Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Laetoli site A footprints: hominin, not bear
81 views
Skip to first unread message
Pandora
Dec 1, 2021, 1:12:58 PM12/1/21
to
Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
Tanzania.
Abstract
Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and
dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest
unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage.
Another trackway discovered two years earlier at nearby site A was
partially excavated and attributed to a hominin, but curious
affinities with bears (ursids) marginalized its importance to the
paleoanthropological community, and the location of these footprints
fell into obscurity. In 2019, we located, excavated and cleaned the
site A trackway, producing a digital archive using 3D photogrammetry
and laser scanning. Here we compare the footprints at this site with
those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids. In fact, the
narrow step width corroborates the original interpretation of a small,
cross-stepping bipedal hominin. However, the inferred foot
proportions, gait parameters and 3D morphologies of footprints at site
A are readily distinguished from those at site G, indicating that a
minimum of two hominin taxa with different feet and gaits coexisted at
Laetoli.
Open access:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
Tanzania.
Abstract
Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and
dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest
unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage.
Another trackway discovered two years earlier at nearby site A was
partially excavated and attributed to a hominin, but curious
affinities with bears (ursids) marginalized its importance to the
paleoanthropological community, and the location of these footprints
fell into obscurity. In 2019, we located, excavated and cleaned the
site A trackway, producing a digital archive using 3D photogrammetry
and laser scanning. Here we compare the footprints at this site with
those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids. In fact, the
narrow step width corroborates the original interpretation of a small,
cross-stepping bipedal hominin. However, the inferred foot
proportions, gait parameters and 3D morphologies of footprints at site
A are readily distinguished from those at site G, indicating that a
minimum of two hominin taxa with different feet and gaits coexisted at
Laetoli.
Open access:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
Primum Sapienti
Dec 2, 2021, 12:06:49 AM12/2/21
to
<https://www.ohio.edu/news/2021/12/ohio-university-researcher-footprints-site-laetoli-tanzania-are-early-humans-not-bears>
Some good background bits.
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 2, 2021, 2:03:44 AM12/2/21
to
means in paleoanthropology? Or in science? Does it mean that everything
that isn't firmly established can be neglected? Some idiot says that I
don't like this evidence, because it doesn't have the right smell, and
this is the "reason" for you to neglect *any* evidence? How can somebody
write what is written in this abstract, while Trachilos footprints are
around? Is the guy who wrote this an idiot. If he is an idiot, why
aren't his papers neglected? If he is an idiot, why doesn't somebody
tell him so? Are the rest of them any smarter? What doesn't the "Nature"
think about this? Do they even think?
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 2, 2021, 2:09:49 AM12/2/21
to
apologize. It must be something in the air, :) :
https://youtu.be/q9tMSfC7E38
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
littor...@gmail.com
Dec 2, 2021, 10:26:27 AM12/2/21
to
Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 08:03:44 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
"ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
"ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 2, 2021, 4:51:47 PM12/2/21
to
noticing me, :).
Anyway, isn't it strange? I mean, this was the news from 4 years ago,
everybody should know about it. Controversies? Well, I would really like
to see the guy who puts this in question. It doesn't fit old paradigm?
Well, does this means that we should stay with the old paradigm
infinitely, no matter what new evidence emerges? Why? Because it is
established, and all the scientists, actually, want is to be
established? Who's crazy here? Me? Because I am not established? Jesus,
thankfully, I am dealing with smart humans, what would be if I would
deal with not so smart humans?
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
littor...@gmail.com
Dec 3, 2021, 11:22:40 AM12/3/21
to
Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 22:51:47 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
> >> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
> > Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
> > "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
> noticing me, :).
Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
"Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.
> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
> >> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
> > Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
> > "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
> noticing me, :).
in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
"Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 3, 2021, 6:02:38 PM12/3/21
to
mistake, and I stared in your name in the address, while typing it, and
I still made the same mistake. There must be something terribly wrong
with me.
Thanks for telling me, and sorry about that.
In Croatian we only have five vowels, a, e, i, o, u. Anything else is
space technology to me, which I don't understand at all. I even cannot
imagine the difference. So, "ae", or "ea", to me is just the same mess.
And I really don't know how to evade this. I mean, you cannot do better
that staring onto the name, and typing it. What else can I do? Jesus. I
mean, from when I was just a little, I always had problems with names.
Everything else functioned well, especially mathematics and physics. But
names I couldn't grasp at all. And still I cannot. I always use
nicknames in everyday life, with nicknames I am alright. Sorry, again.
