Earliest Archaeological Evidence of Persistent Hominin Carnivory

[Gerrit Hanenburg]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0062174

Abstract:

The emergence of lithic technology by ~2.6 million years ago (Ma) is
often interpreted as a correlate of increasingly recurrent hominin
acquisition and consumption of animal remains. Associated faunal
evidence, however, is poorly preserved prior to ~1.8 Ma, limiting our
understanding of early archaeological (Oldowan) hominin carnivory.
Here, we detail three large well-preserved zooarchaeological
assemblages from Kanjera South, Kenya. The assemblages date to ~2.0
Ma, pre-dating all previously published archaeofaunas of appreciable
size. At Kanjera, there is clear evidence that Oldowan hominins
acquired and processed numerous, relatively complete, small ungulate
carcasses. Moreover, they had at least occasional access to the
fleshed remains of larger, wildebeest-sized animals. The overall
record of hominin activities is consistent through the stratified
sequence � spanning hundreds to thousands of years � and provides the
earliest archaeological evidence of sustained hominin involvement with
fleshed animal remains (i.e., persistent carnivory), a foraging
adaptation central to many models of hominin evolution.

"Paleoenvironmental analyses indicate that the assemblages
formed on a grassy plain set between a freshwater lake and the
wooded slopes of nearby hills and mountains. The recovered
faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with
waterdependent taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a
grassland setting at KJS."

Hmm....savanna?

[Tom McDonald]

On 5/10/2013 1:26 PM, Gerrit Hanenburg wrote:
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0062174
>
> Abstract:
>
> The emergence of lithic technology by ~2.6 million years ago (Ma) is
> often interpreted as a correlate of increasingly recurrent hominin
> acquisition and consumption of animal remains. Associated faunal
> evidence, however, is poorly preserved prior to ~1.8 Ma, limiting our
> understanding of early archaeological (Oldowan) hominin carnivory.
> Here, we detail three large well-preserved zooarchaeological
> assemblages from Kanjera South, Kenya. The assemblages date to ~2.0
> Ma, pre-dating all previously published archaeofaunas of appreciable
> size. At Kanjera, there is clear evidence that Oldowan hominins
> acquired and processed numerous, relatively complete, small ungulate
> carcasses. Moreover, they had at least occasional access to the
> fleshed remains of larger, wildebeest-sized animals. The overall
> record of hominin activities is consistent through the stratified

> sequence � spanning hundreds to thousands of years � and provides the

> earliest archaeological evidence of sustained hominin involvement with
> fleshed animal remains (i.e., persistent carnivory), a foraging
> adaptation central to many models of hominin evolution.
>
> "Paleoenvironmental analyses indicate that the assemblages
> formed on a grassy plain set between a freshwater lake and the
> wooded slopes of nearby hills and mountains. The recovered
> faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
> Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with
> waterdependent taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
> bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
> dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a
> grassland setting at KJS."
>
> Hmm....savanna?
>

Sure looks like it.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gerrit Hanenburg wrote:

> > Hmm....savanna?
>
> Sure looks like it.

And if you only look at lottery winners then
everyone who plays the lottery wins!

We know that there was not just one ancestral
population, we know that our ancestors were
living far away from any African Savanna more
than 2 million years ago and we know that every
last theory on how they got there involved them
living off the sea...

Yes. Every last "Out of Africa" hypothesis --
regardless of which ancestor we're speaking of
-- is centered on living off of (adapting to)
the sea.

It's implicit. It's required.

The coast is the route everyone insists they took,
and that means they had to be living off the sea,
exploiting the sea... adapting to an aquatic
environment. They couldn't carry a Savanna on their
backs fro grazing, they had to be living off the sea.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On May 10, 11:26 am, Gerrit Hanenburg
<g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net> wrote:

> Hmm....savanna?

Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine bovids?

. . . . freshwater lake and the wooded slopes of nearby hills and
mountains . . .

Savanna? Grasslands?

[Tom McDonald]

Tsk tsk. You shouldn't have done that hatchet job when the original
context is available upthread.

""Paleoenvironmental analyses indicate that the assemblages
formed on a grassy plain set between a freshwater lake and the
wooded slopes of nearby hills and mountains. The recovered
faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with
waterdependent taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a
grassland setting at KJS.""

"...primarily of grassland-adapted...."

"...indicate a grassland setting...."

Bad Jim; no cookie.

[Tom McDonald]

Sweet. So you can provide the archaeological evidence for this
sea-exploiting bunch more than 2 mya! I abate with weighted breath!

[Claudius Denk]

Real scientists are happy when evidence disputes/refutes what they've
previously concluded. Pseudoscientists are angry.

[Tom McDonald]

That's why you're so often angry, Jim.

[Paul Crowley]

And when you go to Africa and look at the wild-life through
your zoom lenses, you will see -- amid the lions, leopards,
hyena, crocodiles, buffalo, giraffe, etc., -- thousands of
bipedal hominins. They have been there for the past four
million years or so, gradually becoming more and more
dominant and numerous as their technology developed.
As is well known, the huge areas of African savanna
sustained a population of many millions of bipeds --
perhaps as many as a billion.

It all makes sense in Paleo-Anthropology-fairy-land.

Why do people believe in TOTAL garbage?

I suppose it's traditional. After all, if the professor gives
you this kind of story, how could it possibly be other than
true?


Paul.

[Tom McDonald]

Well, of course, it could be because that's what the evidence we have
suggests.

> I suppose it's traditional. After all, if the professor gives
> you this kind of story, how could it possibly be other than
> true?
>

You've never been or known a grad student, have you?

[Claudius Denk]

On May 13, 8:23 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 7:53 AM, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > On 10/05/2013 20:35, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >> On 5/10/2013 1:26 PM, Gerrit Hanenburg wrote:

> >>>http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00...

>
> >>> Abstract:
>
> >>> The emergence of lithic technology by ~2.6 million years ago (Ma) is
> >>> often interpreted as a correlate of increasingly recurrent hominin
> >>> acquisition and consumption of animal remains. Associated faunal
> >>> evidence, however, is poorly preserved prior to ~1.8 Ma, limiting our
> >>> understanding of early archaeological (Oldowan) hominin carnivory.
> >>> Here, we detail three large well-preserved zooarchaeological
> >>> assemblages from Kanjera South, Kenya. The assemblages date to ~2.0
> >>> Ma, pre-dating all previously published archaeofaunas of appreciable
> >>> size. At Kanjera, there is clear evidence that Oldowan hominins
> >>> acquired and processed numerous, relatively complete, small ungulate
> >>> carcasses. Moreover, they had at least occasional access to the
> >>> fleshed remains of larger, wildebeest-sized animals. The overall
> >>> record of hominin activities is consistent through the stratified

> >>> sequence spanning hundreds to thousands of years and provides the

So, you geniuses consider hippopotamus and crocodile to be grassland
species?

> > I suppose it's traditional.  After all, if the professor gives
> > you this kind of story, how could it possibly be other than
> > true?
>
> You've never been or known a grad student, have you?

LOL. It always cracks me up when internet trolls provide cover for
experts and then when cornered they always resort to the desperation
tactic of pretending that the experts have some special secret
knowledge/understanding that only insider are privy to. McDonald, you
are just a troll. Don't pretend otherwise.

[Paul Crowley]

On 13/05/2013 16:23, Tom McDonald wrote:

>>>> faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
>>>> Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with
>>>> waterdependent taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
>>>> bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
>>>> dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a
>>>> grassland setting at KJS."
>>>>
>>>> Hmm....savanna?
>>>
>>> Sure looks like it.
>>
>> And when you go to Africa and look at the wild-life through
>> your zoom lenses, you will see -- amid the lions, leopards,
>> hyena, crocodiles, buffalo, giraffe, etc., -- thousands of
>> bipedal hominins. They have been there for the past four
>> million years or so, gradually becoming more and more
>> dominant and numerous as their technology developed.
>> As is well known, the huge areas of African savanna
>> sustained a population of many millions of bipeds --
>> perhaps as many as a billion.
>>
>> It all makes sense in Paleo-Anthropology-fairy-land.
>>
>> Why do people believe in TOTAL garbage?
>
> Well, of course, it could be because that's what the evidence we have suggests.

So when "the evidence" tells you that Noah's
Flood really happened, or that Thor sent his
thunderbolts into the ground, or that your
patients feel much better after being bled,
that's Science. Ordinary common sense is
never to be allowed?

>> I suppose it's traditional. After all, if the professor gives
>> you this kind of story, how could it possibly be other than
>> true?
>
> You've never been or known a grad student, have you?

Somehow there are 'permitted topics' where
disagreements are allowed, but the broad
swathes of crude assumptions are not to
be questioned, nor even brought up. In this
area, if you question Savanna nonsense;
you'll be thought a Commie -- oops, I mean
an Aquatic Ape adherent. While the AAT
stuff is all nonsense, it is essentially a variant
of the Savanna mode of 'thinking'. The
realisation that H.sap is a species, and has
a niche (or a range of specifiable niches),
like every other species on the planet, is
far too radical for the 'discipline'. After all,
it's only been established for all other
species for a century or so.


Paul.

