective advantage.

The most important thing to understand about human evolution is that
the level of selection shifted away from that of the individual or
breeding group to that of the community as a whole. In the manner
described above, only if predators were a part of that equation would
it be possible to shift the unit of selection up to that of the
community, without which humans could not have and would not have
evolved.

So, in short, predators are essential to understanding how human
evolved from chimpanzee-like creatures into the socially adept
creature that we actually are.

[RichTravsky]

Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> On Dec 5, 10:06 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> > On 03/12/2012 04:31, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> > When our ancestors lost their four prehensile
> > limbs (i.e. when they adapted to bipedalism)
> > they also lost the ability to sleep in trees . . .
> > and lost the ancient (and predominant among
> > primates) means of avoiding nocturnal predation.
> > This could only have happened in a location
> > where there were no such predators.
>
> The inner regions of a community site in my Ecological Gatekeeper
> Hypothesis would have been predator free most of the time.

How and why?

[RichTravsky]

A fifth fact - you still haven't produced any scientific evidence.

> >> (including chimps) can cope with leopard attacks
> >> by night -- but not without difficulty; i.e. they take
> >> much care and trouble to manage their sleeping
> >> arrangements. Chimps have four prehensile
> >> (grasping) limbs. The mother holds on to four
> >
> > Humans only have two grasping limbs. Hmmm!
>
> Yes. I'm glad to see that you have noticed that.
> It means that they cannot sleep in trees while
> holding on to branches while also holding on
> to their infants. As you so sagely remark,
> leopards can climb trees too. Hominids could
> never sleep in trees, let alone above the height
> at which a leopard could easily hunt.

Chimps build nests. They didn't have to hang on. Duh.

> >> fairly thin branches, and her infant holds on to
> >> her. So she can go higher in the tree than the
> >> leopards, which need larger (about 6 4 inch
> >> diameter) branches along which they can creep.
> >> Males sleep lower down, providing protection.
> >> (Leopards are not after adults, knowing that
> >> adults can inflict severe injuries on them; they
> >> are trying to get the young and babies.)
> >>
> >> When our ancestors lost their four prehensile
> >> limbs (i.e. when they adapted to bipedalism)
> >> they also lost the ability to sleep in trees . . .
> >
> > Humans can sleep in trees quite fine if they want.
>
> See above. Also tell us (a) when you last slept
> in a tree; (b) when someone you personally
> know last slept in a tree; (c) how a human
> mother would hold on to an infant when up a
> tree, and manage to get a night's sleep? and
> (d) which tribes are known to do this
> routinely -- or regularly -- or ever.

I said they can - not that they do. DUH

Oh, and once again, chimps build nests - no hanging on needed.

> >> and lost the ancient (and predominant among
> >> primates) means of avoiding nocturnal predation.
> >> This could only have happened in a location
> >> where there were no such predators.
> >
> > Pollie - you DO know that chimps and gorillas build nests???
>
> They build nests at whatever height they find safe
> (in the time and circumstances) and comfortable.
> In the presence of hunting leopards they will sacrifice
> comfort for safety.

Well finally Pollie mentions nests...

> >> You don't know this (after all, why should a PA
> >> type know anything at all about natural history?)
> >> but it is a theoretically necessary and routinely
> >> observed fact that -- from these migratory herds,
> >> flocks and shoals -- local predators have a few
> >> good weeks, but must then starve for the rest
> >> of the year, or survive on relatively meagre
> >> stocks of permanently-resident prey.
> >
> > So, you have evidence of starving 90% of the year? You
> > know, actual numbers???
>
> It is well known, and commonly observed, that
> predators starve. Do you find that hard to believe?
> Are you under the impression that predators
> expand their numbers indefinitely? Or do they
> exercise contraception unless they are certain
> their infants will prosper?

And yet, they survive quite fine without eating hominids. Wow!

Perhaps you make a mountain out of a mole hill...

Not to mention flunking math. Hominids would have to exist in huge numbers
to carry allllllllllllllllllllllllllll those predators through a season.

How many hominids would be needed to satisfy a hungry group of predators, eh?

[Peter Jason]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:11:29 -0700, RichTravsky
<traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Paul Crowley wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2012 04:42, RichTravsky wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
>>
>> >>> Leopards climb trees - ooops, can't sleep in the trees now!
>> >>
>> >> When did humans (or their ancestral bipeds) last
>> >> regularly sleep in trees? Our primate relatives
>> >
>> > Tell us. We await your evidence wih baited breath.

Have you read this..
http://www.elsevierblogs.com/jhevReviews/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Tattersall.jpg

Very readable.

[JTEM]

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen wrote:
[---Insane rant---]

We both know that you suffer from
a severe personality disorder, that
you post under numerous names,
numerous personalities.

This is a fact. We both know it.

Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
you keep posting were mine (and they
are not), that couldn't change a thing.
You're still a mentally disturbed troll.
You still suffer from a severe
personality disorder, you still post
under a number of identities, a number
of different personalities.

...every last one of them a goddamn
idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
out this much on your own!

[Lee Olsen]

On Dec 18, 8:27 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fuck

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

From: Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
>I need only crank the organ and the monkey will dance!

Mar 24, 5:23 pm
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Cranking your organ is the only job you ever had.

JTEM replies with this classic blunder:
On Mar 25, 5:03 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you a sick fuck because you sexualize everything
> I say, or do you sexualize everything I say because
> you're a sick fuck?

"I say"? So are you Seth today or JTEM?

[Paul Crowley]

You don't know what 'scientific evidence' is.
You imagine that it must be produced by some-
one in a white coat, and consist of masses of
detailed tables of figures. But what 'scientific
evidence' did Einstein have when he wrote those
earth-shattering papers in 1904? What 'scientific
evidence' did Copernicus have? Or Galileo?
Or Robert Boyle? Or Newton? Or any of the
truly great?

They had a few facts, not different in principle or
style from those I list above. But, for the first
time in history, they considered them carefully
and objectively; they ignored ancient myths and
came to logical conclusions.

>> Yes. I'm glad to see that you have noticed that.
>> It means that they cannot sleep in trees while
>> holding on to branches while also holding on
>> to their infants. As you so sagely remark,
>> leopards can climb trees too. Hominids could
>> never sleep in trees, let alone above the height
>> at which a leopard could easily hunt.
>
> Chimps build nests. They didn't have to hang on. Duh.

Note the non-answer. (Not deliberate, of course,
You are so dumb that you don't know what a
question is, let alone how to answer it, and
you don't begin to be aware of when you are
failing to provide an answer.)

Could humans/hominids EVER sleep in a tree
above the height a leopard could reach?

Lets put the question in another way: Before
they had huts, enclosures, dogs, fire, etc.,
could humans/hominids routinely occupy
the same territory as leopards?

> Chimps build nests. They didn't have to hang on. Duh.

Read, before you splurge. Chimps make fresh
nests every night by bending over SMALL
branches. Those nests support their weight,
but often they will still have to hang on with
their hands and feet, especially mothers with
small infants when they need to go high to
avoid leopard predation (of those infants).

>>>> fairly thin branches, and her infant holds on to
>>>> her. So she can go higher in the tree than the
>>>> leopards, which need larger (about 6 4 inch
>>>> diameter) branches along which they can creep.
>>>> Males sleep lower down, providing protection.
>>>> (Leopards are not after adults, knowing that
>>>> adults can inflict severe injuries on them; they
>>>> are trying to get the young and babies.)
>>>>
>>>> When our ancestors lost their four prehensile
>>>> limbs (i.e. when they adapted to bipedalism)
>>>> they also lost the ability to sleep in trees . . .
>>>
>>> Humans can sleep in trees quite fine if they want.
>>
>> See above. Also tell us (a) when you last slept
>> in a tree; (b) when someone you personally
>> know last slept in a tree; (c) how a human
>> mother would hold on to an infant when up a
>> tree, and manage to get a night's sleep? and
>> (d) which tribes are known to do this
>> routinely -- or regularly -- or ever.
>
> I said they can - not that they do. DUH

Yeah, yeah. Billions of humans in millions
of communities, and you cannot quote one
that EVER sleeps in trees. Pigs can fly --
it's just that you will never see it happening
(except in your dreams).

> Oh, and once again, chimps build nests - no hanging on
> needed.

Read, before you splurge. Chimps make fresh
nests every night by bending over SMALL
branches. Those nests support their weight,
but they will still have to hang on with their
arms and feet, especially mothers with
small infants who need to go high to avoid
leopard predation.

>>>> and lost the ancient (and predominant among
>>>> primates) means of avoiding nocturnal predation.
>>>> This could only have happened in a location
>>>> where there were no such predators.
>>>
>>> Pollie - you DO know that chimps and gorillas build nests???
>>
>> They build nests at whatever height they find safe
>> (in the time and circumstances) and comfortable.
>> In the presence of hunting leopards they will sacrifice
>> comfort for safety.
>
> Well finally Pollie mentions nests...

Read, before you splurge. Chimps make fresh
nests every night by bending over SMALL
branches. Those nests support their weight,
but they will still have to hang on with their
arms and feet, especially mothers with
small infants who need to go high to avoid
leopard predation.

>> It is well known, and commonly observed, that
>> predators starve. Do you find that hard to believe?
>> Are you under the impression that predators
>> expand their numbers indefinitely? Or do they
>> exercise contraception unless they are certain
>> their infants will prosper?
>
> And yet, they survive quite fine without eating hominids. Wow!

Usually they barely survive, and then only by
scraping the bottom of the barrel -- to catch and
eat the likes of mice and rats.

> Perhaps you make a mountain out of a mole hill...

Yeah, yeah. Lions are essentially nice animals,
large pussy-cats who just want to be loved.
Much the same applies to hyenas, and other
large carnivores. Just give them some milk
and rub behind their ears and, even if they
are starving, they'll just purr.

> Not to mention flunking math. Hominids would have to
> exist in huge numbers to carry allllllllllllllllllllllllllll those
> predators through a season.

God help us. Do you think I'm claiming that
a special breed of lion -- which lived ONLY
off hominids -- had to exist?

