REPOST: Why NOT humans?

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

This is an interesting question that I
asked elsewhere. It's a bit of a
thought exercise, and we all know how
well THOSE go over in this group, but
it's something that reframes the problem,
opens a fresh perspective.

Well, "Fresh" in that the mainstream
usually doesn't bother with it. At all.

So, here it is: Why NOT humans?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.archaeology/7S3apV16ltU/rdBGZ2n5AwAJ

We live inside of an interglacial period,
a brief, warm pause between two glaciations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

Now the conventional, dumb hypothesis is
that humans arrived here in the Americas
at the start of this interglacial, when
the ice was receding but there was still
enough of it keep sea levels low, and a
land bridge open. But...

This all happened before!

Before our interglacial was a glacial period,
right? And before that glacial period was
another interglacial, an earlier interglacial
where all the same circumstances existed. And
before THAT was yet another glacial period
preceded by yet another interglacial... and
so on & so forth.

So why wouldn't humans have come over at
the start of any of those other, earlier
interglacials? Why only during this one?

There may actually be a reason for it. I'm
not saying that there isn't one. But what I
am saying is that WITHOUT A REASON to stop
humans from coming here, even archaic types,
then we have to assume that they did.

Period.

Isn't that logical?

...if there was nothing stopping them from
coming here, they should have come here.

That *Is* logical.

It makes sense.

It is the single most safest, most conservative,
most likely answer; if there was nothing stopping
them from coming here, they had to come here.

So why does paleoanthropology insist on the
opposite?

Either something was stopping humans from coming
to the Americas at the start of the previous
interglacial(s), or they came here.

Done.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167949173553

[J.LyonLayden]

There was nothing stopping them. We have a great deal of evidence they were here. Much has actually been repressed, and not due to some conspiracy; just the bias of the consensus of the time. I have an article about a hyper-robust jaw here on my desk from the Archaic South East period, but nothing exists about it on the internet. Articles about Native American court ordered reburials of erectus-hybrid-like skulls in New Mexico have disappeared from my bookmarks—dead sites. No one funds "fringe science" sites unless they are about something popular like aliens or giants.

There was a woman archaeologist in the late 60s and 70s whose team found several really old sites, but she had tripped-out Creationist ideas about evo itself so they discredited her and didn't bother revisiting the sites. I can't remember her name but I have debated with Doug Weller about her before and will try to find it in the archives.

The fact is, until recently everyone stopped digging immediately after the Clovis level. And today we don't do a whole lot of digging for paleoindian culture at all. Chances are we'll have to rebury the finds and pay a casino, I guess?

It's crazy ridiculous.

You've of course read the new evidence for projectile point wounds in N. America circa 100k ago?

Maybe they should go re-dig the crazy lady's sites now?

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:20:03 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

I still haven't found it, but I found a debate between you and I from 2007 about the comet impact theory.

For the record...I still think the impact over Canada had something to do with climate change 12000 years ago and that sea level rise was rapid during three specific periods after the LGM, as described by Stephen Oppenheimer.

You were the only one who actually admitted that there had even been an impact, or that it may have played any sort of role at all. Though you were of the opinion then that the impact had little to do with climate change.

Not to toot my own horn but:
https://phys.org/news/2013-09-prehistoric-climate-due-cosmic-canada.html

You were right to point out that different species died out at different times with more irregularity than I first proposed. Nowadays do you attribute the demise of the megafauna more to mankind or more to climate change? I still think man had less to do with it than is commonly supposed.

Anyway, I had been reading a book by Herbie Brennan back then. He's a science fiction writer and mystic, but also writes non-fiction. He knew more about the impact at the end of the last Ice Age than anybody else of his time. I still think he's correct about a few things we haven't yet realized.

[Burkhard]

Virginia Steen-McIntyre and Hueyatlaco? Only one site though

[J.LyonLayden]

I think it was Irwin-Williams, whose work at Hueyatlaco was shut down before Steen-McIntyre. but the memory is foggy.

