Caves and cliffs of The African Great Rift

[Mario Petrinovic]

https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 19.12.2018. 13:38, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA

Capuchin monkeys are intelligent. Were humans less intelligent?
I say, no.
https://youtu.be/fFWTXU2jE14

[Peter Nyikos]

How about giving some of your own reasons, Mario? Or is the YouTube
presentation a faithful rendition of all of them?


Sorry to have gone on posting break from s.b.p. without a personal
good-bye to you. Your long post about your difficult relationship
with Croatia, Yugoslavia, etc. was fascinating, and so was your
post about language that sounds obscene but not meant to be obscene.

I hope to comment on both of those no later than tomorrow. Until then,
I (belatedly) wish you a happy new year, with lots of good discussion
here and in sci.anthropology.paleo.


Peter Nyikos

[Mario Petrinovic]

Thanks Peter, and the same to you.
I am afraid that I am, a sort of, finishing with this. I gave up hope
that the world will change for the better soon.
Right now I am in a rush, so, possibly I'll give answer on the first
part of your question some other time.
Recently, though, I had some interesting thinking about the science
and the truth.
Science goes with 100% proven things, calling everything else "just" a
speculation.
But, why? Do speculation has to be wrong? Or, should 100% proven
things be right?
Because of the *nature* of those things, 100% proven things are
usually very simplistic. The most cited "theory" about how humans stood
upright, is the theory that we wanted to be less insolated. So, the guy
measured how much we are insolated on all four, and how much on two, and
voila, you have a perfect scientific theory, easily proven, has the
evidence that is correct, and so on.
But, of course, this "theory" is completely wrong, although 100% proven.
So, I would say that, because of the *nature* of the things,
scientific theory has *less* chances to be right than speculations.
Speculations are more complex, they are based on the weight of things,
some facts are more important some are less, they are based on balance
of forces, but all this is hard to be proven, this is why they are
"just" speculations. But, I would say that those have more chances to
meet the truth than stupid scientific simple theories.
Mind you, physics and mathematics are simple things, so they are more
suitable for scientific process, and hence, those can have better
results in science than complex things, which simply aren't suitable for
simple scientific practices.
IOW, the more complex the thing is, the less suitable it is to be
researched by science.
I can also answer about those Balkan things. The language is just a
reflection of their attitude towards other people. They don't respect
anybody else except themselves. When they see a good man, they mock at
him. There is a saying: "He is a good one, we should f.ck him, so that
he can multiply.". This is the utter disrespect for anything good in
life. They think that they are more powerful if they are mean. Which
actually is true, in their societies.
There is very well known saying with which Croats describe themselves:
"We are few, but we are garbage." Meaning, because we can do so low down
things, that normal people cannot even think about, this gives us bigger
power. It is, actually sarcastic, meaning, not only that there is not a
lot of us, but we are also garbage. At the end, do they care? No. About
anything, or anybody.
Of course, I am utterly disgusted with the whole situation, and with
this ugly Balkan culture.

[Daud Deden]

-

"Science goes with 100% proven things, calling everything else "just" a

speculation. " MP

Science is the observation of natural (universal) phenominae and the attempt to explain it by a hypothesis and then testing it to produce results (repeatable by others) which confirms it or not. The scientific method progressively produces a less incorrect explanation of the phenomenon. A hypothesis is speculative if it hasn't been tested repeatedly and to a significant degree confirmed or rejected.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:54:22 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 16.1.2019. 21:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:27:57 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 19.12.2018. 13:38, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>> https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA
> >>
> >> Capuchin monkeys are intelligent. Were humans less intelligent?
> >> I say, no.
> >> https://youtu.be/fFWTXU2jE14
> >
> > How about giving some of your own reasons, Mario? Or is the YouTube
> > presentation a faithful rendition of all of them?
> >
> >
> > Sorry to have gone on posting break from s.b.p. without a personal
> > good-bye to you. Your long post about your difficult relationship
> > with Croatia, Yugoslavia, etc. was fascinating, and so was your
> > post about language that sounds obscene but not meant to be obscene.
> >
> > I hope to comment on both of those no later than tomorrow. Until then,
> > I (belatedly) wish you a happy new year, with lots of good discussion
> > here and in sci.anthropology.paleo.
>
> Thanks Peter, and the same to you.
> I am afraid that I am, a sort of, finishing with this. I gave up hope
> that the world will change for the better soon.
> Right now I am in a rush, so, possibly I'll give answer on the first
> part of your question some other time.

In that case, I'd better hold off on those two posts until tomorrow.
But I'll say a few words at the end about the second topic.

> Recently, though, I had some interesting thinking about the science
> and the truth.
> Science goes with 100% proven things, calling everything else "just" a
> speculation.

No, hardly anything is proven in science. But quite frequently,
the evidence is so strong that a consensus develops. A true
consensus, not the sort of thing that passes for a consensus
these days.

And "just speculation" is at the opposite extreme. In between there
is much that is called "hypothesis". Some people -- there are at least
three regular participants in s.b.p. who qualify -- will exaggerate
where in the in-between things fall, either minimizing the evidence
or blowing it out of proportion.

> But, why? Do speculation has to be wrong? Or, should 100% proven
> things be right?
> Because of the *nature* of those things, 100% proven things are
> usually very simplistic. The most cited "theory" about how humans stood
> upright, is the theory that we wanted to be less insolated. So, the guy
> measured how much we are insolated on all four, and how much on two, and
> voila, you have a perfect scientific theory, easily proven, has the
> evidence that is correct, and so on.

Do you remember who this "guy" was and where he published this?

I'll assume below, for the sake of discussion, that this is THE reigning
hypothesis. I must admit, though, that I have never heard of it.

> But, of course, this "theory" is completely wrong, although 100% proven.

No, just subscribed to by most scientists simply on the basis of what a
few "experts" in the field say, since they neither know the arguments
nor know about counter-arguments. Most scientists are specialists in
a "publish or perish" bind, so they cannot keep up with much outside
their specialty.

> So, I would say that, because of the *nature* of the things,
> scientific theory has *less* chances to be right than speculations.

I wouldn't say that. Speculations have to be founded on evidence,
otherwise they cannot compete with scientific theories.

> Speculations are more complex, they are based on the weight of things,

In that case, they deserve to be called hypotheses, not speculations.

> some facts are more important some are less, they are based on balance
> of forces, but all this is hard to be proven, this is why they are
> "just" speculations.

Some will call them that, but they don't deserve to be seriously
listened to, unless they have counter-arguments.

> But, I would say that those have more chances to
> meet the truth than stupid scientific simple theories.
> Mind you, physics and mathematics are simple things, so they are more
> suitable for scientific process, and hence, those can have better
> results in science than complex things, which simply aren't suitable for
> simple scientific practices.
> IOW, the more complex the thing is, the less suitable it is to be
> researched by science.
> I can also answer about those Balkan things. The language is just a
> reflection of their attitude towards other people. They don't respect
> anybody else except themselves. When they see a good man, they mock at
> him. There is a saying: "He is a good one, we should f.ck him, so that
> he can multiply.". This is the utter disrespect for anything good in
> life. They think that they are more powerful if they are mean. Which
> actually is true, in their societies.
> There is very well known saying with which Croats describe themselves:
> "We are few, but we are garbage." Meaning, because we can do so low down
> things, that normal people cannot even think about, this gives us bigger
> power. It is, actually sarcastic, meaning, not only that there is not a
> lot of us, but we are also garbage. At the end, do they care? No. About
> anything, or anybody.
> Of course, I am utterly disgusted with the whole situation, and with
> this ugly Balkan culture.

It's ugly in many ways, that's for sure. But customs dull senses.

A generally refined person like myself will say, "that's baloney"

... where a lot of born English speakers will say, "that's bullshit"

...where a lot of born Magyar (Hungarian) people will say,
"your whoring mother's pussy!"

... to describe the same internal emotions about the same identical thing.

My father, who grew up in Hungary and who had come close to a
doctorate in linguistics (passed the comprehensive exam, but
never finished his dissertation) assured me that the third
expression was still considered relatively mild -- like the other two --
and that only a blasphemous + obscene statement (e.g. a graphic
statement about the deity behaving like a succubus) would be considered really offensive.


Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

That's a very good summary of "the scientific method" but it needs
to be broadly interpreted. A fossil might be categorized by the
first person who describes it in enough detail to have the right
to name its genus and species, but it should be made available
to others "(repeatable by others)" to examine closely if questions
arise as to the correctness of the description.

In many cases, the result might be that the fossil turns out to
belong to a genus that has already been described. Then the
person who wrote the seminal paper may have to settle for
just naming the species.

A similar situation, but different in crucial ways, is that what DuBois
called *Pithecanthropus erectus* is now known as a Javan
variety of *Homo erectus*. We thereby continue to do homage
to DuBois, and the huge contribution his fossil made to our
understanding of human evolution. At the same time, we
reject his theory that it was not a "true human" by using
the ancient word "Homo" for human being.

DuBois never really accepted this idea, according to the following webpage:

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

It gives a long, colorful history of the controversy, part of it
summarized thus:

More than 50 years after Dubois's find, Ralph von Koenigswald
recollected that, "No other paleontological discovery has
created such a sensation and led to such a variety of conflicting
scientific opinions."[23]

[23] Swisher, Curtis & Lewin, _Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our
Understanding of Human Evolution_, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
ISBN 978-0-226-78734-3.2000, p. 69, citing von Koenigswald's _Meeting
Prehistoric Man_ (1956).

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:54:22 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 16.1.2019. 21:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:27:57 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 19.12.2018. 13:38, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>> https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA
> >>
> >> Capuchin monkeys are intelligent. Were humans less intelligent?
> >> I say, no.
> >> https://youtu.be/fFWTXU2jE14
> >
> > How about giving some of your own reasons, Mario? Or is the YouTube
> > presentation a faithful rendition of all of them?
> >
> >
> > Sorry to have gone on posting break from s.b.p. without a personal
> > good-bye to you. Your long post about your difficult relationship
> > with Croatia, Yugoslavia, etc. was fascinating, and so was your
> > post about language that sounds obscene but not meant to be obscene.
> >
> > I hope to comment on both of those no later than tomorrow. Until then,
> > I (belatedly) wish you a happy new year, with lots of good discussion
> > here and in sci.anthropology.paleo.
>
> Thanks Peter, and the same to you.
> I am afraid that I am, a sort of, finishing with this.