[Tom McDonald]

No, I consider them to be 'present in limited numbers'. As would be
expected in such an environment. Did you read the quoted part?

>>> I suppose it's traditional. After all, if the professor gives
>>> you this kind of story, how could it possibly be other than
>>> true?
>>
>> You've never been or known a grad student, have you?
>
> LOL. It always cracks me up when internet trolls provide cover for
> experts and then when cornered they always resort to the desperation
> tactic of pretending that the experts have some special secret
> knowledge/understanding that only insider are privy to. McDonald, you
> are just a troll. Don't pretend otherwise.
>

In this case, I have been an archie grad student. I've seen first-hand
(and taken part in) savaging our professors' views.

You crack me up when, when cornered, you resort to the desperation
tactic of pretending that you have some special insight because you
aren't one of the *insiders*.

Admit it, Jim. You're just a troll.

[Tom McDonald]

Feel better now, Paul? No, I suppose not.

You know, it's not too late to actually learn something beyond "ordinary
common sense". Turns out, 'common sense' is far too often not a reliable
guide at all to what actually happened in the past.

After all, it's 'common sense' that someone must have made the lightning
and thunder; and that the world is flat; and that we must have been
created specially by someone, since we are so much different from and
better than other creatures.

We have science because common sense sucks.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 13, 12:58 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 1:18 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

> > So, you geniuses consider hippopotamus and crocodile to be grassland
> > species?
>
> No,

So, if you now verify that you disagree with what Gerrit mentioned in
the first post of this thread why did you not mention it in your
response to this first post?

> I consider them to be 'present in limited numbers'. As would be
> expected in such an environment.

Are they "present in limited numbers" currently? I don't recall ever
seeing a crocodile or hippo on the treeless plains of a savanna.
Explain yourself, or admit that you are just a troll.

Did you read the quoted part?
>
> >>> I suppose it's traditional.  After all, if the professor gives
> >>> you this kind of story, how could it possibly be other than
> >>> true?
>
> >> You've never been or known a grad student, have you?
>
> > LOL.  It always cracks me up when internet trolls provide cover for
> > experts and then when cornered they always resort to the desperation
> > tactic of pretending that the experts have some special secret
> > knowledge/understanding that only insider are privy to.  McDonald, you
> > are just a troll.  Don't pretend otherwise.
>
> In this case, I have been an archie grad student. I've seen first-hand
> (and taken part in) savaging our professors' views.

LOL. Like you "savaged" Gerrit above?

[Tom McDonald]

If you can't be arsed to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest a simple
two-paragraph item, I can't be arsed to keep responding to your trolling
on it.

[Paul Crowley]

On 13/05/2013 21:02, Tom McDonald wrote:

>>>> And when you go to Africa and look at the wild-life through
>>>> your zoom lenses, you will see -- amid the lions, leopards,
>>>> hyena, crocodiles, buffalo, giraffe, etc., -- thousands of
>>>> bipedal hominins. They have been there for the past four
>>>> million years or so, gradually becoming more and more
>>>> dominant and numerous as their technology developed.
>>>> As is well known, the huge areas of African savanna
>>>> sustained a population of many millions of bipeds --
>>>> perhaps as many as a billion.

>> So when "the evidence" tells you that Noah's
>> Flood really happened, or that Thor sent his
>> thunderbolts into the ground, or that your
>> patients feel much better after being bled,
>> that's Science. Ordinary common sense is
>> never to be allowed?

> You know, it's not too late to actually learn something beyond
> "ordinary common sense". Turns out, 'common sense' is far too
> often not a reliable guide at all to what actually happened in the
> past.

Nonsense. When a scientific theory runs into a
serious objection that it finds insuperable, it should
be junked.

You will note that you make no attempt to deal with
the objection. Nor have you ever seen one. Nor will
you ever encounter any attempt in any textbook or
'scientific' journal. Yet it could not be more obvious.
And any educated person could raise a dozen
serious objections to the Savanna Theory. AAT
people do it all the time. But they are never
answered (in this respect), The theory survives
because it is not examined. It would not sustain
any kind of examination. It is worse than a 'Flat
Earth' or 'Noah's-Ark' theory. The holders of those
nearly always inherited them from their ancestors,
and had little alternative, or pretensions to science.

No one would suggest that any other taxon had
occupied a very distinctive environment for a few
million years, then just abandoned it, and continued
to evolve in another. This is AAT 'thinking' -- but
its followers picked up their manner of 'thought'
from the garbage they were fed by the Standard
Model.

> After all, it's 'common sense' that someone must have
> made the lightning and thunder; and that the world is
> flat; and that we must have been created specially by
> someone, since we are so much different from and
> better than other creatures.
>
> We have science because common sense sucks.

We have execrable 'science' because its
practitioners lack basic common sense -- as
well as a devastating lack of integrity (i.e.
scientific honesty).

The notion that small, slow, night-blind, fragile
bipeds (recently down from the trees) mixed
in with large carnivores and huge herbivores
on the open savanna is stupid beyond belief.


Paul.

[Tom McDonald]

Isn't the truth of what science discovers interesting? Especially when
it seems so counter-intuitive?

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The coast is the route everyone insists they took, and that means
> > they had to be living off the sea, exploiting the sea... adapting to
> > an aquatic environment.  They couldn't carry a Savanna on their backs
> > fro grazing, they had to be living off the sea.
>
> Sweet. So you can provide the archaeological evidence for this
> sea-exploiting bunch more than 2 mya! I abate with weighted breath!

Not that I haven't explained this dozens of times,
including in what you are quoting above, but it is
implicit in every last theory on human origins,
including "Replacement."

Every & all theory on the radiation of our ancestors
from Africa has them traveling along the coast. If you
are unaware of the studies making these claims then
perhaps this group isn't for you, and you need to begin
at a more rudimentary level...

This isn't rocket science. If they were traveling the
coast then they were living off the coast, they were
not carrying portable savannas on their backs, and neither
were they steering their dune buggies off the beaches
and onto conveniently located savanna rest stops.

They were living off the sea.

What's more, populations had to be doing this about 2
million years ago, starting no later than Homo habilis.

Habilis reached as far as China, according to "Science"
at the present.

Again, none of this is rocket science:

#1. They left Africa.

#2. They traveled the coast.

Thus...

#3. They were living off the coast, the sea.

This had to happen. This is required. It is
implicit in all theories. Even worse: Its
about as frigging obvious as you can get.

Now start thinking for a change.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Well, of course, it could be because that's what the evidence we have
> suggests.

Gosh, that's pathetic.

The evidence suggests no such thing. And, as I
keep pointing out (but you refuse to grasp) the
same idiots who posit the "Savanna" nonsense
REQUIRE the aquatic environment simply to get our
ancestors out of Africa in the first place...

BEGINNING BEFORE THIS "EVIDENCE."

So it's not really so much about any "Evidence"
here as it is rationalizing a ridiculous model
out of some emotional attachment...

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We have science because common sense sucks.

And we have paleoanthropology being passed
off as "science" because common sense is
lacking.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Tom McDonald]

Not sure if you understood the request for *archaeological* evidence. I
agree with at least some of the logic of your argument. But do you grasp
the need for actual, dirt archaeological evidence?

[Tom McDonald]

On 5/14/2013 7:39 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We have science because common sense sucks.
>
> And we have paleoanthropology being passed
> off as "science" because common sense is
> lacking.
>

Don't suppose we could see some of the common sense you promote backed
up by dirt archaeology, do you?

[Paul Crowley]

On 14/05/2013 00:10, Tom McDonald wrote:

>> The notion that small, slow, night-blind, fragile
>> bipeds (recently down from the trees) mixed
>> in with large carnivores and huge herbivores
>> on the open savanna is stupid beyond belief.
>

> Isn't the truth of what science discovers interesting?
> Especially when it seems so counter-intuitive?

Take any scientific discovery in history, and
the scientific theory which it demonstrated --
say the Germ Theory of Disease, or anything
of Newton's, Kepler's, Galileo's, Einstein's,
Feynman's -- you have thousands to chose from.

Would any of their proponents be obliged to be
as inarticulate as you (and as the whole of PA)
in defending their theories?

Even the AAT twerps have more to say on their
theories than you -- hundreds of times more.
(All of if easily refutable, of course.)

You don't have the beginnings of a scientific theory.
All you have is a vague superstition.


Paul.

[Tom McDonald]

Oh, hunny-bunny. I'm not a PA. I'm not posting here as a professional. I
do, however, read and understand some things. Like, for instance, that
it is useful to go with the evidence and with the best-supported
theories until they are revised or overturned by later, better work that
explains the same stuff better.

All you get for your 'common sense' is gods and myths.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure if you understood the request for *archaeological* evidence.

I'm not sure how you keeping missing it:

If you are unaware of the claims, unaware of the
studies and how they are frequently upheld as
evidence for out of africa/replacement the you
are in the wrong wrong.

I am willing to debate the theories but I'm not
willing to educate you.

Secondly, and this should be obvious: Where is
your opposing archaeological evidence?

Sure, it's possible -- even likely -- that you could
miss every last bit of substance ever posted on
the subject to usenet, but where is this (imaginary)
competing "archaeology" that you are presently clinging
to like a drowning man to a life preserver?

