info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Louisville Slugger Theory of Human Evolution
465 views
Skip to first unread message
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 5, 2014, 10:00:03 PM4/5/14
to
First thing everyone needs to come to grips with is that humans are the first mammal to walk on two legs. There were proto-mammals, "mammal like reptiles" before there were dinosaurs. Mammals are older than dinosaurs, but for all those hundreds of millions of years, no mammal ever walked on two legs.
You think it's a coincidence we ended at the top of the food chain? What's the chance of that? Not to mention the dinosaurs that walked on two legs had the big brains and rose to the top of the food chain too.
Ok, so the only mystery is how this ape learned the trick of walking on two legs. How did it make this very difficult evolutionary step? The oldest examples we have still had problems walking like we do. Ardi for instance. No doubt even slower than we are. The very first out of the box must have been incredibly slow, probably a lot slower than apes on all fours, who can move pretty fast.
Some say it was to be able to see over the grasses, the better vision. That the woodlands were disappearing and they needed to be able to walk in the plains. Both false if the first that learned the trick was slower on two legs. There is the theory that with the pair-bonding, it gave the ability to carry things back to the partner. Well, other animals find ways around it, including those that pair-bond stronger than humans.
Ever try to hit a baseball, or tennis ball, or throw a punch standing on your toes? You can't swing a club with power unless you plant your feet. If some apes had clubs handy, say because of some tree or whatever, and they were fighting it out to see who got the girl, the ape that could plant his feet, because of some mutation, would beat the other ape into a pulp. Didn't have to also mutate the high speed running on two legs, or the frontal lobe good balance. The glorified monkey just needed to be able to plant his feet.
A chimp is much much stronger than a human, but we can swing a baseball bat, or hit a tennis ball, or throw a straight right a lot harder than they can, and trained for it, we can beat them to a pulp with a baseball bat.
So, the flat footed ape, who could barely walk around, had lots of kids, and his clan soon all had flat feet, and when they fought the clan down the river, the beat them into a pulp because they could all plant their feet.
The miracle mammal that finally learned the trick didn't do it because of locomotion issues, it was because it was handy for beating other apes into a pulp.
You think it's a coincidence we ended at the top of the food chain? What's the chance of that? Not to mention the dinosaurs that walked on two legs had the big brains and rose to the top of the food chain too.
Ok, so the only mystery is how this ape learned the trick of walking on two legs. How did it make this very difficult evolutionary step? The oldest examples we have still had problems walking like we do. Ardi for instance. No doubt even slower than we are. The very first out of the box must have been incredibly slow, probably a lot slower than apes on all fours, who can move pretty fast.
Some say it was to be able to see over the grasses, the better vision. That the woodlands were disappearing and they needed to be able to walk in the plains. Both false if the first that learned the trick was slower on two legs. There is the theory that with the pair-bonding, it gave the ability to carry things back to the partner. Well, other animals find ways around it, including those that pair-bond stronger than humans.
Ever try to hit a baseball, or tennis ball, or throw a punch standing on your toes? You can't swing a club with power unless you plant your feet. If some apes had clubs handy, say because of some tree or whatever, and they were fighting it out to see who got the girl, the ape that could plant his feet, because of some mutation, would beat the other ape into a pulp. Didn't have to also mutate the high speed running on two legs, or the frontal lobe good balance. The glorified monkey just needed to be able to plant his feet.
A chimp is much much stronger than a human, but we can swing a baseball bat, or hit a tennis ball, or throw a straight right a lot harder than they can, and trained for it, we can beat them to a pulp with a baseball bat.
So, the flat footed ape, who could barely walk around, had lots of kids, and his clan soon all had flat feet, and when they fought the clan down the river, the beat them into a pulp because they could all plant their feet.
The miracle mammal that finally learned the trick didn't do it because of locomotion issues, it was because it was handy for beating other apes into a pulp.
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 5, 2014, 10:08:07 PM4/5/14
to
And of course, you can stab someone with a pointed stick a lot better if you plant your feet too. If it was after the club, it probably wasn't much after. We can stab a chimp a lot harder than they can stab us, it's not just the accuracy thing.
RonO
Apr 6, 2014, 9:14:28 AM4/6/14
to
On 4/5/2014 9:00 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> First thing everyone needs to come to grips with is that humans are the first mammal to walk on two legs. There were proto-mammals, "mammal like reptiles" before there were dinosaurs. Mammals are older than dinosaurs, but for all those hundreds of millions of years, no mammal ever walked on two legs.
There were Kangaroo like marsupials in the Miocene. Are you talking
> First thing everyone needs to come to grips with is that humans are the first mammal to walk on two legs. There were proto-mammals, "mammal like reptiles" before there were dinosaurs. Mammals are older than dinosaurs, but for all those hundreds of millions of years, no mammal ever walked on two legs.
about possible Hominins ancestor of the Australopithicines? They were
likely bipedal, but had a more ape like foot.
>
> You think it's a coincidence we ended at the top of the food chain? What's the chance of that? Not to mention the dinosaurs that walked on two legs had the big brains and rose to the top of the food chain too.
You seem to be missing a few things like a grasping hand and selection
for a larger brain. There were bipedal dinos for millions of years
before there were placental mammals. Some survived the Permian extinction.
Ron Okimoto
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2014, 11:31:40 AM4/6/14
to
And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts. On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us. They had steak knives on their hands and caught their food with them. Yep, walking on two legs, hands and intelligence go together, but the intelligence was the last to arrive.
Chimps have hands, the new thing was being able to plant your feet.
Rolf
Apr 6, 2014, 12:01:49 PM4/6/14
to
<passer...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:7a7a48fc-e003-4c50...@googlegroups.com...
deserve.
Rolf
Apr 6, 2014, 12:09:05 PM4/6/14
to
<passer...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:9f67466e-cfa0-41a6...@googlegroups.com...
story.
Richard Clayton
Apr 6, 2014, 12:26:23 PM4/6/14
to
broken up into smaller chunks for responses," I suggest you either get
used to seeing that on usenet, or get used to disappointment.
But hey, at least you're not top-posting.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2014, 12:35:14 PM4/6/14
to
I'm not disappointed Richard, there's no shortage of people for everyone to talk to on the internet. And here, they are the ones that seem to want to do the talking, I have no problem ignoring them.
> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." -- Rudyard Kipling
jillery
Apr 6, 2014, 2:22:51 PM4/6/14
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:
>And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts. On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
wrote:
>And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts. On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
J. J. Lodder
Apr 6, 2014, 2:44:11 PM4/6/14
to
so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
Jan
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2014, 5:40:14 PM4/6/14
to
I suspect the clever dinosaurs may score a lot higher on an IQ test than the EQ score on the mammal scale would predict, and we can't compare the two. But the point is, around a million years before the "meteor" an extremely intelligent dinosaur showed up, with hands, about our size, with a large brain.
By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants. Granted a long shot, but what of our accomplishments would still survive 65 million years from now? None of the metal and plastic, and it would be a very thin layer.
jillery
Apr 6, 2014, 7:24:00 PM4/6/14
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:
>Birds are through the roof if put on the reptile scale.
That's because they keep flying away.
wrote:
>Birds are through the roof if put on the reptile scale.
John S. Wilkins
Apr 6, 2014, 8:49:24 PM4/6/14
to
--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Walter Bushell
Apr 6, 2014, 9:37:27 PM4/6/14
to
In article <1ljqbbf.3weyn5sdrthoN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with
> > hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts.
> > On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
> > >
> > >
> > > I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
> >
> > The entity <passer...@gmail.com> measures itself on it,
> > so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
> >
> Some of the smartest dinosaurs I know are corvids.
Is that anything to crow about?
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with
> > hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts.
> > On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
> > >
> > >
> > > I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
> >
> > The entity <passer...@gmail.com> measures itself on it,
> > so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
> >
> Some of the smartest dinosaurs I know are corvids.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Walter Bushell
Apr 6, 2014, 9:40:57 PM4/6/14
to
In article <2a28489c-bc54-4418...@googlegroups.com>,
The dino's layer of iridium was from their iridium enriched hydrogen
fusion reactors. "If the reactors go there will be nothing left by
cockroaches and mammals."
passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be?
> An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power
> plants. Granted a long shot, but what of our accomplishments would still
> survive 65 million years from now? None of the metal and plastic, and it
> would be a very thin layer.
Our industrial accomplishments would be marked by a layer of lead.
> By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be?
> An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power
> plants. Granted a long shot, but what of our accomplishments would still
> survive 65 million years from now? None of the metal and plastic, and it
> would be a very thin layer.
The dino's layer of iridium was from their iridium enriched hydrogen
fusion reactors. "If the reactors go there will be nothing left by
cockroaches and mammals."