I certainly hope you persevere here and in sci.anthropology.paleo.
I got into a very nice discussion/debate over there today on the thread
about the Naledi hominina. There is a sharp clash between Pandora,
who is utterly convinced that the Nadeli were a species of Homo,
and a Dutchman who is utterly convinced that they were a species of Pan
or some closely related extinct ape.

Pandora gave some statistics on cranial capacity which puts
"Homo naledi" closer to Australopithecus africanus than to
Homo erectus or even Homo habilis, so I asked her why it isn't
classed as a species of Australopithecus.

Whatever answer I get, I hope to continue to discuss this in a
civilized way on Monday with all parties. I've treated everyone
on the thread with respect, and so I'm hopeful.

> I can also answer about those Balkan things. The language is just a
> reflection of their attitude towards other people. They don't respect
> anybody else except themselves. When they see a good man, they mock at
> him. There is a saying: "He is a good one, we should f.ck him, so that
> he can multiply.". This is the utter disrespect for anything good in
> life.

The Bible has much to say about such people, but also it has
much praise for those who manage to stay good, both men and women.

I'm sorry you've had the misfortune to be surrounded with such people.
But it may have something to do with the subculture with which you
are surrounded. In my area of mathematics, there is no nasty
behavior between people who are still active in research.
People such as you describe are from a different subculture altogether.

>They think that they are more powerful if they are mean. Which
> actually is true, in their societies.
> There is very well known saying with which Croats describe themselves:
> "We are few, but we are garbage."

Many Hungarians don't speak that way about themselves, and I think if you
had been luckier you might have found yourself surrounded by Croats who
don't think that way.

Forty years of Communist domination has had a tremendously bad effect
on Hungarian society, and the end of it has brought new problems that
the Communists, for all the evil that they brought upon the country,
had avoided: joblessness and homelessness. So I wouldn't be surprised
if this attitude you describe is more prevalent in Hungary than it
was when my father was growing up.

> Meaning, because we can do so low down
> things, that normal people cannot even think about, this gives us bigger
> power. It is, actually sarcastic, meaning, not only that there is not a
> lot of us, but we are also garbage. At the end, do they care? No. About
> anything, or anybody.
> Of course, I am utterly disgusted with the whole situation, and with
> this ugly Balkan culture.

I strongly recommend that you try to find Milovan Djilas's book,
_Land Without Justice_. It was originally written in Serbo-Croatian
and you might find the original easier to understand than the
English translation I have. Even in translation, it is a beautiful
(but very sad at times) book.

As the dust jacket says:

Djilas's first memories were of heroism and violence; the soil
of his Montenegrin village was nourished by blood. In him is
reflected the soul of his kinsmen, a fiery independent people,
dark with misery yet healed by visions of beauty. The Montenegrins
come vividly to life in Djilas's intense, poetic writing. As the
introduction says: "In the rhythm of his words and in the
recurrence of his themes of suffering and joy, death and life,
his writing is akin to the epic poetry Montenegrin's sing.

The circumstances in which this book was written, the added
dimension it gives to a dramatic figure, the simple, lyrical
beauty of its style -- all combine to make it a great autobiography.
Today the author sits in a Yugoslav prison cell living out another
chapter in one of the most striking human stories of our time.

Be aware that if you do leave off posting, I will miss you very
much, but I will also wish you well. And, although I have very
little confidence that there is a good and just God, I will say a prayer
for you now and then, just in case there is one.


Goodbye -- but I hope it's just Auf Wiedersehen or as we Americans say
informally, "Catch you later."


Peter Nyikos

[Mario Petrinovic]

Well, I will have to comment on those three new posts from you
(Peter), and leave the first part of your original post for later (I
don't understand it completely, so it needs more time for me to digest it).

This is also answer to DD.
I am not interested in science, as such. Science is just a game play.
Classification, categorization, bureaucracy. I am only interested in
truth, I don't care about science. If science can help me (and it really
can), fine. If there is something in science that doesn't help me to
rich the truth, this isn't fine.
So, all the people say, science can help you rich the truth. I say,
fine, but science can also deter me from reaching the truth. Nobody
talks about that, everybody only talks how science is so great a thing.
It is good thing, but not "so" great. And, definitely it isn't
all-encompassing thing. You cannot reach the truth using just science in
a lot of cases. Science isn't the "all-mighty", whoever says this, he is
just a religious fanatic, and nothing more.
So, what to do in all those cases when science isn't capable to do the
job? To continue to pray to science god, and hope for the best? To
*believe* that science would eventually succeed?
Science had some great successes so far. Is this enough to install a
belief system into our mind? No. If it had success so far, this isn't a
guarantee that this will continue like that. Especially because it also
had a lot of flops so far.

[Mario Petrinovic]

This theory is in every paleoanthropology book. The guy is Dr. Peter
Wheeler:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedalism#Thermoregulatory_model
It was more popular in the past, but since then they discovered
bipedals in forests, so now scientists have some doubts. But, in the
past they didn't have too much "doubts".

>> But, of course, this "theory" is completely wrong, although 100% proven.
>
> No, just subscribed to by most scientists simply on the basis of what a
> few "experts" in the field say, since they neither know the arguments
> nor know about counter-arguments. Most scientists are specialists in
> a "publish or perish" bind, so they cannot keep up with much outside
> their specialty.

Exactly. Another (one of many) faults of science. Because scientists
have their own things to do, they accept things that other scientists
did without too much questioning. And this goes on and on. If somebody
implements only one wrong thing, nobody will notice it for a long time
(if ever), and this will affect the whole scientific thinking. Some
Italian scientist repeated Mendel's work only 70 years after that work
was published, and realized that it is all fake. Never-the-less,
Mendel's work greatly affects science even to this day, and not a lot of
people question it even today, they just accept what has already being
accepted, they don't have time to question things.

>> So, I would say that, because of the *nature* of the things,
>> scientific theory has *less* chances to be right than speculations.
>
> I wouldn't say that. Speculations have to be founded on evidence,
> otherwise they cannot compete with scientific theories.

Yes, but evidence is "shaky". Which car is more advanced, a Citroen 2
CV, of Ferrari Testarossa. Well, the evidence says that Citroen has four
doors, and Ferrari only two.
Maybe humans have larger brain, but chimps have longer eyelashes. Now,
which of those two is more important? The more evidence you have, the
more argument you have against any theory, and not in favour of a theory.
In general, even if the evidence says against some theory, it is the
evidence that can be wrongly done. They find a skull in pieces, they
assemble those pieces, from that they calculate brain capacity. But hey,
they assembled the skull incorrectly. But, never-the-less, this
incorrect value is used in scientific theories.

Oh, the above case isn't of such a nature. This is the real moral
ugliness.
For example, Hungarians and Croats were once living in the same
country. Hungarians started a revolution which would allow Hungarians a
better life. But Croats attacked them, and secured bad life for all of
them (Croats and Hungarians).

[Mario Petrinovic]

No, my subculture was great, I kept it as good as possible. It is
enough to say that I started my paleoanthropological research pushed by
very close friend of mine who works in Croatian Academy, as a historian.
They were all intellectuals in my surroundings, I am allergic to fools.
But, actually, this is another story, the left-right story.
Right people accept old values because they know they are too stupid
to figure out truth by themselves.
Left people know that they are smart enough to figure out things by
themselves, so they are building brand new world per their ideas.
But, there was one scientific research which says that fools
overestimate themselves, while smart people tend to underestimate
themselves. The biggest fools can overestimate themselves up to 40%,
smartest people underestimate themselves by some 5%.
So, are right people just idiots, or are they smart people who
underestimate themselves?
Are left people true intellectuals, or are they just a fools who
overestimate themselves?
The real truth is that in the majority, right people really are too
stupid to figure out things, only small portion of them are smart.
But also, the real truth is that left people mostly are just idiots
who think that they are smart, but at the end they produce systems like
in Russia and in China, only small part of them actually produces
something useful.
Take a look at what's going on in America. America is, by far, the
most prosperous country. So, where does this anti-Americanism in America
come from? It is insane. All those people are rich enough to start their
life wherever they chose, so why they continue to live in USA that they
hate so much? Insanity.

>> They think that they are more powerful if they are mean. Which
>> actually is true, in their societies.
>> There is very well known saying with which Croats describe themselves:
>> "We are few, but we are garbage."
>
> Many Hungarians don't speak that way about themselves, and I think if you
> had been luckier you might have found yourself surrounded by Croats who
> don't think that way.
>
> Forty years of Communist domination has had a tremendously bad effect
> on Hungarian society, and the end of it has brought new problems that
> the Communists, for all the evil that they brought upon the country,
> had avoided: joblessness and homelessness. So I wouldn't be surprised
> if this attitude you describe is more prevalent in Hungary than it
> was when my father was growing up.

Actually, "the end" of capitalism is where capitalism is right now,
everybody have jobs, and it is the capitalism to "blame" for it.
Communism didn't avoid joblessness and homelessness, the end of
communism (joblessness, hunger) is the outcome of communism. We had to
stand in line for two hours to get bread and milk (two hours for each of
those), there was no meat to buy, this was the end of communism, and the
reason it ended. Just like in Venezuela today.

No, I don't read much books (books are the things of the past). Also,
I am very skeptical about "visions of beauty", "fiery independent
people", "dark with misery", and all those descriptive exaggerations.
While for whole my life I was fan of music, in the last few years I am
very skeptical about any form of unnatural expressions, those emotional
extracts, which art actually is.
Listen to this, the guy is actually reading bloody newspapers and
going to work, big deal:
https://youtu.be/usNsCeOV4GM
Another of his songs glorifies LSD. Which destroyed the lives of
hundreds of thousands of yet young people.
So, today I don't believe in the "rhythm of his words" anymore, I grew up.