The "Evidence" game works both ways. It doesn't just
expose your ignorance of the evidence that is out there,
it exposes your belief in an unsupportable fallacy
(because there is no evidence to support you nonsense).

...or are you actually questioning age habilis? How
far back our earliest ancestors arrived in Eurasia?

Ridiculous... Sheesh!

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, hunny-bunny. I'm not a PA. I'm not posting
> here as a professional. I do, however, read and
> understand some things. Like, for instance, that
> it is useful to go with the evidence

All you're confirming is that the collective is
incapable of distinguishing between conclusions
(i.e. "Opinions") and evidence.

There's no evidence that says our species evolved
on an African savanna. You can argue that there
is evidence __Consistent__ with this theory, and
that would be true, but it would not be true to
claim that this is exclusively so... that none of
the evidence is consistent with other theories, or
even that no evidence is inconsistent with the
savanna theory.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't suppose we could see some of the common sense you promote backed
> up by dirt archaeology, do you?

You've seen it. Definitely. For all I
know you've posted it (I don't always
keep track of who posted what).

Again, if you honestly aren't aware of it,
if this idea of "out of africa" migrations
following the coastal route is new to you,
this isn't the right group for you. You need
to do some catching up first. I suggest here:

http://earlyhumans.mrdonn.org/games.html

Good luck! Don't hurry back...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> Even the AAT twerps have more to say on their
> theories than you -- hundreds of times more.
> (All of if easily refutable, of course.)

I'm reminded of a recent argument on the nature
of time, on whether it could exist before space or
not. The nut jobs (you? different handle?)
demanded that I support my claim that time did
in fact come into existence with space.

...as if I would have to support the notion
of "Spacetime." Seriously. The were effectively
asking me to repeat Einstein for christ's sake!

...exactly like the collective now.

Aquatic Ape is intrinsic to paleoanthropology
the same way that time can't exist independently
of space in Einstein's universe. They're inseparable.

It's really not a matter of "proving" nor even
"Defending." It comes down to whether or not
you can grasp the obvious implications of what
is being stated.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Paul Crowley]

On 14/05/2013 19:11, Tom McDonald wrote:

>> Take any scientific discovery in history, and
>> the scientific theory which it demonstrated --
>> say the Germ Theory of Disease, or anything
>> of Newton's, Kepler's, Galileo's, Einstein's,
>> Feynman's -- you have thousands to chose from.
>>
>> Would any of their proponents be obliged to be
>> as inarticulate as you (and as the whole of PA)
>> in defending their theories?
>>
>> Even the AAT twerps have more to say on their
>> theories than you -- hundreds of times more.
>> (All of if easily refutable, of course.)
>>
>> You don't have the beginnings of a scientific theory.
>> All you have is a vague superstition.
>

> Oh, hunny-bunny. I'm not a PA. I'm not posting here as a
> professional. I do, however, read and understand some
> things. Like, for instance, that it is useful to go with the
> evidence and with the best-supported theories until they
> are revised or overturned by later, better work that explains
> the same stuff better.

You just don't get it. You DON'T have a theory.
There is no "same stuff" that is better explained
by your supposed theory.

State ONE aspect of human anatomy, or ONE
established evolutionary fact (e.g. from genetic
studies) that the so-called "Savanna Theory"
explains.

> All you get for your 'common sense' is gods and myths.

The 'Savanna Theory' is somewhere between a
myth and a superstition. It originated before the
concept of niche had become known -- or, at least,
among 'scientists' who did not grasp it, Africa was
accepted as the place of origin. There is a lot of
savanna there. Forests were not thought acceptable
-- being chimp territory. And that was it.

Try to find an account of the "Savanna Theory"
anywhere -- not even necessarily a coherent one
-- and you will fail. No such thing exists. It is a
MYTH.

That many modern so-called 'scientists' rely on this
myth as the basis of their 'thinking' tells you all you
need to know about them.


Paul.

[Tom McDonald]

Hey, man, no need for all that drama. If you can't do it, if you can't
show any archaeological evidence, just say so. No one will think the
less of you for that.

[Tom McDonald]

What is this 'collective' of which you speak?

[Tom McDonald]

Interesting. You use that sort of 'reference material', eh?

I tend to look for things that are peer-reviewed. But if that's not on
your level, and you need it spoon-fed to you, who am I to judge?

[Tom McDonald]

Oh hunny-bunny. You so cute when you ask for evidence. It's almost like
you haven't said that 'common sense' trumps evidence.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What is this 'collective' of which you speak?

I peaked the other night and had no problems
finding references to the coastal migration
theory going back to the 1990s. And it's
prominent on several relevant Wiki pages.

You're dialing it in here, Mack.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Again, if you honestly aren't aware of it,
> > if this idea of "out of africa" migrations
> > following the coastal route is new to you,
> > this isn't the right group for you.  You need
> > to do some catching up first.  I suggest here:
>
> >http://earlyhumans.mrdonn.org/games.html

> Interesting. You use that sort of 'reference material', eh?

So you're adding "Lack of reading comprehension"
to your already impressively long list of faults,

eh?

> I tend to look for things that are peer-reviewed.

What do you think "Peer reviewed" means? What do
you think it entails? Give us a brief description
of this "peer-review" you speak of.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey, man, no need for all that drama. If you can't do it, if you can't
> show any archaeological evidence, just say so. No one will think the
> less of you for that.

You're asking me to show you what has been posted
right here in this group many times -- explicitly --
what is implicit in all "out of africa" migration
theories, and you're thinking that this request
makes you smart.

Pathetic.

You either know the theories or you don't, and
it's not my job to educate you.

I will debate theories, I teach you the theories.

Grow up.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh hunny-bunny. You so cute when you ask for evidence. It's almost like
> you haven't said that 'common sense' trumps evidence.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

"Evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means.

There is *Nothing* presented here that is
inconsistent with other (more likely) theories.
On the other hand, as "Evidence" for the
savanna origins idea, there is contradictory
evidence... like the finds in Georgia which
support an Asian origins for erectus...

I ask you, please, stop pretending to be following
"Evidence" when what you mean is that you cling to
the opinions ("conclusions") of those who are presenting
you a cherry-picked sampling from the evidence.

Thank you.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Tom McDonald]

:-)

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > "Evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means.
>
> > There is *Nothing* presented here that is
> > inconsistent with other (more likely) theories.
> > On the other hand, as "Evidence" for the
> > savanna origins idea, there is contradictory
> > evidence... like the finds in Georgia which
> > support an Asian origins for erectus...
>
> > I ask you, please, stop pretending to be following
> > "Evidence" when what you mean is that you cling to
> > the opinions ("conclusions") of those who are presenting
> > you a cherry-picked sampling from the evidence.
>
> > Thank you.

> :-)

Keep in mind that I do NOT subscribe to anything
as linear as the "We evolved in Asia as opposed
to Africa" scheme. It's just as limited, even if
slightly more "Logical" than the savanna thing.

Evolution is never linear, and it seems all the
more convoluted in the case of human evolution.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On May 10, 11:26 am, Gerrit Hanenburg
> <g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net> wrote:
>
> > Hmm....savanna?
>
> Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine bovids?
>
> . . . . freshwater lake and the wooded slopes of nearby hills and
> mountains . . .
>
> Savanna? Grasslands?

Paleoenvironmental analyses indicate that the assemblages
formed on a grassy plain set between a freshwater lake and the
wooded slopes of nearby hills and mountains. The recovered
faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with waterdependent
taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a
grassland setting at KJS [49–52].

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 10/05/2013 20:35, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > On 5/10/2013 1:26 PM, Gerrit Hanenburg wrote:
> >> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0062174
> >>
> >> Abstract:
> >>
> >> The emergence of lithic technology by ~2.6 million years ago (Ma) is
> >> often interpreted as a correlate of increasingly recurrent hominin
> >> acquisition and consumption of animal remains. Associated faunal
> >> evidence, however, is poorly preserved prior to ~1.8 Ma, limiting our
> >> understanding of early archaeological (Oldowan) hominin carnivory.
> >> Here, we detail three large well-preserved zooarchaeological
> >> assemblages from Kanjera South, Kenya. The assemblages date to ~2.0
> >> Ma, pre-dating all previously published archaeofaunas of appreciable
> >> size. At Kanjera, there is clear evidence that Oldowan hominins
> >> acquired and processed numerous, relatively complete, small ungulate
> >> carcasses. Moreover, they had at least occasional access to the
> >> fleshed remains of larger, wildebeest-sized animals. The overall
> >> record of hominin activities is consistent through the stratified
> >> sequence – spanning hundreds to thousands of years – and provides the
> >> earliest archaeological evidence of sustained hominin involvement with
> >> fleshed animal remains (i.e., persistent carnivory), a foraging
> >> adaptation central to many models of hominin evolution.

> >>
> >> "Paleoenvironmental analyses indicate that the assemblages
> >> formed on a grassy plain set between a freshwater lake and the
> >> wooded slopes of nearby hills and mountains. The recovered
> >> faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
> >> Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with
> >> waterdependent taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
> >> bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
> >> dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a

> >> grassland setting at KJS."
> >>
> >> Hmm....savanna?
> >
> > Sure looks like it.