Paul J Gans
Apr 6, 2014, 10:10:43 PM4/6/14
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <2a28489c-bc54-4418...@googlegroups.com>,
> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be?
>> An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power
>> plants. Granted a long shot, but what of our accomplishments would still
>> survive 65 million years from now? None of the metal and plastic, and it
>> would be a very thin layer.
>Our industrial accomplishments would be marked by a layer of lead.
>The dino's layer of iridium was from their iridium enriched hydrogen
>fusion reactors. "If the reactors go there will be nothing left by
>cockroaches and mammals."
Best laugh of the day!
>In article <2a28489c-bc54-4418...@googlegroups.com>,
> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be?
>> An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power
>> plants. Granted a long shot, but what of our accomplishments would still
>> survive 65 million years from now? None of the metal and plastic, and it
>> would be a very thin layer.
>Our industrial accomplishments would be marked by a layer of lead.
>The dino's layer of iridium was from their iridium enriched hydrogen
>fusion reactors. "If the reactors go there will be nothing left by
>cockroaches and mammals."
--
--- Paul J. Gans
John Harshman
Apr 6, 2014, 10:30:54 PM4/6/14
to
On 4/6/14 5:49 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with
>> hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts.
>> On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
>>>
>>>
>>> I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
>>
>> The entity <passer...@gmail.com> measures itself on it,
>> so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
>>
> Some of the smartest dinosaurs I know are corvids.
>
It's the same story the crow told me; it's the only one he knows.
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with
>> hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts.
>> On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
>>>
>>>
>>> I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
>>
>> The entity <passer...@gmail.com> measures itself on it,
>> so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
>>
> Some of the smartest dinosaurs I know are corvids.
>
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2014, 10:54:01 PM4/6/14
to
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2014, 10:58:49 PM4/6/14
to
http://www.cracked.com/article_19042_6-terrifying-ways-crows-are-way-smarter-than-you-think.html
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2014, 11:01:47 PM4/6/14
to
Dai monie
Apr 7, 2014, 2:44:22 AM4/7/14
to
Dai monie
Apr 7, 2014, 2:46:02 AM4/7/14
to
On Monday, 7 April 2014 05:01:47 UTC+2, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 9:40:57 PM UTC-4, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <2a28489c-bc54-4418...@googlegroups.com>,
> > passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be?
> > > An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power
> > > plants. Granted a long shot, but what of our accomplishments would still
> > > survive 65 million years from now? None of the metal and plastic, and it
> > > would be a very thin layer.
> > Our industrial accomplishments would be marked by a layer of lead.
> > The dino's layer of iridium was from their iridium enriched hydrogen
> > fusion reactors. "If the reactors go there will be nothing left by
> > cockroaches and mammals."
> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 9:40:57 PM UTC-4, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <2a28489c-bc54-4418...@googlegroups.com>,
> > passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be?
> > > An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power
> > > plants. Granted a long shot, but what of our accomplishments would still
> > > survive 65 million years from now? None of the metal and plastic, and it
> > > would be a very thin layer.
> > Our industrial accomplishments would be marked by a layer of lead.
> > The dino's layer of iridium was from their iridium enriched hydrogen
> > fusion reactors. "If the reactors go there will be nothing left by
> > cockroaches and mammals."
> Perhaps, but it would be a very thin layer. They are arguing about 300,000 years and the meteor and sediment and whether the meteor really did it.
Last I heard, they were talking about two meteors. However, I'd like a reference on 'Them' arguing?
J. J. Lodder
Apr 7, 2014, 4:26:26 AM4/7/14
to
<passer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A chimp is much much stronger than a human, but we can swing a baseball
bat, or hit a tennis ball, or throw a straight right a lot harder than
they can, and trained for it, we can beat them to a pulp with a baseball
bat
> A chimp is much much stronger than a human, but we can swing a baseball
bat, or hit a tennis ball, or throw a straight right a lot harder than
they can, and trained for it, we can beat them to a pulp with a baseball
bat
> The miracle mammal that finally learned the trick didn't do it because of
locomotion issues, it was because it was handy for beating other apes
into a pulp.
OK, OK. Let's see you, with your superior locomotion,
locomotion issues, it was because it was handy for beating other apes
into a pulp.
and armed with your baseball bat
pick a fight with Mr Alpha Chimp.
I'll bet on Mr. Chimp,
Jan
jillery
Apr 7, 2014, 4:46:20 AM4/7/14
to
jillery
Apr 7, 2014, 4:49:41 AM4/7/14
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 23:44:22 -0700 (PDT), Dai monie
<josko...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Think of a Crow with a brain 20 times as big...
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.cracked.com/article_19042_6-terrifying-ways-crows-are-way-smarter-than-you-think.html
>That would be Corvus Sheldonus. They are well known for eccentric behaviour and severely savaging birds that occupy their favorite spot. They've also been known to solve algebra exercises.
... and an odd attraction to "Soft Kitty"
<josko...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Think of a Crow with a brain 20 times as big...
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.cracked.com/article_19042_6-terrifying-ways-crows-are-way-smarter-than-you-think.html
>That would be Corvus Sheldonus. They are well known for eccentric behaviour and severely savaging birds that occupy their favorite spot. They've also been known to solve algebra exercises.
jillery
Apr 7, 2014, 4:56:51 AM4/7/14
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 19:58:49 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:
>On Sunday, April 6, 2014 8:49:24 PM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > > >And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with
>>
>> > hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts.
>>
>> > On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > > I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The entity <passer...@gmail.com> measures itself on it,
>>
>> > so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
>>
>> >
>>
>> Some of the smartest dinosaurs I know are corvids.
>
are conveniently mutable.
wrote:
>On Sunday, April 6, 2014 8:49:24 PM UTC-4, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > > >And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with
>>
>> > hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts.
>>
>> > On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > >
>>
>> > > I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The entity <passer...@gmail.com> measures itself on it,
>>
>> > so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
>>
>> >
>>
>> Some of the smartest dinosaurs I know are corvids.
>
>Think of a Crow with a brain 20 times as big...
>
>http://www.cracked.com/article_19042_6-terrifying-ways-crows-are-way-smarter-than-you-think.html
Then it wouldn't be able to fly. The laws of physics you believe in
>
>http://www.cracked.com/article_19042_6-terrifying-ways-crows-are-way-smarter-than-you-think.html
are conveniently mutable.
Richard Clayton
Apr 7, 2014, 1:06:11 PM4/7/14
to
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
Mark Buchanan
Apr 7, 2014, 1:18:24 PM4/7/14
to
On 4/5/2014 10:08 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> We can stab a chimp a lot harder than they can stab us, it's not just the accuracy thing.
>
No, chimps are physically much stronger than humans.
> We can stab a chimp a lot harder than they can stab us, it's not just the accuracy thing.
>
No, chimps are physically much stronger than humans.
J. J. Lodder
Apr 7, 2014, 1:49:19 PM4/7/14
to
The only chance for a human to survive near angry chimps
is to be completely and absolutely submissive,
(like Jane Goodall did)
Jan
Bob Casanova
Apr 7, 2014, 3:01:03 PM4/7/14
to
On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
of the vaunted Supernova Project?
--
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
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
of the vaunted Supernova Project?
--
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
Nick Roberts
Apr 7, 2014, 4:07:23 PM4/7/14
to
In message <q9t5k9lamp4mm445g...@4ax.com>
The word "thinking" assumes facts not in evidence.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
> > By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust
> > would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and
> > nuclear power plants.
>
> A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
> isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
> in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
> of the vaunted Supernova Project?
***Bzzt*** Challenge.
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
> > By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust
> > would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and
> > nuclear power plants.
>
> A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
> isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
> in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
> of the vaunted Supernova Project?
The word "thinking" assumes facts not in evidence.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
John S. Wilkins
Apr 7, 2014, 10:04:49 PM4/7/14
to
Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06-Apr-14 21:37, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <1ljqbbf.3weyn5sdrthoN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with
> >>> hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts.
> >>> On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
> >>>
> >>> The entity <passer...@gmail.com> measures itself on it,
> >>> so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
> >>>
> >> Some of the smartest dinosaurs I know are corvids.
> >
> > Is that anything to crow about?
>
> I wish he'd stop raven about it.
I hope you aren't proposing a murder.
> On 06-Apr-14 21:37, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <1ljqbbf.3weyn5sdrthoN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with
> >>> hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts.
> >>> On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
> >>>
> >>> The entity <passer...@gmail.com> measures itself on it,
> >>> so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
> >>>
> >> Some of the smartest dinosaurs I know are corvids.