And if I mess up again, please, just shoot, if you feel like.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
littor...@gmail.com
Dec 4, 2021, 4:36:51 AM12/4/21
to
Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:02:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
> >>>> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
> >>> Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
> >>> "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
> >> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
> >> noticing me, :).
> > Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
> > in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
> > "Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
> > The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
> > e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.
> Jesus Christ, I cannot believe this. I know that I am doing this
> mistake, and I stared in your name in the address, while typing it, and
> I still made the same mistake. There must be something terribly wrong
> with me.
I'm sure of that... :-)
> Thanks for telling me, and sorry about that.
> In Croatian we only have five vowels, a, e, i, o, u. Anything else is
> space technology to me, which I don't understand at all. I even cannot
> imagine the difference. So, "ae", or "ea", to me is just the same mess.
> And I really don't know how to evade this. I mean, you cannot do better
> that staring onto the name, and typing it. What else can I do? Jesus. I
> mean, from when I was just a little, I always had problems with names.
> Everything else functioned well, especially mathematics and physics. But
> names I couldn't grasp at all. And still I cannot. I always use
> nicknames in everyday life, with nicknames I am alright. Sorry, again.
> And if I mess up again, please, just shoot, if you feel like.
:-) No problem, Mario, such mistakes (ea instead of ae) are common.
BTW, Dutch has 13 plain vowels (+ a number of diphtongs).
> >>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
> >>>> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
> >>> Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
> >>> "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
> >> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
> >> noticing me, :).
> > Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
> > in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
> > "Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
> > The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
> > e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.
> Jesus Christ, I cannot believe this. I know that I am doing this
> mistake, and I stared in your name in the address, while typing it, and
> I still made the same mistake. There must be something terribly wrong
> with me.
> Thanks for telling me, and sorry about that.
> In Croatian we only have five vowels, a, e, i, o, u. Anything else is
> space technology to me, which I don't understand at all. I even cannot
> imagine the difference. So, "ae", or "ea", to me is just the same mess.
> And I really don't know how to evade this. I mean, you cannot do better
> that staring onto the name, and typing it. What else can I do? Jesus. I
> mean, from when I was just a little, I always had problems with names.
> Everything else functioned well, especially mathematics and physics. But
> names I couldn't grasp at all. And still I cannot. I always use
> nicknames in everyday life, with nicknames I am alright. Sorry, again.
> And if I mess up again, please, just shoot, if you feel like.
BTW, Dutch has 13 plain vowels (+ a number of diphtongs).
littor...@gmail.com
Dec 4, 2021, 5:01:43 AM12/4/21
to
Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:02:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
> >>>> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
> >>> Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
> >>> "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
> >> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
> >> noticing me, :).
Trachilos & Oreopithecus show that there were Miocene hominoids (probably hominids) on Mediterranean islands.
Non-human hominoids today live only in SE.Asia & C.Africa, but hominoid fossils are found at different places in Europe, Med.islands, Turkey, Africa, India etc.
How did Miocene hominoids spread?
No doubt at least partly in warm coastal forests: frequently wading bipedally & climbing arms overhead, as still seen sometimes in orangs, bonobos & lowland gorillas.
Hylobatids are still predom.vertical: brachiating/arm-hanging & often walking/running bipedally over branches.
IOW, some sort of bipedality is as old as the hominoids.
Carloton Coon in 1954 (The Story of Man) already knew
- fetal chimps have humanlike feet with adducted big toes,
- but human fetuses never have apelike feet.
IOW, only complete idiots still believe we evolved flat feet to run after antelopes.
> >>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7
> >>>> Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?
> >>> Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
> >>> "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"
> >> Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
> >> noticing me, :).
Non-human hominoids today live only in SE.Asia & C.Africa, but hominoid fossils are found at different places in Europe, Med.islands, Turkey, Africa, India etc.
How did Miocene hominoids spread?
No doubt at least partly in warm coastal forests: frequently wading bipedally & climbing arms overhead, as still seen sometimes in orangs, bonobos & lowland gorillas.
Hylobatids are still predom.vertical: brachiating/arm-hanging & often walking/running bipedally over branches.
IOW, some sort of bipedality is as old as the hominoids.
Carloton Coon in 1954 (The Story of Man) already knew
- fetal chimps have humanlike feet with adducted big toes,
- but human fetuses never have apelike feet.
IOW, only complete idiots still believe we evolved flat feet to run after antelopes.