>
> And when you go to Africa and look at the wild-life through
> your zoom lenses, you will see -- amid the lions, leopards,
> hyena, crocodiles, buffalo, giraffe, etc., -- thousands of
> bipedal hominins. They have been there for the past four
> million years or so, gradually becoming more and more
> dominant and numerous as their technology developed.
> As is well known, the huge areas of African savanna
> sustained a population of many millions of bipeds --
> perhaps as many as a billion.
>

> It all makes sense in Paleo-Anthropology-fairy-land.
>
> Why do people believe in TOTAL garbage?
>
> I suppose it's traditional. After all, if the professor gives
> you this kind of story, how could it possibly be other than
> true?

The research covers a period at 2 mya.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On May 13, 8:23 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On 5/13/2013 7:53 AM, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > On 10/05/2013 20:35, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > >> On 5/10/2013 1:26 PM, Gerrit Hanenburg wrote:

> > >>>http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00...

> > Well, of course, it could be because that's what the evidence we have
> > suggests.
>

> So, you geniuses consider hippopotamus and crocodile to be grassland
> species?

Paleoenvironmental analyses indicate that the assemblages
formed on a grassy plain set between a freshwater lake and the
wooded slopes of nearby hills and mountains. The recovered
faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with water
dependent taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a

grassland setting at KJS [49�52].


Grassland adapted bovids. Hippos and crocs "persent in limited
numbers".

> > > I suppose it's traditional. After all, if the professor gives
> > > you this kind of story, how could it possibly be other than
> > > true?
> >

> > You've never been or known a grad student, have you?
>
> LOL. It always cracks me up when internet trolls provide cover for
> experts and then when cornered they always resort to the desperation
> tactic of pretending that the experts have some special secret
> knowledge/understanding that only insider are privy to. McDonald, you
> are just a troll. Don't pretend otherwise.

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:

>
> On 13/05/2013 16:23, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> >>>> faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
> >>>> Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with
> >>>> waterdependent taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
> >>>> bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
> >>>> dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a
> >>>> grassland setting at KJS."
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm....savanna?
> >>>
> >>> Sure looks like it.
> >>
> >> And when you go to Africa and look at the wild-life through
> >> your zoom lenses, you will see -- amid the lions, leopards,
> >> hyena, crocodiles, buffalo, giraffe, etc., -- thousands of
> >> bipedal hominins. They have been there for the past four
> >> million years or so, gradually becoming more and more
> >> dominant and numerous as their technology developed.
> >> As is well known, the huge areas of African savanna
> >> sustained a population of many millions of bipeds --
> >> perhaps as many as a billion.
> >>
> >> It all makes sense in Paleo-Anthropology-fairy-land.
> >>
> >> Why do people believe in TOTAL garbage?
> >
> > Well, of course, it could be because that's what the evidence we have suggests.
>

> So when "the evidence" tells you that Noah's
> Flood really happened, or that Thor sent his
> thunderbolts into the ground, or that your
> patients feel much better after being bled,
> that's Science. Ordinary common sense is
> never to be allowed?

Common sense says the earth is flat. Research shows otherwise.

> >> I suppose it's traditional. After all, if the professor gives
> >> you this kind of story, how could it possibly be other than
> >> true?
> >
> > You've never been or known a grad student, have you?
>

> Somehow there are 'permitted topics' where
> disagreements are allowed, but the broad
> swathes of crude assumptions are not to
> be questioned, nor even brought up. In this

Disagreements and questioning always allowed, provide it's backed
up by research.

> area, if you question Savanna nonsense;
> you'll be thought a Commie -- oops, I mean
> an Aquatic Ape adherent. While the AAT
> stuff is all nonsense, it is essentially a variant
> of the Savanna mode of 'thinking'. The
> realisation that H.sap is a species, and has
> a niche (or a range of specifiable niches),
> like every other species on the planet, is
> far too radical for the 'discipline'. After all,
> it's only been established for all other
> species for a century or so.
>
> Paul.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On May 13, 12:58 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On 5/13/2013 1:18 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > So, you geniuses consider hippopotamus and crocodile to be grassland
> > > species?
> >

> > No,
>
> So, if you now verify that you disagree with what Gerrit mentioned in
> the first post of this thread why did you not mention it in your
> response to this first post?
>
> > I consider them to be 'present in limited numbers'. As would be
> > expected in such an environment.
>
> Are they "present in limited numbers" currently? I don't recall ever
> seeing a crocodile or hippo on the treeless plains of a savanna.
> Explain yourself, or admit that you are just a troll.

The study covers a period 2 mya. Don't you suppose things have changed
since then?

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:

>
> On 13/05/2013 21:02, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> >>>> And when you go to Africa and look at the wild-life through
> >>>> your zoom lenses, you will see -- amid the lions, leopards,
> >>>> hyena, crocodiles, buffalo, giraffe, etc., -- thousands of
> >>>> bipedal hominins. They have been there for the past four
> >>>> million years or so, gradually becoming more and more
> >>>> dominant and numerous as their technology developed.
> >>>> As is well known, the huge areas of African savanna
> >>>> sustained a population of many millions of bipeds --
> >>>> perhaps as many as a billion.
>

> >> So when "the evidence" tells you that Noah's
> >> Flood really happened, or that Thor sent his
> >> thunderbolts into the ground, or that your
> >> patients feel much better after being bled,
> >> that's Science. Ordinary common sense is
> >> never to be allowed?
>

> > You know, it's not too late to actually learn something beyond
> > "ordinary common sense". Turns out, 'common sense' is far too
> > often not a reliable guide at all to what actually happened in the
> > past.
>
> Nonsense. When a scientific theory runs into a
> serious objection that it finds insuperable, it should
> be junked.

IFF the objection can be backed up by research. Simply asserting
something does not count.

[Claudius Denk]

Now you know how we feel.

[Paul Crowley]

I've researched thoroughly. Nowhere on the
planet is there a population of aquatic apes --
and no one claims that one exists. Nowhere
is there evidence for any taxon successfully
occupying an aquatic (or semi-aquatic) niche
for a couple of million years (after being in a
terrestrial niche before that period); then
abandoning it (for no apparent reason) and
being successful in a wholly different niche.
Therefore I can confidently say that human
ancestors were never substantially aquatic.

Likewise I've researched the savanna theory
thoroughly. Nowhere on the planet is there a
population of savanna apes -- and no one
claims that one exists. Nowhere is there
evidence for any taxon successfully occupying
a savanna niche for a couple of million years
(after being in a forested niche before that
period); then abandoning it (for no apparent
reason) and being successful in a wholly
different niche.

Therefore I can confidently say that human
ancestors were never occupiers of a savanna
habitat.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

Hominid settlement patterns are plainly evident in the fossil record.
There is nothing remotely controversial there. Hominids resided at
well-watered, treed localities of a greater savanna environment--
garden habitat.

In desperation, conventional theorists have resorted to the only
tactic they have left which is to draw attention away from the abject
failure of the savanna model by using AAT as a strawman. This is not
a strategy with which they can win, it is only a strategy with which
they can buy some time.

They fear nothing more than they fear conceptual clarity.

Be careful not to mirror their tactics.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 27, 2:12 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

Paul, your melodramatic tone is irritating. Tell us what habitat you
prescribe and tell us how they survived the dry season, IYO. IOW, be
more specific and less repetitive.

[RichTravsky]

Really? You feel that published research is more definitive that
fiat? Good.

[RichTravsky]

Paleoenvironmental analyses indicate that the assemblages
formed on a grassy plain set between a freshwater lake and the
wooded slopes of nearby hills and mountains. The recovered

faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with water
dependent taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a

grassland setting at KJS [49–52].

Ooops.

[Claudius Denk]

LOL. It's comical how all of the evidence leading up to the last
sentence is consistent with them residing close to water and in the
vicinity of trees (mosaic habitat) and then the author--employing the
twisted logic of conventional theorists in their increasingly
desperate attempt to pretend that the savanna theory is still
relevant--concludes that is was a, "grassland setting." Hippo and
croc aren't associated grassland habitat. Moreover, the fact that
hippo and croc are evident suggests that alluvial action (water flow)
was a big factor in determinining soil composition, consequently its
pretty simpleminded to draw any conclusion at all about habitat from
this evidence.

[RichTravsky]

What part of

The recovered faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids

did you notn understand?

[Claudius Denk]

Hippo, Crocodile, LOL.

[Tom McDonald]

Present in limited numbers. LOL.

[Jim McGinn]

Amazing.

[Tom McDonald]

>>>>>> grassland setting at KJS [49�52].

>>
>>>>>> Ooops.
>>
>>>>> LOL. It's comical how all of the evidence leading up to the last
>>>>> sentence is consistent with them residing close to water and in the
>>>>> vicinity of trees (mosaic habitat) and then the author--employing the
>>>>> twisted logic of conventional theorists in their increasingly
>>>>> desperate attempt to pretend that the savanna theory is still
>>>>> relevant--concludes that is was a, "grassland setting." Hippo and
>>>>> croc aren't associated grassland habitat. Moreover, the fact that
>>>>> hippo and croc are evident suggests that alluvial action (water flow)
>>>>> was a big factor in determinining soil composition, consequently its
>>>>> pretty simpleminded to draw any conclusion at all about habitat from
>>>>> this evidence.
>>
>>>> What part of
>>
>>>> The recovered faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids
>>
>>>> did you notn understand?
>>
>>> Hippo, Crocodile, LOL.
>>
>> Present in limited numbers. LOL.
>
> Amazing.
>

That you don't get it, even now? No, not really. You've shown an
outstanding capacity for getting things wrong for quite a while now.