> >
> > Is that anything to crow about?
>
> I wish he'd stop raven about it.
Walter Bushell
Apr 8, 2014, 8:03:00 AM4/8/14
to
In article <1ljs9gw.1d3pv1l1tc4t81N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 06-Apr-14 21:37, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > > In article <1ljqbbf.3weyn5sdrthoN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > >
> > >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with
> > >>> hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts.
> > >>> On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
> > >>>
> > >>> The entity <passer...@gmail.com> measures itself on it,
> > >>> so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
> > >>>
> > >> Some of the smartest dinosaurs I know are corvids.
> > >
> > > Is that anything to crow about?
> >
> > I wish he'd stop raven about it.
>
> I hope you aren't proposing a murder.
There is nothing wrong about a murder of crows.
> Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 06-Apr-14 21:37, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > > In article <1ljqbbf.3weyn5sdrthoN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > >
> > >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> And there was some extremely intelligent dinosaurs about our size with
> > >>> hands at the very very end, right before that iridium layer. Troodonts.
> > >>> On the reptile EQ scale, they score as well as us.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I had no idea humans were measured on the reptile EQ scale.
> > >>>
> > >>> The entity <passer...@gmail.com> measures itself on it,
> > >>> so it must be extremely bright, for a dinosaur,
> > >>>
> > >> Some of the smartest dinosaurs I know are corvids.
> > >
> > > Is that anything to crow about?
> >
> > I wish he'd stop raven about it.
>
> I hope you aren't proposing a murder.
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 8:06:09 AM4/8/14
to
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 8:11:05 AM4/8/14
to
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 8:09:02 AM4/8/14
to
Dai monie
Apr 8, 2014, 11:18:03 AM4/8/14
to
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Apr 8, 2014, 1:12:16 PM4/8/14
to
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 1:18:45 PM4/8/14
to
Dai monie
Apr 8, 2014, 2:47:25 PM4/8/14
to
I can find little evidence of homonids going mano a mano with great cats or apes in the way that you are suggesting.
Hitting an animal when it is not focused on you is different from hitting it when it is charging, or hunting you. A lion or ape is too strong, too fast and too agile for boar-spear techniques.
(And yes, I have seen the research that Homo Erectus already had the muscle coordination we have, with strong and accurate throws. ).
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 2:58:53 PM4/8/14
to
Dai monie
Apr 8, 2014, 3:05:18 PM4/8/14
to
I'm a bit tired of you not reading that which you respond to.
Bob Casanova
Apr 8, 2014, 3:19:52 PM4/8/14
to
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:06:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
>On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:26:26 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> <passer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > A chimp is much much stronger than a human, but we can swing a baseball
>>> bat, or hit a tennis ball, or throw a straight right a lot harder than
>>> they can, and trained for it, we can beat them to a pulp with a baseball
>>> bat
>> > The miracle mammal that finally learned the trick didn't do it because of
>>> locomotion issues, it was because it was handy for beating other apes
>>> into a pulp.
>> OK, OK. Let's see you, with your superior locomotion,
>> and armed with your baseball bat
>> pick a fight with Mr Alpha Chimp.
>> I'll bet on Mr. Chimp,
>> <passer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > A chimp is much much stronger than a human, but we can swing a baseball
>>> bat, or hit a tennis ball, or throw a straight right a lot harder than
>>> they can, and trained for it, we can beat them to a pulp with a baseball
>>> bat
>> > The miracle mammal that finally learned the trick didn't do it because of
>>> locomotion issues, it was because it was handy for beating other apes
>>> into a pulp.
>> OK, OK. Let's see you, with your superior locomotion,
>> and armed with your baseball bat
>> pick a fight with Mr Alpha Chimp.
>> I'll bet on Mr. Chimp,
>I'll bet on the trained human. There's a reason chimps avoid adult humans.
Yeah, it's called "firearms".
Bob Casanova
Apr 8, 2014, 3:24:07 PM4/8/14
to
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:11:05 -0700 (PDT), the following
relevant documents showing that power plants "make iridium",
should it?
Meanwhile you might find johnethompson's response
interesting.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:01:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>> >By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
>> A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
>> isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
>> in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
>> of the vaunted Supernova Project?
>On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:01:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>> >By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
>> A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
>> isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
>> in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
>> of the vaunted Supernova Project?
>Bob, Iridium is part of how power plants make money. Reactors make so much they sell it. A regular industry. You can find that for yourself in an instant with Google.
Then it should be no problem to provide a cite to the
relevant documents showing that power plants "make iridium",
should it?
Meanwhile you might find johnethompson's response
interesting.
Bob Casanova
Apr 8, 2014, 3:30:45 PM4/8/14
to
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:12:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:11:05 AM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:01:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>> > >By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
>> > A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
>> > isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
>> > in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
>> > of the vaunted Supernova Project?
plant (or a bomb, for that matter) is if it were a decay
product of uranium, thorium or plutonium, or if somehow the
fusion products of an H-bomb went all the way to iridium
somehow. It isn't, and they don't, not by a long shot.
I suspect he doesn't understand what he read and thinks
somehow it's a decay byproduct.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
"johnetho...@yahoo.com" <johnetho...@yahoo.com>:
>On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:11:05 AM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:01:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>> > >By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
>> > A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
>> > isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
>> > in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
>> > of the vaunted Supernova Project?
>> Bob, Iridium is part of how power plants make money. Reactors make so much they sell it. A regular industry. You can find that for yourself in an instant with Google.
>Perhaps you google skills are better than mine, but the material I find says that iridium is obtained commercially as a by-product of copper and nickel mining. Iridium 192, which is used in nuclear medicine, is produced in nuclear reactors from iridium 191, I don't think producing one isotope of iridium from another isotope would be "making iridium" to most people.
The only way iridium could be "made" in a nuclear power
>Perhaps you google skills are better than mine, but the material I find says that iridium is obtained commercially as a by-product of copper and nickel mining. Iridium 192, which is used in nuclear medicine, is produced in nuclear reactors from iridium 191, I don't think producing one isotope of iridium from another isotope would be "making iridium" to most people.
plant (or a bomb, for that matter) is if it were a decay
product of uranium, thorium or plutonium, or if somehow the
fusion products of an H-bomb went all the way to iridium
somehow. It isn't, and they don't, not by a long shot.
I suspect he doesn't understand what he read and thinks
somehow it's a decay byproduct.
chris thompson
Apr 8, 2014, 4:14:38 PM4/8/14
to
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:19:52 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:06:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:26:26 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>
>
> >> <passer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> > A chimp is much much stronger than a human, but we can swing a baseball
>
> >>> bat, or hit a tennis ball, or throw a straight right a lot harder than
>
> >>> they can, and trained for it, we can beat them to a pulp with a baseball
>
> >>> bat
>
>
>
> >> > The miracle mammal that finally learned the trick didn't do it because of
>
> >>> locomotion issues, it was because it was handy for beating other apes
>
> >>> into a pulp.
>
>
>
> >> OK, OK. Let's see you, with your superior locomotion,
>
> >> and armed with your baseball bat
>
> >> pick a fight with Mr Alpha Chimp.
>
>
>
> >> I'll bet on Mr. Chimp,
>
>
>
> >I'll bet on the trained human. There's a reason chimps avoid adult humans.
>
>
>
> Yeah, it's called "firearms".
>
Just ask Travis.
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:06:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:26:26 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>
>
> >> <passer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> > A chimp is much much stronger than a human, but we can swing a baseball
>
> >>> bat, or hit a tennis ball, or throw a straight right a lot harder than
>
> >>> they can, and trained for it, we can beat them to a pulp with a baseball
>
> >>> bat
>
>
>
> >> > The miracle mammal that finally learned the trick didn't do it because of
>
> >>> locomotion issues, it was because it was handy for beating other apes
>
> >>> into a pulp.
>
>
>
> >> OK, OK. Let's see you, with your superior locomotion,
>
> >> and armed with your baseball bat
>
> >> pick a fight with Mr Alpha Chimp.
>
>
>
> >> I'll bet on Mr. Chimp,
>
>
>
> >I'll bet on the trained human. There's a reason chimps avoid adult humans.
>
>
>
> Yeah, it's called "firearms".
>
Chris
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Apr 8, 2014, 4:20:43 PM4/8/14
to
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 12:30:45 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:12:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>
> "johnetho...@yahoo.com" <johnetho...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:11:05 AM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:01:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>
>
> >> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> >> > >By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
>
>
>
> >> > A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
>
> >> > isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
>
> >> > in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
>
> >> > of the vaunted Supernova Project?
>
>
>
> >> Bob, Iridium is part of how power plants make money. Reactors make so much they sell it. A regular industry. You can find that for yourself in an instant with Google.
