Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question

Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1122949077.354654.184550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Actually, Binford lists 17 sites in his book review of the above work.
> > His table 1 shows 17 for 17 (also 100%) association
> > of tool sites with bones. This does not mean all associations are from
> > human actions of course, but merely confirms my statement above: "Tools
> > are found consistently in association with terrestrial animals" (as
> > opposed to seashells etc., which was what I was referring to in the
> > discussion with Marc).
>
> English is clearly not your native language.
> The sentence: "Tools are found consistently in
> association with terrestrial animals" is clear in
> itself (and at no point did you mention sea-shells).

Thank you for demonstrating you don't have a clue as to what a thread
is, because you don't understand that any better than you do English.
This thread contains more than one post made my me, something you
obviously have not been following and did not comprehend what was being
argued. I do not have to re-qualify each and every word that has been
previously stated in other posts. People like yourself, who take
statements out of the context and try to make a word-police game out
of the discussion are just plain dishonest.


> It's either right or it's wrong -- and, at least, you
> seem to have grasped that it is wrong.



Like everything else, you have that just backwards, you haven't
falsified my statement yet.


>
> > > > next to lakes/seas or away from them. Homo was
> > > > exploiting savanna animals
> > >
> > > Foolish nonsense. Of course, homo
> > > butchered the occasional savanna animal.
> > > But to suggest that homo lived off them
> > > as a matter in routine,
> >
> > >From One Look Dictionary:
> > Exploit: "use or manipulate to one's advantage."
> > It seems impossible that anyone could get from "exploited" to "But to
> > suggest that homo lived off them
>
> Once again, your unfamiliarity with English is
> letting you down. All native speakers know
> what is meant by 'exploit' and don't need to
> use dictionaries.

Now you know more than the dictionary, just like you know more about
where tools are found better than Isaac. You are sick.


Your sentence "Homo was
> exploiting savanna animals" is, in itself, clear
> and unambiguous -- and, taken in any normal
> sense, manifestly wrong (as you now seem to
> be admitting).

You have that just backwards, you haven't falsified my statement yet.


>
> > as a matter in routine." Who said "lived off them"? Who said
> > "routine"? They may have been exploiting the bones for tendons or
> > digging sticks for all anybody knows, many were shaped by percussion
> > into pointed ends at MNK (Olduvai). Some of the bones have been smashed
> > to get at the marrow, but that really isn't saying they were living
> > "off them." I would normally suggest at this point for a person to go
> > back and read for comprehension, but that would be a waste of time in
> > your case, since you are not capable of comprehension; instead, best
> > check yourself into the nearest mental insitution.
>
> You have many problems of comprehension
> (apart from your unfamiliarity with the English
> language) but the most serious derives from
> your adherence to the ancient 'Savanna Theory'.
> Let me explain the basics.


You, who don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis
and now you are going to explain the savanna THEORY(???) to me?
ROTFLMAO.



The savanna grows
> grass, and not much else (the few trees can be
> ignored). The species that live there, are either
> grass-eaters (herbivorous), or prey on grass-
> eaters. It has been recognised for some time
> that hominids don't fit into either category.
> And that was the principal reason (among many,
> many others) that the Savanna Theory died.

The only thing that has died is your brain.


>
> > > and could compete
> > > successfully with their usual predators
> > > (lions, hyenas. etc.) is next to insane.
> >
> > You just got through saying above "Stone tools are found in all
> > sorts of places." So who do you think (since Homo couldn't compete in
> > your feeble mind) carried in all the stone tools found in the same
> > areas as the lions teeth, and amongst the giant-glenda bones, the
> > lions or the baboons?
>
> The stone tools in such locations are
> IMHO

Your opinion is worthless, what counts is the evidence something which
you have demonstrated you know nothing about.




roughly similar to the rusting tanks
> and expended munitions in various deserts
> in the world. No one believes that people
> lived in such places.



Who said anything about deserts???? How did you get from savanna to
deserts? You are being dishonest again, something at which you do
excel. Why did you avoid the question? "So who do you think (since Homo
couldn't compete in
your feeble mind) carried in all the stone tools found in the same
areas as the lions teeth, and amongst the giant-glenda bones, the
lions or the baboons?" Was the question too tough for you?



But that's where they
> often had big battles.


Yes, battles with the savanna dwelling fauna, the giant glendas lost.


>
> Or such sites may have been temporary and
> seasonal camping grounds for hunting, each
> used by a local tribes over hundreds or thousands
> of years (and appearing as simultaneous in the
> fossil record). Or they might have had some
> other origin.


"May have been" is evidence of your imagination run amuck.



>
> > > > Homo was fixed as a savanna dweller
> > >
> > > Ridiculous. How did homo infants and
> > > children survive at night in the presence
> > > of enormous numbers of nocturnal
> > > predators.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/bykw2
> > "Lions are considered a threat to cattle, which are enclosed in
> > protective bomas of thorn at night."
> > Cattle can be protected, but Homo babies can't? (Lord, where do idiots
> > like Crowley come from?)
>
> Cattle-herding does not date back to the
> stone-age.


I didn't say it did, can't you comprehend anything?



It is a relatively recent form of
> life, when homo had fire and advanced
> weaponry, such as knives with which they
> could readily cut down thorn bushes, and
> construct such boma.


Use wear studies say plant residues have been found on stone tools as
well as meat polish.


Even so, such tribes
> have only moved onto savanna in recent
> decades. There would have been no good
> reason for a tribe to live in such a location
> at any earlier time, because they would have
> had nothing to eat. As I explain above that
> kind of territory provides a living only for
> grass-eaters and predators of grass-eaters.

Answer the question:
"Cattle can be protected, but Homo babies can't?"



>
>
> > > (or, more likely, weapons) accumulated in
> > > such places over a few million years.
> >
> > Wrong for the last time (only because that is where you ended your
> > post).
> > At most of sites above, the tools were found on individual land
> > surfaces, with the scatter of artifacts only one layer deep. This
> > suggests a very limited time of use. Each individual site-find then,
> > was not deposited over "a few million years."
>
> Sure. Each site was probably pretty
> much the remainder of a battlefield.


A battlefield 16 m in diameter with a hippo in the middle and artifacts
that were chipped on the spot? Yes, the hippo lost the battle.


>
>
> Paul.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
    ... > of tool sites with bones. ... Of course, homo ... >> butchered the occasional savanna animal. ... exploiting savanna animals" is, in itself, clear ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Hn Gibraltar
    ... bones, and 3 fish bones from Mousterian layers in 2 caves on Gibraltar. ... Shore Adaptations in the genus Homo ... -late puberty & long life span (opposite of savanna mammals), ... -fatness (typical of species that spend a lot oftime in water), ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
    ... > bones of animals is not much better than ... tools with animal bones was nine for nine, ... Homo was ... > butchered the occasional savanna animal. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedal P & G
    ... mountain beavers are semi-aquatic animals, by all means see TREE 2002. ... bones = savanna living niche. ... inland Homo along the rivers had to get the little bit of bone marrow ... littoral animals & no savanna animals at all, of course, although a very few ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Tobias is open to AAT Re: afarensis = fossil Homo species?
    ... have more in common than australopithecines and Pan/Gorilla." ... physiologically impossible that our ancestors ever were savanna dwellers. ... Water & sodium scarce on the savanna? ... Few Homo teeth at Olorgesailie, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)