Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


Lee Olsen wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:

Nope, "treeless" is not what Marc claimed (he said "your savannas"),
but apparently he is the last one left on the planet that thinks they
are treeless and waterless, in fact I think he thinks a savanna is a
desert year round.

Yes, Marc's strawman tactics are well documented.

Yes, so are yours.

Give it up, phoney. I have no reason to strawman you. You know that

Are you dyslexic or something? I didn't say you had a reason to
strawman me.


if you tell me what your really think that you will lose the argument.

That would be hard to do since you haven't made an argument yet. I've
seen a lot of unsupported, undocumented lip-service in your posts so
far, but certainly nothing that would resemble an argument.

Typical pseudo-scientists. You're going to just continue believing
that they hunted and scavenged out on the treeless savanna. You won't
admit it now. f



So you are being careful to not admit what you really think. You
aren't a scientists you are a politician.

You are too ignorant of the literature to be making demands on others.


completely defenseless against the predators thereof. IOW, it makes
about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
guns) in treeless savanna habitat as it does to emplace them swimming
alongside crocodiles.

This leaves us with a bit of a dilemma when it comes to interpreting
the evidence. If human ancestors were not regularly venturing across
treeless habitat chasing down prey and defending themselves against
predators then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5 mya?
(My answe to this question is below.)

But we know for a fact that early Homo completely solved the big cat
problem. Pound for pound all cats are cowards. Whether it was in large
groups, sticks, rocks, fire, spears or just bluffing, Homo dropped off
the dinner menu at archaeological sites (that is to say they no longer
make up a larger percent of the fossil victims than do the big cats
themselves).

Well, I would agree that it seems reasonable to assume that
homo--starting about 2.5 mya--had advanced to the point to where big
cats were no longer the means by which most hominids died (unlike how

One does not have to assume anything on this matter, the archaeological
record is quite clear.

I agree. And there is nothing there that indicates your ridiculous
supposition that homo regularly travelled on, over, or through treeless
savanna habitat.

Yep, dyslexic for sure.
Date: 2 Dec 2006 19:41:09
Message-ID: <1165117269.742904.155180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
LO "I never claimed the artifacts were concentrated in treeless
plains, but they are found there just the same, proving they utilized
such areas at times. It proves they were not afraid to be there."

Re from Jim: "And there is nothing there that indicates your ridiculous

supposition that homo regularly travelled on, ..."
"Regularly traveled" huh? Recognize this? "Quote me directly you
stooge."

Mind if I ask you a personal question? Are you incarcerated someplace,
maybe an institution that has a minimum secruity ward that allows
computer use, but not access to a library? Well, if you are not
incarcerated now, there is a good chance you will be sometime in the
future. Lying assholes are typical of the ilk that end up in those
places sooner or later.

Maybe you could find a hobby that doesn't involve, you know,
intellectual things.




it had been for A'pith who typically met their demise in the clutches
of some kind of large predator, if not specifically a cat). All the
more reason to assume that they were not out in treeless habitat where
they would have had zero chance against lions and bear-sized hyena.
Homo rarely if ever left treed habitat.

So, now you are denying the Serengeti Plain is a treeless habitat? Or
do you think ostriches placed the artifacts out there?

You've become Marc. You have no dispute with what I'm saying (thus you
have, inadvertently, confirmed the validity of my thinking) and so you
are misrepresenting it so that you can pretend to have made a point.
Who do you think is dumb enough to fall for these tactics?

You are as delusional as Crowley. On the ground evidence found in a
treeless habitat has no impact on your delusional brain.

Uh . . "On the ground evidence . . ?"

Other than the one on the top of your head, do you have a point?


No one is really ignorant enough, except you, to believe the Olduvai
Gorge cutting through the treeless Serengeti Plain, exposing thousands
of artifacts, through two million years of time could all be from
treed areas.

Evidence doesn't lie. Why not just let the paleo reconstructions speak
for themselves.



if not downright
dishonest and typical of a total amateur like Marc. Olduvai Gorge cuts
right through two million years of sediments of the Serengeti Plain,
which is about as savanna as you can get.

I agree mostly, but keep in mind that the world climate generally was
wetter (and warmer) prior to 2 mya. This means that the treed
localities where early hominids resided were more expansive than these
same treed localities are presently at Serengeti and similar regions.

Keywords: OUR ANCESTORS, EVER, OK? No timeline was specified in Marc's
statement.