>
>
>
> >Perhaps you google skills are better than mine, but the material I find says that iridium is obtained commercially as a by-product of copper and nickel mining. Iridium 192, which is used in nuclear medicine, is produced in nuclear reactors from iridium 191, I don't think producing one isotope of iridium from another isotope would be "making iridium" to most people.
>
>
>
> The only way iridium could be "made" in a nuclear power
>
> plant (or a bomb, for that matter) is if it were a decay
>
> product of uranium, thorium or plutonium, or if somehow the
>
> fusion products of an H-bomb went all the way to iridium
>
> somehow. It isn't, and they don't, not by a long shot.
>
Wikipedia says that slow-neutron irradiation can convert osmium 190 and 192 to osmium 191 and 193, which then decay to iridium 191 and 193. I am pretty sure that this is not part of the normal operation of either nuclear power plants or H-bombs. Osmium is also a rare and expensive metal so I expect the practical value in this as a way of making iridium would be very limited.
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:12:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>
> "johnetho...@yahoo.com" <johnetho...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:11:05 AM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:01:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>
>
> >> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> >> > >By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
>
>
>
> >> > A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
>
> >> > isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
>
> >> > in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
>
> >> > of the vaunted Supernova Project?
>
>
>
> >> Bob, Iridium is part of how power plants make money. Reactors make so much they sell it. A regular industry. You can find that for yourself in an instant with Google.
>
>
>
> >Perhaps you google skills are better than mine, but the material I find says that iridium is obtained commercially as a by-product of copper and nickel mining. Iridium 192, which is used in nuclear medicine, is produced in nuclear reactors from iridium 191, I don't think producing one isotope of iridium from another isotope would be "making iridium" to most people.
>
>
>
> The only way iridium could be "made" in a nuclear power
>
> plant (or a bomb, for that matter) is if it were a decay
>
> product of uranium, thorium or plutonium, or if somehow the
>
> fusion products of an H-bomb went all the way to iridium
>
> somehow. It isn't, and they don't, not by a long shot.
>
>
>
> I suspect he doesn't understand what he read and thinks
>
> somehow it's a decay byproduct.
John Bode
Apr 8, 2014, 5:26:02 PM4/8/14
to
I'll give it to the human if they're going up against a very old or very
young chimp. A male chimp in his prime will win every time unless you're
very, very lucky.
He may not escape without injury, but he will win. He'll be stronger and
faster, and he'll easily take the one or two wallops you might be able
to get in before he tears your throat (or your balls) out.
Earle Jones27
Apr 8, 2014, 7:24:26 PM4/8/14
to
Next time you face a lion with a pointed stick, be sure to plant your feet.
earle
*
Dai monie
Apr 8, 2014, 8:01:39 PM4/8/14
to
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 8:28:45 PM4/8/14
to
The Many Uses of Nuclear Technology
updated March 2014
The first power station to produce electricity by using heat from the splitting of uranium atoms began operating in the 1950s. Today most people are aware of the important contribution nuclear energy makes in cleanly providing a significant proportion of the world's electricity.
Not so well known are the many other ways the peaceful atom has slipped quietly into our lives, often unannounced and in many cases unappreciated.
Radioisotopes and radiation have many applications in agriculture, medicine, industry and research. They greatly improve the day to day quality of our lives...
...Iridium-192 wire implants are used especially in the head and breast to give precise doses of beta rays to limited areas, then removed.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/non-power-nuclear-applications/overview/the-many-uses-of-nuclear-technology/
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 8:32:32 PM4/8/14
to
Same thing happened when they invented stirrups, the spear became the primary weapon and far more dangerous. The rider could plant his feet.
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 8:36:39 PM4/8/14
to
jillery
Apr 8, 2014, 9:09:36 PM4/8/14
to
jillery
Apr 8, 2014, 9:14:32 PM4/8/14
to
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:36:39 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:
>Ok that's another evolution Thumper that didn't know about the Masai, or the ability of humans to kill animals in general. We're very good at it. And they didn't develop the instinct to run after we invented gunpowder.
I'm almost certain that animals developed the instinct to run long
before humans evolved.
wrote:
>Ok that's another evolution Thumper that didn't know about the Masai, or the ability of humans to kill animals in general. We're very good at it. And they didn't develop the instinct to run after we invented gunpowder.
before humans evolved.
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 9:40:17 PM4/8/14
to
jillery
Apr 8, 2014, 9:50:38 PM4/8/14
to
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:40:17 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you do for yourself what you tell me to do, you will discover that
animals run from other animals as well. Honest.
wrote:
animals run from other animals as well. Honest.
mus...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 9:54:24 PM4/8/14
to
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 10:43:01 PM4/8/14
to
passer...@gmail.com
Apr 8, 2014, 10:45:01 PM4/8/14
to
jillery
Apr 9, 2014, 1:35:30 AM4/9/14
to
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 19:43:01 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
Well, that's a different claim entirely. If that's what you
originally meant, then that's what you should have said in the first
place. I'm not interested in chasing your goalpost all around the
field. If you actually have a point, then state it coherently and
explicitly.
originally meant, then that's what you should have said in the first
place. I'm not interested in chasing your goalpost all around the
field. If you actually have a point, then state it coherently and
explicitly.
J. J. Lodder
Apr 9, 2014, 4:16:56 AM4/9/14
to
is done with females.
Males, even tame and friendly ones, are just too dangerous.
Apart from strength they also have a nasty bite,
of big cat quality,
Jan
Dai monie
Apr 9, 2014, 4:57:19 AM4/9/14
to
And 'they run away' is a bit overly simplistic. Do you have any idea how much noise everyone makes? As a child, I spent hours in the woods. I've petted wild deer (mostly because they were really confused by a silent human at that time). The animals - which are prey animals - run away because of the noise you made.
Additionally, you still haven't read that one post were I pointed out that we killed these animals by ambush, traps and all that; not mano-a-mano. Even the Masai - who are on the lion killing wiki page - send out individuals to kill a lion. To kill it, not to duel it; they'd just search for Numa and try to sneak up. You can get a heavy javelin in before the lion notices you, if you go about it correctly.
alias Ernest Major
Apr 9, 2014, 10:01:53 AM4/9/14
to
On 08/04/2014 21:20, johnetho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Wikipedia says that slow-neutron irradiation can convert osmium 190 and 192 to osmium 191 and 193,
Apparently iridium is significantly more expensive than osmium, so if
> Wikipedia says that slow-neutron irradiation can convert osmium 190 and 192 to osmium 191 and 193,
the cost of extracting the iridium was low enough this could be economical.
On the other hand converting iridium to platinium is apparently more
profitable (or less unprofitable) that converting osmium to iridium.
I checked the web, and iridium is essentially absent from fission
products; the upper bound on fission products is about 160 nucleons.
> which then decay to iridium 191 and 193. I am pretty sure that this
> is not part of the normal operation of either nuclear power plants or
> H-bombs. Osmium is also a rare and expensive metal so I expect the
> practical value in this as a way of making iridium would be very
> limited.
alias Ernest Major
Robert Carnegie
Apr 9, 2014, 10:25:12 AM4/9/14
to
On Sunday, 6 April 2014 22:40:14 UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> I suspect the clever dinosaurs may score a lot
> higher on an IQ test than the EQ score on the
> mammal scale would predict, and we can't compare
> the two. But the point is, around a million years
> before the "meteor" an extremely intelligent
> dinosaur showed up, with hands, about our size,
> with a large brain.
> our accomplishments would still survive 65 million
> years from now? None of the metal and plastic,
> and it would be a very thin layer.
Assuming you really believe any of this to be true,
I think you've encountered a version of a joke in
which late dinosaur fossils are discovered holding
protest placards against nuclear bombs or nuclear
energy, implying that they had a nuclear programme
and it's what wiped them out.
This appears in Terry Pratchett's science fiction
novel _Strata_, except that there it's in the
context of reconstructing entire planets to have
an inhabitable environment, and, since nothing
really lived there before, inserting fake fossils
in, as the title suggests, strata, so that geologists
who settle on the new world will have something to
do with their time. Planting nuclear protester
dinosaur fossils, however, is a sacking offence.
After the discovery of a layer of asteroid iridium -
and soot - in geology worldwide right where the
fossils of dinosaurs stop, probably someone added
into the original joke "and the dinosaurs' nuclear
reactors and bombs were full of iridium, you know."
Actually, that rings a bell. But it's still just
a joke.
> I suspect the clever dinosaurs may score a lot
> higher on an IQ test than the EQ score on the
> mammal scale would predict, and we can't compare
> the two. But the point is, around a million years
> before the "meteor" an extremely intelligent
> dinosaur showed up, with hands, about our size,
> with a large brain.