> Be aware that if you do leave off posting, I will miss you very
> much, but I will also wish you well. And, although I have very
> little confidence that there is a good and just God, I will say a prayer
> for you now and then, just in case there is one.
>
>
> Goodbye -- but I hope it's just Auf Wiedersehen or as we Americans say
> informally, "Catch you later."

Thanks, but I never know what future brings. For now, I simply had
enough. I am giving too much, and the effect is null.

[Daud Deden]

That is nomenclature & taxonomy closer to math (define inclusive/exclusive set) than scientific method.

by the
> first person who describes it in enough detail to have the right
> to name its genus and species, but it should be made available
> to others "(repeatable by others)" to examine closely if questions
> arise as to the correctness of the description.

>
> In many cases, the result might be that the fossil turns out to
> belong to a genus that has already been described. Then the
> person who wrote the seminal paper may have to settle for
> just naming the species.

Not scientific method.

>
> A similar situation, but different in crucial ways, is that what DuBois
> called *Pithecanthropus erectus* is now known as a Javan
> variety of *Homo erectus*. We thereby continue to do homage
> to DuBois, and the huge contribution his fossil made to our
> understanding of human evolution. At the same time, we
> reject his theory that it was not a "true human" by using
> the ancient word "Homo" for human being.
>
> DuBois never really accepted this idea, according to the following webpage:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man
>
> It gives a long, colorful history of the controversy, part of it
> summarized thus:
>
> More than 50 years after Dubois's find, Ralph von Koenigswald
> recollected that, "No other paleontological discovery has
> created such a sensation and led to such a variety of conflicting
> scientific opinions."[23]
>
> [23] Swisher, Curtis & Lewin, _Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our
> Understanding of Human Evolution_, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
> ISBN 978-0-226-78734-3.2000, p. 69, citing von Koenigswald's _Meeting
> Prehistoric Man_ (1956).
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina in Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

I referred to scientific method: hypothesize natural phenomena, test..

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 16.1.2019. 21:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:27:57 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.12.2018. 13:38, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA
>>
>> Capuchin monkeys are intelligent. Were humans less intelligent?
>> I say, no.
>> https://youtu.be/fFWTXU2jE14
>
> How about giving some of your own reasons, Mario? Or is the YouTube
> presentation a faithful rendition of all of them?

Lol, unfortunately I only recently deleted my long posts (upon my
recent decision to give up). I had long correspondence with a guy (or
how you title people, man?, mister?, I always have problems with this)
who maintains one human evolution web site (I will not mention the name
without asking him, since this was private correspondence), where I
mentioned numerous clues of my own.
Videos are excellent, I presume that you have seen a lot of those.
Along this, I collected a lot of, like "clues", for my theory, which fit
in it perfectly. I'll try to recall them:
- we are eating salty food / This should be, like, pretty obvious.
- we are eating meat of shellfish raw without additional help of tools
/ This is a big thing. I've read somewhere that chimps, when they kill a
monkey, they don't eat the meat, they just chew it. They have the need
for protein, but they cannot slice the meat, and eat it, so they only
chew it and spit it out. They simply don't have necessary teeth for
eating meat. You got to have teeth for this. You know, in classic
theory, first we were scavengers, and then we moved to cooking meat.
Everything is wrong with that. First, we don't eat the inner parts, we
just eat the outer parts, we leave inner parts to dogs. Eating outer
parts, parts that were softened by fire, is in tune with my "Fire
theory". But, why cook it in the first place? There was some meeting in
Portugal, where specialists addressed the question of cooking meat. And
it turns out that cooking meat *isn't* advantageous at all. Too much
time and energy consuming. Much before that I also added a lot of other
arguments. Like, you become visible to all your enemies, during day
(smoke), and during night. And this enemy also knows that there is a
food cooking. Also, if we ever ate raw meat, we would definitely have
situations (like war, and similar), where it isn't advisable to cook
meat (see: steak Tartare), or for sure there were situations when you
didn't want to prepare food for at least one hour just to eat it. So, we
would retain the ability to eat it raw. But we didn't retain the
ability. This goes for salting food, also. Somebody can stretch it out,
but the truth is on the side of my theory. I can probably explain it
better, I did discuss all of this in the last 15 years a lot.
- the set of arguments in regards to speech /
a) the ability to analyze sound / just recently it was one paper that
says that humans can discern those things better than other animals. A
sound infesting environment (crushing waves) is ideal for the
development of this ability
b) sound articulation / our babies cry from the day they are born.
Animals do that, to mark their position. Humans babies would behave like
this in my scenario.
- the set of arguments regarding babies (and speech) /
1) The rocking of cradle simulates the rocking of waves, when baby
lies on mother's stomach.
2) Mobility of big toe in babies helps babies very much, for to not
slide off from mother's stomach.
3) When I was a kid we played a little game. We had to hold our breath
for 1 minute (but not cheating, ;) ). Somewhere around 45 seconds you
start to have problems holding breath. So, you restrain air, and while
doing that it is clearly heard "mmmmmmmmmm". Finally, when 60 seconds
pass, you exhale in relief "aaaaaaaah". In a real-life situation, this
would happen when you emerge out of water after a dive (for shellfish).
Then it would be heard "maaaaaaah". Upon hearing this sound, your mother
will come. This led to "mama".
- even today, the fastest way to wake up somebody is to hit water onto
him. This is just like "in the past", when you would jump into water in
a case of danger.
- dealing with predators / When I was a kid, we used to wrestle. The
fight wasn't with fists, but the goal was to get opponent into rear
naked choke position:
https://www.thoughtco.com/brazilian-jiu-jitsus-rear-naked-choke-2308356
I always wondered why? The answer is simple, this is how you fight even
very big predators, in water. You dive below a predator. Predator has to
have mouth above water, so he has neck exposed. With your very long
arms, you simply squeeze around his neck. You can ride him (and put your
legs so that you block his legs), and do whatever you want with him. In
water our long arms are the boss.
- war-time safety / This may not sound like some argument. I was in
war, and we used to put bottles around our camp. So, anybody who
disturbs them would be heard. But, for this you need to have a hearing
sensible for this kind of noises. This is like having shellfish on a
rocky coast, around your camp.
- of course, our diving-bell-like nose works in water
- I described how forces pushing from behind can shape our body to our
today's shape. This is only possible on a sea coast.
- we met fire in the past. Mediterranean pyrophytic ecology is by far
the best place to meet fire
- rocky coast is by far the best place to start to use rocks. There
are no rocks in savanna, or on trees
- sharp edges of shellfish are the best way to start to use sharp
edges. You got to have this ability before trying to get sharp edges out
of rocks.
- our dexterous hand is seen in baboons, the more a baboon climbs
cliffs, the more dexterous hand it has.
- Gelada baboons produce sound on a similar way like humans. They live
on cliffs.
- walking on a rocky sea coast is by far the safest way to develop the
ability to walk. Sea (a safe place) is just a jump away. Unlike foraging
an area, foraging a line of a coast is excellent environment to develop
walking. Also good for carrying.
- kissing is useful if you need additional air after a dive. Your
"spouse" meets you half the way up, and gives you additional air (by
kissing you).
- this isn't some argument, but the alarm call of rock hyraxes is
pretty scary for us.
- the set of today's tourist destinations. We like to go to sea, to
swim, and to take a "room with a view". The "view" isn't a view onto
flowers, or woods, or animals, or whatever, the "view" is view onto
bloody water. Imagine that. We don't care about view on flowers or woods
that much (a set of room prices is the evidence, lol).
- it was some zoo in USA that they built a moat around gorillas area.
They tested the moat with humans. The reasoning, if humans cannot climb,
so couldn't gorillas. Imagine that. At the end, it turned out that one
young gorilla managed to climb it, and made a mess outside. But still,
imagine that we can compare to prime climbers in this specific situation.
I am sure I had more arguments (I'll post them if I will recall them),
but still, you see the explanation of our major innate traits, that work
excellently in precisely this situation, and there is no other
(significant) explanation for them.
People used to say that I have great imagination. Well, I should have
god-like imagination to fit all those traits into some particular
scenario. The man from above (who maintains the web site) says that my
scenario is too perfect, and paleoanthropologists don't like "perfect"
scenarios. Imagine this argument *against* my scenario, that it is too
perfect. Because scientists aren't used to perfect scenarios, all
scenarios have some faults. But, the thing is that the right scenario
should be perfect, because it is the right (so everything should fit
easily into it). Well, in this scenario really everything fits so
easily, I really don't have to invent things by myself.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Oh yes, teeth.
The thing that our canines diminished isn't actually very significant,
primates have canines of various sizes. What happened to our canines is
that they changed shape. Normal canines are cone-like, ours are flat,
incisor-like. Now, you can say that they turn into incisors, but it is
true that they are also pointy in the middle. Our shape, I am arguing,
is adjusted to open shellfish.
Our shovel-like incisors should also be useful in scooping meat from
shellfish.
Somebody said that our molars (or molars of apes) look most like
molars of otters.

[erik simpson]

Have you ever tried to open and eat shellfish (please give details) using some
technique you say our teeth are adapted for?

[John Harshman]

Do you suppose this has anything to do with the concept of the shellfish
gene?

[erik simpson]

Ha! You'd have to ask Dawkins, (of course, after bringing up to speed on the
latest findings reported here).

[Oxyaena]

Uh hu. I am interested to hear in why you think so little of current
scientific consensuses. Perhaps due to an irrational nostalgia for the
good old days of the 1950's when it was okay to lynch blacks and beat wives?