Here's a simple analogy -- although I know
that you won't get it. Lions _sometimes_
catch and eat baboons. It's not often, and
baboons probably make up less than 1% of
their diet. But baboons take a lot of care not
to be caught by them. In the dry season,
they dig for roots (something chimps don't do
btw). They feed with antelope, which have a
better sense of smell and see differently (not
having the full colour range of primates).
Together they are better at detecting a
skulking lion. Baboons don't go far from
trees, and avoid clumps of high grass where
a lion might hide. No one suggests that lions
could survive ONLY on baboons. But they
make huge areas uninhabitable by baboons
-- open areas of grass that lack 'escape-
trees'.

Lions would make huge areas uninhabitable
by humans or hominids -- even bigger areas
than those barred to baboons, since hominids
are:
(a) very much slower at running, and
(b) quite hopeless at climbing, especially when
trying to carry young.

And, given that hominids can't sleep in trees in
any event, there is NO WAY -- no way whatever
-- that they could have routinely survived on the
ground in the presence of large predators.

> How many hominids would be needed to satisfy a hungry
> group of predators, eh?

How ignorant and unscientific is it possible to get?


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 21, 3:50 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 16/12/2012 22:11, RichTravsky wrote:

> Note the non-answer.

Travsky is just one of many braindead anthro-cultists.

> Before
> they had huts, enclosures, dogs, fire, etc.,
> could humans/hominids routinely occupy
> the same territory as leopards?

True, but leopards might have preferred to avoid them due to the fact
that the hominids tended to attack enforce and they were constantly
aware and therefore not easy to sneak up on. And also the adults were
about the same size. So hominids were not their preferred prey.

> No one suggests that lions
> could survive ONLY on baboons.  But they
> make huge areas uninhabitable by baboons
> -- open areas of grass that lack 'escape-
> trees'.

Yes, and the same would have been true for early hominids.

> Lions would make huge areas uninhabitable
> by humans or hominids -- even bigger areas
> than those barred to baboons, since hominids
> are:
> (a) very much slower at running, and
> (b) quite hopeless at climbing, especially when
> trying to carry young.

Yes, but later hominids had abilities that babboons didn't have: the
ability to attack enforce, highly cooperative nature, and regional
collusive awareness of their claimed territory. These behaviors
evolved as a result of the pest control agriculture that was (and
still is) a defining characteristic of hominids.

> And, given that hominids can't sleep in trees in
> any event, there is NO WAY -- no way whatever
> -- that they could have routinely survived on the
> ground in the presence of large predators.

True, but large predators, like lion and hyena, would have mostly been
absent, except for periods during the dry season when their presence
might have be constant for days or weeks at a time.

> > How many hominids would be needed to satisfy a hungry
> > group of predators, eh?
>
> How ignorant and unscientific is it possible to get?

Remember, Trasky is amongst the dimwits that proposed long distance
running across treeless savanna to explain hominid origins. Travsky's
stupidity knows no limits.

Whatever the case, Paul, nothing you've stated here would suggest that
hominids had to live on predator free islands to begin sleeping on the
ground.

[Claudius Denk]

In the manner we've previously discussed.

Tell us more about how you envision hominids employing long distance
running to escape predators like lion and hyena.

[Tom McDonald]

On Dec 21, 12:20 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Remember, Trasky is amongst the dimwits that proposed long distance
> running across treeless savanna to explain hominid origins.

No one here has proposed any such thing. You, on the other hand, keep
repeating this as though it were a proven fact.

One has to wonder what else you repeat as though it were a proven fact
that just isn't so.

> Travsky's
> stupidity knows no limits.

Someone's does. I don't think it's Rich's though.

<snip>

[Tom McDonald]

Tell us more about how anyone here ever suggested such a thing. Take
as many words to do so as you need--as long as some of them amount to
'I'm sorry, I was wrong'.

[Claudius Denk]

You church ladies are as obsessed with what you, supposedly, didn't
say as you are with misrepresenting what your opponents did say.

Here's the thing, Tom. Anybody can go into the search engine for
Google Groups and very quickly reveal the dishonest tactics of
yourself, Olsen and Travsky. So don't get all high and mighty with us
Tom.

[Tom McDonald]

There's you again, Jim, looking in the mirror and posting about
yourself.

It's called 'projection', and it's a very well understood
psychological phenomenon. You should look into it, with an eye to
curing yourself.

[george152]

On 22/12/12 11:21, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> You church ladies are as obsessed with what you, supposedly, didn't
> say as you are with misrepresenting what your opponents did say.
>
> Here's the thing, Tom. Anybody can go into the search engine for
> Google Groups and very quickly reveal the dishonest tactics of
> yourself, Olsen and Travsky. So don't get all high and mighty with us
> Tom.
>

Denial aint just a river in Egypt for you is it...

[Jim McGinn]

This subject ain't for sissies, George.

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 21, 3:50 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 16/12/2012 22:11, RichTravsky wrote:


> > A fifth fact - you still haven't produced any scientific evidence.
>
> You don't know what 'scientific evidence' is.

Don't take the bait, Paul. The evidence is in the public domain.
It's freely available to anybody. It is not a theorists job to
produce evidence. It's a theorists job to present a detailed
hypothesis that cannot be dispute/refuted by the evidence and that
explains the evidence within the context of evolutionary biology.
They have failed in this endeavor only wish to save face by falsely
implying that it is your responsibility to produce evidence.

> You imagine that it must be produced by some-
> one in a white coat, and consist of masses of
> detailed tables of figures.  But what 'scientific
> evidence' did Einstein have when he wrote those
> earth-shattering papers in 1904?  What 'scientific
> evidence' did Copernicus have?  Or Galileo?
> Or Robert Boyle?  Or Newton? Or any of the
> truly great?

Right, in their earliest derivations all hypotheses are, at best,
educated guesses.

> They had a few facts, not different in principle or
> style from those I list above.  But, for the first
> time in history, they considered them carefully
> and objectively;  they ignored ancient myths and
> came to logical conclusions.

True, Paul, but be careful not to just create your own myths. A
genuine scientist is constantly attempting to dispute/refute their own
hypothesis with the evidence.

>
> >> Yes.  I'm glad to see that you have noticed that.
> >> It means that they cannot sleep in trees while
> >> holding on to branches while also holding  on
> >> to their infants.  As you so sagely remark,
> >> leopards can climb trees too.  Hominids could
> >> never sleep in trees, let alone above the height
> >> at which a leopard could easily hunt.
>
> > Chimps build nests. They didn't have to hang on. Duh.
>
> Note the non-answer.  (Not deliberate, of course,
> You are so dumb that you don't know what a
> question is, let alone how to answer it, and
> you don't begin to be aware of when you are
> failing to provide an answer.)
>
> Could humans/hominids EVER sleep in a tree
> above the height a leopard could reach?

Chimps/apes coexisted with leopards (who are fairly good tree
climbers) for millions of years. If leopard was truly the threat
you'd have us believe then we'd expect chimpanzees/apes to have gone
extinct years ago.

You indicated that hominids have been bipedal since 6mya. But you
didn't mention that hominids maintained tree climbing adaptations
until 2mya. This means that for 4 mya they were both bipedal and
living/sleeping in trees. This fact is inconsistent with your
supposition (which borders on an obsession) that ground sleeping could
not have been achieved unless they resided on predatory free islands.

Lastly, hominid fossils simply are not found at locations that were
once islands.

So, Paul, lets put these together:
1) Chimps/apes coexisted with leopards (who are fairly good tree
climbers) for millions of years.
2) Bipedal hominids maintained tree climbing adaptations for 4 million
years (or at least 2 million years).
3) Hominid fossils are not found at locations consistent with island
isolation.

These are three points of data any one of which is sufficient to
destroy your predator free islands notions. Note that, unlike the
church ladies, I am not asking you to produce evidence to support your
predator free island assertion. This would not be an honest or fair
request. But I am asking you to explain these evidence-based
discrepancies and/or reject your model.

[RichTravsky]

Where us yours?

> You imagine that it must be produced by some-
> one in a white coat, and consist of masses of
> detailed tables of figures. But what 'scientific
> evidence' did Einstein have when he wrote those
> earth-shattering papers in 1904? What 'scientific

Math and the work of previous scientists. DUH

> evidence' did Copernicus have? Or Galileo?
> Or Robert Boyle? Or Newton? Or any of the
> truly great?

Hint: "shoulders of giants" ...

> They had a few facts, not different in principle or
> style from those I list above. But, for the first
> time in history, they considered them carefully
> and objectively; they ignored ancient myths and
> came to logical conclusions.

yes, and?

> >> Yes. I'm glad to see that you have noticed that.
> >> It means that they cannot sleep in trees while
> >> holding on to branches while also holding on
> >> to their infants. As you so sagely remark,
> >> leopards can climb trees too. Hominids could
> >> never sleep in trees, let alone above the height
> >> at which a leopard could easily hunt.
> >
> > Chimps build nests. They didn't have to hang on. Duh.
>
> Note the non-answer. (Not deliberate, of course,

Note the answer that blew you away.

> You are so dumb that you don't know what a
> question is, let alone how to answer it, and
> you don't begin to be aware of when you are
> failing to provide an answer.)
>
> Could humans/hominids EVER sleep in a tree
> above the height a leopard could reach?

No. They weigh less on average than a chimp.

> Lets put the question in another way: Before
> they had huts, enclosures, dogs, fire, etc.,
> could humans/hominids routinely occupy
> the same territory as leopards?

Yes. Why not? Seen Kortlandt's work?

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

> > Chimps build nests. They didn't have to hang on. Duh.
>
> Read, before you splurge. Chimps make fresh
> nests every night by bending over SMALL
> branches. Those nests support their weight,

Read before you splurge. The average weight of a leopard is
less than the average weight of a chimp.

> but often they will still have to hang on with
> their hands and feet, especially mothers with
> small infants when they need to go high to
> avoid leopard predation (of those infants).

Your surrender accepted.

Yeah yeah yeah. Your little strawman comes crashing down.