What about this 'present in limited numbers' business gets your panties
all in a bunch? The environment is clearly noted to be 'a grassy plain
set between a freshwater lake and ... nearby hills and mountains'.

The vast majority of fauna found were grassland varieties. There were
only a few (the 'limited numbers' you can't seem to get your head
around) freshwater fauna fossils. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

It's almost as if you don't want to get it...

Oh, now that I write that, a thought comes to me about why that might be so.

Nevermind.

[Claudius Denk]

Tell us Tom, which makes more sense. That an aquatic (littoral) species would travel 10, 20, 30 miles from it's aquatic (littoral) habitat or that a grassland species would travel the same distance into an aquatic (littoral) habitat during the dry season?

Think real hard.

[RichTravsky]

That you missed it? Not really. We're used to that from you.

You probably also missed

recovered faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus)

and

indicate a grassland setting

[Paul Crowley]

On 05/06/2013 16:27, RichTravsky wrote:

>>>> Nonsense. When a scientific theory runs into a
>>>> serious objection that it finds insuperable, it should
>>>> be junked.
>>>
>>> IFF the objection can be backed up by research. Simply asserting
>>> something does not count.

The objection can clearly be backed up by
research. Of course, no one bothers. It's all
too obvious. Do you need 'research' to be
able to say that water flows downhill, or that
night follows day?

>> Likewise I've researched the savanna theory
>> thoroughly. Nowhere on the planet is there a
>> population of savanna apes -- and no one
>> claims that one exists. Nowhere is there
>> evidence for any taxon successfully occupying
>> a savanna niche for a couple of million years
>> (after being in a forested niche before that
>> period); then abandoning it (for no apparent
>> reason) and being successful in a wholly
>> different niche.
>>
>> Therefore I can confidently say that human
>> ancestors were never occupiers of a savanna
>> habitat.
>
> Paleoenvironmental analyses indicate that the assemblages
> formed on a grassy plain set between a freshwater lake and the
> wooded slopes of nearby hills and mountains. The recovered
> faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
> Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with water
> dependent taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
> bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
> dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a

> grassland setting at KJS [49�52].
>
> Ooops.

Confirmatory bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It does not matter how much evidence you gather
in favour of a proposition. If you cannot overcome
one fundamental objection, the theory does not
stand. Here it is that humans and hominids
cannot occupy the same habitat as large terrestrial
predators.

If you claim to be serious about the science, you
must confront that issue.

My own current thinking is that -- at times, and in
certain places, and in varying ways -- hominids
did learn how to cope with large predators.
They poisoned them -- often with 'hand axes'.

At certain times, this enabled hominids to occupy
large areas of the Africa (and later, other continents),
living off carnivore meat. But their occupation of
such territories was highly episodic. Herbivores
soon learned to keep their distance, and the
hominids were far too slow and feeble to try to catch
them. The hominids would depart and, after a few
years (or generations) the carnivores would return.

However, when the hominids were successful over
a large region, the ecological effects were usually
devastating. Herbivores would expand in numbers
and destroy the vegetation, turning the land to desert
and to dust. Hominid activity wiped out whole genera
of carnivore, and was almost certainly responsible for
the initiation of the ice ages around 2.6 mya.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/early-humans-large-carnivore_n_1453780.html?ref=science


Paul.

[Tom McDonald]

>> grassland setting at KJS [49–52].

Hominids cause ice ages? Really? You are kidding, right?

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Paul Crowley]

On 25/06/2013 02:16, Tom McDonald wrote:

>> My own current thinking is that -- at times, and in
>> certain places, and in varying ways -- hominids
>> did learn how to cope with large predators.
>> They poisoned them -- often with 'hand axes'.
>>
>> At certain times, this enabled hominids to occupy
>> large areas of the Africa (and later, other continents),
>> living off carnivore meat. But their occupation of
>> such territories was highly episodic. Herbivores
>> soon learned to keep their distance, and the
>> hominids were far too slow and feeble to try to catch
>> them. The hominids would depart and, after a few
>> years (or generations) the carnivores would return.
>>
>> However, when the hominids were successful over
>> a large region, the ecological effects were usually
>> devastating. Herbivores would expand in numbers
>> and destroy the vegetation, turning the land to desert
>> and to dust. Hominid activity wiped out whole genera
>> of carnivore, and was almost certainly responsible for
>> the initiation of the ice ages around 2.6 mya.
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/early-humans-large-carnivore_n_1453780.html?ref=science
>

> Hominids cause ice ages? Really? You are kidding, right?
>
> Please tell me you're kidding.

Please indicate where my logic or factual
points are in error.

Ice ages and inter-glacials are probably fairly
stable states, being to a large extent self-
perpetuating. Desertification (with large
amounts of dust in the atmosphere) causes
water to be locked up in the ice-caps,
leading to more of the same; while under
inter-glacial conditions, melted ice-caps
allow plentiful rain in the tropics, enabling
lush growth of vegetation and minimising
deserts.

This is probably the "Gaia" state -- the
condition the planet "prefers". But humans
(or hominids) interfere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Humans (and earlier hominids) would have
been restricted to coastal enclaves during
the ice-ages, and rarely seen predators.

Every hundred-thousand years or so, vegetation
managed to re-establish itself and herbivores
and predators returned to continental mainlands.
Over the next ten thousand or so years, the
predators began to bother the hominids again,
and they reacted by learning how to restrict,
persecute, exploit and then eliminate the
predators. The herbivores proliferated,
destroyed the vegetation, created deserts,
and restored an ice-age. And so the cycle
continued.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:29:27 AM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> Tell us Tom, which makes more sense. That an aquatic (littoral) species would travel 10, 20, 30 miles from it's aquatic (littoral) habitat or that a grassland species would travel the same distance into an aquatic (littoral) habitat during the dry season?
>
>
>
> Think real hard.

When dealing with a cult mentality, one begins to realize that you find out more about what people really think from the questions they won't answer than you do from those they do.

[Tom McDonald]

Jesus! You really meant it. Wow.

[Tom McDonald]

Perhaps you could explain the relevance of your question. Looks like you
may be setting up some sort of trap, but your question is obscure to me.

[Claudius Denk]

Read upthread.

[JTEM]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 7:20:14 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/early-humans-large-carnivore_n_1453780.html?ref=science

I've got to tell you right now, this runs
completely counter to everything I had
always been taught. And I quote for the
story:

: If climate change (or climate-related
: environmental change) was the culprit,
: Werdelin reasoned, then the smaller
: carnivores should have taken a hit too,
: since they are generally more sensitive
: to such shifts than their larger
: counterparts are.

This is the opposite of what I was always
taught. My entire life I have always been
taught that THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN is
always the most vulnerable. As evidence
was often put the many DIFFERENT -- separate
and distinct -- saber toothed cat species
which have arisen (and vanished).

I'm not opposed to debating any evidence for the
claim that the top of the food chain is the
lesser vulnerable. But there is no evidence,
certainly not here. They simply make a claim
that runs counter to all logic and previous
teachings... and evidence.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can't
sustain a breeding Saber Tooth population on
squirrel meat. They're a big animal and need
a lot of protein. But you can sustain a breeding
population of small foxes on squirrel meat. And
you can sustain it on the scavenged remains of top
herbivores.

Small predators are LESS vulnerable!


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> The environment is clearly noted to be 'a grassy plain
> set between a freshwater lake and ... nearby hills and mountains'.
> The vast majority of fauna found were grassland varieties. There were
> only a few (the 'limited numbers' you can't seem to get your head
> around) freshwater fauna fossils. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

In all fairness, where we find fossils usually
has very little to do with where a species may
have selected as it's preferred habitat. It's
all about preservation of fossils.

Fossil hunters (including paleoanthropologists)
search for fossils where they believe -- HAVE
EVIDENCE THAT -- the environment once favored
the preservation of fossils.

There are hardly any Chimpanzee fossils, for
example, though they have supposedly been
evolving quite independently from us humans
for anywhere from 4 to 8 million years!

Three teeth -- more than half a million years
old -- is all the fossil evidence we have for
Chimps!

Ironically, though we know for a fact that
Chimps are hunted and even eaten by humans,
the conclusion drawn by this find is that
Chimps shared the same habitat as humans!

: She and other researchers had previously
: found Homo erectus and Homo rhodesiensis
: fossils in the same geologic layer. This
: overlap suggests that the early human
: species and the newly found chimpanzee
: shared the same turf during the Middle
: Pleistocene
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_teeth.html

Two things are clear from this cite:

#1. National Geographic is run by idiots.
They ignore the bleeding obvious in order
to leap to the most sensational of conclusions.
The one and only evidence for a fossilized
appears to co-exist with a species known to
hunt and eat chimps, and rather than assuming
that the chimp was a meal transported to a
site they forward the most implausible
explanation.