I found something on it here, though not the greatest of sources:

http://www.s8int.com/truesuppressions4.html

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> You were the only one who actually admitted that there had even been an impact, or that it may have played any sort of role at all. Though you were of the opinion then that the impact had little to do with climate change.

NOTE: I have long since accepted & argued
the "Bolide Forcing" theory on the cause
for the Younger-Dryas cooling.

Hard to comment on the 2007 though, as I
don't recall. but I was certain that the
impact wasn't responsible for the mega fauna
extinction, because the mega fauna -- in the
case of Mammoths at least -- clung on until
historic times where humans were absent. This
strongly suggests to me that humans did play
a role in their extinction.

Extinction: Where humans were.

No extinction: Where humans weren't.

As for my views at this present moment...

Consider this: The glacial period ended about
15,000 years ago and the Younger-Dryas cooling
began, when? About 13,000 years ago? So all the
fauna, including the mega fauna, only had like
2,000 years to "Evolve" and "Adapt" to the warming
climate before everything was thrown into reverse.

AND THERE HAD BEEN OTHER EVENTS IN THE PAST!

Meaning, there had been sudden climate change
in the past, sudden cooling... a major one
only about 10 thousand years earlier or so, after
a supervolcanic eruption...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taupo_Volcano

...which nicely coincides with Glacial Maximum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

So there's that.

Long winded, I know, but that's me...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167949173553

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> There was nothing stopping them. We have a great deal of evidence they were here. Much has actually been repressed, and not due to some conspiracy; just the bias of the consensus of the time.

I can just *Feel* eyes rolling whenever someone
talks like this, but here's the thing:

The eruption of Thera/Santorini was well attested
within the written history of the Mediterranean,
interwoven with the Egyptian chronology, used to
"Hard Date" many events and even whole dynasties.

...and then they found out that they were wrong.

Know what changed? Virtually nothing. Changing
anything would mess up the entire chronology for
the ancient near east, and no one could have that.

...or just go into alt.atheism and read the
typically ugly flame war as the collective
attacked the idea that dogs & wolves are one
species. Not that it's even disputed by the
mainstream, it's just too new of a grouping
for some generations (they learned it differently).

So, yes, there is a "Status Quo." People are biased.
People have difficulty learning but they have even
more trouble UNLEARNING "facts"...

> I have an article about a hyper-robust jaw here on
> my desk from the Archaic South East period, but
> nothing exists about it on the internet.

There are countless anomalous finds, many of them
obvious hoaxes, many of them intriguing, and I
think we can all agree that it isn't entirely
irresponsible to "Withhold" acceptance until further
evidence is compiled. However, there is plenty of
room to debate the criteria by which such evidence
is judged, and what kind/how much is necessary before
establishing early occupation.

Any thoughts?






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Post+war/

[J.LyonLayden]

I mean...the mexican government actually accused this woman of planting forgeries on no basis and bulldozed a site. The woman who took up her work was destroyed for diverging the dates to the media.

And there's a story among archaeologists here in Georgia of an archaeologist who found old tools off the coast of South Carolina and was run out of the south-east education system for simply doing his job.

This jaw bone went to a museum in Pennsylvania and a paper was written about it. Why is there no info about it online for independent study?

If all the anomalous finds were brought to light we might have as much Middle Paleolithic material as China.





>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Post+war/

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> If all the anomalous finds were brought to light we might have as much Middle Paleolithic material as China.

But they'd still be anomalous. There was a PBS
documentary, a NOVA episode, on what was
purported to be evidence of 45,000 year old
habitation in north America.

This was, like, Colorado? Somewhere in the
rocky mountains.

Google: Nova Ice Age Death Trap

Okay, so they have what appears to be something
called a "Meat Catch," which was a way that
primitive people could supposedly protect &
preserve large animals for slaughter -- animals
too large to consume in a short time.

Oh. And they had a bone with a "cut mark."

But that's it. One bone. "A" cut mark.

So, in other words, what we have here is the
remains of a dead animal inside what was once
a large (or largish) body of water, and one
bone with one "Cut Mark."