>
> By the way, you know what one of the results of
> a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer.
> It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear
> power plants. Granted a long shot, but what of
> By the way, you know what one of the results of
> a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer.
> It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear
> our accomplishments would still survive 65 million
> years from now? None of the metal and plastic,
> and it would be a very thin layer.
Assuming you really believe any of this to be true,
I think you've encountered a version of a joke in
which late dinosaur fossils are discovered holding
protest placards against nuclear bombs or nuclear
energy, implying that they had a nuclear programme
and it's what wiped them out.
This appears in Terry Pratchett's science fiction
novel _Strata_, except that there it's in the
context of reconstructing entire planets to have
an inhabitable environment, and, since nothing
really lived there before, inserting fake fossils
in, as the title suggests, strata, so that geologists
who settle on the new world will have something to
do with their time. Planting nuclear protester
dinosaur fossils, however, is a sacking offence.
After the discovery of a layer of asteroid iridium -
and soot - in geology worldwide right where the
fossils of dinosaurs stop, probably someone added
into the original joke "and the dinosaurs' nuclear
reactors and bombs were full of iridium, you know."
Actually, that rings a bell. But it's still just
a joke.
mus...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2014, 10:46:52 AM4/9/14
to
Öö Tiib
Apr 9, 2014, 1:34:50 PM4/9/14
to
Indeed they have learned to avoid canines that hunt in packs and
firearms. When you walk in forest alone and unarmed for example to
collect some berries or mushrooms then they pretty much ignore you
and may even scare you with their too close presence. Some animals
do not even fear dogs or firearms (like polar bears).
Bob Casanova
Apr 9, 2014, 4:03:04 PM4/9/14
to
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:14:38 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:
>On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:19:52 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:06:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>> >On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:26:26 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >> <passer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > A chimp is much much stronger than a human, but we can swing a baseball
>> >>> bat, or hit a tennis ball, or throw a straight right a lot harder than
>> >>> they can, and trained for it, we can beat them to a pulp with a baseball
>> >>> bat
>> >> > The miracle mammal that finally learned the trick didn't do it because of
>> >>> locomotion issues, it was because it was handy for beating other apes
>> >>> into a pulp.
>> >> OK, OK. Let's see you, with your superior locomotion,
>> >> and armed with your baseball bat
>> >> pick a fight with Mr Alpha Chimp.
>>
>> >> I'll bet on Mr. Chimp,
>> >I'll bet on the trained human. There's a reason chimps avoid adult humans.
>> Yeah, it's called "firearms".
>Just ask Travis.
McGee?
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:
>On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:19:52 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:06:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>> >On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:26:26 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >> <passer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > A chimp is much much stronger than a human, but we can swing a baseball
>> >>> bat, or hit a tennis ball, or throw a straight right a lot harder than
>> >>> they can, and trained for it, we can beat them to a pulp with a baseball
>> >>> bat
>> >> > The miracle mammal that finally learned the trick didn't do it because of
>> >>> locomotion issues, it was because it was handy for beating other apes
>> >>> into a pulp.
>> >> OK, OK. Let's see you, with your superior locomotion,
>> >> and armed with your baseball bat
>> >> pick a fight with Mr Alpha Chimp.
>>
>> >> I'll bet on Mr. Chimp,
>> >I'll bet on the trained human. There's a reason chimps avoid adult humans.
>> Yeah, it's called "firearms".
>Just ask Travis.
Bob Casanova
Apr 9, 2014, 4:06:10 PM4/9/14
to
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:20:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
"turn lead into gold" by a similar process. (Sort of like
making a small fortune in auto racing by starting with a
large one). ;-)
>> I suspect he doesn't understand what he read and thinks
>>
>> somehow it's a decay byproduct.
>
>Agreed. It's not uncommon to see people here cut and paste or cite things they don't understand but which appear (to them) to support their position. It appears to me that this is true for at least some other things he posts about (e.g. the implications of Godel's theorem).
Same here.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
"johnetho...@yahoo.com" <johnetho...@yahoo.com>:
>On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 12:30:45 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:12:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>>
>> "johnetho...@yahoo.com" <johnetho...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:11:05 AM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:01:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > >By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
>>
>> >> > isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
>>
>> >> > in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
>>
>> >> > of the vaunted Supernova Project?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Bob, Iridium is part of how power plants make money. Reactors make so much they sell it. A regular industry. You can find that for yourself in an instant with Google.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Perhaps you google skills are better than mine, but the material I find says that iridium is obtained commercially as a by-product of copper and nickel mining. Iridium 192, which is used in nuclear medicine, is produced in nuclear reactors from iridium 191, I don't think producing one isotope of iridium from another isotope would be "making iridium" to most people.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only way iridium could be "made" in a nuclear power
>>
>> plant (or a bomb, for that matter) is if it were a decay
>>
>> product of uranium, thorium or plutonium, or if somehow the
>>
>> fusion products of an H-bomb went all the way to iridium
>>
>> somehow. It isn't, and they don't, not by a long shot.
>Wikipedia says that slow-neutron irradiation can convert osmium 190 and 192 to osmium 191 and 193, which then decay to iridium 191 and 193. I am pretty sure that this is not part of the normal operation of either nuclear power plants or H-bombs. Osmium is also a rare and expensive metal so I expect the practical value in this as a way of making iridium would be very limited.
....and a losing proposition financially; IIRC one can also
"johnetho...@yahoo.com" <johnetho...@yahoo.com>:
>On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 12:30:45 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:12:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>>
>> "johnetho...@yahoo.com" <johnetho...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:11:05 AM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:01:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > >By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
>>
>> >> > isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
>>
>> >> > in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
>>
>> >> > of the vaunted Supernova Project?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Bob, Iridium is part of how power plants make money. Reactors make so much they sell it. A regular industry. You can find that for yourself in an instant with Google.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Perhaps you google skills are better than mine, but the material I find says that iridium is obtained commercially as a by-product of copper and nickel mining. Iridium 192, which is used in nuclear medicine, is produced in nuclear reactors from iridium 191, I don't think producing one isotope of iridium from another isotope would be "making iridium" to most people.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only way iridium could be "made" in a nuclear power
>>
>> plant (or a bomb, for that matter) is if it were a decay
>>
>> product of uranium, thorium or plutonium, or if somehow the
>>
>> fusion products of an H-bomb went all the way to iridium
>>
>> somehow. It isn't, and they don't, not by a long shot.
>Wikipedia says that slow-neutron irradiation can convert osmium 190 and 192 to osmium 191 and 193, which then decay to iridium 191 and 193. I am pretty sure that this is not part of the normal operation of either nuclear power plants or H-bombs. Osmium is also a rare and expensive metal so I expect the practical value in this as a way of making iridium would be very limited.
"turn lead into gold" by a similar process. (Sort of like
making a small fortune in auto racing by starting with a
large one). ;-)
>> I suspect he doesn't understand what he read and thinks
>>
>> somehow it's a decay byproduct.
>
>Agreed. It's not uncommon to see people here cut and paste or cite things they don't understand but which appear (to them) to support their position. It appears to me that this is true for at least some other things he posts about (e.g. the implications of Godel's theorem).
Bob Casanova
Apr 9, 2014, 4:11:59 PM4/9/14
to
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:28:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
for medical purposes. Is that what you were referring to as
"making iridium"? It's not; both are still iridium, atomic
number 77.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:24:07 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:11:05 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:01:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
>>
>> >> isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
>>
>> >> in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
>>
>> >> of the vaunted Supernova Project?
>>
>>
>>
>> >Bob, Iridium is part of how power plants make money. Reactors make so much they sell it. A regular industry. You can find that for yourself in an instant with Google.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then it should be no problem to provide a cite to the
>>
>> relevant documents showing that power plants "make iridium",
>>
>> should it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile you might find johnethompson's response
>>
>> interesting.
>On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:24:07 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 05:11:05 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:01:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:40:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >By the way, you know what one of the results of a nuclear holocaust would be? An Iridium layer. It's a major by-product of H-Bombs and nuclear power plants.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> A cite for this "fact" would be appreciated; AFAIK iridium
>>
>> >> isn't produced, or in the decay chain of anything produced,
>>
>> >> in either H-bombs or fission plants. Perhaps you're thinking
>>
>> >> of the vaunted Supernova Project?
>>
>>
>>
>> >Bob, Iridium is part of how power plants make money. Reactors make so much they sell it. A regular industry. You can find that for yourself in an instant with Google.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then it should be no problem to provide a cite to the
>>
>> relevant documents showing that power plants "make iridium",
>>
>> should it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile you might find johnethompson's response
>>
>> interesting.