I Envy JTEM
Dec 4, 2021, 3:46:10 PM12/4/21
to
Pandora wrote:
> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
> Tanzania.
The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
> Tanzania.
any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
> Here we compare the footprints at this site with
> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
to a hominin.
Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they
needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
that might look like a hominin.
NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
"Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.
That was north Africa.
But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.
They have actual bear fossils...
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669255436558581760
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 4, 2021, 7:18:48 PM12/4/21
to
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 4, 2021, 7:25:59 PM12/4/21
to
(in the Old World). The whole planet was forest, all the life was in
canopy, and there apes were the strongest. So, it was logical that apes
spread all over. But then came fire, and all those apes (except the ones
that we know today) went extinct. Apes survived only where fire cannot
reach, because of great precipitation.
And, of course, us, the ones that are bipedal, and who are, actually,
using fire habitually.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 4, 2021, 7:42:01 PM12/4/21
to
On 4.12.2021. 11:01, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> How did Miocene hominoids spread?
> No doubt at least partly in warm coastal forests: frequently wading bipedally & climbing arms overhead, as still seen sometimes in orangs, bonobos & lowland gorillas.
> Hylobatids are still predom.vertical: brachiating/arm-hanging & often walking/running bipedally over branches.
> IOW, some sort of bipedality is as old as the hominoids.
BTW, orangs never go down to the ground (and gibbons, too), but
> No doubt at least partly in warm coastal forests: frequently wading bipedally & climbing arms overhead, as still seen sometimes in orangs, bonobos & lowland gorillas.
> Hylobatids are still predom.vertical: brachiating/arm-hanging & often walking/running bipedally over branches.
> IOW, some sort of bipedality is as old as the hominoids.
African apes are mostly living on the ground. They can climb trees
quickly by the way of having short legs and long arms:
https://youtu.be/YZauU9Bnm0U
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 4, 2021, 7:48:26 PM12/4/21
to
Do you really think that scientists get their conclusions by looking
at photographs? "This lamp looks like flying saucer, so it is, actually,
NLO."
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
I Envy JTEM
Dec 5, 2021, 12:20:04 AM12/5/21
to
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
> > any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
> >
> > Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
> > a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
> > through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
> >
> >> Here we compare the footprints at this site with
> >> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
> >> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
> >
> > Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary
> > to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
> > to a hominin.
> >
> > Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they
> > needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
> > that might look like a hominin.
> >
> > NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
> > "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.
> >
> > That was north Africa.
> >
> > But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
> > the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.
> >
> > They have actual bear fossils...
> Lol, here we go again.
If by "again" you mean that the consensus has long been "Bear," yes. Again.
> Do you really think that scientists get their conclusions by looking
> at photographs?
Were you not aware that this is a BRAND NEW proposal far from widely
accepted much less a fact?
> "This lamp looks like flying saucer, so it is, actually,
> NLO."
So you never actually read what I said. You're just "Disagreeing" with whatever
is in your head because... because... I dunno.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669683901835460608
> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
> > any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
> >
> > Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
> > a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
> > through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
> >
> >> Here we compare the footprints at this site with
> >> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
> >> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
> >
> > Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary
> > to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
> > to a hominin.
> >
> > Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they
> > needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
> > that might look like a hominin.
> >
> > NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
> > "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.
> >
> > That was north Africa.
> >
> > But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
> > the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.
> >
> > They have actual bear fossils...
> Lol, here we go again.
> Do you really think that scientists get their conclusions by looking
> at photographs?
accepted much less a fact?
> "This lamp looks like flying saucer, so it is, actually,
> NLO."
is in your head because... because... I dunno.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669683901835460608
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 5, 2021, 2:56:56 AM12/5/21
to
photo. Or something like that.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
I Envy JTEM
Dec 6, 2021, 2:13:05 AM12/6/21
to
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> You said that those footprints look like bear footprints
No, they DO look like bear footprints. I didn't invent bears, footprints
> You said that those footprints look like bear footprints
nor any similarities to bears in this case. They are all external to me.
If you read for comprehension, the cite is claiming to have made a
determination, which means prior to this work there was no
determination.
Get it?
If something "Proves" hominin footprints now that means before now
there was no proof, that nobody saw unambiguous hominin prints.
So once you get this far, grasp this much, you've got to ask yourself
pertinent questions such as, "Are North American black bears really
the best model for comparison?"
If you want something a great deal more nuanced:
The claim here is that they see more similarities with [A] than they
do with [B], AFTER THEY EMPLOY THEIR HOCUS POCUS.