> > Oh, and once again, chimps build nests - no hanging on
> > needed.
>
> Read, before you splurge. Chimps make fresh
> nests every night by bending over SMALL
> branches. Those nests support their weight,

Read before you splurge. The average weight of a leopard is
less than the average weight of a chimp.

> but they will still have to hang on with their
> arms and feet, especially mothers with
> small infants who need to go high to avoid
> leopard predation.
>
> >>>> and lost the ancient (and predominant among
> >>>> primates) means of avoiding nocturnal predation.
> >>>> This could only have happened in a location
> >>>> where there were no such predators.
> >>>
> >>> Pollie - you DO know that chimps and gorillas build nests???
> >>
> >> They build nests at whatever height they find safe
> >> (in the time and circumstances) and comfortable.
> >> In the presence of hunting leopards they will sacrifice
> >> comfort for safety.
> >
> > Well finally Pollie mentions nests...
>
> Read, before you splurge. Chimps make fresh
> nests every night by bending over SMALL
> branches. Those nests support their weight,

Read before you splurge. The average weight of a leopard is
less than the average weight of a chimp.

> but they will still have to hang on with their
> arms and feet, especially mothers with
> small infants who need to go high to avoid
> leopard predation.
>
> >> It is well known, and commonly observed, that
> >> predators starve. Do you find that hard to believe?
> >> Are you under the impression that predators
> >> expand their numbers indefinitely? Or do they
> >> exercise contraception unless they are certain
> >> their infants will prosper?
> >
> > And yet, they survive quite fine without eating hominids. Wow!
>
> Usually they barely survive, and then only by
> scraping the bottom of the barrel -- to catch and
> eat the likes of mice and rats.

Bzzt. Not enough to maintain a bunch of predators. Try again.

Oh, and PS, hominids live in small bands and would have been
wiped out in your scenario.

> > Perhaps you make a mountain out of a mole hill...
>
> Yeah, yeah. Lions are essentially nice animals,
> large pussy-cats who just want to be loved.
> Much the same applies to hyenas, and other
> large carnivores. Just give them some milk
> and rub behind their ears and, even if they
> are starving, they'll just purr.

All you need is hundreds and hundreds of small hominids to support
all those predators, eh?

> > Not to mention flunking math. Hominids would have to
> > exist in huge numbers to carry allllllllllllllllllllllllllll those
> > predators through a season.
>
> God help us. Do you think I'm claiming that
> a special breed of lion -- which lived ONLY
> off hominids -- had to exist?

Oh poor Pollie. Dug himself a hole! Jumped in head first!

> Here's a simple analogy -- although I know
> that you won't get it. Lions _sometimes_
> catch and eat baboons. It's not often, and
> baboons probably make up less than 1% of
> their diet. But baboons take a lot of care not
> to be caught by them. In the dry season,
> they dig for roots (something chimps don't do
> btw). They feed with antelope, which have a
> better sense of smell and see differently (not
> having the full colour range of primates).
> Together they are better at detecting a
> skulking lion. Baboons don't go far from
> trees, and avoid clumps of high grass where
> a lion might hide. No one suggests that lions
> could survive ONLY on baboons. But they
> make huge areas uninhabitable by baboons

Lie.

> -- open areas of grass that lack 'escape-
> trees'.

Here's a simple analogy: armchair uneducated pub browser contradicts himself.

First, you claim they subsisted on those poor hominids because all the
other animals ran away and would have starved otherwise without them. Now,
you say they didn't subsist on those hominids because they ate other prey,
thus pulling the rug out from under your own "theory".

> Lions would make huge areas uninhabitable
> by humans or hominids -- even bigger areas

Lie.

> than those barred to baboons, since hominids
> are:
> (a) very much slower at running, and
> (b) quite hopeless at climbing, especially when
> trying to carry young.

And yet, they survived quite fine. Australopiths ranged all over Africa -
HOW oh HOW did they do that? Eh?

> And, given that hominids can't sleep in trees in
> any event, there is NO WAY -- no way whatever
> -- that they could have routinely survived on the
> ground in the presence of large predators.
>
> > How many hominids would be needed to satisfy a hungry
> > group of predators, eh?
>
> How ignorant and unscientific is it possible to get?

By not backing up your claim with any numbers.

[RichTravsky]

As expected, Tom, nothing but evasions from him.

[Jim McGinn]

Why not?

>
> Oh, and PS, hominids live in small bands and would have been
> wiped out in your scenario.

Some of them? Sure.

>
> > > Perhaps you make a mountain out of a mole hill...
>
> > Yeah, yeah.  Lions are essentially nice animals,
> > large pussy-cats who just want to be loved.
> > Much the same applies to hyenas, and other
> > large carnivores.  Just give them some milk
> > and rub behind their ears and, even if they
> > are starving, they'll just purr.
>
> All you need is hundreds and hundreds of small hominids to support
> all those predators, eh?

Small?

>
> > > Not to mention flunking math. Hominids would have to
> > > exist in huge numbers to carry allllllllllllllllllllllllllll those
> > > predators through a season.
>
> > God help us.  Do you think I'm claiming that
> > a special breed of lion -- which lived ONLY
> > off hominids -- had to exist?
>
> Oh poor Pollie. Dug himself a hole! Jumped in head first!

Why do you (above) assume "huge numbers" were necessary, Travsky?

> > Here's a simple analogy -- although I know
> > that you won't get it.  Lions _sometimes_
> > catch and eat baboons.  It's not often, and
> > baboons probably make up less than 1% of
> > their diet.  But baboons take a lot of care not
> > to be caught by them.  In the dry season,
> > they dig for roots (something chimps don't do
> > btw).  They feed with antelope, which have a
> > better sense of smell and see differently (not
> > having the full colour range of primates).
> > Together they are better at detecting a
> > skulking lion.  Baboons don't go far from
> > trees, and avoid clumps of high grass where
> > a lion might hide. No one suggests that lions
> > could survive ONLY on baboons.  But they
> > make huge areas uninhabitable by baboons
>
> Lie.

Explain yourself, nitwit. Isn't it obvious that babboon isn't found
in predator infested, open savanna (grassland) habitat)?

>
> > -- open areas of grass that lack 'escape-
> > trees'.
>
> Here's a simple analogy: armchair uneducated pub browser contradicts himself.

You got nothing, Travsky.

>
> First, you claim they subsisted on those poor hominids because all the
> other animals ran away and would have starved otherwise without them. Now,
> you say they didn't subsist on those hominids because they ate other prey,
> thus pulling the rug out from under your own "theory".

Uh . . . it's not a theory. Its a (reasonable) assumption based on
observation of extent species.

> > Lions would make huge areas uninhabitable
> > by humans or hominids -- even bigger areas
>
> Lie.

Rich thinks they used long distance running to escape lion, hyena, and
dog. But he's so embarassed by it's absurdity that he won't metion it
explicitly.

> > than those barred to baboons, since hominids
> > are:
> > (a) very much slower at running, and
> > (b) quite hopeless at climbing, especially when
> > trying to carry young.
>

> And yet, they survived ...

That's your reasoning?

[Paul Crowley]

Claudius Denk . . . . wrote

(recovered from Google. I don't usually see posts
from 'Claudius' -- since he is in my kill-file -- and
will stay there as long as he continues to exchange
tedious 'insults' with the Olsen clown.)

> You indicated that hominids have been bipedal since
> 6mya. But you didn't mention that hominids maintained
> tree climbing adaptations until 2mya.

I have discussed it -- and dismissed it. You
might as well argue that our shoulders and
arms are in the same form as those of gibbons,
gorillas and chimpanzees, and we must therefore
go around brachiating -- swinging from branch to
branch. I've not noticed any people doing that
myself, but maybe I don't mix in the right circles.

> This means that for 4 mya they were both bipedal and
> living/sleeping in trees.

No. It does not.

You (with PA generally) lack the concept of niche.
Tree-sleeping, with woodland foraging, mainly
ground-based, constitutes the chimpanzee niche.
Hominids (necessarily) found another, and a very
different one, that needed a radically different
morphology. They could never have competed
with chimps within the chimp niche. They are
simply not designed for it -- nor for enduring the
12 hours of dark (out of the 24). It should be the
task of PA to say what brought about the radical
new design. But it forgot about it decades ago.
Amateurs like you should not follow those lost
clowns down the same road.

> This fact is inconsistent with your supposition (which
> borders on an obsession) that ground sleeping could not
> have been achieved unless they resided on predatory free
> islands.

Name another medium-sized continental
mammal that does not suffer regular predation.
Until you can specify how your hominids coped
with predation -- especially nocturnal predation
-- you don't have an evolutionary theory (or
scenario). Standard PA doesn't and nor do you.
Btw, waving your arms in the dark at potential
shadows is not a lot of use.

>> Could humans/hominids EVER sleep in a tree
>> above the height a leopard could reach?
>

> Chimps/apes coexisted with leopards (who are fairly good tree
> climbers) for millions of years.

Of course, and it's been a constant (evolutionary)
battle, with chimp mothers (with small infants)
having to go higher and higher, above the level
leopards can reach. Leopards need branches
of about 5 inches diameter on which to walk.
A chimp mother can hold on (all night) to four
different branches of about 2 inch diameter
(maybe where two trees overlap) while resting
her back on a nest based on a lattice of similar-
sized branches.

Secondly, chimp infants are able to climb on
their own from a very early age -- certainly by
four months, and maybe from two months or
even earlier. They can then go way above the
level at which a leopard could get them. This
ability (and its precociousness) has been
selected for.

All chimps are born with long strong arms, and
with hands and feet that can grip. Chimp
mothers can place their small infants high up.
leaving them holding on to small branches
during a leopard attack. (Remember that
leopards are _not_hunting chimp adults --
only the infants. Although they would go for
adult hominids, which lack the razor-sharp
teeth of chimps. Leopards would face little
risk of injury when attacking an adult hominid.)

> If leopard was truly the threat you'd have us believe then
> we'd expect chimpanzees/apes to have gone extinct
> years ago.

Nonsense. Chimps do lose infants to leopard
attacks. Leopards can see well in the dark.
Chimps are like us -- night-blind. Leopards try
to get them to panic, and infants sometimes
fall to the ground in the chaos. But it is no
great disaster. When it happens, the chimp
mother usually loses no more than about
one reproductive year. The chimp infant is
vulnerable to such attacks primarily in the
first few weeks of its life.