>Well, there's this...
>
>The Many Uses of Nuclear Technology
>
>updated March 2014
>
>The first power station to produce electricity by using heat from the splitting of uranium atoms began operating in the 1950s. Today most people are aware of the important contribution nuclear energy makes in cleanly providing a significant proportion of the world's electricity.
>
>Not so well known are the many other ways the peaceful atom has slipped quietly into our lives, often unannounced and in many cases unappreciated.
>
>Radioisotopes and radiation have many applications in agriculture, medicine, industry and research. They greatly improve the day to day quality of our lives...
>
>...Iridium-192 wire implants are used especially in the head and breast to give precise doses of beta rays to limited areas, then removed.
>http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/non-power-nuclear-applications/overview/the-many-uses-of-nuclear-technology/
Yes, as was noted Ir192 is produced from Ir191 in reactors
>
>The Many Uses of Nuclear Technology
>
>updated March 2014
>
>The first power station to produce electricity by using heat from the splitting of uranium atoms began operating in the 1950s. Today most people are aware of the important contribution nuclear energy makes in cleanly providing a significant proportion of the world's electricity.
>
>Not so well known are the many other ways the peaceful atom has slipped quietly into our lives, often unannounced and in many cases unappreciated.
>
>Radioisotopes and radiation have many applications in agriculture, medicine, industry and research. They greatly improve the day to day quality of our lives...
>
>...Iridium-192 wire implants are used especially in the head and breast to give precise doses of beta rays to limited areas, then removed.
>http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/non-power-nuclear-applications/overview/the-many-uses-of-nuclear-technology/
for medical purposes. Is that what you were referring to as
"making iridium"? It's not; both are still iridium, atomic
number 77.
Bob Casanova
Apr 9, 2014, 4:17:03 PM4/9/14
to
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:40:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
I recommend the same for you. Try the Rocky Mountain West,
and say hello to the grizzlies. Or the Katmai Peninsula and
greet the Alaskan brown bears. Or the walruses. Or you could
try one of the many rivers in Africa which are home to both
crocodiles and hippos. Or India, and bother a cobra in
nesting season (they have been known to trail a human over a
mile in this scenario in order to "admonish" him pointedly).
Enjoy!
and say hello to the grizzlies. Or the Katmai Peninsula and
greet the Alaskan brown bears. Or the walruses. Or you could
try one of the many rivers in Africa which are home to both
crocodiles and hippos. Or India, and bother a cobra in
nesting season (they have been known to trail a human over a
mile in this scenario in order to "admonish" him pointedly).
Enjoy!
Bob Casanova
Apr 9, 2014, 4:23:53 PM4/9/14
to
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:16:56 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
I suspect a lot of people got their idea of chimps from
"Cheetah" in the early "Tarzan" movies. But adult chimps are
neither cute nor 2 ft tall nor 50 pounds in weight. To quote
a Wiki entry:
"The male common chimp stands up to 1.7 m (5.6 ft) high and
weighs as much as 70 kg (150 lb); the female is somewhat
smaller. The common chimp’s long arms, when extended, span
one and a half times the body’s height."
IOW, they're approximately as tall heavy as an average male
human, and have a reach almost as long as that of a human
*plus* a baseball bat. And they're not exactly
sweet-tempered, especially when threatened.
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
"Cheetah" in the early "Tarzan" movies. But adult chimps are
neither cute nor 2 ft tall nor 50 pounds in weight. To quote
a Wiki entry:
"The male common chimp stands up to 1.7 m (5.6 ft) high and
weighs as much as 70 kg (150 lb); the female is somewhat
smaller. The common chimp’s long arms, when extended, span
one and a half times the body’s height."
IOW, they're approximately as tall heavy as an average male
human, and have a reach almost as long as that of a human
*plus* a baseball bat. And they're not exactly
sweet-tempered, especially when threatened.
Bob Casanova
Apr 9, 2014, 4:27:07 PM4/9/14
to
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
Good catch; I forgot polar bears in the examples I gave him,
and they're by far the most dangerous to humans of the
bears. Seems we resemble seals too much for our own good...
;-)
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
and they're by far the most dangerous to humans of the
bears. Seems we resemble seals too much for our own good...
;-)
Mike Duffy
Apr 9, 2014, 6:21:54 PM4/9/14
to
On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:17:03 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
> ... bother a cobra in nesting season
smaller is prey, and anything bigger than themselves is competition.
I did not know about cobras being defensive of nests to the point of
tracking down someone who has left their territory. (I'm assuming their
territory is smaller than the 1 mile you quoted.)
> ... bother a cobra in nesting season
> (they have been known to trail a human over a mile in
> this scenario in order to "admonish" him pointedly).
I have read that mambas will attack anything that moves because anything
> this scenario in order to "admonish" him pointedly).
smaller is prey, and anything bigger than themselves is competition.
I did not know about cobras being defensive of nests to the point of
tracking down someone who has left their territory. (I'm assuming their
territory is smaller than the 1 mile you quoted.)
John S. Wilkins
Apr 9, 2014, 10:05:39 PM4/9/14
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:40:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
> >On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 9:14:32 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:36:39 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Ok that's another evolution Thumper that didn't know about the Masai,
> >> or the ability of humans to kill animals in general. We're very good at
> >> it. And they didn't develop the instinct to run after we invented
> >> gunpowder.
> >>
> >> I'm almost certain that animals developed the instinct to run long
> >>
> >> before humans evolved.
> >
> >Jillery, animals run from humans. They fear us. Get out of the city, go
> >for a walk in the woods.
>
> I recommend the same for you. Try the Rocky Mountain West,
> and say hello to the grizzlies. Or the Katmai Peninsula and
> greet the Alaskan brown bears. Or the walruses. Or you could
> try one of the many rivers in Africa which are home to both
> crocodiles and hippos. Or India, and bother a cobra in
> nesting season (they have been known to trail a human over a
> mile in this scenario in order to "admonish" him pointedly).
>
> Enjoy!
When Australians go bushwalking, we often encounter animals that do not
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:40:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
> >On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 9:14:32 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:36:39 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Ok that's another evolution Thumper that didn't know about the Masai,
> >> or the ability of humans to kill animals in general. We're very good at
> >> it. And they didn't develop the instinct to run after we invented
> >> gunpowder.
> >>
> >> I'm almost certain that animals developed the instinct to run long
> >>
> >> before humans evolved.
> >
> >Jillery, animals run from humans. They fear us. Get out of the city, go
> >for a walk in the woods.
>
> I recommend the same for you. Try the Rocky Mountain West,
> and say hello to the grizzlies. Or the Katmai Peninsula and
> greet the Alaskan brown bears. Or the walruses. Or you could
> try one of the many rivers in Africa which are home to both
> crocodiles and hippos. Or India, and bother a cobra in
> nesting season (they have been known to trail a human over a
> mile in this scenario in order to "admonish" him pointedly).
>
> Enjoy!
run from us. Despite over 40,000 years of human hunting, the response of
the animals, especially kangaroos, depends upon how recently they have
been hunted.
Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Paul J Gans
Apr 9, 2014, 10:36:37 PM4/9/14
to
--
--- Paul J. Gans
mus...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2014, 11:05:07 PM4/9/14
to
John S. Wilkins
Apr 10, 2014, 2:49:18 AM4/10/14
to
...
Australia? None since 1979. Snakes, 8 since 2000. Sharks: 20 since 2002.
All pale into insignificance compared with our worse killer: humans.
> > Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
> >
> > reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
> >
> > claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
>
> When I was in Australia, I was told not to worry about the snakes, more
> people died from spider bits. I found that very reassuring. :)
And you know how many people die from sipder bites each year in
> >
> > reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
> >
> > claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
>
> When I was in Australia, I was told not to worry about the snakes, more
> people died from spider bits. I found that very reassuring. :)
Australia? None since 1979. Snakes, 8 since 2000. Sharks: 20 since 2002.
All pale into insignificance compared with our worse killer: humans.
Roger Shrubber
Apr 10, 2014, 4:24:03 AM4/10/14
to
John S. Wilkins wrote:
> <mus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 19:05:39 UTC-7, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> ....
> <mus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 19:05:39 UTC-7, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
>>>
>>> reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
>>>
>>> claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
>>
>> When I was in Australia, I was told not to worry about the snakes, more
>> people died from spider bits. I found that very reassuring. :)
>
> And you know how many people die from sipder bites each year in
> Australia? None since 1979. Snakes, 8 since 2000. Sharks: 20 since 2002.
> All pale into insignificance compared with our worse killer: humans.
Yes, but how many of those are human bites?