#2. Basing decisions on a species preferred
environment upon fossil finds is tricky at
best, if not stupid. The chimp line supposedly
existed for millions of years without producing
a single fossil, for crying out loud! Fossils
tell a story, they do not tell THE STORY.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Paul Crowley]

> Jesus! You really meant it. Wow.

Thanks for you detailed and well-reasoned
refutation. I'll have to think about it.


Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

On 28/06/2013 04:21, JTEM wrote:

>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/early-humans-large-carnivore_n_1453780.html?ref=science
>
> I've got to tell you right now, this runs
> completely counter to everything I had
> always been taught. And I quote for the
> story:
>
> : If climate change (or climate-related
> : environmental change) was the culprit,
> : Werdelin reasoned, then the smaller
> : carnivores should have taken a hit too,
> : since they are generally more sensitive
> : to such shifts than their larger
> : counterparts are.
>
> This is the opposite of what I was always
> taught. My entire life I have always been
> taught that THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN is
> always the most vulnerable.

Small carnivores are top of THEIR
food chain, in the same way as large
predators are top of their own, quite
separate ones. Mongooses don't eat
zebras, and lions don't chase after
mice and small snakes.

> I'm not opposed to debating any evidence for the
> claim that the top of the food chain is the
> lesser vulnerable. But there is no evidence,
> certainly not here. They simply make a claim
> that runs counter to all logic and previous
> teachings... and evidence.

The fact is that numerous large African
carnivore species went into extinction
while small ones continued unaffected.
An explanation is needed.

> The simple fact of the matter is that you can't
> sustain a breeding Saber Tooth population on
> squirrel meat. They're a big animal and need
> a lot of protein. But you can sustain a breeding
> population of small foxes on squirrel meat. And
> you can sustain it on the scavenged remains of top
> herbivores.

One possible explanation could be that
larger herbivores suffered a massive and
sustained decline. But, if that were so,
some of them should have gone extinct,
and much the same should have
happened to small prey species, with
knock-on effects on small predators.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

JTEM:

The simple fact of the matter is that you can't sustain a breeding Saber Tooth population on squirrel meat. They're a big animal and need a lot of protein.

CD:
Right. Sabertooth cats went extinct because their prey, large lumbering (slow) thick skinned (those saber teeth were an evolutionary response to thick skin around the neck of these prey species) herbivorous (not grass eating, fruit and leave eating) species that depended on access to the lusher garden habitat to survive the dry season. Hominids, being communally territorialistic, monopolized this garden habitat through use of coordinated rock throwing, stick wielding and ever more sophisticated versions thereof (including sharpened rocks, ambush tactics, etc.) so that they themselves would continue to have access to the fruit and vegetables that they themselves needed to survive the dry season. This eventually resulted in the extinction of these species (look up chalicotherepes for one example) and this doomed the saber toothed cat who was outcompeted by cats that didn't wield the now unnecessary large teeth and lumbering size of these sabertoothed cats.

PC:
One possible explanation could be that larger herbivores suffered a massive and sustained decline. But, if that were so, some of them should have gone extinct, . . .

CD:
They did. It's all there in the fossil record, Paul. All you have to do is look.

[JTEM]

Paul Crowley wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
>
>

> > : If climate change (or climate-related
> > : environmental change) was the culprit,
> > : Werdelin reasoned, then the smaller
> > : carnivores should have taken a hit too,
> > : since they are generally more sensitive
> > : to such shifts than their larger
> > : counterparts are.
> >
> > This is the opposite of what I was always
> > taught. My entire life I have always been
> > taught that THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN is
> > always the most vulnerable.

> Small carnivores are top of THEIR
> food chain, in the same way as large
> predators are top of their own, quite
> separate ones.

Not only is that a gross misunderstanding of
what the "Food Chain" is, but you can't even
believe that without first rejecting your own
goddamn citation!

I mean, what you're claiming here, now, would
refute the basis of your cite (quoted above), *If*
you believe it...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> JTEM:
>
> The simple fact of the matter is that you can't
> sustain a breeding Saber >Tooth population on
> squirrel meat. They're a big animal and need
> a lot of protein.
>
>
>
> CD:
>
> Right. Sabertooth cats went extinct because
> their prey, large lumbering (slow) thick skinned
> (those saber teeth were an evolutionary response
> to thick skin around the neck of these prey
> species) herbivorous (not grass eating, fruit
> and leave eating) species that depended on access
> to the lusher garden habitat to survive the dry
> season. Hominids, being communally
> territorialistic, monopolized this garden habitat
> through use of coordinated rock throwing, stick
> wielding and ever more sophisticated versions
> thereof (including sharpened rocks, ambush
> tactics, etc.)

Admittedly, your "Garden Habitat" offers a better
explanation -- theory -- than the National Geographic
article (WHICH THE PERSON CITING IT REFUTES!), but
only if we limit ourselves to this particular thread
and the information entered here.

It is said -- or at least it was said, to me, by a
professor some years ago -- that Dinosaurs invented
flowering plants. That, these plants evolved in the
face of the Dinosaur threat (from eating them), and
their flowering & seeds turned dinosaurs from a killer
to part of the plant's reproductive strategy. Put
simply: The Dinosaurs spread the seeds for the plants,
even fertilized them, by eating them and then pooping
them out.

The point here is that animals adapt, EVOLVE to
match their environments, yes, but environments
also evolve to meet the animals. And what you're
describing is a game changer. It's upsetting the
food chain, the ecosystem. And it's doing it in
a very peculiar way.

See, ordinarily we'd look at climate change, like
from the ice age, and we'd expect to see changes
in the environment -- different plants, and different
animals.

Change the climate and you change what plants
grow there, what plants the environment can
support.

Change what plants grow there and you have to
change the animals. Maybe not all of them, but
many animals aren't going to be able to exploit
the new plants. They evolved to exploit the old
ones.

Now, for your garden environment we'd have to
see changes completely divorced from climate
change. After all, your garden isn't being
shaped by the weather, it's being shaped by the
intentional acts of pre-modern human ancestors,
according to you.

I'll boil this down even more:

Your "Theory" doesn't just predict extinctions
(which we do see), it predicts changes to the
plant life without any corresponding changes to
the climate. These changes must, as you predict,
coincide with the appearance of early human
ancestors.

If you require more details: If this "Garden
Habitat" protecting is as you describe, effectively
centered in protecting food sources during the
dry season, there should be a large upswing in the
prevalence of NON dry season food sources that the
herbivores ate.

You can't claim that the pre-moderns ate all the
exact same foods as the herbivores. And even if
you want to claim that they ate "Nearly" all of
the same plants, that still leaves some plants which
would no longer be exploited.

Some plants would have to either explode on the
environment, no longer kept in check by the
herbivores, or they would have to go extinct because
their survival strategy requires required the
herbivores (as the flowering plants required the
dinosaurs).

This is how you build your case. You show us
the changes to the environment your theory
requires, you demonstrate that there is no
change in climate associated with this change
to the environment, and you show that these
changes coincide with the arrival of pre-modern
human ancestors.

Good luck with that.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 11:26:39 AM UTC-7, Gerrit Hanenburg wrote:
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0062174

>
>
> Hmm....savanna?

LOL. Click on the link and look at the map, you loon. Kanjera is--essentially--a peninsula jutting into lake Victoria.

AAT and conventional theory have much in common in that both just choose to see the evidence that matches their preconceived conclusion.

[Claudius Denk]

JTEM:

Admittedly, your "Garden Habitat" offers a better
explanation -- theory -- than the National Geographic
article (WHICH THE PERSON CITING IT REFUTES!), but
only if we limit ourselves to this particular thread
and the information entered here.

CD:
What? National Geographic. Did you read the article? It was PLOS One, AFAICT. And what "explanation" are you referring to? Who, supposedly, "refuted" what?

JTEM:

It is said -- or at least it was said, to me, by a
professor some years ago -- that Dinosaurs invented
flowering plants. That, these plants evolved in the
face of the Dinosaur threat (from eating them), and
their flowering & seeds turned dinosaurs from a killer
to part of the plant's reproductive strategy. Put
simply: The Dinosaurs spread the seeds for the plants,
even fertilized them, by eating them and then pooping
them out.

The point here is that animals adapt, EVOLVE to
match their environments, yes, but environments
also evolve to meet the animals. And what you're
describing is a game changer. It's upsetting the
food chain, the ecosystem. And it's doing it in
a very peculiar way.

CD: I would argue that referring to hominids as communal and/or territorialistic and/or communally territorialistic is the exact opposite of peculiar. IMO it's peculiar to refer to them as being aquatic or as having a long distance running lifestyle in treeless savanna habitat. My thinking is pretty tame compared to tthese imaginative scenarios.

JTEM:

CD:
Okay. I'm starting to see where you are going with this. You are saying that there may be something testable here. More specifically, you are saying the symbiotic relationship between plants and plant eating herbivorous mammals (plants providing food for herbivorous mammals and herbivorous mammals helping the plants spread their seed in dung droppings) might (or could) provide us something testable in that the extinction of one of these species should indicate a corresponding extinction in plants that had a symbiotic with the species that went extinct. Or something to that effect.