Boiling this down still further...

What is a stone tool but a broken rock? A
deliberately broken rock but it's just a
broken rock. And rocks break in nature all
the time. In fact, the first "Tools" weren't
even deliberately broken, according to
modern thought. Nope. They just picked up
& used whatever was available. Nothing
sharp available? Oh well, I guess next time
then...

So "Tools" in this case are broken rocks,
a "Cut Mark" is a scratch left by a broken
rock...

See where I'm going with this?

There's no campsites. There's no hearths.
There's no evidence of butchery other than
a single "Cut Mark." They don't have spear
points associated with the remains. All of
the evidence they do have is anomalous.

DO NOT GET ME WRONG!

If this anomalous bone with the "Cut Mark"
were found in Europe or Africa nobody would
debate it. It would be a bone. There would
be a cut mark, one left by a human butcher.

No question.

So this all calls into question whether or
not we REALLY have a "Meat Catch" and we
REALLY have a bone with a "Cut Mark." But...

BUT...

But nobody states the obvious: If these
anomalous finds aren't actually evidence of
human habitation, doesn't that call into
question the identification of ALL the "Cut
Marks" out there, and all the "Meat Catches"
as well?

By saying that these things are NOT evidence
of habitation, what we are arguing is that
nobody can honestly tell a "Cut Mark" left
by the deliberate butchering of an animal by
a tool-using ancestor and a "Cut Mark" left
by a bone scraping on a sharp rock.

This *Is* what is being argued. It's not
enumerated but it's there, it's intrinsic.
The "Cut Mark" is rejected because of it's
context -- it's location & dating -- and
NOT because it falls outside the accepted
identification of "Cut Marks."

...but nobody accepts the 45,000 year old
human habitation, and nobody rejects the exact
same quality of evidence when found elsewhere.

Amazing.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Post-war

[Burkhard]

If you did mean Hueyatlaco, then def. Mcntyre, not Irwin-Williams.
Irwin-Williams led the excavation, used a then new and not yet much
tested method(uranium dating) and did indeed come up with an anomalous
date. McIntyre was a grad student on the project

She tentatively published these in a paper with Harold Malde, together
with some possible explanations that could explain a misleading result.

Malde and Steen-McIntyre then revisited the site, carried out some
further tests, and published the results that in their view confirmed
the early data. This let to a fall-out between Irwin-Williams and them,
the former thinking that it was way premature to come to an assertive
conclusion given the anomaly of the data and the doubts about the methods.

It is true that this did not do Steen-McIntyre's career any good -
dropping your supervisor into it, and rejecting her cautionary approach
in favour of publishing quickly and without her (on an excavation that
she led) is arguably a risky strategy . On the other hand, I don't think
it caused problems for Malde.

The site has been revisited several times, and other studies published
and discussed.

[J.LyonLayden]

I know you'll feel the eye rolls with what I'm about to say but imma gonna say it anyhow.

There is circumstantial evidence as well.

Some readers will find my first example preposterous. But the sad truth is that there's not a better explanation than semi-domestication for Zhoukoudan wolves.

Wolves don't live in caves. The Zhoukoudan basal canids lived in the same caves with erectus and showed morphological signs consistent with domestication 400 thousand years ago.

The Falkland Islands Wolf perplexed even Darwin, who did not see a need for land bridges or continental drift in most of his equations:

"Darwin saw the Falkland Islands wolf not as easy meat, but as a strange biological puzzle. What was such a large predator doing on this tiny set of islands, some 460 kilometres away from the South American mainland?"

It's a dwarf basal canid just like the Zhoukoudan canids.

There's proof erectus sailed the Meditteranean in the Middle Pleistocene, and sailed across the Wallace Line 750,000 years ago.

The implications I'm leading to seem like fantasy to some, but I have no idea why. Homo erectus wasn't as butt-dumb as we used to think he was. And baboons domesticate dogs. They actually steal them and raise them in their tribe.


But no matter how much circumstantial evidence we accumulate, it doesn't matter.

