Re: Explain 'Little Lucy's deposition?


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




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.

Negative reply. Name who "they" are and what was "unstated" so people
know what your are trying to imagine this time.



I have no idea what you are saying -- and
I'm quite sure you don't either. I think you

No, you are not capble of thinking.
One picture is worth a thousand words. If you actually looked at the
15000 report rather than imagining what isn't in it, perhaps it
would become clear to you, but I doubt it.
To bury something, you have to dig through soil. This destroys
depressions. The teeth could not have ended up in a depression that
was destroyed by the digging process OR the hominids themselves must
have deliberately excavated the depression in order to place the
teeth into it when they reached the bottom of the grave pit. The skull
was not found with the teeth. You can not blame ground movement,
erosion, earthquakes, or anything else because the original
ground-surface features remain intact.

miss the point of most burials -- to preserve

snip lies and misinformation. That isn't what the excavators said in
the report. You have made it obvious you have not read the cited work
You have no idea what you are talking about. You are making false
statements and then you start spinning wild-ass scenarios based on your
own delusional imagination.



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.

"PA has NO...."? Like permafrost has nothing growing in it?

snip

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.

Only to those who imagine evidence into existence, and then delude
themselves into thinking no evidence is a rational explanation for a
3,000,000 year gap in the record.
snip

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.

And far beyond the capacity of any Lucy band (unless trained by human
supervision, of course).



_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.

Then just walk away. Lucy could not walk according to you?



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',

Your total ignorance of the literature is not an argument. These points
have been discussed to the point of ad- nauseum in the literature. You
make up grandiose lies, then precede with your imagination to tear them
down. You are a side-show freak.



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.

Ever see a tombstone or a rock cairn in a beehive? You probably
imagined them.



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.

You just contradicted yourself. Chimps do have the capacity to dig, so
do hyenas. Chimps do not bury their dead and neither did Lucy. Capacity
to dig is not an argument.



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?

You mean it would not be in the least surprising for you alone to
imagine they did without one iota of evidence to back up your worthless
claim. Also, you were the one to specify "commemorative" into this
thread. Do you deny this now? Does it need to be repeated again and
again? Do you forget from one post to the next what you argued
previously?



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.

Says the man who lied about 15000 being a deliberate hominid burial.
Even if it were not a fact, you then are still denying me exactly the
same argument you demand for yourself. He said, she said. He imagined,
she imagined. This is where science steps in, to break up the circular
accusations. So, it is all very simple. Produce your evidence that Lucy
and all other hominids were burying their dead up to 100,000 years ago
when real evidence kicks in. What will we get now? More lies about
evidence of 15000 being buried by his own kind from someone who hasn't
read the report.

snip

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

I cited from the report. To an illiterate the evidence in that report
then becomes a dodge. You are a very sick individual, get some help.

Message-ID: <qEtRg.14038$j7.330674@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Paul Crowley: "No doubt, you believe that each one
of those hundreds of thousands of
unreadable (and usually unread) 'learned
papers' published each year in the
'learned journals' of all the fake sciences
actually advance human knowledge."

You, who come to a science forum attacking the scientific method with
your unsupported delusional-diatribes are accusing me of abuse? You can
dish it out, but like the coward you are, you can't take it in return.




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.

Coyotes eat poisoned bait, they do not know it will kill them. This
fact does not prove coyotes commemoratively bury their dead.


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".

False premise. Eating liver does not prove burial.



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?

Cited evidence, as in the case of 15000, now becomes 'wind' in your
delusional world of imagination?
Lots of animals sleep on the ground and do not commemorate their dead
with deliberate burial. I suppose you will claim next that deer bury
their dead using you irrational logic.

snip rubbish

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

Yep, I thought that was coming. So, somehow sleeping on the ground is
associated with burying dead? At some point lots of animals began to
sleep on the ground, only a lunatic would think there is someting
special about hominds doing it and associating that with burying their
dead. There is no demonstrated relationship between the two. Deer sleep
on the ground and do not bury their dead. Deer can dig in soft sand
just as well as a chimp or Lucy.

snip
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.

To bad for you, the tracks lead off into oblivion. That is not evidence
for permanent home base. It is evidence for someone walking away from
someplace or something, like a dead body perhaps?




Paul.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Explain Little Lucys deposition?
    ... The burden then is on you to show evidence that she did. ... Lucy and Homo are not the same taxon. ... I seem to maintain that Lucy did not bury her dead. ... Crowley's imagination for answers? ...
    (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)