--
"Debating creationists is like playing chess with pigeons." - Troy Britain

[Mario Petrinovic]

I believe I did something like that when I was kid, but I am not sure.
Of course, if you have longer canines (but, with this shape), it would
be better.
In general, kids do things like that with their teeth.
Here is the close up of the process:
https://youtu.be/PvfsF3HmiF0
On this video guys explain about oyster knife. It has dull blade, and
it pretty much resembles our canines in shape:
https://youtu.be/97T1Pp4-zyE
So, I wouldn't say that you naturally get the shape of our canines out
of cone-like canines, it is deliberately of this shape, it is adapted
for something. If that is true, then this purpose should be what it is
adapted for.
See, it has a distinct shape, it is not like other teeth:
https://www.allposters.com/-sp/Human-Mouth-Open-Showing-Teeth-Gums-and-Tongue-Posters_i10453795_.htm
https://www.browellmurphy.com/blog/post/drawing-impacted-teeth-into-the-open-can-restore-a-smile.html

[Mario Petrinovic]

I can also add AAT arguments of subcutaneous fat and pointy breasts
(which work in this situation). My contribution should be the role of
salt crystals, which damage fur.

[Daud Deden]

Mario, there was an insane guy a few years ago here in Miami, he started biting the face of some random guy on the street, biting off face parts. Cops killed the cannibal, autopsy found no human tissue in his gut. Apparently he just bit off parts and spit out, maybe chewed but didn't swallow the flesh. Reminded me of the chimp that attacked a guy celebrating another chimp's birthday, tore him up, pure rage of unfairness over breaking chimp social protocal & hierarchy.

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 20.1.2019. 18:57, Daud Deden wrote:
> Mario, there was an insane guy a few years ago here in Miami, he started biting the face of some random guy on the street, biting off face parts. Cops killed the cannibal, autopsy found no human tissue in his gut. Apparently he just bit off parts and spit out, maybe chewed but didn't swallow the flesh. Reminded me of the chimp that attacked a guy celebrating another chimp's birthday, tore him up, pure rage of unfairness over breaking chimp social protocal & hierarchy.
>

I had a dog. Dog had carnasials. These are special teeth for slicing
meat. I don't know how animals who don't have those eat meat.

[Peter Nyikos]

We don't have them, yet there are people who eat lots of raw
meat. But perhaps it is only meat that has been ground up.

On the other hand...

You've reminded me of a decades-long controversy over the extinct
marsupial Thylacoleo. It had huge carnassals -- much bigger than
those of any animal living today. Yet its ancestry was clearly
among herbivores. Many paleontologists clung for decades to the
hypothesis that those were for shearing fruit!

Now there is even widespread acceptance that there were kangaroos
that were carnivorous a good part of the time, maybe close to all the time.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

I haven't run into a true consensus that I didn't like.

And I don't have any criticism for most non-consensuses that
you would label "consensuses". Like, the near-consensus that
Homo naledi was NOT an aquatic ape and NOT an australopithecine. I've been discussing these issues in s.a.p., as I told Mario in another
post to this thread. Have you seen it?

And there is now also a near-consensus that Thylacoleo was
an aggressive carnivore; I told Mario about that a few minutes
ago, also on this thread.

> Perhaps due to an irrational nostalgia for the
> good old days of the 1950's when it was okay to lynch blacks and beat wives?

This baseless, off topic slur suggests that you are nostalgic
for the good old days when you did over 100 posts as "Nyikos remedy"
to which you signed your name as "Thrinaxodon".

Over in talk.origins you attacked me in December for not telling people
what you did in your earlier years with sci.bio.paleontology.
I treated you with kid gloves and we parted on more or less
civil terms with you regretting that you couldn't find most of
your old posts.

During my month long break from t.o., I have not only found where to access
those 100+ "Nyikos remedy" posts but also how to access over 500 posts
that you did in s.b.p. as "Oxyaena". Would you like to know how to find them?


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

A non-answer still isn't an answer, how do you distinguish between a
"true" consensus and a "non-consensus"? Knowing you, I`m not expecting
any direct and honest response on this.

that
> Homo naledi was NOT an aquatic ape and NOT an australopithecine. I've been discussing these issues in s.a.p., as I told Mario in another
> post to this thread. Have you seen it?

What is your basis for the asinine hypothesis that *Homo naledi* WAS an
aquatic ape, dipshit?

>
> And there is now also a near-consensus that Thylacoleo was
> an aggressive carnivore; I told Mario about that a few minutes
> ago, also on this thread.

*Thylacoleo* was indeed an aggressive carnivore, the general physique of
*Thylacoleo* doesn't seem to give off any vibes of herbivory. Why do you
think differently?

>
>
>
>> Perhaps due to an irrational nostalgia for the
>> good old days of the 1950's when it was okay to lynch blacks and beat wives?
>
> This baseless, off topic slur suggests that you are nostalgic
> for the good old days when you did over 100 posts as "Nyikos remedy"
> to which you signed your name as "Thrinaxodon".

Here again with your paranoia, you can't read other people's minds,
idiot, stop pretending you're telepathic. How exactly does my insult
somehow imply any feeling of nostalgia on my part?


[snip self-righteous ego-stroking]

[Peter Nyikos]

Did Harshman or Simpson tell you what constitutes an answer and what
constitutes a non-answer in sci.bio.paleontology?

If not, I see no reason why my answer isn't perfectly adequate
to your loaded challenge, which is almost as loaded as your slur
about "nostalgia for the 1950'" below.

> how do you distinguish between a
> "true" consensus and a "non-consensus"?

Not being able to poll every scientist, or even every scientist
who has done research on the subject, I have no foolproof
way of distinguishing.

What is your method of distinguishing between consensus and
non-consensus? Does 90% of all peer-reviewed research
papers on a hypothesis presenting evidence in favor of it
and endorsing it count as a consensus in your eyes?

> Knowing you, I`m not expecting
> any direct and honest response on this.

Let the record show that hostilities on this thread
were begun by you and are being continued by you.

Knowing you, there is a near certainty that you will continue to
paint yourself in talk.origins as the innocent victim of attacks
by me, as you have done numerous times in the past.

>
> that
> > Homo naledi was NOT an aquatic ape and NOT an australopithecine. I've been discussing these issues in s.a.p., as I told Mario in another
> > post to this thread. Have you seen it?
>
> What is your basis for the asinine hypothesis that *Homo naledi* WAS an
> aquatic ape, dipshit?

I was using Homo naledi to illustrate that I have no problem with almost all
near-consensuses of which I know; it is one example in this vast majority.

>
>
> >
> > And there is now also a near-consensus that Thylacoleo was
> > an aggressive carnivore; I told Mario about that a few minutes
> > ago, also on this thread.
>
> *Thylacoleo* was indeed an aggressive carnivore, the general physique of
> *Thylacoleo* doesn't seem to give off any vibes of herbivory. Why do you
> think differently?

I don't, see above.

> >
> >> Perhaps due to an irrational nostalgia for the
> >> good old days of the 1950's when it was okay to lynch blacks and beat wives?
> >
> > This baseless, off topic slur suggests that you are nostalgic
> > for the good old days when you did over 100 posts as "Nyikos remedy"
> > to which you signed your name as "Thrinaxodon".
>
> Here again with your paranoia,

I suggest you look up the word "paranoia". It doesn't mean
what you seem to think it means.

> you can't read other people's minds,
> idiot, stop pretending you're telepathic.

What is it about the word "suggests" that makes you treat it
like this?

> How exactly does my insult
> somehow imply any feeling of nostalgia on my part?

The operative word here is "suggests," not "implies".
Compare these words with your "Perhaps due to..."


> [snip self-righteous ego-stroking]

You are displaying more hostility here.

I was making factual statements. In what way did you
interpret them as being "self-righteous" or "ego-stoking"?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

I can perfectly figure things out by myself, thank you.

>
> If not, I see no reason why my answer isn't perfectly adequate
> to your loaded challenge, which is almost as loaded as your slur
> about "nostalgia for the 1950'" below.
>

You were the one who snidely dissed modern day consensuses: "not the

thing that passes for a consensus these days".

Why did you make that remark?

>
>> how do you distinguish between a
>> "true" consensus and a "non-consensus"?
>
> Not being able to poll every scientist, or even every scientist
> who has done research on the subject, I have no foolproof
> way of distinguishing. >
> What is your method of distinguishing between consensus and
> non-consensus? Does 90% of all peer-reviewed research
> papers on a hypothesis presenting evidence in favor of it
> and endorsing it count as a consensus in your eyes?

Yes, it does. The operating word is "consensus", which has a different
definition among the scientific community than amongst laymen.

>
>
>> Knowing you, I`m not expecting
>> any direct and honest response on this.
>
> Let the record show that hostilities on this thread
> were begun by you and are being continued by you.
>
> Knowing you, there is a near certainty that you will continue to
> paint yourself in talk.origins as the innocent victim of attacks
> by me, as you have done numerous times in the past.
>
> >>
>> that
>>> Homo naledi was NOT an aquatic ape and NOT an australopithecine. I've been discussing these issues in s.a.p., as I told Mario in another
>>> post to this thread. Have you seen it?
>>
>> What is your basis for the asinine hypothesis that *Homo naledi* WAS an
>> aquatic ape, dipshit?
>
> I was using Homo naledi to illustrate that I have no problem with almost all
> near-consensuses of which I know; it is one example in this vast majority.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And there is now also a near-consensus that Thylacoleo was
>>> an aggressive carnivore; I told Mario about that a few minutes
>>> ago, also on this thread.
>>
>> *Thylacoleo* was indeed an aggressive carnivore, the general physique of
>> *Thylacoleo* doesn't seem to give off any vibes of herbivory. Why do you
>> think differently?
>
> I don't, see above >
>
>>>

>>>> Perhaps due to an irrational nostalgia for the
>>>> good old days of the 1950's when it was okay to lynch blacks and beat wives?
>>>
>>> This baseless, off topic slur suggests that you are nostalgic
>>> for the good old days when you did over 100 posts as "Nyikos remedy"
>>> to which you signed your name as "Thrinaxodon".
>>
>> Here again with your paranoia,
>
> I suggest you look up the word "paranoia". It doesn't mean
> what you seem to think it means.
>
>
>> you can't read other people's minds,
>> idiot, stop pretending you're telepathic.
>
> What is it about the word "suggests" that makes you treat it
> like this?

I`m sorry, is "insinuate" a better term for you?