Archaics in America are not allowed, although there's no reason at all given as to why they wouldn't have come here. And like you say, we have a lot of evidence that would be considered perfectly valid anywhere else.





>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Post-war

[J.LyonLayden]

The Falkland island wolf branched off from other mainland dawrf canids like the maned wolf 18000 years ago or more and was so tame when discovered that the sailors would feed them and slit their throats when the dogs got close.


>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- --
> >
> > http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Post-war

[J.LyonLayden]

Recently, someone put forth the idea that MAYBE there's a chance that the wolves got there during the LGM, because there's a SLIGHT possibility that the ocean froze for 30 miles from the Falklands to the Argentinian Island chains off the coast.

This does nothing to explain why rodents, felines, and Xenarthrans didn't cross the "possible ice" with them. It also beggars explanation why wolves would cross 30 miles of ocean, if not following prey.

They diverged from the maned wolf over 6 million years ago. They split from their mainland extinct sibling species 18000 years ago.

18000 years coincides with the arrival of Luzia in Mexico. When homo sapiens come to town, erectus must find a place to hide or gets assimilated. This provides an impetus 18000 years ago to cross over to the Falklands for erectus and their canid camp followers.

Incidentally, Magellan witnessed some strange folks on the beach there when he passed by.

[J.LyonLayden]

Oh man. Just found out one of the reasons Virginia came under scrutiny after her paper was because of crazy shit she posted here on talk.origins

I'm thankful she bypassed academic protocol. If not for her actions, us regular folk would likely not even know about the extremely early dates reported by several different accepted testing methods and teams.

Irwin-Williams seems to have abandoned her research not because of her grad student's actions, but because she didn't like her own dates. It really looks to me like she would have kept it away from the public eye if not for Virginia.

[Burkhard]

The dates were published by Irwin-Williams, with all the appropriate
caveats, in

Szabo, B.J., Malde, H.E., and Irwin-Williams, C., Dilemma Posed By
Uranium-Series Dates On Archaeologically Significant Bones From
Valsequillo Puebla Mexico, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume
6, Pages 237-244, Jul 1969

As with so many "suppression of knowledge" conspiracy theories, it's
amazing how much of the suppressed information is easily available
through inter library loans if needs be.

[J.LyonLayden]

I concede to your point. However, i never thought it was a conspiracy theory. I just think it's mainstream bias.

I see it happen a lot. Some scientists do have political agendas, and there is proof that scientific innovations increase upon retirement of the "rock stars" of their fields. The old saying "science progresses one death at a time" has a bit of truth to it.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 1:35:03 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:

Yes just not commonly known, ignored in college textbooks, etc.
I never thought it to be a conspiracy, per se. Mainstream bias often holds back science, as do leading scientists themselves. The assumptions of the consensus likewise have a way of suppressing facts and ideas:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2015/12/15/10219330/elite-scientists-hold-back-progress


Liberal scientist in the 60s and 70s got especially mad if a fact or idea conflicted with feminism, for instance:

https://peopleofonefire.com/the-mysterious-case-of-the-figurines-with-no-gender.html/comment-page-1

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

NOTE: Technically, dogs ARE domesticated. Any
dog living in the wild is a feral member of a
domesticated breed.

...it's not a "Wild" animal, it's a feral
animal.

And it's hard to pass off a garbage dump as
"The wild." Not only do garbage dumps not
exist in nature but they wouldn't exist at
all if people weren't at least visiting them
rather regularly, and usually with one or more
permanently on station i.e. "Employees." So...

So the following is about FERAL dogs, a
domesticated animal living on it's own, at a
garbage dump...

J.LyonLayden wrote:
> And baboons domesticate dogs. They actually steal them
> and raise them in their tribe.

I Googled this. Nope.

There is a popular youtube video that does
appear to show this. But there is nothing
beyond the brief video to demonstrate a
long term relationship.