JTEM:

If you require more details: If this "Garden
Habitat" protecting is as you describe, effectively
centered in protecting food sources during the
dry season,

CD: Just to be clear with respect to what my theory entails, my theory does not stipulate that they protected these garden resources ONLY in the dry season. It stipulates that they protected these garden resources year round in order to survive the dry season.

JTEM (cont'd)

there should be a large upswing in the
prevalence of NON dry season food sources that the
herbivores ate.

You can't claim that the pre-moderns ate all the
exact same foods as the herbivores. And even if
you want to claim that they ate "Nearly" all of
the same plants, that still leaves some plants which
would no longer be exploited.

CD: Hmm. Well, I appreciate the fact that you are putting some thought into this. And I agree we should expect to see a corresponding shift in plant species, exactly what I don't know.

JTEM:

Some plants would have to either explode on the
environment, no longer kept in check by the
herbivores, or they would have to go extinct because
their survival strategy requires required the
herbivores (as the flowering plants required the
dinosaurs).

CD:
I don't disagree with what you are saying. I just don't know if there is as much probitive value as you suggest. The shifts may be too subtle to show up in the fossil record, given the lack of resolution thereof. But what you are suggesting is interesting none the less.

This is how you build your case. You show us
the changes to the environment your theory
requires, you demonstrate that there is no
change in climate associated with this change
to the environment, and you show that these
changes coincide with the arrival of pre-modern
human ancestors.

CD:
Here's another approach that, IMO, would be more productive: looking at the teeth of herbivorous species. If my theory is correct we would expect to find that as herbivorous species are more and more driven from their preferred lusher garden habitat into the drier surrounding habitat that there would be a shift in tooth morphology away from teeth that are optimized for fruit and leaves and toward teeth that are optimized for grasses. For example, check out these links:
http://goo.gl/t89YL
http://goo.gl/9C32f

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> CD:
>
> Here's another approach that, IMO, would be
> more productive: looking at the teeth of
> herbivorous species. If my theory is correct
> we would expect to find that as herbivorous
> species are more and more driven from their
> preferred lusher garden habitat into the drier
> surrounding habitat that there would be a
> shift in tooth morphology away from teeth
> that are optimized for fruit and leaves and
> toward teeth that are optimized for grasses.

*If* such a change in diet necessitated a change
in dentition, the results would be identical
REGARDLESS of the reasons for entering the new
environment.

Thus, you still have to demonstrate that #1 the
herbivores lived in such a garden habitat, that
#2 this garden habitat still existed (there was
no change in climate), #3 the herbivores no
longer lived in the garden habitat and #4 pre
modern human ancestors were living in the
garden habitat, #5 pre modern human ancestors
where not living in the new environment, the
one necessitating a change in dentition.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Tom McDonald]

On 6/23/2013 12:29 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> Tell us Tom, which makes more sense. That an aquatic (littoral) species would travel 10, 20, 30 miles from it's aquatic (littoral) habitat or that a grassland species would travel the same distance into an aquatic (littoral) habitat during the dry season?
>
> Think real hard.
>

2

[Claudius Denk]

On Saturday, June 29, 2013 12:20:46 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:

> Claudius Denk wrote:

> *If* such a change in diet necessitated a change
>
> in dentition, the results would be identical
>
> REGARDLESS of the reasons for entering the new
>
> environment.

Obviously. But this objection can be leveled at any and all evolutionary explanation, so it's pointless to be concerned about it.

> Thus, you still have to demonstrate that #1 the
>
> herbivores lived in such a garden habitat,

This is already demonstrated in the fossil evidence.

> that
>
> #2 this garden habitat still existed (there was
>
> no change in climate),

This is already demonstrated in the fossil evidence.

> #3 the herbivores no
>
> longer lived in the garden habitat

Obviously the tooth evidence in this article explains that.

> and #4 pre

> modern human ancestors were living in the
>
> garden habitat,

All hominid fossil evidence, in conjunction with paleohabitata reconstruction, demonstrates this.

> #5 pre modern human ancestors
>
> where not living in the new environment, the
>
> one necessitating a change in dentition.

The premise is that they did live there and they constantly expanded their range.

The point is that my hypothesis is the only hypothesis that deal with the realities of them surviving the dry season. My solution--communal territorialism--also describes the type of species we actually are to his day. The only other alternative is to imagine them being migratory and, thereby, competing against other dedicated migrational species, which is plainly absurd.

All other theories on hominid origins begin with the fatal assumption that hominids are not and/or have not always been the communally territorialistic species that all of the evidence indicates we are.

A hypothesis on hominid evolution should, IMO, explain why hominid actually are. And that means dealing with facts and details and able to explain things that other theories gloss over.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > *If* such a change in diet necessitated a change
> > in dentition, the results would be identical
> > REGARDLESS of the reasons for entering the new
> > environment.

> Obviously.

Hence the additional facts you would have to
establish.

> But this objection can be leveled at any and
> all evolutionary explanation, so it's pointless
> to be concerned about it.

No, these objections can't be leveled at any and
all evolutionary explanations, if no other reason
than we are presently *Not* discussing any
evolutionary explanations, but rather a TEST of your
explanation.

You proposed a test, above I explain why this
so-called test is worthless.

Honestly, if you can't even follow your own end of
a conversation then what is the freaking point of
engaging you?

Sheesh!

Now, I told you what you have to do if you want to
try to support your dumb ideas. Do it or shut up
already.

You have tests -- no, not the idiocy you proposed
as a test but the tests that I put forward earlier.
Go do those tests.

Anything less and you're just another usenet frank
with an obsession he can't let go of...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:20:46 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > JTEM wrote:
>
>
>
> > > *If* such a change in diet necessitated a change
>
> > > in dentition, the results would be identical
>
> > > REGARDLESS of the reasons for entering the new
>
> > > environment.
>
>
>
> > Obviously.
>
>
>
> Hence the additional facts you would have to
>
> establish.

Using what data?

>
>
>
> > But this objection can be leveled at any and
>
> > all evolutionary explanation, so it's pointless
>
> > to be concerned about it.
>
>
>
> No, these objections can't be leveled at any and
>
> all evolutionary explanations, if no other reason
>
> than we are presently *Not* discussing any
>
> evolutionary explanations, but rather a TEST of your
>
> explanation.

My hypothesis purports to explain known and existing data. I make no claim to explain data that exists only in your imagination.

>
>
>
> You proposed a test, above I explain why this
>
> so-called test is worthless.

I think you've demonstrated only that you don't understand the nature of evolution based arguments.

>
>
>
> Honestly, if you can't even follow your own end of
>
> a conversation then what is the freaking point of
>
> engaging you?
>
>
>
> Sheesh!
>
>
>
> Now, I told you what you have to do if you want to
>
> try to support your dumb ideas. Do it or shut up
>
> already.

Stop being such a vague nitwit. Tell us details about your own scenario. How, for example, do you envision the earliest hominids to have survived the dry season. What do you prescribe as the origins of bipedalism. Be explicit in your response. Provide details.

>
>
>
> You have tests -- no, not the idiocy you proposed
>
> as a test but the tests that I put forward earlier.
>
> Go do those tests.
>
>
>
> Anything less and you're just another usenet frank
>
> with an obsession he can't let go of...
>
>

Put up or shut up.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> My hypothesis purports to explain known and existing data.
> I make no claim to explain data that exists only in your imagination.

Great. That wasn't the subject. You need
to test your hypothesis, and a valid test for
your hypothesis /Was/ the subject here....

I mapped out a test, you countered with an
invalid test (one that would be absolutely
inconclusive) and I explained WHY your invalid
test was invalid.

Now shut up on start working on your test, already!

Put up or shut up.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

Enough about me. Tell us your hypothesis.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Enough about me. Tell us your hypothesis.

You're obfuscating.

You have a test of your (for lack of a
better word) "hypothesis." You're attempting
to draw attention away from this fact as you
know that you wouldn't even know how to begin
this test, let alone pass it.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and so completely incapable of explaining how or why.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are right and > so completely incapable of explaining how or why.

I can't tell you how entertaining it is to explain
an issue to you at depth, only for your little pea
brain to be unable to grasp it.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

Gee, thanks. But you still have valid tests
mapped out for you, and you still haven't even
begun to perform those tests.

Now your biggest obstacle (Second biggest,
actually, your lack of intelligence being
your biggest obstacle) is the fact that most
people would automatically assume that any
changes to the environment -- plants, animals --
would have to be evidence of climate change. But
the changes you are looking for are quite
specific, and if the automatic assumption is in
error you could most likely expose same...

For example, your theory would suggest that no
new plants or top herbivores would be entering
the environment. Climate change would effectively
result in the swapping out of, say, warm weather
plants for vegetation which thrived in cooler
climates (or vice verse). Your theory requires
that we wouldn't see this -- that plants which
thrived under the very same climactic conditions
existed both before and after the major herbivores
were driven out.

All & all this isn't a very difficult test, for
a non-lunatic. There's been plenty of studies,
plenty published, you should be able to ascertain
the environment of the hominid populations in
question (associated animal & planet life) quite
easily.

I would start with any reported changes to the
climate myself, looking for any "False Flags"
there. Like I said, the kind of changes you
predict would almost certainly be mistaken as
the results of climate change. Prove they are
not and you have some support for your crack
pot theories.