>>>
>>> reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
>>>
>>> claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
>>
>> When I was in Australia, I was told not to worry about the snakes, more
>> people died from spider bits. I found that very reassuring. :)
>
> And you know how many people die from sipder bites each year in
> Australia? None since 1979. Snakes, 8 since 2000. Sharks: 20 since 2002.
> All pale into insignificance compared with our worse killer: humans.
J. J. Lodder
Apr 10, 2014, 5:33:29 AM4/10/14
to
Mr Alpha is the boss,
and he wants everyone around him to acknowledge that.
Since a human won't know the signals
he will be seen as insubordinate,
and will be at least threatened,
if not attacked.
Jan
John S. Wilkins
Apr 10, 2014, 7:58:18 AM4/10/14
to
Walter Bushell
Apr 10, 2014, 11:43:46 AM4/10/14
to
In article <1ljtyu7.11v...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> There is good reason almost all experimenting with chimps
> is done with females.
> Males, even tame and friendly ones, are just too dangerous.
> Apart from strength they also have a nasty bite,
> of big cat quality,
>
> Jan
The males are more aggressive too boot. The females can kill too.
> There is good reason almost all experimenting with chimps
> is done with females.
> Males, even tame and friendly ones, are just too dangerous.
> Apart from strength they also have a nasty bite,
> of big cat quality,
>
> Jan
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Bob Casanova
Apr 10, 2014, 2:48:30 PM4/10/14
to
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:21:54 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mike Duffy <md_...@videotron.ca>:
>On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:17:03 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> ... bother a cobra in nesting season
>> (they have been known to trail a human over a mile in
>> this scenario in order to "admonish" him pointedly).
>
>I have read that mambas will attack anything that moves because anything
>smaller is prey, and anything bigger than themselves is competition.
Thanks; I wasn't aware of that one (although I knew mambas
are aggressive)
>I did not know about cobras being defensive of nests to the point of
>tracking down someone who has left their territory. (I'm assuming their
>territory is smaller than the 1 mile you quoted.)
I wish I could remember where I read that. And I wouldn't
make that assumption, at least insofar as territory size is
concerned; it may be that even though several pairs may
share a territory of greater than a mile in radius,
interlopers such as humans aren't tolerated in that range
while other pairs are.
talk.origins, posted by Mike Duffy <md_...@videotron.ca>:
>On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:17:03 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> ... bother a cobra in nesting season
>> (they have been known to trail a human over a mile in
>> this scenario in order to "admonish" him pointedly).
>
>I have read that mambas will attack anything that moves because anything
>smaller is prey, and anything bigger than themselves is competition.
are aggressive)
>I did not know about cobras being defensive of nests to the point of
>tracking down someone who has left their territory. (I'm assuming their
>territory is smaller than the 1 mile you quoted.)
make that assumption, at least insofar as territory size is
concerned; it may be that even though several pairs may
share a territory of greater than a mile in radius,
interlopers such as humans aren't tolerated in that range
while other pairs are.
Bob Casanova
Apr 10, 2014, 2:51:15 PM4/10/14
to
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:05:39 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
That agrees with my experience.
>Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
>reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
>claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
I never thought of Australia as exceptionally dangerous,
except perhaps in areas where crocs are the dominant
predator (and only then if one is careless enough to wander
through a swamp or swim in a lake where they live).
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
>Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
>reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
>claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
except perhaps in areas where crocs are the dominant
predator (and only then if one is careless enough to wander
through a swamp or swim in a lake where they live).
Bob Casanova
Apr 10, 2014, 3:00:17 PM4/10/14
to
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:49:18 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
><mus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 19:05:39 UTC-7, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>...
>> > Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
>> >
>> > reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
>> >
>> > claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
>>
>> When I was in Australia, I was told not to worry about the snakes, more
>> people died from spider bits. I found that very reassuring. :)
>
>And you know how many people die from sipder bites each year in
>Australia? None since 1979. Snakes, 8 since 2000. Sharks: 20 since 2002.
>All pale into insignificance compared with our worse killer: humans.
That's true everywhere.
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
><mus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 19:05:39 UTC-7, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>...
>> > Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
>> >
>> > reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
>> >
>> > claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
>>
>> When I was in Australia, I was told not to worry about the snakes, more
>> people died from spider bits. I found that very reassuring. :)
>
>And you know how many people die from sipder bites each year in
>Australia? None since 1979. Snakes, 8 since 2000. Sharks: 20 since 2002.
>All pale into insignificance compared with our worse killer: humans.
Bob Casanova
Apr 10, 2014, 2:59:49 PM4/10/14
to
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:05:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by mus...@gmail.com:
>On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 19:05:39 UTC-7, John S. Wilkins wrote:
<snip>
>> Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
>> reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
>> claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
>When I was in Australia, I was told not to worry about the snakes, more people died from spider bits. I found that very reassuring. :)
I'm sure you did... ;-)
Just a note about Australian dangerous animals... IIRC it
has the distinction of being home to the most poisonous land
snake (the tiger snake, aggressive and with both hemotoxic
and neurotoxic venom), the most poisonous sea snakes
(Pacific sea snakes in general are among the most poisonous
snakes in the world; more deadly venom than any cobra, but
usually shy) and the most poisonous octopus known. Maybe the
most poisonous jellyfish; I don't recall if that one is
correct.
Spider bite deaths are a new one for me; what species?
But the bottom line is that in general you're OK if you stay
out of the ocean (or exercise care if you don't); IIRC
encounters with tiger snakes are extremely rare.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by mus...@gmail.com:
>On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 19:05:39 UTC-7, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>> Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
>> reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
>> claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
>When I was in Australia, I was told not to worry about the snakes, more people died from spider bits. I found that very reassuring. :)
Just a note about Australian dangerous animals... IIRC it
has the distinction of being home to the most poisonous land
snake (the tiger snake, aggressive and with both hemotoxic
and neurotoxic venom), the most poisonous sea snakes
(Pacific sea snakes in general are among the most poisonous
snakes in the world; more deadly venom than any cobra, but
usually shy) and the most poisonous octopus known. Maybe the
most poisonous jellyfish; I don't recall if that one is
correct.
Spider bite deaths are a new one for me; what species?
But the bottom line is that in general you're OK if you stay
out of the ocean (or exercise care if you don't); IIRC
encounters with tiger snakes are extremely rare.
Bob Casanova
Apr 10, 2014, 3:01:14 PM4/10/14
to
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:24:03 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com>:
Only those who are victims of a "live brains" search.
in talk.origins, posted by Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova
Apr 10, 2014, 3:01:46 PM4/10/14
to
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:33:29 +0200, the following appeared
Point taken.
Bob Casanova
Apr 10, 2014, 3:03:02 PM4/10/14
to
On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:11:59 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
No comment? OK.
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
jillery
Apr 10, 2014, 3:24:26 PM4/10/14
to
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:59:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:05:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by mus...@gmail.com:
>
>>On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 19:05:39 UTC-7, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
>>> reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
>>> claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
>
>>When I was in Australia, I was told not to worry about the snakes, more people died from spider bits. I found that very reassuring. :)
>
>I'm sure you did... ;-)
>
>Just a note about Australian dangerous animals... IIRC it
>has the distinction of being home to the most poisonous land
>snake (the tiger snake, aggressive and with both hemotoxic
>and neurotoxic venom), the most poisonous sea snakes
>(Pacific sea snakes in general are among the most poisonous
>snakes in the world; more deadly venom than any cobra, but
>usually shy) and the most poisonous octopus known. Maybe the
>most poisonous jellyfish; I don't recall if that one is
>correct.
>
>Spider bite deaths are a new one for me; what species?
>
>But the bottom line is that in general you're OK if you stay
>out of the ocean (or exercise care if you don't); IIRC
>encounters with tiger snakes are extremely rare.
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2013/03/30-of-australias-deadliest-animals/
There are so many, they had to expand the usual "10 most" to 30 ;-0)
wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:05:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by mus...@gmail.com:
>
>>On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 19:05:39 UTC-7, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Americans often freak out about how dangerous Australia is, to which I
>>> reply, we do not get torn limb from limb by big animals with teeth and
>>> claws. Even dingoes won't usually attack a grown human.
>
>>When I was in Australia, I was told not to worry about the snakes, more people died from spider bits. I found that very reassuring. :)
>
>I'm sure you did... ;-)
>
>Just a note about Australian dangerous animals... IIRC it
>has the distinction of being home to the most poisonous land
>snake (the tiger snake, aggressive and with both hemotoxic
>and neurotoxic venom), the most poisonous sea snakes
>(Pacific sea snakes in general are among the most poisonous
>snakes in the world; more deadly venom than any cobra, but
>usually shy) and the most poisonous octopus known. Maybe the
>most poisonous jellyfish; I don't recall if that one is
>correct.