...one commentator reminded readers that
chimps are often described as keeping "Pets,"
but that these "Pets" always seem to wind up
dead within an hour or so.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201112/scientific-mystery-do-wild-baboons-kidnap-puppies-pets

Put short: There's a very intriguing
video and, well, and that's it. There is
nothing else. No research. Nothing.

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT YOU'RE WRONG.

But, right now, we don't have a lot a reason
to believe that you're right. And, if you are
right, we have no idea what the parameters are.

BABOONS DON'T RAISE DOGS!

The claim is that a very specific population
of baboons in a very specific geographic
location, living under very specific conditions,
kidnap a very specific type of dog in order
to introduce it to their population & co
exist with them. Hardly the same as "Baboons
domesticate dogs."






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168003270528

[J.LyonLayden]

Alright I concede. But the Zhoukoudan wolves show the same morphological traits, such as the shortening of the snout, that are used to prove paleo-dogs domestic.

And wolves don't live in caves except when they're living with humans.

Coyotes, Falkland Wolves, and Zhoukoudan "dogs" are all primitive dwarf canids.

And Falkland wolves alone among Pleistocene placental mammals crossed open ocean to get to an island where none of their natural prey species are found. they were so tame when found that you could feed them and slit their throats.

This next one is no better than the baboon pets, but for the sake of including all circumstantial evidence, Sasquatch hunters repeatedly claim that wherever there are coyotes there are Bigfoots. 1/3 of the US has not been field explored or seen an archaeologist's shovel, and primates rarely leave fossils judging from the chimp. Bili apes make the same silly-looking nests that bigfoot researchers have been photographing for years.

Not saying any of that means anything, just something to consider.

There are also similar sites to Zhoukoudan in Europe where Neanderthals seem to have been living with "primitive dwarf canids" in caves.


Throw out the baboons and the bigfoot stories, and you still have the same situation in Zhoukoudan and Europe as in Siberia 32 million years ago.

Siberian paleo-dogs are considered evidence of canine domestication because homo sapiens sapiens were near there by then, and we have a psychotic bias toward homo sapiens sapiens. There's no less evidence of domestication at the 400,000 year old Zhoukoudan site. But we think that's too early for no reason whatsoever and we like to believe we're so much smarter than homo erectus.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> Alright I concede. But the Zhoukoudan wolves show the same morphological traits, such as the shortening of the snout, that are used to prove paleo-dogs domestic.

Again, I am NOT saying that you're wrong,
only *Way* ahead of yourself by calling
some things facts when the books are still
open.

I am NOT saying you shouldn't introduce these
claims. Even if you are wrong, working out
WHY is important. It's an exercise that can
carry a person through the rest of their life.

...plus you may be right. It is a possibility.
You did not make up the claim about the baboons.
Body nobody made it up, maybe it's an accurate
observation! I dunno. I personally doubt it's
significance, but that's a debate that can only
follow confirmation of your claim.

(See my other thread)




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168003270528

[Pro Plyd]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

>

> It is the single most safest, most conservative,
> most likely answer; if there was nothing stopping
> them from coming here, they had to come here.
>
> So why does paleoanthropology insist on the
> opposite?

Clovis-only is dead. Has been getting that way for a while.

> Either something was stopping humans from coming
> to the Americas at the start of the previous
> interglacial(s), or they came here.

Look up pre-Clovis sites. One can speculate all one wants,
but without sites to refer to, speculation is as far as it
goes.

Solutrean Hypothesis is an example of such speculation.

https://www.thoughtco.com/pre-clovis-sites-americas-173079


One major aspect is the level of technology possessed by
those earlier humans. Is has to be sufficient to make
is over the isthmus/land bridge, or over water, whatever,
to get through different environments, food sources, all
the way down to Monte Verde. The REALLY interesting
sites one, to me, is the one in Brazil.

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> Clovis-only is dead. Has been getting that way for a while.

"Clovis-First"?

> > Either something was stopping humans from coming
> > to the Americas at the start of the previous
> > interglacial(s), or they came here.

> Look up pre-Clovis sites. One can speculate all one wants,
> but without sites to refer to, speculation is as far as it
> goes.