If that well comes up dry the next obvious step
would be to look for changes to the environment
(however subtle) within a period of accepted
climatic stability.

In other words, if they haven't misidentified
any changes to the environment as climate change,
one must assume that they have only ever accurately
identified the climate for any given period. So,
pick an evolutionarily significant period of stable
climate and look for changes to the animal and plant
life consistent with your ideas.

Good luck.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

Like all ignorant loons you believe the fossil record has such high resolution that such a, "test" would be easy and definitive. Why don't you prove you are not the loon I say you are and demonstrate how you used this technique in validating your own thinking on this subject, should you actually have any thinking on this subject. You know, something more than, "they walked along the coast."

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Like all ignorant loons you believe the fossil
> record has such high resolution that such a,
> "test" would be easy and definitive.

Nobody said anything even remotely approaching
that.

Look, you'd win a lot more respect just admitting
that you haven't the faintest clue as to how to
begin such a test, rather than blaming everyone
else for your failures.

Here, prove me right: Explain in depth the
fossils that have been found. Describe the
vegetation. Go on.

You haven't a clue. You're making sweeping
statements about everyone else yet you haven't
the slightest clue what does and does not exist.

Find out FIRST and then report back on what you
find.

Seriously, I would have suspected that even a
jackoff like you could've figured that much
out...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 6:24:43 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Like all ignorant loons you believe the fossil
>
> > record has such high resolution that such a,
>
> > "test" would be easy and definitive.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nobody said anything even remotely approaching
>
> that.

You remind me of Olsen in that your approach to hominid/human evolution involves skipping the first 5 million years. Your starting position is an animal that is already 5/7ths of the way from an ape to a human. Consequently you have zero insight into the origins of human characteristics in that its all a given for you.

[Tom McDonald]

Good to see you run from the challenge, above, Jim. Nice to see some
things never change.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> You remind me of Olsen in that your approach to
> hominid/human evolution involves skipping the
> first 5 million years.

Great. Super. Now steering you back on subject
here...

You have test. Those crack-pot ideas yours, the
ones we all laughingly refer to as a "Theory" can
be tested. Now, are you going to put your idiocy
to the test, or are you going to continue to
obfuscate like this, you goddamn nut job?


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

LOL. What exactly am I obfuscating? You've presented no material that is obfuscatable. Many of the other pretenders on this forum are deliberately (and desperately) vague but that accusation cannot be thrown at you since your arguments are perfectly nonexistent.

[Claudius Denk]

LOL. So, uh, until I pointed it out did you not realize that croc and hippo are non migratory?

[Tom McDonald]

I know about the environment and general behaviors of crocs and hippos.
That was never the issue. The question always was whether a few such
remains in a far, far larger assemblage of grassland fauna meant
anything about hominid habitat.

And I note, with no surprise, that you have, yet again, failed to
respond to JTEM's challenge to you to test your, or any, hypothesis. It
begins to look like you cannot.

[Claudius Denk]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 5:19:44 PM UTC-7, Tom McDonald wrote:

CD:

LOL. So, uh, until I pointed it out
did you not realize that croc and
hippo are non migratory?

TM:

I know about the environment and general
behaviors of crocs and hippos.

CD:
The other big clue was that the location
was, basically, at the tip of a peninsula
jutting out into a gulf of Lake Victoria!!!

Wanna know how I figured that out? BECAUSE
I READ THE PAPER!!!

TM:

That was never the issue. The question always
was whether a few such remains in a far, far
larger assemblage of grassland fauna meant
anything about hominid habitat.

CD:
If that is what you believe then one can only
wonder why you haven't make an argument to
that effect. IOW, show us the numbers and
present your argument or go away, you moron.

TM:

And I note, with no surprise, that you have,
yet again, failed to respond to JTEM's
challenge to you to test your, or any,
hypothesis. It begins to look like you cannot.

CD:
Frankly, JTEM's "challenge" made no sense
to me. Why don't you describe it to us as
you understand it. That is, assuming you
do understand it. You do understand it,
don't you, Tom?

Go ahead, Tom. Explain it to us.

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 05/06/2013 16:27, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >>>> Nonsense. When a scientific theory runs into a
> >>>> serious objection that it finds insuperable, it should
> >>>> be junked.
> >>>
> >>> IFF the objection can be backed up by research. Simply asserting
> >>> something does not count.
>
> The objection can clearly be backed up by
> research. Of course, no one bothers. It's all
> too obvious. Do you need 'research' to be
> able to say that water flows downhill, or that
> night follows day?

Apples. Oranges.

Determining diets requires a teensy bit more work, wouldn't you say?

Now, a hard one for you: WHY does the water flow downhill,
and WHY does "night follows day"?

> >> Likewise I've researched the savanna theory
> >> thoroughly. Nowhere on the planet is there a
> >> population of savanna apes -- and no one
> >> claims that one exists. Nowhere is there
> >> evidence for any taxon successfully occupying
> >> a savanna niche for a couple of million years
> >> (after being in a forested niche before that
> >> period); then abandoning it (for no apparent
> >> reason) and being successful in a wholly
> >> different niche.
> >>
> >> Therefore I can confidently say that human
> >> ancestors were never occupiers of a savanna
> >> habitat.
> >
> > Paleoenvironmental analyses indicate that the assemblages
> > formed on a grassy plain set between a freshwater lake and the
> > wooded slopes of nearby hills and mountains. The recovered
> > faunas consist primarily of grassland-adapted bovids (Parmularius,
> > Antidorcas), equids (Equus), and suids (Metridiochoerus), with water
> > dependent taxa (e.g., Hippopotamus, Crocodylus, and reduncine
> > bovids) also present in limited numbers. Isotopic analyses of
> > dental enamel and pedogenic carbonates concordantly indicate a
> > grassland setting at KJS [49–52].
> >
> > Ooops.
>
> Confirmatory bias.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
>
> It does not matter how much evidence you gather
> in favour of a proposition. If you cannot overcome
> one fundamental objection, the theory does not
> stand. Here it is that humans and hominids
> cannot occupy the same habitat as large terrestrial
> predators.

Except they do. Even chimps today share the same habitats
with predators.

And, chimps themselves are predators, their hunting behavior is
well documented.

> If you claim to be serious about the science, you
> must confront that issue.
>
> My own current thinking is that -- at times, and in
> certain places, and in varying ways -- hominids
> did learn how to cope with large predators.
> They poisoned them -- often with 'hand axes'.

OOps. No evidence.

> At certain times, this enabled hominids to occupy
> large areas of the Africa (and later, other continents),
> living off carnivore meat. But their occupation of
> such territories was highly episodic. Herbivores
> soon learned to keep their distance, and the
> hominids were far too slow and feeble to try to catch
> them. The hominids would depart and, after a few
> years (or generations) the carnivores would return.
>
> However, when the hominids were successful over
> a large region, the ecological effects were usually
> devastating. Herbivores would expand in numbers
> and destroy the vegetation, turning the land to desert
> and to dust. Hominid activity wiped out whole genera
> of carnivore, and was almost certainly responsible for
> the initiation of the ice ages around 2.6 mya.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/early-humans-large-carnivore_n_1453780.html?ref=science

That Werdelin symposium bit again?

LOL We've been over this.

That's a popular press rendition. Better

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

and more at

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

and better still

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

From the last link

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

Next?

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:

>
> On 25/06/2013 02:16, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> >> My own current thinking is that -- at times, and in
> >> certain places, and in varying ways -- hominids
> >> did learn how to cope with large predators.
> >> They poisoned them -- often with 'hand axes'.
> >>

> >> At certain times, this enabled hominids to occupy
> >> large areas of the Africa (and later, other continents),
> >> living off carnivore meat. But their occupation of
> >> such territories was highly episodic. Herbivores
> >> soon learned to keep their distance, and the
> >> hominids were far too slow and feeble to try to catch
> >> them. The hominids would depart and, after a few
> >> years (or generations) the carnivores would return.
> >>
> >> However, when the hominids were successful over
> >> a large region, the ecological effects were usually
> >> devastating. Herbivores would expand in numbers
> >> and destroy the vegetation, turning the land to desert
> >> and to dust. Hominid activity wiped out whole genera
> >> of carnivore, and was almost certainly responsible for
> >> the initiation of the ice ages around 2.6 mya.
> >>
> >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/early-humans-large-carnivore_n_1453780.html?ref=science
> >

> > Hominids cause ice ages? Really? You are kidding, right?
> >
> > Please tell me you're kidding.
>
> Please indicate where my logic or factual
> points are in error.

What factual points?

Where in the HuffPo link does it mention ice ages?

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 10, 2013 11:26:39 AM UTC-7, Gerrit Hanenburg wrote:
> > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0062174
>
> >
> >
> > Hmm....savanna?
>
> LOL. Click on the link and look at the map, you loon. Kanjera
> is--essentially--a peninsula jutting into lake Victoria.

It is *now*. Hint (caps mine)

Figure 1. Location of Kanjera along the MODERN shoreline of Lake
Victoria, East Africa.

> AAT and conventional theory have much in common in that both just
> choose to see the evidence that matches their preconceived conclusion.

The irony...