So test the hocus pocus. And we can start with the bears:
The North American black bear is not only a different species than
anything that might've lived there at the time, it is classified as a
different Genus!
So what you need to do is test bear prints from the same time period,
associated with the same Genus at least, and compare THAT to
hominin prints which are it's contemporary.
THAT is a test. What they do here is NOT a test. It a a pile of assumptions.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669795532019990528
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 6, 2021, 3:50:01 AM12/6/21
to
am not interested.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
I Envy JTEM
Dec 7, 2021, 2:16:31 AM12/7/21
to
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> Ok, I didn't read the paper, I have no idea what is going on. And, I
> am not interested.
My only interest is in examining the claims -- what passes for "Science"
> Ok, I didn't read the paper, I have no idea what is going on. And, I
> am not interested.
in this post democracy world.
I really don't give a shit what the true answer is. There's nothing interesting
here. It looks like a bear print. Add some hocus pocus and it may look
closer to a chimp. Well Ardi was around back then, bears were around back
then, probably some flavor of Australopithecus was around back then...
There's nothing exciting here. In fact, the dating is about when the Pan line
split off from the Homo line... according to the laughing stock that is paleo
anthropology to two OR MORE millions of years after the split...
No, this seems like another POLITICAL story. And the fact that it has
absolutely devoured search engines kind says that it is. A political story.
It's like all the fake "History" or "Archaeology" stories that find a Roman
knife or villa "Dating to the time of Christ." The story is confirming the
bible. That is it's purpose.
"Thience thays BIBLE REAL!"
And this idiotic footprint babble is just propping up out of Africa purity.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669795532019990528
Primum Sapienti
Dec 13, 2021, 1:47:40 AM12/13/21
to
I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Pandora wrote:
>
>> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
>> Tanzania.
>
> The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
> any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
>
> Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
> a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
> through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
>
>> Here we compare the footprints at this site with
>> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
>> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
>
> Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary
> to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
> to a hominin.
To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"
> Pandora wrote:
>
>> Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
>> Tanzania.
>
> The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
> any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?
>
> Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
> a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
> through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.
>
>> Here we compare the footprints at this site with
>> those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
>> that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.
>
> Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary
> to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
> to a hominin.
> Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they
> needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
> that might look like a hominin.
>
> NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
> "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.
>
> That was north Africa.
>
> But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
> the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.
>
> They have actual bear fossils...
Mario Petrinovic
Dec 13, 2021, 5:29:50 AM12/13/21
to
qualities. Just take a stroll through woods and you'll find prints
whichever you like.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
I Envy JTEM
Dec 13, 2021, 2:13:42 PM12/13/21
to
Primum Sapienti wrote:
> To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"
To the religiously devout it's their High Priests in the media revealing the
> To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"
Truth as passed down by paleo anthropology, or at least the self proclaimed
god who run it.
Now take your fingers out of your mouth as try to respond to what I pointed
out.If you can.
> > They have actual bear fossils...
> But no bear prints...
-- --
https://rumble.com/vqo5n4-a-padded-envelope-from-madrid.html
Primum Sapienti
Dec 22, 2021, 3:09:41 PM12/22/21
to
Primum Sapienti
Dec 22, 2021, 3:10:36 PM12/22/21
to
I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"
>
> To the religiously devout it's their High Priests in the media revealing the
> Truth as passed down by paleo anthropology, or at least the self proclaimed
> god who run it.
>
> Now take your fingers out of your mouth as try to respond to what I pointed
> out.If you can.
>
>>> They have actual bear fossils...
>
>> But no bear prints...
>
> Are you sure? How do you know? Or are you just being a dogmatic twat again?
No bear prints reported at the site.
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"
>
> To the religiously devout it's their High Priests in the media revealing the
> Truth as passed down by paleo anthropology, or at least the self proclaimed
> god who run it.
>
> Now take your fingers out of your mouth as try to respond to what I pointed
> out.If you can.
>
>>> They have actual bear fossils...
>
>> But no bear prints...
>
> Are you sure? How do you know? Or are you just being a dogmatic twat again?
I Envy JTEM
Dec 22, 2021, 5:19:12 PM12/22/21
to
Primum Sapienti wrote:
> No bear prints at the site
Certainly no black bears. In fact black bears aren't even in the same Genus
> No bear prints at the site
of any bears that lived in Africa. But, they pretend to have ruled out bears
by a ridiculous comparison to black bears.
Another "Ah, science" moment...