Don't get confused. It's not about what we
believe or do not believe, it's about asking
the right questions. The questions frame the
issue...

Look. Woolly Mammoths migrated from Siberia
to north America. Why wouldn't humans have
crossed over at the same time?

Mammoths could get here, why couldn't humans?

Why couldn't archaic types?

The passage was open. You could move from
one continent to the next. So, what was
stopping them from doing so?

And not just so-called "Moderns." Why
not Neanderthals? Why not Denisovans?
Why not erectus?

If they COULD come here yet they didn't,
what was stopping them?



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168168140748

[J.LyonLayden]

Homo erectus was rafting to Crete and Flores hundreds of thousands of years before. Both are harder than rafting along the coast of the Beringian ice sheet.
Most of North America was covered in an ice sheet during the Pleistocene, which is why we find the earliest sites south of the ice line in places like the ones you mention.

[JTEM is my bitch]

JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> Clovis-only is dead. Has been getting that way for a while.
>
> "Clovis-First"?

No other early culture is so considered. Work it out.

>>> Either something was stopping humans from coming
>>> to the Americas at the start of the previous
>>> interglacial(s), or they came here.
>
>> Look up pre-Clovis sites. One can speculate all one wants,
>> but without sites to refer to, speculation is as far as it
>> goes.
>
> Don't get confused. It's not about what we
> believe or do not believe, it's about asking
> the right questions. The questions frame the
> issue...
>
> Look. Woolly Mammoths migrated from Siberia
> to north America. Why wouldn't humans have
> crossed over at the same time?
>
> Mammoths could get here, why couldn't humans?

They did so 100kya, well before any humans.

> Why couldn't archaic types?
>
> The passage was open. You could move from
> one continent to the next. So, what was
> stopping them from doing so?

Technology for dealing with cold environments.

> And not just so-called "Moderns." Why
> not Neanderthals? Why not Denisovans?
> Why not erectus?
>
> If they COULD come here yet they didn't,
> what was stopping them?

Lack of technology.

How do you provide fresh water ?

Some discussion

https://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/drinking-water-in-frozen-lands/

http://www.ralphmag.org/GD/eskimo-reading.html

[Pro Plyd]

J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-5, Pro Plyd wrote:
>> The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is the single most safest, most conservative,
>>> most likely answer; if there was nothing stopping
>>> them from coming here, they had to come here.
>>>
>>> So why does paleoanthropology insist on the
>>> opposite?
>>
>> Clovis-only is dead. Has been getting that way for a while.
>>
>>> Either something was stopping humans from coming
>>> to the Americas at the start of the previous
>>> interglacial(s), or they came here.
>>
>> Look up pre-Clovis sites. One can speculate all one wants,
>> but without sites to refer to, speculation is as far as it
>> goes.
>>
>> Solutrean Hypothesis is an example of such speculation.
>>
>> https://www.thoughtco.com/pre-clovis-sites-americas-173079
>>
>>
>> One major aspect is the level of technology possessed by
>> those earlier humans. Is has to be sufficient to make
>> is over the isthmus/land bridge, or over water, whatever,
>> to get through different environments, food sources, all
>> the way down to Monte Verde. The REALLY interesting
>> sites one, to me, is the one in Brazil.
>
> Homo erectus was rafting to Crete and Flores hundreds of thousands of years before. Both are harder than rafting along the coast of the Beringian ice sheet.

And a lot warmer. Living in arctic environments needs technology
to survive.

[J.LyonLayden]

Do you know where the Denisovan/Neanderthal hybrid tooth was found? Its altitude and the temperature of Siberia at 32,000 years ago?

Denisovans had needles long before humans did. And Neanderthals lived in Siberia without garments.

[JTEM is my hero]

I adore JTEM wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> >> Clovis-only is dead. Has been getting that way for a while.
> >
> > "Clovis-First"?
>
> No other early culture is so considered. Work it out.

Not sure what you're attempting to communicate here,
and neither are you it would seem.

