Re: Explain 'Little Lucy's deposition?

Paul Crowley wrote:
snip

STILL no answer.
Your religion is: 'Never Answer'.

Listen close you idiot, you asked a question in the negative. If
something is "unstated" it doesn't exist. How would anyone know what
someone else didn't state? Now you claim to be psychic also?


snip

You now routinely snip the questions you
can't answer.

Of course, put the question in the positive and you might get an
answer.

snip

Yet, it seems -- according to you -- everyone
in the world should refrain from answering
it, until they have heard what I have to say
about something else.

You were the one that injected in something about something else.
There is no evidence that Lucy buried her dead, you are the only person
in the world that has made the claim. The whole world is wrong but you,
right? The burden then is on you to show evidence that she did. Your
subterfuge about taxons does not generate evidence.



There can be no answer because you failed to demonstrate Lucy occupied
the same niche as Homo,

My question is about taxa -- not about
niches. You now seem to maintain that
Lucy and Homo are not the same taxon.

I seem to maintain that Lucy did not bury her dead. Taxon makes Lucy
Homo? You are insane.


nor is there any evidence that Lucy was continuous or directly ancestral to Homo.

Lucy does not _have_ to be "continuous or
directly ancestral to Homo" -- although there
are plenty of good reasons for thinking she
was close -- or close enough for our purposes.
Only a total fool would rely on the 'absence
of proof' as a dodge to my question.

No, close enough for your purpose, not mine. Lucy is no Homo, period.


You have assumed a conclusion and then jumped to the next
level based only on imagination.

Since virtually every competent scientist in
the field accepts the 'conclusion' -- at least
as likely theory, I am not concerned. You
probably do so yourself -- except when you
need to dodge a question.

So the whole world should skip the scientific method and rely on
Crowley's imagination for answers? What if someone else's imagination
disagrees with your imagination? You are now locked in an endless
circular-loop until someone produces evidence. Where is it?



snip

That's almost right. You are getting the
point -- slowly, but steadily. The niche
dictates the behaviour, and (to a large
extent) the morphology. Hominids became
bipedal because they switched to a new
niche -- very different from that of their
chimp ancestors.

No, you aren't even close to right. Just because you say something is
so, does not make it so. Lucy did not occupy the same niche as Homo.

If Lucy occupied a different niche, then
there should have been no competition.
Her remarkably successful species should
have continued to prosper. Where are
they -- or their descendants? (I know
what you are going to say. You will
declare that they went extinct -- and they
went extinct because they knew that's
what Lee Olsen would want to say.)

Science, Feb. 15, 2002 page 1214. Chronology of Fossil Hominids:
A. afarensis --------- Homo ?
If you know more about this subject than the scientists, why don't
you write a nice letter to Science and tell them they are crazy and you
alone are not?



Then next, because there is an unbroken chain,
back to that LCA, chimps should also be burying their dead, but they
don't.
snip

Maybe Lucy did move around more than
chimps -- but early hominids were not
good at locomotion. In fact, they were
MUCH slower than chimps and, if anything,
even less efficient than them.

So chimps outran the stench of their dead, and Lucy buried hers because
she was slower?


snip
You know, and I know, and everyone knows
that archaeologists NEVER have a problem
with dead thorns. Live ones can be a real
pain, but once they are out of the way,
that's it.

If they were the way you so ignorantly
believe, there would be tangles of dead
thorns in almost every cubic centimetre
of excavated earth.

Repeating your stupidity will not make it true. Never having a problem
with "tangles of dead thorns" is not the same as never being able
to find the evidence that they once existed.
Archaeologists do not have a problem being attacked by saber-toothed
cats in excavations either, because they no longer exist in the same
form as they did when they were alive.


snip

You are of course referring to the KNM-WT 15000 skeleton.
I'm starting to feel sorry for you. How do you think the Homo people
were able to fake the depression in which most of the teeth were found?

In the million odd years, hippos DID trample
over the ground. At some point one footprint
was made and the fossil got into it. That
could have been thousands (or perhaps
hundreds of thousands of years) after burial.

Ah, how did they dig this nice grave and not destroy the imprint? If
the ground surface existed to dig a grave into it, then the prints were
already covered over before they started. It means 15000 companions
would have to excavate the imprint in order to fill it with teeth.


This depression was thought to be the footprint of a large animal,
since other footprints are found at that same level No rocks, no
thorns, but plenty of tiny sponges and broken fish bones. In fact,
everything one would expect to find in slow moving over-bank

It was not an uncontaminated crime scene.
It was a place where a couple of million
years of events had taken place.

You poor babbling fool. The same thing happened with 15000 as at
Laetoli, except those prints were covered with ash. At 15000 silt from
slow moving flood waters covered the bones, after they were scattered
and the teeth fell into the animal track. Very simple for anyone to
understand. But you are not an anyone are you? You know far more about
it than the excavators, and you don't even have to read the site
report. Simply amazing.



floodwaters that covered the badly decomposed and somewhat scattered
body. The secondary nature of the skeleton disproves deliberate burial.
It rotted apart and separated before it was buried by the flood.

There is no evidence that either of these hominids died from drowning.
You made it up. You make up any lie you have to in order to make an
argument.

That's the usual cause of death for those
caught up in a flood. How do you think
they died? Sorry, silly question. Any
question directed at you is silly. There
is NO possibility of an answer. You are
incapable of thought. If there was an
answer in a book, you might manage to
repeat it. But authors of PA books avoid
this question -- for obvious reasons.

Liar, they did not avoid the question. You avoided reading the report.


<big snip>

You are confusing biological traits with cultural traits. Technology of
stone tool manufacture shows up literally overnight (geologically
speaking),

How else would you expect it to show up?

Exotic rock should have been the first expected clue found with early
hominid fossils.



but burials did not.

The nature of fossil finds would make
evidence of burial hard to see.

Just because an untrained, uneducated dimwit like you would miss a
burial, doesn't mean a scientist would.



But the
real problem is that doctrine can make
you quite blind. How many AMH Homo
skulls do you think there are (before, say,
40 kya)? How many finds of AMH post-
crania?

Try a Google search, there are some pretty good summaries for the
African skeletal material. Then report back.



Neither Lucy or early Homo buried
their dead. Evidence for burials show up just as suddenly as stone
tools.

How did this 'burial fashion' (or 'efficient and
hygienic disposal of corpses fashion') then
instantly spread throughout the world to every
remote Hss tribe? Did Hss use the internet?
Was an AMH form of Hollywood involved?

Instantly relative to the 3,000,000 years that preceded this event that
has zero evidence for such behavior. Understand? No, you are not
remotely capable of understanding anything except what you imagine.



Evidence for thorns, rock cairns, tombstones is as easy as
demonstrating the sky is blue. Except to a uneducated creationist like
yourself who simply, in his delusional mind, invents the chosen facts
to suit his fancy.

It would be far too generous to call this
doctrine half-witted. A five-year-old child
could point out its defects.

With your vivid imagination, I'll bet you could come up with all sorts
of imagined defects. You imagine evidence, and then you imagine what
you imagine is reality.




Same as above. First you argue for Lucy burials, then you tell us they
didn't have fire like the Neandertals

Fire is a _difficult_ technology. If you were
put naked into a desert, you'd die of cold
at night long before you'd get a fire going.

Fire is not a difficult technology at all. You can get fire for free,
started by lightning, in a woodland. You have totally confused use of
fire with the ability to manufacture it independently. If you are in a
burning woodland and you have a brain wired properly to grasp its
significance, it is simple to use it without knowing how to start one
yourself.



_Numerous_ species bury things; only
homo has fire.

Who was talking about "things"? This issue is about Lucy burying her
dead. You get confused about the simplest of things. Numerous species
use tools also, but only Homo uses conchoidal fracture to manufacture
tools. Only Homo buries their dead. Lucy was not Homo, Lucy did not
bury her dead.



or couldn't carry water like the Hadza.

Ditto. How many species carry water?

Burying her dead was one of those limitations until you have hard
evidence otherwise.

CRAP. Where did you get this rule from?
I'll tell you. It's essentially Biblical. According
to this 'thinking' NOTHING existed until the
Biblical times. PA has 'modified' this marginally:
NOTHING existed except where incontrovertible
hard evidence can be found to prove it.

Why adopt such a daft theory?

It is completely illogical. You adopt it
because your professor did, who got it from
his professor . . . and so on, back to ancient
times. It makes no sense whatever.

Where did you get the silly idea I said nothing existed until Bibical
times? Cite where I said that, liar. You have confused the burial of
"things" with the burial of bodies. You have admitted that only Homo
does certain things, like use of fire. Then you confused the
manufacture of fire with the use of it. You now confuse nothing existed
with the fact that only certain things existed, just as you did with
fire and burials.


How did KNM-ER 1808 become a fossil?

She was covered with slow moving over-bank flood waters, just as all
the evidence suggests.

So she died -- after a long painful illness
while she was looked after by others
(who were also suffering). No scavengers
were watching this party. Her companions
left her body, and before any scavenger
detected it, this flood arrived.

You find THAT credible?

The evidence is plain for anyone who has read the site reports. It is
probably not credible for those who haven't. Trying to replace
physical facts with imagination only demonstrates what a ignorant
buffoon you are.

If it wasn't a chance event, after a million years of deliberate
burial by her companions, the archaeological record would be as stacked
with Lucy bones as there are antelope bones. Scientists would then have
as many hominid bones to study as antelope bones. They don't.

Your problem here is the belief that they
died where they lived.

Your problem is your imagination. Somehow evidence of burials were
found by anthropologists after 100,000 years ago in areas where they
didn't live, yet somehow they missed them all for 3,000,000 years
before that? OK, I give up, where did Lucy hide all her buried dead?



How come then
that they did not know carnivore liver
was poisonous?


That is evidence Lucy buried her dead?


What would be the reason the term "hominid" would define burials
and not the ancestor of both? Chimps could presumably dig holes 3 or 6
million years ago, just as well as any hominid. Chimps also show
concern for their dead. Next you argue chimps move around a lot, so
their dead would not stink up a camp they didn't have. They had
territory, hominids had home bases by your thinking.

An animal that SLEEPS on the ground has
to have a safe place. Unlike sleeping-trees
(for chimps) they are hard to find. The homo
species that occupied them would not move
on merely because one of them died.

Says who, Mr. Imagination?


I date 'sleeping on ground' to the origin of
bipedalism around 5-6 mya. You probably
vaguely date it to 2.5 mya -- and say nothing
else happened at the time. But, as regards
burial, the same logic applies.

Telling lies about others is simply further evidence of your
delusional character. You imagined I would probably date it to 2.5 mya.
No, do some science and cite where I said such a thing rather than
imagine I did.



Bipedalism by
definition proves more mobility than knuckle walking in terms of size
of territory used,

No. It does not. Early bipedalism (or, if you
prefer, initial bipedalism) would have been
vastly WORSE than K/W for getting around.

The tracks at Laetoli traveled far enough to get away from the smell of
a dead homind, no matter what their range, no matter what the capacity
of a chimp was 3,000,000 years ago.


hence easier to get away from the home bases and the
dead even more so than chimps.

Fatuous. You have not begun to think about
the problem.

Says who, the delusional liar who makes up everything? The delusional
liar who claims that if any species buries "things" that is proof
that species buried its dead also?



Paul.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Explain Little Lucys deposition?
    ... Only to those who imagine evidence into existence, ... And far beyond the capacity of any Lucy band (unless trained by human ... A dead body is a 'thing' -- and a remarkably ... then precede with your imagination to tear them ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... But you admit that you have no evidence that Megantereon was slower ... Irrelevant, Lucy could climb a tree to escape, unlike the ridiculous ... So you admit that you have no proof that such evidence does not exist. ... Lip-service reply, unsupported, undocumented imagination at work again. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Im Mad +George Anthony
    ... I have produced hard evidence. ... Body Farm "dead body" smell. ... The double bag speculation: ... Profiling assumes guilt. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Im Mad +George Anthony
    ... the evidence. ... You're beating a dead horse now. ... The double bag speculation: ... Profiling assumes guilt. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Im Mad +George Anthony
    ... I have produced hard evidence. ... Body Farm "dead body" smell. ... The double bag speculation: ... Profiling assumes guilt. ...
    (alt.true-crime)