Re: Study shows apes can plan ahead

Paul Crowley wrote:

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1148205602.107929.301700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Paul Crowley wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm

As most around here know, modern PA is a
'science' that has gone backwards for the past
150 years. One of the things that Darwin knew,
(which modern PA does not) is that one of
the most distinguishing characteristics of the
hominid line is its constant and habitual use
of tools and weapons.

Uh, well Paul, honestly, modern PA seems to have no problem at all with
the supposition that early hominids were tool using.

On the contrary, many PAs (and my
impression is "most PAs") believe that early

Cite or list some. Prove this claim.

hominids did not use tools or weapons.

This is from a post here of last week (16 May):

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147811570.257107.122810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
" . . . There are numerous sites where items as small as grass roots are
preserved, spears and digging sticks should be there if there were any.
Once Homo habilis arrives and later Acheulean, then woodworking
residues are found on some tools. Olduvai has some convincing examples
of pointed bones that were obviously sharpened; these could be argued
to be digging sticks. But this is all long after the first stone tools
show up. . . ."

Please explain how the above passage denies early tool use???? It CITES it!

You are ascribing a minimal level of intelligence
to PA people. That is quite wrong -- hopelessly
wrong. It is impossible to plumb the depths of
their stupidity. Its extent is an unending source
of astonishment.

But you just posted an excerpt that you claimed denied tool use, when
it did the opposite...

In fact, like
yourself, they seem to view this supposition as a theoretical panacea.
Unfortunately, like yourself, they are dickheads with respect to the
very obvious fact that humans are--first and foremost--social animals.

Sure -- but then that applies to numerous
animals, including all our primate cousins.
We could hardly be anything else.

Communalism underlies human origins, you jackass. Tool usage is
coorelated, but not causal. Go figure.

The use of bone and muscle underlies human
origins. You can state thousands of such
tautologies. But when you are looking for the
cause of a radical change in morphology, you
need a radical change in behaviour. Tool (and
weapon) use provides that. There was nothing
particularly new in the "degree of sociality"

How does it provide that? Show the steps supported by the archaeological
record...

It's not like it isn't obvious to any intelligent person that considers
the facts.

Darwin also knew that this characteristic was
the basis of bipedalism.

Darwin, blah blah blah. Who cares what Darwin thought.

Darwin was about the last intelligent person
in this field. Since him, there has been a line
of near-total dopes.

Before you go
dropping the D word consider the fact that Mr. D live over a hundred
years ago and his main opponents believed that the origin of species
was described by the first chapter of the bible.

Agreed. But the fact is that there has been no
progress since Darwin. In fact, the 'science'
has gone backwards and forgotten nearly all
he told them.

But life in the
trees is not compatible with the retention of
tools and weapons. It is very hard to keep or
carry them while climbing or sleeping in a tree.

Nonsense. Paul, you seem incapable of comprehending that, originally,
we are talking about chimps here. If maintaining weapons--carrying
sleeping etc.--was a major requirement (as you claim) then human
evolution would never have happened.

Read the evidence. Chimps and other primates
are highly intelligent. They CAN plan ahead.
Tool use (and retention) was the one thing
that allowed our ancestors to begin to make
the huge jump.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4996942.stm

Give it up, dimwit. Why don't you specifically address the objections I
had to your scenario. This "evidence" changes nothing.

What objections? (I note the care you
take not to mention any.)

You've just lost the only one you had.

Paul.
.