Funny. You've incorporated me into your identity,
why I could not care less about you.

The attraction is not mutual. Get over it.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168588373663

[JTEM is my hero]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> Denisovans had needles long before humans did.

They were humans.

> And Neanderthals lived in Siberia without garments.

No reason to assume that.

Clothing isn't something that preserves well.

How many animal skins survive from that time?




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168621557518

[J.LyonLayden]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 11:20:02 PM UTC-5, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > Denisovans had needles long before humans did.
>
> They were humans.
>
> > And Neanderthals lived in Siberia without garments.
>
> No reason to assume that.
>
> Clothing isn't something that preserves well.
>
> How many animal skins survive from that time?

This is true. However, there is evidence that AMH and Denisovans manufactured clothing during the same time period. Sure, lack of evidence doesn't prove absence, however...

Neanderthals don't seem to have used fire to cook or keep warm either. They almost never used wood for fuel, and instead used mosses and lichens. The only reason they seem to have made fire was to manufacture glue and tar.

Stan Gooch and Danny Vendramini brought a bunch of circumstantial evidence together to show they were still hairy, and I see no genetic evidence to prove otherwise. The last sweep of genes for black skin hit Africa 1.3 million years ago, but neanderthal ancestors were unlikely to have been in Africa at the time. I don't see any reason to assume they were not as hairy as australopithecines.





>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168621557518

[JTEM is my hero]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> This is true. However, there is evidence that AMH and Denisovans manufactured clothing during the same time period. Sure, lack of evidence doesn't prove absence, however...

Even the briefest stroll down Google lane will show
"Neanderthal Clothing" and even "Evidence for Neanderthal
clothing," but very, very little in the way of actual data.

So, I assume Neanderthals made & used clothing.

> Neanderthals don't seem to have used fire to cook or keep warm either.

It's possible, but there are Neanderthal hearths
surviving. "Cooking" seems to be undisputed.

heating? I have heard the same. That, Hss heated
rocks then took them with them into caves (etc?),
while there is precisely zero evidence of
Neanderthals ever doing this.

> Stan Gooch and Danny Vendramini brought a bunch of circumstantial evidence together to show they were still hairy, and I see no genetic evidence to prove otherwise.

I always assumed hairlessness was sexually selected for
-- a neonatal trait retained in adulthood -- and that
Neanderthals, living in cold climates & being covered,
were never under such sexual selection.

So, with zero pressure to remove hair and/or keep it
off, I would also assume that they were pretty hairy.

Denisovans, too?




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168621557518

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:10:05 AM UTC-5, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > This is true. However, there is evidence that AMH and Denisovans manufactured clothing during the same time period. Sure, lack of evidence doesn't prove absence, however...
>
> Even the briefest stroll down Google lane will show
> "Neanderthal Clothing" and even "Evidence for Neanderthal
> clothing," but very, very little in the way of actual data.
>
> So, I assume Neanderthals made & used clothing.

Yes I have heard that they wore "shawls" based on this evidence.

>
> > Neanderthals don't seem to have used fire to cook or keep warm either.
>
> It's possible, but there are Neanderthal hearths
> surviving. "Cooking" seems to be undisputed.
>
> heating? I have heard the same. That, Hss heated
> rocks then took them with them into caves (etc?),
> while there is precisely zero evidence of
> Neanderthals ever doing this.
>
> > Stan Gooch and Danny Vendramini brought a bunch of circumstantial evidence together to show they were still hairy, and I see no genetic evidence to prove otherwise.
>
> I always assumed hairlessness was sexually selected for
> -- a neonatal trait retained in adulthood -- and that
> Neanderthals, living in cold climates & being covered,
> were never under such sexual selection.
>
> So, with zero pressure to remove hair and/or keep it
> off, I would also assume that they were pretty hairy.
>
> Denisovans, too?

I would have thought so, but then they found a Denisovan needle. I guess it could have been used for something else, or could have been in addition to their fur.