-- --
https://rumble.com/register/JTEM/
I Envy JTEM
Dec 22, 2021, 5:20:23 PM12/22/21
to
Primum Sapienti wrote:
> No bear prints
In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear
> No bear prints
which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?
"Thience Thays"
-- --
https://rumble.com/register/JTEM/
Primum Sapienti
Jan 1, 2022, 12:17:53 AM1/1/22
to
I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> No bear prints
>
> In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear
> which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?
>
> "Thience Thays"
https://insideecology.com/2017/09/21/why-are-there-barely-any-bears-in-africa/
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> No bear prints
>
> In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear
> which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?
>
> "Thience Thays"
"Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
Sub-Saharan Africa,
South Africa and Ethiopia. "
Primum Sapienti
Jan 1, 2022, 12:18:20 AM1/1/22
to
I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> No bear prints at the site
>
> Certainly no black bears. In fact black bears aren't even in the same Genus
> of any bears that lived in Africa. But, they pretend to have ruled out bears
> by a ridiculous comparison to black bears.
>
> Another "Ah, science" moment...
>
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> No bear prints at the site
>
> Certainly no black bears. In fact black bears aren't even in the same Genus
> of any bears that lived in Africa. But, they pretend to have ruled out bears
> by a ridiculous comparison to black bears.
>
> Another "Ah, science" moment...
>
I Envy JTEM
Jan 12, 2022, 5:16:54 AM1/12/22
to
Primum Sapienti wrote:
> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear
> > which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?
> >
> > "Thience Thays"
> > which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?
> >
> > "Thience Thays"
> "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
> Sub-Saharan Africa,
> South Africa and Ethiopia. "
Okay. And you mistakenly believe that to address WHAT, specifically?
> Sub-Saharan Africa,
> South Africa and Ethiopia. "
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673133387413913600
Primum Sapienti
Jan 13, 2022, 9:15:00 PM1/13/22
to
I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
>>> In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear
>>> which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?
>>>
>>> "Thience Thays"
>
>> "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
>> Sub-Saharan Africa,
>> South Africa and Ethiopia. "
>
> Okay. And you mistakenly believe that to address WHAT, specifically?
Here is the full previous post which the above is from:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
>>> In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear
>>> which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?
>>>
>>> "Thience Thays"
>
>> "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
>> Sub-Saharan Africa,
>> South Africa and Ethiopia. "
>
> Okay. And you mistakenly believe that to address WHAT, specifically?
* * *
I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> No bear prints at the site
>
> Certainly no black bears. In fact black bears aren't even in the same Genus
> of any bears that lived in Africa. But, they pretend to have ruled out
bears
> by a ridiculous comparison to black bears.
>
> Another "Ah, science" moment...
>
https://insideecology.com/2017/09/21/why-are-there-barely-any-bears-in-africa/
>
> Certainly no black bears. In fact black bears aren't even in the same Genus
> of any bears that lived in Africa. But, they pretend to have ruled out
bears
> by a ridiculous comparison to black bears.
>
> Another "Ah, science" moment...
>
https://insideecology.com/2017/09/21/why-are-there-barely-any-bears-in-africa/
"Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
Sub-Saharan Africa,
South Africa and Ethiopia. "
* * *
Sub-Saharan Africa,
South Africa and Ethiopia. "
I Envy JTEM
Jan 13, 2022, 10:44:51 PM1/13/22
to
Primum Sapienti wrote:
> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > Primum Sapienti wrote:
> >
> >> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> >
> >>> In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear
> >>> which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?
> >>>
> >>> "Thience Thays"
> >
> >> "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
> >> Sub-Saharan Africa,
> >> South Africa and Ethiopia. "
> >
> > Okay. And you mistakenly believe that to address WHAT, specifically?
> Here is the full previous post which the above is from:
Cool, or it would be cool if anyone challenged you to re-post what never went away in
> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > Primum Sapienti wrote:
> >
> >> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> >
> >>> In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear
> >>> which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?
> >>>
> >>> "Thience Thays"
> >
> >> "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
> >> Sub-Saharan Africa,
> >> South Africa and Ethiopia. "
> >
> > Okay. And you mistakenly believe that to address WHAT, specifically?
> Here is the full previous post which the above is from:
the first place. No, sorry, instead you were asked what YOU believe that YOU were
addressing with you "Cite."
-- --
https://rumble.com/vqwxtc-the-worst-of-watch-this-volume-ii.html
0 new messages