> You indicated that hominids have been bipedal since
> 6mya. But you didn't mention that hominids maintained
> tree climbing adaptations until 2mya.

Not true. Their big toes appear to stick out
sideways only for Ardipithecus. In that case,
we'd expect some degree of evolutionary hang-
over.

--------------- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210141215.htm

" . . . This species, whose best-known specimen is
"Lucy," lived in eastern Africa 3.0-3.8 million years ago.
Prior to A. afarensis, the species A. anamensis was
present in Kenya and Ethiopia from 4.2 to 4.0 million years
ago, but its skeleton is not well known. At 4.4 million years
ago, Ethiopia's Ardipithecus ramidus is the earliest human
ancestor well represented by skeletal remains. Although
Ardipithecus appears to have been a part-time terrestrial
biped, its foot retains many features of tree-dwelling
primates, including a divergent, mobile first toe. The foot of
A. afarensis, as with other parts of its skeleton, is much
more like that of living humans, implying that by the time of
Lucy, our ancestors no longer depended on the trees for
refuge or resources. . . . "

--------------- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210141215.htm

NO ONE suggests that early hominids could
sleep in trees in the same manner as chimps.
Leopard-avoidance was never a factor in the
evolutionary design of the human / hominid
anatomy, and no one has ever suggested
that it was.

> This means that for 4 mya they were both bipedal and
> living/sleeping in trees.

You are as dumb as Travsky. (Is there any greater
insult?)
1) HOW could a bipedal animal sleep in a tree?
2) HOW could it look after itself and its infants so
that they routinely survive leopard attacks?
3) HOW could it successfully compete with
chimpanzees?
4) WHAT was the drastic change in anatomy
and in habitat that occurred around 2 mya (in
your scenario) ?

You don't deviate from Standard PA in any
significant way at all. Like them, you have
not begun to face up to the issues.

> This fact is inconsistent with your supposition (which
> borders on an obsession) that ground sleeping could
> not have been achieved unless they resided on
> predatory free islands.

Do you accept that
(a) around 6 mya (or sometime) our ancestors
went through a period when they were half-
quadrupedal and half-bipedal ?

Do you accept that
(b) during that time they were pretty useless
at both . . ?

Do you accept that
(c) they would not have been able to enter into
this extraordinary transition if they had been in
daily competition from chimpanzees and been
routinely predated upon by large carnivores ?

Have you ANY theory that explains how such
a transition could be achieved in the presence
of competitors and predators?

> This fact is inconsistent with your supposition (which
> borders on an obsession) that ground sleeping could
> not have been achieved unless they resided on
> predatory free islands.

Have you ANY theory that explains how a
hominid could survive sleeping on the ground
in the presence of lions -- other than by waving
their arms in the dark, and shouting at the huge
animals they could not see . . . but which they
thought might be there?

> Lastly, hominid fossils simply are not found at locations
> that were once islands.

There are no such locations where any such
fossils could reasonably be expected to survive.
You might as well claim that since there are no
chimp fossils, chimps could not have been
around 5 or 6 mya (nor at any other time, such
as 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 mya).. The only place
hominid fossils were likely to survive was when
they died (and were buried) in the highlands --
on their relatively rare travels to such places.

> So, Paul, lets put these together:
> 1) Chimps/apes coexisted with leopards (who are fairly
> good tree climbers) for millions of years.
> 2) Bipedal hominids maintained tree climbing adaptations
> for 4 million years (or at least 2 million years).
> 3) Hominid fossils are not found at locations consistent
> with island isolation.
>
> These are three points of data

These 'points' are far removed from any 'data',
and are misinterpreted (1), plain wrong (2),
and quite absurd (3).

> any one of which is sufficient to destroy your predator free
> islands notions.

None can sustain a few seconds inspection.

You fail to grasp the essential reasons why our
ancestors could not have undergone drastic
morphological change in the presence of large
carnivores. Until you begin to recognise that
--- normally, in all mainland locations -- large
predators are invariably present, and a constant
threat to life, you cannot begin to think clearly
about the issues. You cannot just wish away
their existence -- although that is exactly what
you pretend to do, following the long-established
'thinking' of your Standard PA peers.

> Note that, unlike the church ladies, I am not asking you
> to produce evidence to support your predator free island
> assertion.

Strange, but that is exactly what you did just
a sentence or so back. However, as I have told
you dozens of times, an island that is regularly
(over geological time) submerged and has
coastlines regularly going back and forward
over the landscape grinding up everything into
microscopic particles, is not going to have
much in the way of ancient fossils.

My theory also explains much in human
anatomy and behaviour that yours (and its
close relative, Standard PA) fails to even
notice -- such as naked skin, noisy infants
with a very long period of atriciality, sweating,
lobulated kidneys, infant nakedness, high
salt needs and capacities, small canine
teeth and high enamel.


Paul.

[Tom McDonald]

Well, he never disappoints.

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 24, 12:59 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk  . . . . wrote
>
> (recovered from Google. I don't usually see posts
> from 'Claudius' -- since he is in my kill-file  -- and
> will stay there as long as he continues to exchange
> tedious 'insults' with the Olsen clown.)
>
> > You indicated that hominids have been bipedal since
> > 6mya.  But you didn't mention that hominids maintained
> > tree climbing adaptations until 2mya.
>
> I have discussed it  -- and dismissed it.

What, exactly?

> You
> might as well argue that our shoulders and
> arms are in the same form as those of gibbons,
> gorillas and chimpanzees, and we must therefore
> go around brachiating -- swinging from branch to
> branch.  I've not noticed any people doing that
> myself, but maybe I don't mix in the right circles.

Relevance?

> > This means that for 4 mya they were both bipedal and
> > living/sleeping in trees.
>
> No. It does not.

You lost me.

> You (with PA generally) lack the concept of niche.

Surreal. I'm the one that explained it to you.

> Tree-sleeping, with woodland foraging, mainly
> ground-based, constitutes the chimpanzee niche.
> Hominids (necessarily) found another, and a very
> different one, that needed a radically different
> morphology.

It's not that simple.

IMO, that early hominids maintainted tree climbing adaptations (curved
phalages, curved ankles) is not controversial.

> They could never have competed
> with chimps within the chimp niche.

Irrelevant. Chimps live in rainforest (closed canopy) habitat.

> They are
> simply not designed for it -- nor for enduring the
> 12 hours of dark (out of the 24).  It should be the
> task of PA to say what brought about the radical
> new design.  But it forgot about it decades ago.
> Amateurs like you should not follow those lost
> clowns down the same road.

Your whacked with this 12 hours of darkness nonsense.

> > This fact is inconsistent with your supposition (which
> > borders on an obsession) that ground sleeping could not
> > have been achieved unless they resided on predatory free
> > islands.
>
> Name another medium-sized continental
> mammal that does not suffer regular predation.

Relevance?

> Until you can specify how your hominids coped
> with predation -- especially nocturnal predation
> -- you don't have an evolutionary theory (or
> scenario).  Standard PA doesn't and nor do you.
> Btw, waving your arms in the dark at potential
> shadows is not a lot of use.

Chimps survived.

> >> Could humans/hominids EVER sleep in a tree
> >> above the height a leopard could reach?
>
> > Chimps/apes coexisted with leopards (who are fairly good tree
> > climbers) for millions of years.
>
> Of course, and it's been a constant (evolutionary)
> battle, with chimp mothers (with small infants)
> having to go higher and higher, above the level
> leopards can reach. Leopards need branches
> of about 5 inches diameter on which to walk.
> A chimp mother can hold on (all night) to four
> different branches of about 2 inch diameter
> (maybe where two trees overlap) while resting
> her back on a nest based on a lattice of similar-
> sized branches.

If you were remotely sensible the discussion would be over with this
realization.

> Secondly, chimp infants are able to climb on
> their own from a very early age -- certainly by
> four months, and maybe from two months or
> even earlier. They can then go way above the
> level at which a leopard could get them. This
> ability (and its precociousness) has been
> selected for.
>
> All chimps are born with long strong arms, and
> with hands and feet that can grip.  Chimp
> mothers can place their small infants high up.
> leaving them holding on to small branches
> during a leopard attack.  (Remember that
> leopards are _not_hunting chimp adults --
> only the infants.  Although they would go for
> adult hominids, which lack the razor-sharp
> teeth of chimps.  Leopards would face little
> risk of injury when attacking an adult hominid.)
>
> > If leopard was truly the threat you'd have us believe then
> > we'd expect chimpanzees/apes to have gone extinct
> > years ago.
>
> Nonsense.

Facts are facts, dude. Deal with it.

> Chimps do lose infants to leopard
> attacks.  Leopards can see well in the dark.
> Chimps are like us -- night-blind. Leopards try
> to get them to panic, and infants sometimes
> fall to the ground in the chaos.  But it is no
> great disaster.  When it happens, the chimp
> mother usually loses no more than about
> one reproductive year.  The chimp infant is
> vulnerable to such attacks primarily in the
> first few weeks of its life.

Yeah, so? (Remember, your hypothesis is that it would cause
extinction, not just vulnerability.)

> > You indicated that hominids have been bipedal since
> > 6mya.  But you didn't mention that hominids maintained
> > tree climbing adaptations until 2mya.
>
> Not true. Their big toes appear to stick out
> sideways only for Ardipithecus.  In that case,
> we'd expect some degree of evolutionary hang-
> over.

You can pretend it was not a tree climbing adaptation at the expense
of looking stupid.

> ---------------http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210141215.htm

>
> " . . . This species, whose best-known specimen is
> "Lucy," lived in eastern Africa 3.0-3.8 million years ago.
> Prior to A. afarensis, the species A. anamensis was
> present in Kenya and Ethiopia from 4.2 to 4.0 million years
> ago, but its skeleton is not well known. At 4.4 million years
> ago, Ethiopia's Ardipithecus ramidus is the earliest human
> ancestor well represented by skeletal remains. Although
> Ardipithecus appears to have been a part-time terrestrial
> biped, its foot retains many features of tree-dwelling
> primates, including a divergent, mobile first toe. The foot of
> A. afarensis, as with other parts of its skeleton, is much
> more like that of living humans, implying that by the time of
> Lucy, our ancestors no longer depended on the trees for
> refuge or resources. . . . "

You're just splitting hairs, Paul. The point is that predator free
islands are not the necessity that you presume.

> ---------------http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210141215.htm

>
> NO ONE suggests that early hominids could
> sleep in trees in the same manner as chimps.

I am suggesting this. It would have been an absolute necessity when
human evolution began (when monsoon climate became dominant).

> Leopard-avoidance was never a factor in the
> evolutionary design of the human / hominid
> anatomy, and no one has ever suggested
> that it was.

Until they developed cooperative territorialism (pest control
agriculture) leopards were undoubtedly a problem.

> > This means that for 4 mya they were both bipedal and
> > living/sleeping in trees.
>
> You are as dumb as Travsky. (Is there any greater
> insult?)
> 1) HOW could a bipedal animal sleep in a tree?

The same way chimps do.

> 2) HOW could it look after itself and its infants so
>     that they routinely survive leopard attacks?

The same way chimps do.

> 3) HOW could it successfully compete with
>     chimpanzees?

Are you retarded? Seriously.

> 4) WHAT was the drastic change in anatomy
>     and in habitat that occurred around 2 mya (in
>     your scenario) ?

They evolved to achieve ecological dominance in treed/garden habitat.

> You don't deviate from Standard PA in any
> significant way at all.  Like them, you have
> not begun to face up to the issues.

These issues exist in your own mind only.

> > This fact is inconsistent with your supposition (which
> > borders on an obsession) that ground sleeping could
> > not have been achieved unless they resided on
> > predatory free islands.
>
> Do you accept that
> (a) around 6 mya (or sometime) our ancestors
> went through a period when they were half-
> quadrupedal and half-bipedal ?

There is no such thing. Even quadrupedal chimps can go bipedal
occasionally.

> Do you accept that
> (b) during that time they were pretty useless
> at both . . ?

Of course not. That's absurd.

> Do you accept that
> (c) they would not have been able to enter into
> this extraordinary transition if they had been in
> daily competition from chimpanzees and been
> routinely predated upon by large carnivores ?

They evolved from chimps, you idiot.

> Have you ANY theory that explains how such
> a transition could be achieved in the presence
> of competitors and predators?

I've already explained this. Read upthread.

> > This fact is inconsistent with your supposition (which
> > borders on an obsession) that ground sleeping could
> > not have been achieved unless they resided on
> > predatory free islands.
>
> Have you ANY theory that explains how a
> hominid could survive sleeping on the ground
> in the presence of lions -- other than by waving
> their arms in the dark, and shouting at the huge
> animals they could not see  . . . but which they
> thought might be there?
>
> > Lastly, hominid fossils simply are not found at locations
> > that were once islands.
>
> There are no such locations where any such
> fossils could reasonably be expected to survive.

But they do survive at locations that refute your model.

> You might as well claim that since there are no
> chimp fossils, chimps could not have been
> around 5 or 6 mya (nor at any other time, such
> as 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 mya).. The only place
> hominid fossils were likely to survive was when
> they died (and were buried) in the highlands --
> on their relatively rare travels to such places.
>
> > So, Paul, lets put these together:
> > 1) Chimps/apes coexisted with leopards (who are fairly
> > good tree climbers) for millions of years.
> > 2) Bipedal hominids maintained tree climbing adaptations
> > for 4 million years (or at least 2 million years).
> > 3) Hominid fossils are not found at locations consistent
> > with island isolation.
>
> > These are three points of data
>
> These 'points' are far removed from any 'data',
> and are misinterpreted (1), plain wrong (2),
> and quite absurd (3).
>
> > any one of which is sufficient to destroy your predator free
> > islands notions.
>
> None can sustain a few seconds inspection.

Paul, you suffer from the delusion that you have some superior
understanding of something that you obviously understand very little.

> You fail to grasp the essential reasons why our
> ancestors could not have undergone drastic
> morphological change in the presence of large
> carnivores.  Until you begin to recognise that
> --- normally, in all mainland locations -- large
> predators are invariably present, and a constant
> threat to life,

The only time large predators were an issue was occasionally during
the dry season. The fact that you choose to believe otherwise doesn't
make it true.

> you cannot begin to think clearly
> about the issues.  You cannot just wish away
> their existence -- although that is exactly what
> you pretend to do, following the long-established
> 'thinking' of your Standard PA peers.

Ha. My thinking has little similarity to conventional vagueness.

>
> > Note that, unlike the church ladies, I am not asking you
> > to produce evidence to support your predator free island
> > assertion.
>
> Strange, but that is exactly what you did just
> a sentence or so back.

No. I did not.

 However, as I have told
> you dozens of times, an island that is regularly
> (over geological time) submerged and has
> coastlines regularly going back and forward
> over the landscape grinding up everything into
> microscopic particles, is not going to have
> much in the way of ancient fossils.

Poor excuse for speculation.

>
> My theory also explains much in human
> anatomy and behaviour that yours (and its
> close relative, Standard PA) fails to even
> notice -- such as naked skin, noisy infants
> with a very long period of atriciality, sweating,
> lobulated kidneys, infant nakedness, high
> salt needs and capacities, small canine
> teeth and high enamel.

Any hypothesis can explain these mundane adaptations. The adaptations
that are most distinctive about hominids are hardly mundane.

[JTEM]

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen wrote:

> I second that, Yay!....not one word about
> agriculture, territories, or
> African tigers.

Hi, psycho! It usually takes you one or two
replies before spazzing out, but as we see in
that other thread it took exactly ZERO this
time. Not even one. You went mental, switched
to the "Lee Olsen" handle and posted your idiocy
after exactly ZERO responses.

Congratulations. I'm sure your mental institution
must be proud of you.

P.S. Why precisely does the type of large cat
matter? You clearly think it does -- making
numerous references to it over the years -- but
you never explained why you think it matters.

Could you swallow some meds and try to explain?

[JTEM]

Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> You don't know what 'scientific evidence' is.
> You imagine that it must be produced by some-
> one in a white coat, and consist of masses of
> detailed tables of figures.  But what 'scientific
> evidence' did Einstein have when he wrote those
> earth-shattering papers in 1904?  What 'scientific
> evidence' did Copernicus have?  Or Galileo?
> Or Robert Boyle?  Or Newton? Or any of the
> truly great?

In every case the work served as a basis for
predictions, predictions which could eventually
be tested for and (assuming those test failed)
the theories be falsified.

For the most part these men also had mathematical
"Proof" of their ideas. Someone even said to me
recently that math is the only pure science, the only
thing you can truly "proof."

Fact is, a hypothesis rises to the height of "Theory"
when experiment consistently fails to DISPROVE it.
A theory is never really "proven." No matter how
many predictions are derived, no matter how many
experiments uphold these predictions there could
still come a test that won't hold up... a better
explanation for the available evidence... the
observations.

[Lee Olsen]

On Christmas Eve, 11:04 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> the loneliest

person on the planet with nothing better to do wrote:
>a better explanation for the available evidence...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22277-climate-change-determined...
"Humans may have conquered the world, but not without a big
helping hand from climate change. A major study of the last
120,000 years of history reminds us that, while we are
adaptable, our species is ultimately at the mercy of the
climate.

[RichTravsky]

Yup, forever disappointing.

Now, Dimmie, if you have previously discussed this, you should have no
trouble recapping for us ->

[RichTravsky]

Duh, as in, not enough in terms of numbers?

> > Oh, and PS, hominids live in small bands and would have been
> > wiped out in your scenario.
>
> Some of them? Sure.

Your surrender accepted.

> > > > Perhaps you make a mountain out of a mole hill...
> >
> > > Yeah, yeah. Lions are essentially nice animals,
> > > large pussy-cats who just want to be loved.
> > > Much the same applies to hyenas, and other
> > > large carnivores. Just give them some milk
> > > and rub behind their ears and, even if they
> > > are starving, they'll just purr.
> >
> > All you need is hundreds and hundreds of small hominids to support
> > all those predators, eh?
>
> Small?

Human sized to smaller (like Lucy). DUH

> > > > Not to mention flunking math. Hominids would have to
> > > > exist in huge numbers to carry allllllllllllllllllllllllllll those
> > > > predators through a season.
> >
> > > God help us. Do you think I'm claiming that
> > > a special breed of lion -- which lived ONLY
> > > off hominids -- had to exist?
> >
> > Oh poor Pollie. Dug himself a hole! Jumped in head first!
>
> Why do you (above) assume "huge numbers" were necessary, Travsky?

Because hominids live in small bands. DUH

> > > Here's a simple analogy -- although I know
> > > that you won't get it. Lions _sometimes_
> > > catch and eat baboons. It's not often, and
> > > baboons probably make up less than 1% of
> > > their diet. But baboons take a lot of care not
> > > to be caught by them. In the dry season,
> > > they dig for roots (something chimps don't do
> > > btw). They feed with antelope, which have a
> > > better sense of smell and see differently (not
> > > having the full colour range of primates).
> > > Together they are better at detecting a
> > > skulking lion. Baboons don't go far from
> > > trees, and avoid clumps of high grass where
> > > a lion might hide. No one suggests that lions
> > > could survive ONLY on baboons. But they
> > > make huge areas uninhabitable by baboons
> >
> > Lie.
>
> Explain yourself, nitwit. Isn't it obvious that babboon isn't found
> in predator infested, open savanna (grassland) habitat)?

Oh but they are found in habitats with predators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baboon
...
Their principal predators are humans, the lion, both the spotted and
striped hyena, and the leopard.
...

Feel free to cite evidence they are found in predator free areas.

> > > -- open areas of grass that lack 'escape-
> > > trees'.
> >
> > Here's a simple analogy: armchair uneducated pub browser contradicts himself.
>
> You got nothing, Travsky.