>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168621557518

[JTEM is my hero]

"Hairy" and "Fur" are too different things. "Fur" could
be a protective coating, "Hairy" people can be just as
cold as hairless people.

Body hair on humans, as a rule, does not provide any
protective covering against the cold. I'm sure there
are exceptions out there, but they are are exceptions.

If Denisovans wore clothing, and hairlessness is a
sexually selective trait, we would assume that
Denisovans were hairy.

...because, with their bodies covered, they weren't
being selected for body hair, the lack thereof.

effectively, you have to be naked in order to be
sexually selected for your lack of body hair --
naked as a sexually active adult!





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168658548153

[J.LyonLayden]

You know what you have a great point.

>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168658548153

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 23:13:06 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:


>You know what you have a great point.

You might be right, but if he wears a hat, nobody should notice.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 2:50:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 23:13:06 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >You know what you have a great point.
>
>
> You might be right, but if he wears a hat, nobody should notice.

All this and kindergarten sense of humor too.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> You might be right, but

How, another truly pathetic (f)Lame, no
relation to the topic, a pure expression
of your feelings, your emotions...

Gosh you're disordered!

It's okay to NOT respond. When you have nothing
to say on a topic, say nothing! It ups the
signal to noise ratio.

But then, you trolls are the noise...







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168671719283

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:01:11 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

another truly pathetic (f)Lame

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:01:11 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> another truly pathetic (f)Lame
>

You agree with JTEM that you are truly pathetic and Lame? Please clarify.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:50:26 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:01:11 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> another truly pathetic (f)Lame
>>
>
>You agree with JTEM that you are truly pathetic and Lame? Please clarify.

Since you asked, you wouldn't accept any answer from me.

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is laughed at by all wrote:
> I adore JTEM wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>>> Clovis-only is dead. Has been getting that way for a while.
>>>
>>> "Clovis-First"?
>>
>> No other early culture is so considered. Work it out.
>
> Not sure

Of course you aren't.

[Pro Plyd]

We're talking about the land bridge area and on into North America.

> Denisovans had needles long before humans did. And Neanderthals lived in Siberia without garments.

Without? How is that known with certainty?

[Lyon O'Leodiean]

It's not known for certainty, it's just there's no evidence for it like there is for Denisovans and humans. We also know that neanderthals don't seem to have used fire for warmth or cooking, just for making glue and tar. Some have theorized that they used shawls. But I couldn't survive in Siberia with just a shawl.

There's no reason I can see to assume they'd lost their fur.

[Mark Isaak]

Recommended reading: _Dersu the Trapper_ by Vladimir Arsenyev. It is
about a man who survives quite well in Siberia. He has more than a
shawl (including one rifle), but not all that much more. Mostly he has
well-honed survival skills.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Pro Plyd]

If it isn't known with certainty, then it should be not be declared
so with certainty.

there is for Denisovans and humans. We also know that neanderthals don't
seem to have used fire for warmth or cooking, just for making glue and
tar. Some have theorized that they used shawls. But I couldn't survive in
Siberia with just a shawl.
>
> There's no reason I can see to assume they'd lost their fur.
>

Fur? Evidence?

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:
{--another truly pathetic (f)Lame--}

You have made a habit of portraying yourself as an emotional
cripple, unable to engage in rational thought or adult behavior.

What was my position here? What precisely do you disagree with,
and why?

You have no clue, just "Feelings."






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184161766088

[jillery]

JTEM spewed:

>What was my position here?

You don't remember either? Is anybody surprised.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> You

You lost your shit and you don't even know why.

Typical.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184161766088

[jillery]

JTEM spewed:

>You lost your shit and you don't even know why.

Your projection is childish.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery mistakenly wrote:

> Your

So how many more times do you have to expose your emotional
problems like this? There's nothing offensive in the topic, as if
you could grasp it, and no excuses for your behavior here.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184161812658

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 18:55:45 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>JTEM spewed:
>
>
>>You lost your shit and you don't even know why.
>
>
>Your projection is childish.

But he snuggles down in killfiles and feels right at home
there.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov