They didn't bury their dead

[JTEM]

crow...@eircom.net wrote:

> It's unlikely that there would have been any trace of
> a "slight lens-shaped disturbance" after all that time
> -- even if they'd been looking for one, which frankly
> I doubt.

"They buried their dead" is dumb for a lot of reasons,
but let's just touch on a few...

#1. It doesn't answer any questions.

There's no questions that "They buried their dead"
answers. Nobody is wondering how bodies got some
place or why they find things a certain way -- in
a context where "They buried their dead" would
answer.

In the recent cave finds, for example, this supposed
"Homo Naledi," everyone outside of the playground
seems pretty satisfied that a group died inside the
cave.

#2. It RAISES questions that don't otherwise exist.

If they were burying their dead 100k years ago,
or even millions or years ago, why did they stop?
Why isn't Africa littered with graves? Why do we
find clear, unambiguous graves as far away as
Australia Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong
before we find them in Africa? How/why did Africa
FORGET how to bury their dead?

It's not that we're "Missing" 100k year old
graves (and much older) because nobody thought
to look, we're missing 60k year old, and even
40k years old... we're missing EVERYTHING. We
find plenty of graves, and just not in Africa.

Interesting note, and perhaps related: We DO
have unambiguous evidence for cannibalism going
back at least 800 thousand years. Perhaps they
never buried their dead EVEN LONG AFTER A POINT
WHEN THEY COULD because they couldn't afford to
waste all that free protein & calories...

Gross, by our modern standards, but only because
you are projecting yourself, your thinking,
backwards in time... as evidence by your "Graves."




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/129485667997









-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/129493242115

[crow...@eircom.net]

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 7:13:18 PM UTC+1, JTEM wrote:
.
> There's no questions that "They buried their dead"
> answers. Nobody is wondering how bodies got some
> place or why they find things a certain way -- in
> a context where "They buried their dead" would
> answer.

If they did NOT bury their dead, we'd expect to see
roughly the same proportion (relative to the size of
the paleo-populations) of fossils. So there must have
been vast populations of hominids relative to those
of chimps and gorillas. OR something else was
going on.

> In the recent cave finds, for example, this supposed
> "Homo Naledi," everyone outside of the playground
> seems pretty satisfied that a group died inside the
> cave.

You are not worth talking to because, among your
other numerous faults, you lie. They'll probably
end up with ~100 individuals from that chamber --
many more than could fit into it alive.

> If they were burying their dead 100k years ago,
> or even millions or years ago, why did they stop?
> Why isn't Africa littered with graves? Why do we
> find clear, unambiguous graves as far away as
> Australia Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong
> before we find them in Africa? How/why did Africa
> FORGET how to bury their dead?
>
> It's not that we're "Missing" 100k year old
> graves (and much older) because nobody thought
> to look, we're missing 60k year old, and even
> 40k years old... we're missing EVERYTHING. We
> find plenty of graves, and just not in Africa.

Every recorded homo sap population disposes of its
dead with respect and ceremony, most often by burial.
Yet, as you say, Africa seems devoid of homo sap
burials for most of the time homo sap was its dominant
population. There is, of course, an explanation. But,
if you don't know it, or can't work it out, you have little
or no competence in this discipline.

[JTEM]

crow...@eircom.net wrote:

> If they did NOT bury their dead, we'd expect to see
> roughly the same proportion (relative to the size of
> the paleo-populations) of fossils.

No we don't.

> > In the recent cave finds, for example, this supposed
> > "Homo Naledi," everyone outside of the playground
> > seems pretty satisfied that a group died inside the
> > cave.

> You are not worth talking to because, among your
> other numerous faults, you lie.

I'm not lying.

> They'll probably
> end up with ~100 individuals from that chamber --
> many more than could fit into it alive.

You can fit 10 thousand people into a port-o-potty
quite easily, assuming it's not ALL AT THE SAME
TIME.

You can have dozens or even hundreds die in a very
small area, assuming they weren't all there at the
same time.

> > If they were burying their dead 100k years ago,
> > or even millions or years ago, why did they stop?
> > Why isn't Africa littered with graves? Why do we
> > find clear, unambiguous graves as far away as
> > Australia Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong
> > before we find them in Africa? How/why did Africa
> > FORGET how to bury their dead?
> >
> > It's not that we're "Missing" 100k year old
> > graves (and much older) because nobody thought
> > to look, we're missing 60k year old, and even
> > 40k years old... we're missing EVERYTHING. We
> > find plenty of graves, and just not in Africa.

> Every recorded homo sap population disposes of its
> dead with respect and ceremony

You're projecting backwards in time. You're
projecting your own understanding of the world
on to populations living tens of thousands of
years ago.

> Yet, as you say, Africa seems devoid of homo sap
> burials for most of the time homo sap was its dominant
> population.

Things very often are exactly as they appear.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/129603623588

[JTEM is so reasonable]

...all this wisdom... WASTED here on usenet!

It ain't always easy being JTEM.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/695841401741688832