>
>Spider bite deaths are a new one for me; what species?
>
>But the bottom line is that in general you're OK if you stay
>out of the ocean (or exercise care if you don't); IIRC
>encounters with tiger snakes are extremely rare.
There are so many, they had to expand the usual "10 most" to 30 ;-0)
Robert Carnegie
Apr 10, 2014, 3:59:15 PM4/10/14
to
On Thursday, 10 April 2014 19:51:15 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> I never thought of Australia as exceptionally dangerous,
A tear springs to an old swagman's eye. As I imagine.
> I never thought of Australia as exceptionally dangerous,
> except perhaps in areas where crocs are the dominant
> predator (and only then if one is careless enough to wander
> through a swamp or swim in a lake where they live).
'Cause there are crocodiles all over the world, right?
Walter Bushell
Apr 11, 2014, 9:41:58 AM4/11/14
to
In article <ebbf7cad-2220-402d...@googlegroups.com>,
passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > But beware the cougars. They are known to attack people.
>
> And if they didn't run away, 99.999% of the time, they'd be attacking
> millions of people.
If they were attacking that many people, they would have their
population reduced.
passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > But beware the cougars. They are known to attack people.
>
> And if they didn't run away, 99.999% of the time, they'd be attacking
> millions of people.
If they were attacking that many people, they would have their
population reduced.
Bob Casanova
Apr 13, 2014, 2:13:56 PM4/13/14
to
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:24:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
(Re-post; first post fell into bit bucket)
Excellent site; thanks! And I see I was mistaken about the
tiger snake; both the taipan and the brown snake are
considered deadlier. Maybe I was mistakenly keying on the
nature of the venom to define "most poisonous".
But I was correct about the jellyfish, or at least about the
presence of a very poisonous one. ;-)
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
(Re-post; first post fell into bit bucket)
tiger snake; both the taipan and the brown snake are
considered deadlier. Maybe I was mistakenly keying on the
nature of the venom to define "most poisonous".
But I was correct about the jellyfish, or at least about the
presence of a very poisonous one. ;-)
Bob Casanova
Apr 13, 2014, 2:14:33 PM4/13/14
to
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:59:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
(Re-post; first post fell into bit bucket)
>> except perhaps in areas where crocs are the dominant
>> predator (and only then if one is careless enough to wander
>> through a swamp or swim in a lake where they live).
>I assumed we just weren't counting crocodile kills.
Why would you assume that?
>'Cause there are crocodiles all over the world, right?
Which has...what?...to do with the fact that I specifically
listed crocs as dangerous?
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
(Re-post; first post fell into bit bucket)
>On Thursday, 10 April 2014 19:51:15 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> I never thought of Australia as exceptionally dangerous,
>A tear springs to an old swagman's eye. As I imagine.
Ummm...OK...
>> I never thought of Australia as exceptionally dangerous,
>A tear springs to an old swagman's eye. As I imagine.
>> except perhaps in areas where crocs are the dominant
>> predator (and only then if one is careless enough to wander
>> through a swamp or swim in a lake where they live).
>I assumed we just weren't counting crocodile kills.
>'Cause there are crocodiles all over the world, right?
listed crocs as dangerous?
Robert Carnegie
Apr 13, 2014, 3:56:20 PM4/13/14
to
On Sunday, 13 April 2014 19:14:33 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:59:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>
> (Re-post; first post fell into bit bucket)
>
> >On Thursday, 10 April 2014 19:51:15 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> I never thought of Australia as exceptionally dangerous,
>
> >A tear springs to an old swagman's eye. As I imagine.
>
> Ummm...OK...
>
> >> except perhaps in areas where crocs are the dominant
> >> predator (and only then if one is careless enough to wander
> >> through a swamp or swim in a lake where they live).
>
> >I assumed we just weren't counting crocodile kills.
>
> Why would you assume that?
It was a cunning ploy to imply that you're deliberately
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:59:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>
> (Re-post; first post fell into bit bucket)
>
> >On Thursday, 10 April 2014 19:51:15 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> I never thought of Australia as exceptionally dangerous,
>
> >A tear springs to an old swagman's eye. As I imagine.
>
> Ummm...OK...
>
> >> except perhaps in areas where crocs are the dominant
> >> predator (and only then if one is careless enough to wander
> >> through a swamp or swim in a lake where they live).
>
> >I assumed we just weren't counting crocodile kills.
>
> Why would you assume that?
representing Australia's wildlife as less homicideal than
it may actually be.
> >'Cause there are crocodiles all over the world, right?
>
> Which has...what?...to do with the fact that I specifically
> listed crocs as dangerous?
Burkhard
Apr 13, 2014, 4:00:16 PM4/13/14
to
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:56:20 PM UTC+1, Robert Carnegie wrote:
,snip>
,snip>
> > >'Cause there are crocodiles all over the world, right?
>
> > Which has...what?...to do with the fact that I specifically
> > listed crocs as dangerous?
>
> But only dangerous if they're around!
Why would a round crocodile be more dangerous than a square one?
>
> > Which has...what?...to do with the fact that I specifically
> > listed crocs as dangerous?
>
> But only dangerous if they're around!
jillery
Apr 13, 2014, 7:59:05 PM4/13/14
to
Bob Casanova
Apr 13, 2014, 9:40:07 PM4/13/14
to
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:56:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
certainly have no dog (or even dingo) in that fight.
>> >'Cause there are crocodiles all over the world, right?
>>
>> Which has...what?...to do with the fact that I specifically
>> listed crocs as dangerous?
>
>But only dangerous if they're around!
Seems obvious. So? Is there some reason to think that
Australian crocs are inherently more dangerous than, say,
those in the Nile, and that given equal numbers of
encounters under similar circumstances the croc kills in
Australia would show a significantly greater likelihood?
Note that I have no argument against the idea that Australia
has quite a bit of dangerous wildlife. But then, so do the
Amazon Basin, sub-Saharan Africa and India, and the latter
had quite a bit more of it when the human population density
was similar to that of modern Australia.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>On Sunday, 13 April 2014 19:14:33 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:59:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>>
>> (Re-post; first post fell into bit bucket)
>>
>> >On Thursday, 10 April 2014 19:51:15 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> I never thought of Australia as exceptionally dangerous,
>>
>> >A tear springs to an old swagman's eye. As I imagine.
>>
>> Ummm...OK...
>>
>> >> except perhaps in areas where crocs are the dominant
>> >> predator (and only then if one is careless enough to wander
>> >> through a swamp or swim in a lake where they live).
>>
>> >I assumed we just weren't counting crocodile kills.
>>
>> Why would you assume that?
>
>It was a cunning ploy to imply that you're deliberately
>representing Australia's wildlife as less homicideal than
>it may actually be.
OK, although why I would want to do that escapes me; I
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>On Sunday, 13 April 2014 19:14:33 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:59:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>>
>> (Re-post; first post fell into bit bucket)
>>
>> >On Thursday, 10 April 2014 19:51:15 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> I never thought of Australia as exceptionally dangerous,
>>
>> >A tear springs to an old swagman's eye. As I imagine.
>>
>> Ummm...OK...
>>
>> >> except perhaps in areas where crocs are the dominant
>> >> predator (and only then if one is careless enough to wander
>> >> through a swamp or swim in a lake where they live).
>>
>> >I assumed we just weren't counting crocodile kills.
>>
>> Why would you assume that?
>
>It was a cunning ploy to imply that you're deliberately
>representing Australia's wildlife as less homicideal than
>it may actually be.
certainly have no dog (or even dingo) in that fight.
>> >'Cause there are crocodiles all over the world, right?
>>
>> Which has...what?...to do with the fact that I specifically
>> listed crocs as dangerous?
>
>But only dangerous if they're around!
Australian crocs are inherently more dangerous than, say,
those in the Nile, and that given equal numbers of
encounters under similar circumstances the croc kills in
Australia would show a significantly greater likelihood?
Note that I have no argument against the idea that Australia
has quite a bit of dangerous wildlife. But then, so do the
Amazon Basin, sub-Saharan Africa and India, and the latter
had quite a bit more of it when the human population density
was similar to that of modern Australia.
Bob Casanova
Apr 13, 2014, 9:40:36 PM4/13/14
to
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:00:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
What, you never heard of a Hoop Croc?
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
Bob Casanova
Apr 13, 2014, 9:42:25 PM4/13/14
to
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 19:59:05 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
And you can hear them coming when they try to roll after
you: "UNNH, <THUMP!>; UNNH, <THUMP!>".
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
you: "UNNH, <THUMP!>; UNNH, <THUMP!>".
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages