Re: Explain 'Little Lucy's deposition?

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1160147806.640005.231910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

snip
<snippage restored>

All social institutions -- and especially
those 'sciences' concerned with the nature
of humanity and its origins -- are riddled
with masses of unstated, unrecognised
assumptions.

The question was: "Are you actually denying this? "

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

Listen close you idiot, you asked a question in the negative.

Nope. I asked if you are denying the broad
proposition. That's a simple 'yes' or a 'no'.
It would not be hard -- if you possessed
anything resembling a mind. But I can
appreciate your predicament.

If something is "unstated" it doesn't exist.

Completely false. Most assumptions that
lie behind most scientific (and other)
theories are not stated. It is very easy
to see how and why many in the past
went wrong. You (being a total fool)
probably believe that those behind all
modern ones are fully declared.

How would anyone know what
someone else didn't state? Now you claim to be psychic also?

They might have studied some history --
even the history of science. It's obviously
an entire world that has passed you by.

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.

<snippage restored>

There is nothing rhetorical. Does (or does not)
the 'science' maintain that the hominid taxon is
unique -- unlike every other known species on
the planet -- in that its distinctive characteristic
did NOT appear at its point of origin?

The question IS in the positive. I can see
why you find it so embarrassing. You can't
deny it, since everyone knows what the
'science' maintains. Yet you can't admit it,
since it is manifestly nonsense.

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.

I have no idea what you are saying -- and
I'm quite sure you don't either. I think you
miss the point of most burials -- to preserve
the corpse from immediate scavengers. But
it is usually in soft ground, in or near a river
course. The corpse is likely to be disturbed
by floods or by changing river courses within
a relatively short time. Nearly all then vanish
completely. In this case, normal flooding plus
the legs of a hippo, were enough to scatter the
bones locally -- probably in the mud on the
bottom of a lake, when they become covered
again and, in due course, fossilised.

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.

Nope -- your (standard) theory requires
(a) many slack scavengers -- as regards
hominids, but
(b) who have a particular liking for
chimp corpses; and
(c) a lot of convenient flash floods.

How many fossils of non-hominid animals
are found in fossilised flash floods that
_just_happened_ to die of something else
just before the flood arrived?

The question is quite absurd -- as anyone
can see. A wildebeest that dies of a tooth
infection gets eaten by predators -- not
caught up in a flash flood. A buffalo that
dies slowly from bone disease will finish
up in the stomachs of predators and
scavengers long before the flash flood
arrives.

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?

No answer, of course -- as was entirely
predictable -- and as was predicted.

Sorry, silly question. Any
question directed at you is silly. There
is NO possibility of an answer. You are
incapable of thought.

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.

Another question dodged. You should
know that such fossils are extremely (and
strangely) rare. PA has NO explanation
for this scarcity -- of a species that is known
(from modern populations, and from DNA)
to have been rapidly expanding at this time.

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.

Another dodged question.

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.

The maintenance of a fire resource is
hugely difficult -- much harder than
acquiring it occasionally. It requires a
remarkably high and stable level of culture.
Intelligent chimps have been trained to use
fire (under human supervision, of course).
But the maintenance of fire is far beyond
the capacity of any chimp band.

_Numerous_ species bury things; only
homo has fire.

Who was talking about "things"? This issue is about Lucy burying her
dead.

A dead body is a 'thing' -- and a remarkably
unpleasant object to have lying around.
The standard 'theory' that hominids were
incapable of realising that, or of coping
with it, is so mind-blowingly dumb, that
it must be some kind of record. It would
come top, or close to the top, on the scale
of 'really-bad-scientific-ideas',

Numerous species bury (or otherwise
carefully dispose of) their dead -- all those
that live in colonies and don't move much
-- the huge numbers of social insects.

You get confused about the simplest of things.

Nonsense. Once you have the capacity
to dig, the acquisition of an instinct to
bury a dead member of your own family
is almost trivial. The selective pressures
in favour of such a behaviour would be
enormous. The population with such an
instinct (or culture) would be able to stay
in their safe sites, and develop them over
the years, and the generations. The others
would be obliged to keep wandering.

Numerous species
use tools also, but only Homo uses conchoidal fracture to manufacture
tools. Only Homo buries their dead.

Wrong. It MAY be the only mammal, but
it would not in the least surprising to find
others. What do naked mole rats do with
their dead? Or social species that live in
dense colonies, such as rabbits, or
ground hogs?

Lucy was not Homo, Lucy did not bury her dead.

This is no more than blind doctrine.
Its 'truth' rests on nothing but dumb
acceptance and constant repetition.

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.

Dodge, dodge, dodge. You do it
automatically -- without thinking. You
cannot cope with the possibilities of
the real situation, so you retreat into
abuse.

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?

Yes. And I have explained to you how.
KNM-ER 1808 and her companions did NOT
know that eating carnivore liver was fatal.
They were almost exactly like the modern
instance, when Mawson fed it to his dying
companion in the Antarctic. They were
strangers in a hostile country. That explains
why it is false to think "the archaeological
record would be as stacked with Lucy
bones as there are antelope bones".

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?

You can't agree, because you have not
read this in any 'scientific' paper. But
neither can you disagree -- because you'd
look even more a fool than usual. So all
we get is empty rhetoric (i.e. 'wind').

Why do you keep trying 'wind' ALL the
time. Don't you know it doesn't work?

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.

More wind. I admit I was wrong to ascribe
(even with a 'probably') an opinion to your
'mind'. You have no idea what to 'think'
about this matter. No one has told you
what to think -- neither about the date,
nor the process, nor the reasons, nor the
consequences.

But there is STILL no acceptance of the
basic logic -- which, given the topic, is
fully to be expected.

AT SOME POINT our ancestors started
sleeping on the ground. Their way-of-
life changed drastically. They had to find
safe sites. The inability of standard PA
to cope with this fact is astonishing.
It has to declare that hominids never
had a problem with nocturnal predation.

Yet, it regards itself as a science!

Burial of the dead would have come in at
the point hominids began to sleep on the
ground.

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.

Another expression of a non-opinion.
Irrelevance and distraction come to
you as naturally as breathing.


Paul.


.

Relevant Pages