Case in point: armchair uneducated pub browser Dimmie

> > First, you claim they subsisted on those poor hominids because all the
> > other animals ran away and would have starved otherwise without them. Now,
> > you say they didn't subsist on those hominids because they ate other prey,
> > thus pulling the rug out from under your own "theory".
>
> Uh . . . it's not a theory. Its a (reasonable) assumption based on
> observation of extent species.

Uh . . . that's still a theory. And still contradictory.

> > > Lions would make huge areas uninhabitable
> > > by humans or hominids -- even bigger areas
> >
> > Lie.
>
> Rich thinks they used long distance running to escape lion, hyena, and
> dog. But he's so embarassed by it's absurdity that he won't metion it
> explicitly.

I have made NO such claim. Why do you resort to lying?

> > > than those barred to baboons, since hominids
> > > are:
> > > (a) very much slower at running, and
> > > (b) quite hopeless at climbing, especially when
> > > trying to carry young.
> >
> > And yet, they survived ...
>
> That's your reasoning?

We're both here, aren't we?

[Paul Crowley]

On 24/12/2012 03:54, RichTravsky wrote:

>> Could humans/hominids EVER sleep in a tree
>> above the height a leopard could reach?
>
> No. They weigh less on average than a chimp.

You have some misconceptions about the wildlife
on this planet. The paws of leopards are not
prehensile. While their sharp claws enable them
to get grip and they can, under the right conditions,
climb up a vertical (or near-vertical) trunk, they
cannot use their paws to hold on to a horizontal (or
near-horizontal) branch, nor to brachiate underneath.
They can only walk on top of it. Such a branch
needs to be around 6 inches in diameter.

Whereas chimps have four prehensile limbs, and
they can hold on underneath. They can hold on
to four separate branches at the same time.
Each need only be around 2 inches in diameter
to support the weight of the chimp. This means
that chimps can get to, and stay in. places in
the tree where leopards cannot go.

>> Lets put the question in another way: Before
>> they had huts, enclosures, dogs, fire, etc.,
>> could humans/hominids routinely occupy
>> the same territory as leopards?
>
> Yes. Why not? Seen Kortlandt's work?

Chimps will beat up leopards by day-- if they
can get close enough. Chimps are diurnal
animals, whereas leopards are essentially
nocturnal. Leopards are dominant by night and
they prey on chimp infants. That is why chimps
detest them so strongly.

>> Yeah, yeah. Billions of humans in millions
>> of communities, and you cannot quote one
>> that EVER sleeps in trees. Pigs can fly --
>> it's just that you will never see it happening
>> (except in your dreams).
>
> Yeah yeah yeah. Your little strawman comes crashing down.

Your surrender is accepted.

> Oh, and PS, hominids live in small bands

How do you know this? Oh, I remember.
It's what your profs told you in PA school,
So it MUST be true.

> and would have been wiped out in your scenario.

Wrong. Hominids and leopards could never
have lived in the same territory. In the early
stages, hominids lived on a leopard-free island. Later, they found a way of eliminating them
from the locality before bringing their families
from their islands.
[..]

>> Here's a simple analogy -- although I know
>> that you won't get it. Lions _sometimes_
>> catch and eat baboons. It's not often, and
>> baboons probably make up less than 1% of
>> their diet. But baboons take a lot of care not
>> to be caught by them. In the dry season,
>> they dig for roots (something chimps don't do
>> btw). They feed with antelope, which have a
>> better sense of smell and see differently (not
>> having the full colour range of primates).
>> Together they are better at detecting a
>> skulking lion. Baboons don't go far from
>> trees, and avoid clumps of high grass where
>> a lion might hide. No one suggests that lions
>> could survive ONLY on baboons. But they
>> make huge areas uninhabitable by baboons
>
> Lie.

Your surrender is accepted.

> Here's a simple analogy: armchair uneducated pub
> browser contradicts himself.
>
> First, you claim they subsisted on those poor hominids
> because all the other animals ran away

I have NEVER said, or suggested, anything
of the kind.

> and would have starved otherwise without them.

I have NEVER said, or suggested, anything
of the kind. Did you dream it?

>> Lions would make huge areas uninhabitable
>> by humans or hominids -- even bigger areas
>
> Lie.

Your surrender is accepted.

>> than those barred to baboons, since hominids
>> are:
>> (a) very much slower at running, and
>> (b) quite hopeless at climbing, especially when
>> trying to carry young.
>
> And yet, they survived quite fine. Australopiths ranged all

> over Africa -HOW oh HOW did they do that? Eh?

Your surrender is accepted.

PA 'science'. We're here because we're
here because we're here because we're
here . . . . Your surrender is accepted.

The ONLY good explanation is that God did
it. So Genesis must tell a true story. No
doubt you'll be a full-blown PA Creationist
by next week.

Your surrender is accepted.


Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

Claudius Denk

(recovered from Google. I don't usually see posts
from 'Claudius' -- since he is in my kill-file -- and
will stay there as long as he continues to exchange
tedious 'insults' with the Olsen clown.)

>>> You indicated that hominids have been bipedal since
>>> 6mya. But you didn't mention that hominids maintained
>>> tree climbing adaptations until 2mya.
>>
>> I have discussed it -- and dismissed it.
>

> What, exactly?

See up-thread.

>> You
>> might as well argue that our shoulders and
>> arms are in the same form as those of gibbons,
>> gorillas and chimpanzees, and we must therefore
>> go around brachiating -- swinging from branch to
>> branch. I've not noticed any people doing that
>> myself, but maybe I don't mix in the right circles.
>

> Relevance?

Our 'brachiating shoulders' do NOT mean that
we brachiate. Whale 'legs' do NOT mean that
whales walk on land. 'Grasping feet' in
ardipithecus (or in australopiths, you claim had
them) do NOT mean that the species grasped
tree branches. Those features merely indicate
ancestry.
[..]

>> You (with PA generally) lack the concept of niche.
>

> Surreal. I'm the one that explained it to you.

Ridiculous. (a) I've been preaching the same
message here long before you arrived here.
(b) How can you explain it when you don't
know what it is?

>> Tree-sleeping, with woodland foraging, mainly
>> ground-based, constitutes the chimpanzee niche.
>> Hominids (necessarily) found another, and a very
>> different one, that needed a radically different
>> morphology.
>

> It's not that simple.

It is that simple.

> IMO, that early hominids maintainted tree climbing
> adaptations (curved phalages, curved ankles) is not
> controversial.

Sure -- PA dopes have as little awareness of
the concept of 'niche' (and the concept of
'night') as you.

>> They could never have competed
>> with chimps within the chimp niche.
>

> Irrelevant. Chimps live in rainforest (closed canopy)
> habitat.

Chimps lived anywhere in Equatorial Africa
where they could find sleeping trees.

>> They are
>> simply not designed for it -- nor for enduring the
>> 12 hours of dark (out of the 24). It should be the
>> task of PA to say what brought about the radical
>> new design. But it forgot about it decades ago.
>> Amateurs like you should not follow those lost
>> clowns down the same road.
>

> Your whacked with this 12 hours of darkness nonsense.

There is a difference between night and day.
I am fully aware that you (like Standard PA)
has never noticed it.

>>> This fact is inconsistent with your supposition (which
>>> borders on an obsession) that ground sleeping could not
>>> have been achieved unless they resided on predatory free
>>> islands.
>>
>> Name another medium-sized continental
>> mammal that does not suffer regular predation.
>

> Relevance?

You claim that hominids could avoid predation
by waving their arms in the dark. What other
species had it so easy?

>> Until you can specify how your hominids coped
>> with predation -- especially nocturnal predation
>> -- you don't have an evolutionary theory (or
>> scenario). Standard PA doesn't and nor do you.
>> Btw, waving your arms in the dark at potential
>> shadows is not a lot of use.
>

> Chimps survived.

The GREAT PA 'argument'. We're here because
we're here because we're here. And that's what
we call 'science'.

>> . . . it's been a constant (evolutionary)

>> battle, with chimp mothers (with small infants)
>> having to go higher and higher, above the level
>> leopards can reach. Leopards need branches
>> of about 5 inches diameter on which to walk.
>> A chimp mother can hold on (all night) to four
>> different branches of about 2 inch diameter
>> (maybe where two trees overlap) while resting
>> her back on a nest based on a lattice of similar-
>> sized branches.
>

> If you were remotely sensible the discussion would be over
> with this realization.

What on earth are you trying to say?

>> Secondly, chimp infants are able to climb on
>> their own from a very early age -- certainly by
>> four months, and maybe from two months or
>> even earlier. They can then go way above the
>> level at which a leopard could get them. This
>> ability (and its precociousness) has been
>> selected for.
>>
>> All chimps are born with long strong arms, and
>> with hands and feet that can grip. Chimp
>> mothers can place their small infants high up.
>> leaving them holding on to small branches
>> during a leopard attack. (Remember that
>> leopards are _not_hunting chimp adults --
>> only the infants. Although they would go for
>> adult hominids, which lack the razor-sharp
>> teeth of chimps. Leopards would face little
>> risk of injury when attacking an adult hominid.)
>>
>>> If leopard was truly the threat you'd have us believe then
>>> we'd expect chimpanzees/apes to have gone extinct
>>> years ago.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>

> Facts are facts, dude. Deal with it.

You have missed the fact that I HAVE dealt
with it.

>> Chimps do lose infants to leopard
>> attacks. Leopards can see well in the dark.
>> Chimps are like us -- night-blind. Leopards try
>> to get them to panic, and infants sometimes
>> fall to the ground in the chaos. But it is no
>> great disaster. When it happens, the chimp
>> mother usually loses no more than about
>> one reproductive year. The chimp infant is
>> vulnerable to such attacks primarily in the
>> first few weeks of its life.
>

> Yeah, so? (Remember, your hypothesis is that it would
> cause extinction, not just vulnerability.)

Pay attention. I'm saying the chimps can cope
(just about) with leopards. They've co-evolved
with them. Hominids are (and were) something
entirely different.
[..]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210141215.htm

> You're just splitting hairs, Paul. The point is that predator
> free islands are not the necessity that you presume.

And *this* is your 'argument' ?

>> NO ONE suggests that early hominids could
>> sleep in trees in the same manner as chimps.
>

> I am suggesting this. It would have been an absolute
> necessity when human evolution began (when monsoon
> climate became dominant).

Yeah, a radical new morphology to continue
exactly the same way of life. You might as
well suggest that they grew an elephant-like
trunk, just because it seemed a good idea
at the time.

>> Leopard-avoidance was never a factor in the
>> evolutionary design of the human / hominid
>> anatomy, and no one has ever suggested
>> that it was.
>

> Until they developed cooperative territorialism (pest control
> agriculture) leopards were undoubtedly a problem.

And then they hit upon the idea of waving their
arms in the dark -- and that scared away the
leopards that the hominids could not see.

>>> This means that for 4 mya they were both bipedal and
>>> living/sleeping in trees.
>>
>> You are as dumb as Travsky. (Is there any greater
>> insult?)
>> 1) HOW could a bipedal animal sleep in a tree?
>

> The same way chimps do.

And that's why hominids became bipedal.

>> 2) HOW could it look after itself and its infants so
>> that they routinely survive leopard attacks?
>

> The same way chimps do.

And that's why hominids became bipedal.

>> 3) HOW could it successfully compete with
>> chimpanzees?
>

> Are you retarded? Seriously.

They waved their arms at chimps, and the
chimps ran away?

>> 4) WHAT was the drastic change in anatomy
>> and in habitat that occurred around 2 mya (in
>> your scenario) ?
>

> They evolved to achieve ecological dominance in treed/garden habitat.

4) WHAT was the drastic change in anatomy?

>>> This fact is inconsistent with your supposition (which
>>> borders on an obsession) that ground sleeping could
>>> not have been achieved unless they resided on
>>> predatory free islands.
>>
>> Do you accept that
>> (a) around 6 mya (or sometime) our ancestors
>> went through a period when they were half-
>> quadrupedal and half-bipedal ?
>

> There is no such thing. Even quadrupedal chimps can
> go bipedal occasionally.

And bipedal animals (such as us) can crawl
around on our hands and knees and be
quadrupedal occasionally -- a fact of similarly
evolutionary importance.

>> Do you accept that
>> (b) during that time they were pretty useless
>> at both . . ?
>

> Of course not. That's absurd.

Describe how the animal that was a "bipedal
chimp" could (a) run as fast on the ground as
a standard quadrupedal chimp . . . . and
(b) climb as well as a standard quadrupedal
chimp.

>> Do you accept that
>> (c) they would not have been able to enter into
>> this extraordinary transition if they had been in
>> daily competition from chimpanzees and been
>> routinely predated upon by large carnivores ?
>

> They evolved from chimps, you idiot.

Sure. And whales evolved from hippos.
Does that mean a whale could run on land
as well as a hippo?

Your concept of niche is non-existent.

>> Have you ANY theory that explains how such
>> a transition could be achieved in the presence
>> of competitors and predators?
>

> I've already explained this. Read upthread.

In other words, you don't.

>>> Lastly, hominid fossils simply are not found at locations
>>> that were once islands.
>>
>> There are no such locations where any such
>> fossils could reasonably be expected to survive.
>

> But they do survive at locations that refute your model.

There are a load of hominid fossils near the summit
of Everest. Does that mean that they lived there?
Or evolved there?
[..]

> Paul, you suffer from the delusion that you have some superior
> understanding of something that you obviously understand very little.

It's not hard being 'superior' amid such
'competition'.

>> You fail to grasp the essential reasons why our
>> ancestors could not have undergone drastic
>> morphological change in the presence of large
>> carnivores. Until you begin to recognise that
>> --- normally, in all mainland locations -- large
>> predators are invariably present, and a constant
>> threat to life,
>

> The only time large predators were an issue was occasionally during
> the dry season. The fact that you choose to believe otherwise doesn't
> make it true.

Most of the year is 'the dry season'. (Not that
hominids would do any better in the rain.)

>> However, as I have told
>> you dozens of times, an island that is regularly
>> (over geological time) submerged and has
>> coastlines regularly going back and forward
>> over the landscape grinding up everything into
>> microscopic particles, is not going to have
>> much in the way of ancient fossils.
>

> Poor excuse for speculation.

Eh? I have provided you (yet again) the main
reason why fossils are highly unlikely to be found
where the species lived. That's one reason why
standard PA is so lost. You merely follow them
as they wander blindly around the landscape,
looking for something they can never find.

>> My theory also explains much in human
>> anatomy and behaviour that yours (and its
>> close relative, Standard PA) fails to even
>> notice -- such as naked skin, noisy infants
>> with a very long period of atriciality, sweating,
>> lobulated kidneys, infant nakedness, high
>> salt needs and capacities, small canine
>> teeth and high enamel.
>

> Any hypothesis can explain these mundane adaptations.

Ridiculous. It is trivially easy to knock holes
in bad hypotheses. That's why Standard PA
gave up on presenting any a long time ago.
(Now it has long forgotten that the principal
reason for its existence was to provide some
and establish which was true.) Your
hypothesis (involving the waving of arms at
predators you can't see in the dark, to make
them run away) is among the most absurd
ever articulated.

> The adaptations that are most distinctive about hominids
> are hardly mundane.

If you can't explain the mundane facts (and
neither you nor Standard PA gets anywhere
near an explanation) then you will never get
any further.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 30, 10:16 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:

> > > Bzzt. Not enough to maintain a bunch of predators. Try again.
>
> > Why not?
>
> Duh, as in, not enough in terms of numbers?

LOL. Yes, we got that. You anthro-cultists assume a small band size
based on dimwitted method of drawing directly from the lifestyle of
"primitive" present-day (or recent, within 10 ky) humans. Did you
think this wasn't obvious?

The simplemindedness of your methodological approach is what underlies
the simplemindedness of your conclusion.

A comprehensive analysis of the evidence clearly indicates that
hominid group size is determined by geographic factors (specifically,
in prehistoric times, this "size" [at least originally] was the size
of the "garden" habitat). Extent hominids, myself and yourself
included, live in groups that number into the hundreds of millions.
Are you so naive about evolutionary theory as to assume that this
group size is something that only evolved recently? How is this even
within the realm of possibility? You anthro-cultists arrive at a
conclusion and then pretend to ignore all of the evidence that
disputes it and you think you are getting away with it by being coy
about your responses.

You will never explain the reasoning behind your assumption of small
group size because it isn't based on reason but on ignoring evidence
to the contrary

>
> > > Oh, and PS, hominids live in small bands and would have been
> > > wiped out in your scenario.
>
> > Some of them? Sure.
>
> Your surrender accepted.

That some groups met their demise (during the depth of the dry season,
in the context of predatory massacres) is essential to my hypothesis.

>
> > > > > Perhaps you make a mountain out of a mole hill...
>
> > > > Yeah, yeah.  Lions are essentially nice animals,
> > > > large pussy-cats who just want to be loved.
> > > > Much the same applies to hyenas, and other
> > > > large carnivores.  Just give them some milk
> > > > and rub behind their ears and, even if they
> > > > are starving, they'll just purr.
>
> > > All you need is hundreds and hundreds of small hominids to support
> > > all those predators, eh?
>
> > Small?
>
> Human sized to smaller (like Lucy). DUH

It's regrettable that the rules of reality prevent you from providing
a link to your imagination so that we could verify that assertion.

>
> > > > > Not to mention flunking math. Hominids would have to
> > > > > exist in huge numbers to carry allllllllllllllllllllllllllll those
> > > > > predators through a season.
>
> > > > God help us.  Do you think I'm claiming that
> > > > a special breed of lion -- which lived ONLY
> > > > off hominids -- had to exist?
>
> > > Oh poor Pollie. Dug himself a hole! Jumped in head first!
>
> > Why do you (above) assume "huge numbers" were necessary, Travsky?
>
> Because hominids live in small bands. DUH

Evidence?

>
> > > > Here's a simple analogy -- although I know
> > > > that you won't get it.  Lions _sometimes_
> > > > catch and eat baboons.  It's not often, and
> > > > baboons probably make up less than 1% of
> > > > their diet.  But baboons take a lot of care not
> > > > to be caught by them.  In the dry season,
> > > > they dig for roots (something chimps don't do
> > > > btw).  They feed with antelope, which have a
> > > > better sense of smell and see differently (not
> > > > having the full colour range of primates).
> > > > Together they are better at detecting a
> > > > skulking lion.  Baboons don't go far from
> > > > trees, and avoid clumps of high grass where
> > > > a lion might hide. No one suggests that lions
> > > > could survive ONLY on baboons.  But they
> > > > make huge areas uninhabitable by baboons
>
> > > Lie.
>
> > Explain yourself, nitwit.  Isn't it obvious that babboon isn't found
> > in predator infested, open savanna (grassland) habitat)?
>
> Oh but they are found in habitats with predators.

Relevance?

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baboon
> ...
> Their principal predators are humans, the lion, both the spotted and
> striped hyena, and the leopard.
> ...
>
> Feel free to cite evidence they are found in predator free areas.

Feel free to quote me directly, you strawbaiting nitwit.

> > > > -- open areas of grass that lack 'escape-
> > > > trees'.
>
> > > Here's a simple analogy: armchair uneducated pub browser contradicts himself.
>
> > You got nothing, Travsky.
>
> Case in point:  armchair uneducated pub browser Dimmie
>
> > > First, you claim they subsisted on those poor hominids because all the
> > > other animals ran away and would have starved otherwise without them. Now,
> > > you say they didn't subsist on those hominids because they ate other prey,
> > > thus pulling the rug out from under your own "theory".
>
> > Uh . . . it's not a theory.  Its a (reasonable) assumption based on
> > observation of extent species.
>
> Uh . . . that's still a theory. And still contradictory.

Uh, it may contradict your imagination. It doesn't contradict the
evidence.

> > > > Lions would make huge areas uninhabitable
> > > > by humans or hominids -- even bigger areas
>
> > > Lie.
>
> > Rich thinks they used long distance running to escape lion, hyena, and

> > dog.  But he's so embarassed by it's absurdity that he won't mention it

> > explicitly.
>
> I have made NO such claim. Why do you resort to lying?

Who do you think you're fooling?

>
> > > > than those barred to baboons, since hominids
> > > > are:
> > > > (a) very much slower at running, and
> > > > (b) quite hopeless at climbing, especially when
> > > > trying to carry young.
>
> > > And yet, they survived ...
>
> > That's your reasoning?
>
> We're both here, aren't we?

That's your reasoning?

[Jim McGinn]

On Dec 31, 2:36 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> >> . . . large

> >> predators are invariably present, and a constant
> >> threat to life,
>
> > The only time large predators were an issue was occasionally during
> > the dry season.  The fact that you choose to believe otherwise doesn't
> > make it true.
>
> Most of the year is 'the dry season'.

During the (wetter and warmer) late miocene, and pliocene? Not
likely, IMO.

> (Not that
> hominids would do any better in the rain.)

The food they eat would do better, would it not?

> >>  However, as I have told
> >> you dozens of times, an island that is regularly
> >> (over geological time) submerged and has
> >> coastlines regularly going back and forward
> >> over the landscape grinding up everything into
> >> microscopic particles, is not going to have
> >> much in the way of ancient fossils.
>
> > Poor excuse for speculation.
>
> Eh?  I have provided you (yet again) the main
> reason why fossils are highly unlikely to be found
> where the species lived.

As if that matters.

> That's one reason why
> standard PA is so lost.  You merely follow them
> as they wander blindly around the landscape,
> looking for something they can never find.

Sunken coastlines are no great discovery.

> >> My theory also explains much in human
> >> anatomy and behaviour that yours (and its
> >> close relative, Standard PA) fails to even
> >> notice -- such as naked skin, noisy infants
> >> with a very long period of atriciality, sweating,
> >> lobulated kidneys, infant nakedness, high
> >> salt needs and capacities, small canine
> >> teeth and high enamel.
>
> > Any hypothesis can explain these mundane adaptations.
>
> Ridiculous.  It is trivially easy to knock holes
> in bad hypotheses.  That's why Standard PA
> gave up on presenting any a long time ago.
> (Now it has long forgotten that the principal
> reason for its existence was to provide some
> and establish which was true.)   Your
> hypothesis (involving the waving of arms at
> predators you can't see in the dark, to make
> them run away) is among the most absurd
> ever articulated.

If it is so absurd then why would you resort to misrepresenting it
rather than addressing it directly and honestly?

> > The adaptations that are most distinctive about hominids
> > are hardly mundane.
>
> If you can't explain the mundane facts (and
> neither you nor Standard PA gets anywhere
> near an explanation) then you will never get
> any further.

The mundane fact, Paul, is that chimpanzee has been able to persist in
the chimpanzee-niche for millions of years despite predation from
leopard. Pretending otherwise isn't going to change this fact.

[Poetic Justice]

I've only semi-followed this thread but this popped-up today in an
archaeology blog I follow and thought it might be of interest.

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/december-2012/article/early-human-ancestors-may-have-walked-and-climbed-for-a-living
Popular Archaeology
Early Human Ancestors May Have Walked AND Climbed for a Living Mon, Dec
31, 2012


Study of modern human populations suggests that early human ancestor may
have been as comfortable in the trees as on the ground.

The results of recently conducted field studies on modern human groups
in the Philippines and Africa are suggesting that humans, among the
primates, are not so unique to walking upright as previously thought.

The findings have implications for some of our earliest possible
ancestors, including the 3.5+ million-year-old
species Australopithecus afarensis, thought by many scientists to be
the first known possible human predecessor to have forsaken arboreal
life in the trees and live a life walking upright (bipedalism) on the
ground.

Associate professor of anthropology Nathaniel Dominy of Dartmouth
College, along with colleagues Vivek Venkataraman and Thomas Kraft,
compared African Twa hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists living
nearby, the Bakiga, in Uganda. In the Philippines, they compared
the Agta hunter-gatherers to the Manobo agriculturalists.

They found that the Twa and the Agta hunter-gatherers regularly
climbed trees to gather honey, an important element in their diets.
More specifically, they observed that the climbers "walked" up small
trees by applying the soles of their feet directly to the trunk and
progressing upward, with arms and legs advancing alternately.

To do this successfully, they said, required extreme dorsiflexion,
or bending the foot upward toward the shin to a degree not normally
possible among most modern humans. "We hypothesized that a soft-tissue
mechanism might enable such extreme dorsiflexion," wrote the authors
in their study report. 


They tested their hypothesis by conducting ultrasound imaging of
the fibers of the large calf muscles of individuals in all four
groups.

The results showed that the Agta and Twa tree-climbers had
significantly longer muscle fibers than those of their agricultural
counterparts and other "industrialized" modern humans. 

"These results suggest that habitual climbing
by Twa and Agta men changes the muscle architecture associated
with ankle dorsiflexion," wrote the authors of the study.
 It demonstrated that a foot and ankle bone structure adapted
primarily for walking upright on land does not necessarily exclude
climbing as a behaviorally habitual means of mobility for survival.


The implications for our possible early human ancestors, such as the
species Australopithecus afarensis, are
significant. "Australopithecus afarensis possessed a rigid ankle
and an arched, nongrasping foot," wrote Dominy and his
co-authors in the report published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

"These traits are widely interpreted as being functionally incompatible
with climbing and thus definitive markers of terrestriality."

 But now, the research shows that bone structure alone is not an
indisputable indicator that an ancient hominid was exclusively
terrestrial. 

Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid that lived between
3.9 and 2.9 million years ago.
 It was first discovered by Donald Johanson and colleagues in the
Afar region of Ethiopia with the recovery of the partial skeleton of a
3.2 million-year-old specimen they named "Lucy".


The find has represented a possible benchmark in human evolution for
decades.
 Along with being among the earliest possible bipedal primates, it has
also been thought to be closely related to the genus Homo (which
includes the modern human species Homo sapiens), either as a direct
ancestor or indirectly through an unknown earlier ancestor. 


The detailed study report can be found in the publication,
[Link] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

[Tom McDonald]

On Jan 1, 12:10 pm, paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:
> I've only semi-followed this thread but this popped-up today in an
> archaeology blog I follow and thought it might be of interest.
>

> http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/december-2012/article/early-huma...

It seems that the Dec. 31 edition of PNAS isn't on-line yet. I'll have
to remember to keep checking back, as it would be nice to read the
whole paper.

From the article, it looks as though the adaptation to facultative
ankle dorsiflexion is behaviorally-driven, not genetic. I wonder
whether the lengthening of the calf muscles associated with this
capacity leave distinctive marks on the bones. If so, it would be
interesting to examine human ancestors' skeletal material for those
marks, to maybe nail down the transition between hominids capable of
fully arboreal habit and facultative climbing.

[RichTravsky]

Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> On Jan 1, 12:10 pm, paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:
> > I've only semi-followed this thread but this popped-up today in an
> > archaeology blog I follow and thought it might be of interest.
> >
> > http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/december-2012/article/early-huma...
> > Popular Archaeology
> > Early Human Ancestors May Have Walked AND Climbed for a Living Mon, Dec
> > 31, 2012
> >
> > Study of modern human populations suggests that early human ancestor may
> > have been as comfortable in the trees as on the ground.

> > ...

> > ...

> >
> > The detailed study report can be found in the publication,
> > [Link] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
>
> It seems that the Dec. 31 edition of PNAS isn't on-line yet. I'll have
> to remember to keep checking back, as it would be nice to read the
> whole paper.
>
> From the article, it looks as though the adaptation to facultative
> ankle dorsiflexion is behaviorally-driven, not genetic. I wonder
> whether the lengthening of the calf muscles associated with this
> capacity leave distinctive marks on the bones. If so, it would be
> interesting to examine human ancestors' skeletal material for those
> marks, to maybe nail down the transition between hominids capable of
> fully arboreal habit and facultative climbing.

The paper is online at (cut and paste in case of wrapping)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/12/26/1208717110.full.pdf+html?sid=9cfc47c6-0f5b-43b5-8507-81be9703bd33

Tree climbing and human evolution
Vivek V. Venkataraman, Thomas S. Kraft, and Nathaniel J. Dominy
Departments of Biological Sciences and Anthropology, Dartmouth College

Abstract

Paleoanthropologists have long argued�often contentiously�about the
climbing abilities of early hominins and whether a foot adapted to
terrestrial bipedalism constrained regular access to trees. However,
some modern humans climb tall trees routinely in pursuit of honey,
fruit, and game, often without the aid of tools or support systems.
Mortality and morbidity associated with facultative arboreality is
expected to favor behaviors and anatomies that facilitate safe and
efficient climbing. Here we show that Twa hunter�gatherers use
extraordinary ankle dorsiflexion (>45�) during climbing, similar to
the degree observed in wild chimpanzees. Although we did not detect
a skeletal signature of dorsiflexion in museum specimens of climbing
hunter�gatherers from the Ituri forest, we did find that climbing by
the Twa is associated with longer fibers in the gastrocnemius muscle
relative to those of neighboring, nonclimbing agriculturalists. This
result suggests that a more excursive calf muscle facilitates climbing
with a bipedally adapted ankle and foot by positioning the climber
closer to the tree, and it might be among the mechanisms that allow
hunter�gatherers to access the canopy safely. Given that we did not
find a skeletal correlate for this observed behavior, our results
imply that derived aspects of the hominin ankle associated with
bipedalism remain compatible with vertical climbing and arboreal
resource acquisition. Our findings challenge the persistent
arboreal�terrestrial dichotomy that has informed behavioral
reconstructions of fossil hominins and highlight the value of using
modern humans as models for inferring the limits of hominin
arboreality.


The effects of physical activity upon bone structure is well known, see
for easy access

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioarchaeology#Mechanical_Stress_and_Activity_Indicators

From the Results and Discussion section of the Dominy article

Although debate will undoubtedly persist regarding the gait
mechanics and functional role of plesiomorphic characters in Au.
afarensis, this study shows that the foot and ankle of Au.
afarensis are not incompatible with climbing behavior�at least
as it is performed by some modern hunter�gatherers.