>
>
>> How exactly does my insult
>> somehow imply any feeling of nostalgia on my part?
>
> The operative word here is "suggests," not "implies".
> Compare these words with your "Perhaps due to..."

They are synonyms, Peter. What difference does it make?

>
>
>> [snip self-righteous ego-stroking]
>
> You are displaying more hostility here.
>
> I was making factual statements. In what way did you
> interpret them as being "self-righteous" or "ego-stoking"?

"I treated you with kid gloves"

For the last week or so, yes, before that we made a deal, remember? And
then you continued to act as if that deal was never struck in the first
place by continuing to backbite and insult me well after that deal had
been made. So it was dropped by myself in return.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
> U. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>

[Oxyaena]

Yes, I've heard of those before, but beyond that I can't tell you much
about them. I think I've heard of them offhand from reading on
thylacoleonids.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>

[Daud Deden]

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:36:50 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

Mincing meat into thin pieces for easier swallowing and faster digestion, the tongue moves the slices sideways so they get sliced again but at an angle, shearing it. Like a hopper/grinder for making sausage & hamburger.

Chewing without carnassials works but by smashing into pieces slowly. A sharp knife or scissors can cut into small pieces much faster than a mortar & pestle, but both are functional.

Carnassials also break bones: "If you look inside your dog's mouth you will notice one tooth that is much larger than the rest. It is on the upper jaw, about half way back. It is the fourth premolar, sometimes referred to as the carnassial tooth. In wild canines, it is the main tooth used to break up or crush hard material in their diet such as bones or large pieces of meat."
https://www.drsfostersmith.com/pic/article.cfm?articleid=995

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 21.1.2019. 18:32, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:36:50 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 20.1.2019. 18:57, Daud Deden wrote:
>>> Mario, there was an insane guy a few years ago here in Miami, he started biting the face of some random guy on the street, biting off face parts. Cops killed the cannibal, autopsy found no human tissue in his gut. Apparently he just bit off parts and spit out, maybe chewed but didn't swallow the flesh. Reminded me of the chimp that attacked a guy celebrating another chimp's birthday, tore him up, pure rage of unfairness over breaking chimp social protocal & hierarchy.
>>>
>>
>> I had a dog. Dog had carnasials. These are special teeth for slicing
>> meat. I don't know how animals who don't have those eat meat.
>
> We don't have them, yet there are people who eat lots of raw
> meat. But perhaps it is only meat that has been ground up.

Gracile Australopithecuses have big incisors and smaller molars, while
robust Australopithecuses have the other way around (small incisors and
extremely large molars).
Robust Australopithecuses evolved (out of gracile ones) when Homo came
around. Homo came with tools.
This is my explanation:
Graciles used fire (before the arrival of Homo). They didn't use
tools, so they chopped off burned meat with their incisors. To digest
burned meat they didn't need to have large molars.
Robusts competed with Homo. Homo used tools. So, Homo probably had
well developed language, hence Homo group was much more competitive than
Robust group (they had only simple language). So, while graciles used
fire, Robust was afraid of Homo, and couldn't use fire (because Homo
would see him, and attack him). But, Robust copied the tool usage from Homo.
So, what Robust did? He couldn't use fire, so, instead using incisors
to chop off meat (like graciles), he now uses tools (which he copied
from Homo) to prepare meat. But, this meat was still raw (because he
couldn't use fire anymore), so he had to chew it really hard with his
molars to eat it. This is why he got so extremely large molars.

[Pandora]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:41:15 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
<mario.pe...@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:

>>> I had a dog. Dog had carnasials. These are special teeth for slicing
>>> meat. I don't know how animals who don't have those eat meat.
>>
>> We don't have them, yet there are people who eat lots of raw
>> meat. But perhaps it is only meat that has been ground up.
>
> Gracile Australopithecuses have big incisors and smaller molars, while
>robust Australopithecuses have the other way around (small incisors and
>extremely large molars).

Plural: Australopithecines.

> Robust Australopithecuses evolved (out of gracile ones) when Homo came
>around. Homo came with tools.

That's the question. The earliest known stone tools, "Lomekwian", date
from 3.3 mya.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277004244

The earliest putative Homo (LD 350-1) dates from 2.8 mya.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1352

> This is my explanation:
> Graciles used fire (before the arrival of Homo). They didn't use
>tools, so they chopped off burned meat with their incisors. To digest
>burned meat they didn't need to have large molars.
> Robusts competed with Homo. Homo used tools. So, Homo probably had
>well developed language, hence Homo group was much more competitive than
>Robust group (they had only simple language). So, while graciles used
>fire, Robust was afraid of Homo, and couldn't use fire (because Homo
>would see him, and attack him). But, Robust copied the tool usage from Homo.
> So, what Robust did? He couldn't use fire, so, instead using incisors
>to chop off meat (like graciles), he now uses tools (which he copied
>from Homo) to prepare meat. But, this meat was still raw (because he
>couldn't use fire anymore), so he had to chew it really hard with his
>molars to eat it. This is why he got so extremely large molars.

The robust morphology is most pronounced in Paranthropus robustus.
About its inferred diet see:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.23073

https://www.pnas.org/content/108/23/9337

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002044

It would seem that despite the fact that P. boisei would be able to
generate large bite forces and the blunt topology of the molar
occlusal surfaces could tenderize the meat somewhat, it would not be
suitable for slicing it up into smaller digestable parts.
And then there's the problem that the primate digestive tract is not
well adapted to chemically digesting raw meat.

And how would they acquire meat among an already adaptively superior
carnivorous guild that co-evolved with vigilant and fleet-footed prey?
In other words, how deal with the competition?

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 23.1.2019. 20:40, Pandora wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:41:15 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
> <mario.pe...@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>
>>>> I had a dog. Dog had carnasials. These are special teeth for slicing
>>>> meat. I don't know how animals who don't have those eat meat.
>>>
>>> We don't have them, yet there are people who eat lots of raw
>>> meat. But perhaps it is only meat that has been ground up.
>>
>> Gracile Australopithecuses have big incisors and smaller molars, while
>> robust Australopithecuses have the other way around (small incisors and
>> extremely large molars).
>
> Plural: Australopithecines.

Thanks very much. It is true that I need to see this for about 20
times before it sticks in my mind, but, it is good to start somewhere, ;) .

>> Robust Australopithecuses evolved (out of gracile ones) when Homo came
>> around. Homo came with tools.
>
> That's the question. The earliest known stone tools, "Lomekwian", date
> from 3.3 mya.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277004244
>
> The earliest putative Homo (LD 350-1) dates from 2.8 mya.
>
> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1352

Actually, I would expect to stone tools show earlier, they preserve
better. So, this shouldn't be a question.
Further, those two collided (Homo and Australopithecus), it is
Australopithecus that had to adjust to the new circumstances, and it is
Homo who prevailed. All this suggests that it was Homo who was the
stronger one. Which shouldn't be the case (without language), since
Australopithecus was native. The one who developed stone tool usage
(Homo) had better language. Language equals stone tools.

I don't see much problems, here. I mentioned that they copied stone
tools from Homo. This isn't such a hard task, both have very similar
morphology, Paranthropus probably even had simple language. When Homo
cracked stones, this should be heard a long distance, so Paranthropus
was probably curious what's going on.
So, regarding slicing meat, you don't need fire for this, nor molars,
if you have stone tools.
Regarding raw meat chemical processing, Tartars would beg to differ.
You say, primate digestive tract is not well adapted to chemically
digest raw meat. How about meat in general (raw or cooked)? Is primate
digestive tract well adapted to chemically digest cooked meat?
How to deal with the competition? Bipedals can do that. Deer has
antlers on its head, tiger has fangs in his head, a bipedal can take an
antler, or a fang in his hand.
See how mighty an animal is, with horns on its tail:
https://youtu.be/VtiDi0N7jRc
I always put two locks on my scooter. Why? A thief needs 5 seconds to
deal with one lock, and 10 seconds to deal with two locks. So, this is
just a 5 seconds difference, what's the big deal?
Well, if a thief can choose one between ten scooters, nine of them
have one lock, and one has two locks, I don't know which one he will
steal, but I do know which one he wouldn't steal.
The same is the case with animals. If one animal can hurt you badly
(by having a horn in his hand), you will tend to avoid it, you would
rather deal with animals that have horns on their heads. Hand is more
mobile, and has a longer reach.
Regarding attacking prey, well, a school of fish can distract
predator, but I don't think that predator will end up hungry. The same
goes with a herd of animals, there is no way every animal in a herd will
escape you.
Besides, you still have ropes. Humans have long hairs. You leave this
long hair on a floor (where you sleep), and after some time, this hair
will accumulate. Just like the hair of dogs, or any other animals. But,
the hair of humans is different, it is much longer. And, after some time
interesting things happen to it. Just like with a dust. If you don't
collect it, after some time it will tend to form a bunch, stick
together. The same way hair behaves, all those individual hairs start to
stick together, start to role, and, even without any particular action
on your side, at your sleeping site you will have ropes naturally formed
out of your hair. You can string shellfish on it. After some time you
learn how to make a knot, so that you can put it around your neck. And
after even more time, you can figure out how to do similar things with
other "stringy" things, like grass, of whatever.

[Peter Nyikos]

I've never seen that happen. Have you?

> You can string shellfish on it. After some time you
> learn how to make a knot, so that you can put it around your neck. And
> after even more time, you can figure out how to do similar things with
> other "stringy" things, like grass, of whatever.

You've made me wonder whether the Naledi actually lowered themselves,
live, to the floor of that otherwise inaccessible cavern room.
Not with ropes, though. With stout vines.

There is a very lively thread going on right now about the Naledi
in sci.anthropology.paleo with Pandora doing most of the heavy lifting.

I told you about it a short while ago on a thread where you
you had done an OP last year on the aquatic ape hypothesis:


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.anthropology.paleo/OPTXjEaCxks/bA3nudzSFgAJ
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <35da70e4-3b6f-472d...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What do you think about my theory of the origins of bipedality?

_______________________ excerpt______________________


On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:41:59 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> What do you, people, think about it?

What I think is that you should have mentioned that Marc Verhaegen
is a huge proponent of the "aquatic ape" hypothesis in sci.anthropology.paleo
and that you are either championing his hypothesis or embellishing it here.

Did you know how far out of favor the "aquatic ape" hypothesis is?
You can find Pandora giving a very detailed critique of it in
reply first to Marc and then to Deden in the thread documented below,
after having gone to some detail in reply to me. Here's Pandora's
next to latest post there:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.anthropology.paleo/Nc49-LB4VnY/HGpEtSS8FgAJ
Subject: Re: Naledi: Dome Huts and something else
Message-ID: <91rl4elqm5jl74sk3...@4ax.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:04:50 +0100


> About what I have
> presented, that exiting the sea is fine (or, the best) explanation of
> our pelvis, of our stiff feet, of our arch?
>
> I wrote to some American and English labs which research
> bipedality. Non responded. I mean, could it be so bad? What's wrong with it?
>
> Thanks

If you didn't mention Verhaegen, who has some publications
about it, they probably didn't think it worth their time
to educate you from square one.

Have you ever tried to float your idea by Verhaegen,
to see what he has to say about it?

In case the name doesn't ring a bell, he is the one who posts as

littor...@gmail.com
============================ end of excerpt==================

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS Verhaegen even posted on that thread once, but gave no sign that
he was aware of your hypothesis. Did he killfile you?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Oh yes. I've seen this a lot. Beside my own bad. Be sure, it's tested,
:) .
Once I gave a caveman doll to my girlfriend. To remind her on me. And
she laughed, yes, this would really remind me on you, she said, :) .
I am not doing this just because I want to act smartly. I was
interested in those things since kindergarten. I grew up like this, I
was always a cave man. Some things I am talking about, I tested on
myself, in my own lifetime.
In this particular case, my mother wanted to force me to clean my room
myself. I didn't do it. Sometimes I payed my sister to clean it up, but
sometimes she didn't want to do it. So, I just left the things as they
were. So, I've seen a lot of those with my own eyes, :) (I had long hair
when I was young, I had "longish" hair during my working age, and now,
as retired, I am back to long hair). It was very educational, as you can
see.
I was never smart looking man of 20th century, I was always a stone
age guy.
Of course, smart looking scientists of 20th century would never ask
such a guy for an opinion about the stone age, lol. Why? Well, what does
he know, lol?

>> You can string shellfish on it. After some time you
>> learn how to make a knot, so that you can put it around your neck. And
>> after even more time, you can figure out how to do similar things with
>> other "stringy" things, like grass, of whatever.
>
> You've made me wonder whether the Naledi actually lowered themselves,
> live, to the floor of that otherwise inaccessible cavern room.
> Not with ropes, though. With stout vines.

Yes, I am intensively thinking about the role of vines on a cliff
surface. Maybe something like grapevine fits into this?

> There is a very lively thread going on right now about the Naledi
> in sci.anthropology.paleo with Pandora doing most of the heavy lifting.
>
> I told you about it a short while ago on a thread where you
> you had done an OP last year on the aquatic ape hypothesis:

Yes, I know. Sorry, I wasn't interested, although I do respect
Pandora, and you. I'll take a look at the excerpt.

Oh no, I know Marc very well, and I am good with him. He is
intelligent guy, helped me as much as he could, he does excellent job in
maintaining AAT Yahoo! group.
Although he doesn't agree with my ideas, he always gives me as much
room as I need in AAT Yahoo! group. Real Dutch man. I don't know how
much you Americans recognize different European nations, but Dutch
people are something special. Extremely good, mild, extremely tolerant
and liberal. They do think a lot about trade business, it is true,
though, :) . BTW, they are the tallest people on Earth (if you didn't
know), :) .
I know very well Marc's stance. I don't think that he is right in
general, although he has some intelligent pieces. I can always learn
from him.
From his point, he also knows me very well (we are good "pals" for
something like 15 years). It is just that we know each other so well,
that there is no point in repeating the same thing over and over again,
so there is not much discussion between two of us. I know him, he knows
me, he has his view, I have mine, he advocates his things, I advocate
mine. He doesn't comment my ideas, probably because there is no need, he
commented those a long time ago, no need to repeat it over and over. We
exchange few words in AAT Yahoo! group when there is a need for it.
So, Peter, this is the global picture of this. I don't know in which
context is your posting? Yes, I am puzzled how little he accepts my idea
(But this doesn't mean that he has something against me. Although, there
were some prominent AAT people that didn't accept me at all, and those
probably did killfile me.) This is because he very much believes in
molecular clock, so, his aquatic phase is fairly recent (like, not older
than 2 mya), while in my view it started something like 15mya.
Regarding Pandora, I am always pleased if she wants to exchange few
words with me. Like with Marc, I always learn something (a lot) from
her. The discussions with her are always smart. She sticks with facts.
She behaves scientifically (I don't know if she actually does some
science), which I always like. People have a view of me, like I have big
imagination, but I actually always stick strictly with facts. It is only
that I interpret those facts differently than what has been accepted.
Pandora's answers are always unbiased, unlike of some other people, who
always express bias towards the accepted, and attack the things that
aren't accepted.
The discussion in this very thread is typical (between me and
Pandora). She taught me some thing (which I am very grateful for), she
is good minded, she asks sane questions. On my part, I take care to
answer those questions, and so far I answered them all (as far as I can
recall). I don't know what does she think of my ideas, but, whatever
question she had, I gave her the answer.

[Daud Deden]

Jesus Christ Mario, don't you know that the dutch are just dwarf German Neanderthals1!???!?

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 25.1.2019. 23:37, Daud Deden wrote:
> Jesus Christ Mario, don't you know that the dutch are just dwarf German Neanderthals1!???!?

Lol.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4:37:10 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 25.1.2019. 20:09, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 5:55:29 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 23.1.2019. 20:40, Pandora wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:41:15 +0100, Mario Petrinovic
> >>> <mario.pe...@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:

> >>>> Graciles used fire (before the arrival of Homo). They didn't use
> >>>> tools, so they chopped off burned meat with their incisors. To digest
> >>>> burned meat they didn't need to have large molars.
> >>>> Robusts competed with Homo. Homo used tools. So, Homo probably had
> >>>> well developed language, hence Homo group was much more competitive than
> >>>> Robust group (they had only simple language). So, while graciles used
> >>>> fire, Robust was afraid of Homo, and couldn't use fire (because Homo
> >>>> would see him, and attack him). But, Robust copied the tool usage from Homo.
> >>>> So, what Robust did? He couldn't use fire, so, instead using incisors
> >>>> to chop off meat (like graciles), he now uses tools (which he copied
> >>> >from Homo) to prepare meat. But, this meat was still raw (because he
> >>>> couldn't use fire anymore), so he had to chew it really hard with his
> >>>> molars to eat it. This is why he got so extremely large molars.

I glossed over this one before. I believe the usual theory is that
the Robust were vegetatians eating very tough material at times, and
that is why they had huge molars. Compare elephants, and various
vegetarian dinosaurs, especially Triceratops. As one popularization
has it, it probably ate "solid wood" as a big part of its diet.
[You see that with elephants, by the way.]

> >>>
> >>> The robust morphology is most pronounced in Paranthropus robustus.

What about Meganthropus? Wikipedia identifies it as a variety (subspecies?) of
Homo erectus, but it was once given its own generic name and compared to
Gigantopithecus because of its huge molars.

Ah, like Iguanodon -- on his hand, that is. Its pollex (thumb) a sharp spike.

> >> you will tend to avoid it, you would
> >> rather deal with animals that have horns on their heads. Hand is more
> >> mobile, and has a longer reach.

That explains IMO why ground sloths invaded North America so successfully
until humans spoiled their fun. With those huge claws, and the ability
to flail with their forelegs while standing on their hind legs, they
must have looked to the native fauna like bears -- some far larger
than the largest bear, so the native fauna would have given them an extra
wide berth. I doubt that even Smilodon dared to attack the bigger ones.

Come to think of it, I may have told you all this before, with
different words.

> >> Regarding attacking prey, well, a school of fish can distract
> >> predator, but I don't think that predator will end up hungry. The same
> >> goes with a herd of animals, there is no way every animal in a herd will
> >> escape you.

Unless you can't make up your mind which one to go for. That's a real problem
with big schools of fish, flocks of birds, etc. who stick close together.

Pilots of fighter aircraft and soldiers firing into big masses of attackers
know the value of "target discipline." With single shot rifles, some
raw or undisciplined soldiers have to be told: PICK YOUR TARGETS,
aim and fire, aim and fire....


Continued in next post, to be done soon after I see that this
one has posted.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4:37:10 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 25.1.2019. 20:09, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 5:55:29 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:


> >> Besides, you still have ropes. Humans have long hairs. You leave this
> >> long hair on a floor (where you sleep), and after some time, this hair
> >> will accumulate. Just like the hair of dogs, or any other animals. But,
> >> the hair of humans is different, it is much longer. And, after some time
> >> interesting things happen to it. Just like with a dust. If you don't
> >> collect it, after some time it will tend to form a bunch, stick
> >> together. The same way hair behaves, all those individual hairs start to
> >> stick together, start to role, and, even without any particular action
> >> on your side, at your sleeping site you will have ropes naturally formed
> >> out of your hair.
> >
> > I've never seen that happen. Have you?
>
> Oh yes. I've seen this a lot. Beside my own bad.

You mean your own bed. You've reminded me of a standard trick for seeing how
good the English pronunciation of a Pole is. Ask one of them to repeat:

I bet there is a bad bat in my bed.

Seems like Poles aren't the only Slavs with trouble repeating it.
There are also Polish words/sentences that give English speakers
a hard time, but I doubt that you native language runs quite
as many consonants together as Polish.

> Be sure, it's tested,
> :) .

How tightly twisted are the 'ropes'? Wouldn't 'threads' be a better word?
Thin ones at that, able to fit thru the eye of a needle if tightly twisted.

> Once I gave a caveman doll to my girlfriend. To remind her on me. And
> she laughed, yes, this would really remind me on you, she said, :) .
> I am not doing this just because I want to act smartly. I was
> interested in those things since kindergarten. I grew up like this, I
> was always a cave man. Some things I am talking about, I tested on
> myself, in my own lifetime.



Be sure, it's tested,
> :) .
> Once I gave a caveman doll to my girlfriend. To remind her on me. And
> she laughed, yes, this would really remind me on you, she said, :) .
> I am not doing this just because I want to act smartly. I was
> interested in those things since kindergarten. I grew up like this, I
> was always a cave man. Some things I am talking about, I tested on
> myself, in my own lifetime.
> In this particular case, my mother wanted to force me to clean my room
> myself. I didn't do it. Sometimes I payed my sister to clean it up, but
> sometimes she didn't want to do it. So, I just left the things as they
> were. So, I've seen a lot of those with my own eyes, :) (I had long hair
> when I was young, I had "longish" hair during my working age, and now,
> as retired, I am back to long hair). It was very educational, as you can
> see.
> I was never smart looking man of 20th century, I was always a stone
> age guy.

Were you rough and tough enough to have been thought as one in a hippie
commune of the 1960's?

> Of course, smart looking scientists of 20th century would never ask
> such a guy for an opinion about the stone age, lol. Why? Well, what does
> he know, lol?

Except that a lot of smart (i.e. brilliant) scientists aren't "smart"
(well dressed and neat). Think of Einstein. Fairly long unkempt hair, and
sloppily dressed, especially in his older years.

> >> You can string shellfish on it. After some time you
> >> learn how to make a knot, so that you can put it around your neck. And
> >> after even more time, you can figure out how to do similar things with
> >> other "stringy" things, like grass, of whatever.
> >
> > You've made me wonder whether the Naledi actually lowered themselves,
> > live, to the floor of that otherwise inaccessible cavern room.
> > Not with ropes, though. With stout vines.
>
> Yes, I am intensively thinking about the role of vines on a cliff
> surface. Maybe something like grapevine fits into this?

Yes, but I'll have to check whether grapes are native to Africa.
There are some native to North America, but they are noticeably
different from European grapes. Tough skins, different flavor.

Except for Concord grapes, they don't form big tight clusters.
Others, called Muscadines (not to be confused with Old World Muscat)
grow wild in the woods of South Carolina, and closely related
ones, called Scuppernongs, are cultivated, and made into wine.
But the flavor is not very suitable for accompanying sharp cheese or meats.
It's best as a dessert wine, like Tokay or some sweet Muscat wine,
especially some fortified like Port.

It's best as a dessert wine, like Tokay or some sweet Muscat wine,
especially some fortified like Port.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, hopefully tomorrow.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Thanks, excellent. The response like this is why I am discussing
things on the Net.
Well, I think that it is better explained here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus#Diet
Start with Australopithecus. They didn't eat such a food. So, if two
options are possible, the option that is closer to Australopithecus
should be more probable.
Second thing, it is true that this was C4 food, and actually, there is
no way around it. It means, open space plants, or animals that eat those
plants. So, this leaves you only with grass, or grazers.
And the last, the lack of fractures. This would exclude grass. So,
that leaves only grazers.
So, in general, what we have, the facts, are pretty in tune with what
I propose. I may not be right, but my proposition should be valid, and
should be researched, not to be neglected. Unless there is some
conclusive argument against it.

Uh, excellent. I was searching for a good example, this is excellent
example.

>>>> you will tend to avoid it, you would
>>>> rather deal with animals that have horns on their heads. Hand is more
>>>> mobile, and has a longer reach.
>
> That explains IMO why ground sloths invaded North America so successfully
> until humans spoiled their fun. With those huge claws, and the ability
> to flail with their forelegs while standing on their hind legs, they
> must have looked to the native fauna like bears -- some far larger
> than the largest bear, so the native fauna would have given them an extra
> wide berth. I doubt that even Smilodon dared to attack the bigger ones.
>
> Come to think of it, I may have told you all this before, with
> different words.

If you did, I already forgot (I am more confused than I look like).
Yes, great example. But, you know, my theory is that the ecology
before was much more wet than it is today, much more marshy, and that
those sabre-tooths were aquatic predators (for this theory I have very
conclusive evidence, so this is probably 100% true). But, some other cat
can attack these creatures from behind (actually, Smilodon does the same
thing in water).
While we are at that, it could be that Smilodon actually dived after
its prey. This would assure his silence.
So, sabre-toothed cat noticed prey crossing water, he slides silently
into water (crocodile style), at the "diving reach" he dives. Upon
reaching prey, he grabs the prey with his fore pawns, opens jaw, sticks
his lower canines at the base of prey's skull (to fixate it), and
finally sticks upper canines through prey's eyeballs.

>>>> Regarding attacking prey, well, a school of fish can distract
>>>> predator, but I don't think that predator will end up hungry. The same
>>>> goes with a herd of animals, there is no way every animal in a herd will
>>>> escape you.
>
> Unless you can't make up your mind which one to go for. That's a real problem
> with big schools of fish, flocks of birds, etc. who stick close together.
>
> Pilots of fighter aircraft and soldiers firing into big masses of attackers
> know the value of "target discipline." With single shot rifles, some
> raw or undisciplined soldiers have to be told: PICK YOUR TARGETS,
> aim and fire, aim and fire....

I presume that even simple language would help in preparation of the hunt.
Per my view, those creatures should have simple language (Homo should
have language well developed).
Besides, my view is that bipedals, starting 9.7 mya, did extinct
Miocene apes (other than them, those living in woods). They did this by
burning individual trees with apes on them. Something like when chimps
do hunting. They surround a tree, and burn it (chimps don't burn, but
the animals they hunt are smaller than them). Those Miocene apes had
problems to cross from tree to tree (just like orangutan has). Only the
biggest ones, like Giganthopithecus, managed to survive. Or, those
living in humid rain forests, where burning is difficult.

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 30.1.2019. 0:21, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4:37:10 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 25.1.2019. 20:09, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 5:55:29 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>
>>>> Besides, you still have ropes. Humans have long hairs. You leave this
>>>> long hair on a floor (where you sleep), and after some time, this hair
>>>> will accumulate. Just like the hair of dogs, or any other animals. But,
>>>> the hair of humans is different, it is much longer. And, after some time
>>>> interesting things happen to it. Just like with a dust. If you don't
>>>> collect it, after some time it will tend to form a bunch, stick
>>>> together. The same way hair behaves, all those individual hairs start to
>>>> stick together, start to role, and, even without any particular action
>>>> on your side, at your sleeping site you will have ropes naturally formed
>>>> out of your hair.
>>>
>>> I've never seen that happen. Have you?
>>
>> Oh yes. I've seen this a lot. Beside my own bad.
>
> You mean your own bed. You've reminded me of a standard trick for seeing how
> good the English pronunciation of a Pole is. Ask one of them to repeat:
>
> I bet there is a bad bat in my bed.
>
> Seems like Poles aren't the only Slavs with trouble repeating it.
> There are also Polish words/sentences that give English speakers
> a hard time, but I doubt that you native language runs quite
> as many consonants together as Polish.

Oh no, Poles are unique in that, lol.
But, for us Slavs, you English people turn everything around, so we
are all confused (BTW, I can read the above sentence without problems,
the only problem there is bad-bed, but this is the problem only in
writing it, I can read it correctly. Bet-bat is exactly how I speak it
in my language, I wouldn't have problems, nor at writing, or at reading it.)
When I was in London, I took a taxi to Buckingham Palace. So, I
thought, I am going to B"A"ckingham Palace. Since it is the "A" (I
confused how it is written to how it is spoken), this should be
pronounced like "E", so I said to the taxi driver, take me to
B"E"ckingham Palace. The guy didn't know what the heck I am talking
about. I thought, well, this is the worldwide known place, and this guy
doesn't know what the heck I am talking about, something is wrong here.
Thankfully, there were my nieces with me, so it didn't take us long to
understand each other, :) .
So, here you turn an "U" into an "A". I was in London, which is
pronounced something like Landn (notice the three consonants together,
;) ). So, here you turn "O" into "A". (Interestingly, Londinium you
pronounce with "O", :) .)
So, you turn a lot of things into "A", except the "A" itself, which
you turn into "E", and "E" you turn into "I". Jesus Christ, one Slav
should be properly confused, lol.

>> Be sure, it's tested,
>> :) .
>
> How tightly twisted are the 'ropes'? Wouldn't 'threads' be a better word?
> Thin ones at that, able to fit thru the eye of a needle if tightly twisted.

Yes, threads would be the word for hair threads. But later it would
develop into ropes (of some other material). After all, don't women (and
Vikings, :) ) do plaits out of their hair (which is still on their
heads, coincidentally, :) ).

>> Once I gave a caveman doll to my girlfriend. To remind her on me. And
>> she laughed, yes, this would really remind me on you, she said, :) .
>> I am not doing this just because I want to act smartly. I was
>> interested in those things since kindergarten. I grew up like this, I
>> was always a cave man. Some things I am talking about, I tested on
>> myself, in my own lifetime.
>> In this particular case, my mother wanted to force me to clean my room
>> myself. I didn't do it. Sometimes I payed my sister to clean it up, but
>> sometimes she didn't want to do it. So, I just left the things as they
>> were. So, I've seen a lot of those with my own eyes, :) (I had long hair
>> when I was young, I had "longish" hair during my working age, and now,
>> as retired, I am back to long hair). It was very educational, as you can
>> see.
>> I was never smart looking man of 20th century, I was always a stone
>> age guy.
>
> Were you rough and tough enough to have been thought as one in a hippie
> commune of the 1960's?

I would presume so. I was the toughest and roughest of my bunch, and
this was some post-hippie bunch, so go figure. But this bunch was
civilized, I did know some squatters also, but those were a bit rougher
than me (but I was closer to them than to my bunch, in appearance).
Something like on this photo (like the three on the right):
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/HjRjQOiOZaQg8g8-YOKw1QQjVlE%3D/0x0:2048x1329/1200x800/filters:focal(861x502:1187x828)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/54585321/GettyImages_97218067.0.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.curbed.com/2017/5/2/15517922/squatting-housing-rights-lower-east-side&h=800&w=1200&tbnid=NjC7uxXpuOAhgM:&q=squatters&tbnh=133&tbnw=200&usg=AI4_-kS3LH5aqjYGQlGLUTimAz4SptF4aQ&vet=12ahUKEwji3JW2rpXgAhUR1uAKHVKdAx0Q_B0wHXoECAEQBg..i&docid=hPC_pyaxEFIMtM&itg=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji3JW2rpXgAhUR1uAKHVKdAx0Q_B0wHXoECAEQBg#h=800&imgdii=7xfKWmYOqbPr8M:&tbnh=133&tbnw=200&vet=12ahUKEwji3JW2rpXgAhUR1uAKHVKdAx0Q_B0wHXoECAEQBg..i&w=1200
This is post-hippie culture. I was a bit rougher than those three. The
thing is that I had an anti-materialistic philosophy, and actually,
anti-smart looking philosophy. I bought some completely used jacket from
military stock. This jacket was worn by cooks in army, and it was so
worn off that threads were hanging down from it. Something like this
one, only that one didn't have those artificially made holes:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/2018-Fashion-vintage-washed-denim-jacket-worn-out-embroidered-wings-denim-jacket-female-loose-zip-pocket/32854940646.html
I didn't cut off those threads, the police thought that I am squatter.
But I did wash it (from time to time). This was, like, at the end of
'70s. Later this "style" became very popular, lol. I would never wear
this artificial kitsch of today, naturally worn threads look much, much
better, but nobody wear clothes so long to develop natural threads. I
didn't either, I bought mine from army stock, lol.
The same thing is with jeans, it has to bleach naturally (yes, I did
wear jeans until it bleached naturally, but it doesn't take so long).
Bleached jeans also became popular later, lol. But this is, again,
artificial garbage, :) .
Interestingly, I was also probably the first one to wear waist bags.
But those weren't like of today, those were military, like this:
https://www.njuskalo.hr/militarija/jna-vojni-opasac-dvije-fiseklije-oglas-10514837
I would never wear those modern ones, :) .
One friend of mine told me that I look like the guy on this photo
(this is the exaggeration for more than one reason, although, at times I
really did look close to that guy):
https://www.amazon.com/Aqualung-Bonus-Tracks-JETHRO-TULL/dp/B00000GAIW
My nickname was Jesus, because, supposedly, I looked like him. One day
the best friend of mine came to classroom, and started to kneel, bent in
front of me, singing this part:
https://youtu.be/zwLBaBeo1k4?t=498
So, it stuck, :) .
Interestingly, once I met Chris Novoselic (the bassist of Nirvana). He
is a Croatian. He even recorded me singing "In The Pines". We talked
about album "The Man Who Sold The World" (it was me who started the talk
about the album, but he quickly accepted, obviously being interested in
it from before). All those are prominent elements in their unplugged
concert. At the time Nirvana wasn't popular yet, but they were very
popular in the Seattle area, said Novoselic. I thought that he is
selling stories, but it turned out he was right, lol.
I was pretty radical, energic and anarchic, I really stuck out of the
bunch (which was interesting for other people, including Novoselic), and
I always thought that this video is actually inspired by my lifestyle
(honestly, Chris didn't look like he is living this way, the singer
probably was):
https://youtu.be/hTWKbfoikeg
In short, I didn't like to go to school, and all this modern crap, I
was striving for the style of living of American Indians, and following
my instincts rather than if somebody traces my path, something like this:
https://youtu.be/dXlAgg3zXmk
This completely matches '60s hippies, only, this was post hippie. Neil
Young was our role model, or, Lennon 1968 jeans incarnation. These were
actually hippies of '70s, grown up hippies, not fashion hippies, plaid
shirt, not dyed, but still a lot of psychedelic bits.
When you combine all this, this would be it:
https://youtu.be/An2a1_Do_fc

>> Of course, smart looking scientists of 20th century would never ask
>> such a guy for an opinion about the stone age, lol. Why? Well, what does
>> he know, lol?
>
> Except that a lot of smart (i.e. brilliant) scientists aren't "smart"
> (well dressed and neat). Think of Einstein. Fairly long unkempt hair, and
> sloppily dressed, especially in his older years.

Did he said that he didn't allow his education to stand on the way of
his progress? (or something)

>>>> You can string shellfish on it. After some time you
>>>> learn how to make a knot, so that you can put it around your neck. And
>>>> after even more time, you can figure out how to do similar things with
>>>> other "stringy" things, like grass, of whatever.
>>>
>>> You've made me wonder whether the Naledi actually lowered themselves,
>>> live, to the floor of that otherwise inaccessible cavern room.
>>> Not with ropes, though. With stout vines.
>>
>> Yes, I am intensively thinking about the role of vines on a cliff
>> surface. Maybe something like grapevine fits into this?
>
> Yes, but I'll have to check whether grapes are native to Africa.
> There are some native to North America, but they are noticeably
> different from European grapes. Tough skins, different flavor.
>
> Except for Concord grapes, they don't form big tight clusters.
> Others, called Muscadines (not to be confused with Old World Muscat)
> grow wild in the woods of South Carolina, and closely related
> ones, called Scuppernongs, are cultivated, and made into wine.
> But the flavor is not very suitable for accompanying sharp cheese or meats.
> It's best as a dessert wine, like Tokay or some sweet Muscat wine,
> especially some fortified like Port.
>
> It's best as a dessert wine, like Tokay or some sweet Muscat wine,
> especially some fortified like Port.

I don't have knowledge on that. I do see some vines hanging from
cliffs in jungle. Those can be useful for climbing. Since we were
primates, it wouldn't be strange that some plant uses us to spread its
seeds.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:46:58 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 30.1.2019. 0:21, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4:37:10 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 25.1.2019. 20:09, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > You've reminded me of a standard trick for seeing how
> > good the English pronunciation of a Pole is. Ask one of them to repeat:
> >
> > I bet there is a bad bat in my bed.
> >
> > Seems like Poles aren't the only Slavs with trouble repeating it.
> > There are also Polish words/sentences that give English speakers
> > a hard time, but I doubt that you native language runs quite
> > as many consonants together as Polish.
>
> Oh no, Poles are unique in that, lol.
> But, for us Slavs, you English people turn everything around, so we
> are all confused (BTW, I can read the above sentence without problems,
> the only problem there is bad-bed, but this is the problem only in
> writing it, I can read it correctly. Bet-bat is exactly how I speak it
> in my language,

Like in every Slav language, it seems. Germans also have a tendency
to pronounce "d" at the end of a word like "t". Magyars OTOH have no
trouble with the difference.

> I wouldn't have problems, nor at writing, or at reading it.)
> When I was in London, I took a taxi to Buckingham Palace. So, I
> thought, I am going to B"A"ckingham Palace.

The A in your language? The A in Magyar is like that too. The English "u"
as in "butter" is a little bit different. There is nothing quite like it in
Magyar, German, or Spanish.

> Since it is the "A"

Huh? It's Buckingham palace, you know. Pronounced "Bucking'm" Palace"
by the Brits, although Americans pronounce the whole word.

Brits shorten a lot of words when spoken. The most notorious
example is Cholomondley, pronounced "Chumly". And Worchester
is pronounced Wooster, to rhyme with Rooster.

> (I confused how it is written to how it is spoken), this should be
> pronounced like "E", so I said to the taxi driver, take me to
> B"E"ckingham Palace.

That's way off, if the E is anything like in Magyar. Also
the Magyar E' [that should be an acute accent over the E]
is like the German E and is therefore also way off.

> The guy didn't know what the heck I am talking
> about. I thought, well, this is the worldwide known place, and this guy
> doesn't know what the heck I am talking about, something is wrong here.
> Thankfully, there were my nieces with me, so it didn't take us long to
> understand each other, :) .
> So, here you turn an "U" into an "A". I was in London, which is
> pronounced something like Landn (notice the three consonants together,
> ;) ). So, here you turn "O" into "A". (Interestingly, Londinium you
> pronounce with "O", :) .)
> So, you turn a lot of things into "A",

...often in connection with "R" as in "bird," "tern," "turn,"
and there are over a dozen more like that, including "myrrh," and weirdest
of all: "colonel" is pronounced the same way as "kernel".

The English spelling system is by far the worst in the world,
yet English is the most dominant second language in the world.
British imperialism is probably mostly to blame for that.

> except the "A" itself, which
> you turn into "E", and "E" you turn into "I".

You seem to be talking about the *names* of the letters here.
Like B is named Bee, C is named Cee, D is named Dee
E is named Ee (long) but then it gets more random: F is named Eff,
H is named Aich", I is named Eye, J is named Jay, ...
L is named Ell, ... R is named Ar, W is named "Double You"
NOT "Double Vee"... Y is named "Why" and Z is named Zed
in the British Commonwealth, but Zee in the USA.

> Jesus Christ, one Slav
> should be properly confused, lol.

Slavs, yes. Magyars too, but not always in the same way.


Peter Nyikos

[Mario Petrinovic]

In essence, we are talking here about vowels. In my language there are
five vowels: a, e, i, o, u. I noticed that you don't "change" (compared
to my language) the pronunciation of those when you put double
consonants after them. So, in these occasions should be (although I am
not 100% sure, maybe this isn't quite like that, it works for Ann,
that's for sure) how I consider the "right" pronunciation of those: ann,
enn, inn, onn, unn.
So, you would make much easier life to a Slav if you would retain the
same pronunciation all the way around, ;) .
Now you can understand what I mean when I say that you change "a" into
"e", "e" into "i", and so on. Just read those vowels with "nn" after,
and without "nn".

[Mario Petrinovic]

See, pronounce Idaho and Indiana. It's the same bloody "i", for god's
sake. Why do you make the life of Slavs miserable, ;) .
https://youtu.be/nxxSIX3fmmo