So, you're arguing that Marc's vagueness excuses yours?

What part of artifacts found on the treeless Serengeti Plain are you to
stupid to understand?

The part where dimwits like yourself assume that present climate
indicates past climate.

What part of dimwits like your think it was always treed?

Maybe you actually ought to read the paper.


The thousands of artifacts
that have been found there speak for themselves.

Artifacts never speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted in
the context of reconstructed paleohabitats.

One does not have to know the cause of a train wreck to know that there
was one.

But one must know more than that there was a train wreck to determine
its cause.

Who, besides you, needs a reason for "cause" to prove that artifacts
were left by Homo out on the treeless Serengeti Plain?

So, you admit that you are not concerned with their lifestyle and paleo
reconstruction of habitat? Your saying that we should just ignore the
plethora of fossil evidence that indisputably indicates that all homo
fossils are found in the vicinity of other fossil evidence that
indicate treed/mosaic habitat.

So you admit you can't read simple English.
Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
posture (Dennell 2003:442)."


Does the term paleo habitat reconstruction mean anything to you?


The reason is plain to everyone. You can't cite counter evidence
because there isn't any. You can't understand the simplest
of evidence. You, like Crowley simply make it up as you go. Not
surprising coming from a person who believes lions and tigers descended
from saber-toothed cats.


Real scientists realize that they don't get to pick and choose what
evidence they consider and what evidence they don't consider. Real
scientists consider all the evidence.

Real scientists cite the sources of their claims.


The issue was if
they were EVER there, an issue you seen to ignorant to grasp.

Really? I don't know what you're talking about. Why not quote me
directly you strawman baiting evasive twit?

Because I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting Marc. Are you saying you
can't remember from one day to the next what was said on these posts?



Or maybe
you just want to talk about other issues, so start another thread.

You want to avoid talking about the real issues.

I never claimed the artifacts were concentrated in treeless
plains, but they are found there just the same, proving they utilized
such areas at times. It proves they were not afraid to be there.

Now you're becoming Marc. You are pretending the evidence tell you
something that it does not. There is no evidence of homo fossils in
treeless habitat. The fact that homo fossils can be found in places
that are currently treeless does not mean that the same location was
treeless millions of years ago.

Now you're becoming Paul. Olduvai cuts through the treeless Serengeti
Plain. The odds are in my favor, not yours.

IMO, it's not a matter of odds, it's a matter of applying the evidence
in the most reasonable and intelligent manner possible. The evidence
does not speak for itself.

"The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
East Africa.

They didn't occupy grasslands and open scrub. They occupied the treed
localities in the vicinity of grassland and open scrub. These were the
locations that had the resources--fruit trees, nuts, vegetables--that
were most essential to them surviving the dry season.

You do realize he is talking about early Homo, not apiths?

Absolutely I realize that. There is no good reason for homo to
regularly travel through treeless habitat. They were completely
incapably of hunting any of the animals that resided there and they had
no defense against lions, dogs, and hyena. They would have avoided
such habitat in the same way that they would have avoided swimming next
to crocodiles.

Nope, just the opposite. You are far safer out in the open than you
are in the bush. Homo has little problem kicking any of the African
predators off of their kills, they don't have to hunt. They do it today
and there is nothing in the archaeological record that says they
weren't doing it two million years ago. Like crocs that hide
underwater, the thing a big-game hunter fears most is having to go into
the bush after a wounded animal. The more trees the worse off you are,
thick bush is just like the murky water that crocs hide in.

This is cartoonish. Have you ever been hunting? Under the best of

Cartoonish to those who can't read. Mr. Memory Loss, I said just the
opposite. Maybe it will help you to read the paragraphs twice, the
second time for comprehension. You are safer in the open than in the
trees you claim that they never left.


conditions one is lucky if they can get within a hundred yards of their
prey. Imagine trying to take down a buffaloe from a hundred yards with
a stone tipped spear. Even more ridiculous is the supposition that

Who said anything about spearing buffalo? You delusional sot.

It's your fantasy. I would never be so dumb as to emplay early
hominids in treeless habitat. You tell me what they are, supposedly,
doing out there. The whole notion is absurd.

they could compete with lion, bear-sized hyena, and dogs/wolves and
other dedicated scavengers. And then you bring, "the bush," into the
discussion. Is there no limit to your strawman tactics?

Your total and complete ignorance of the literaure is not my problem.
Didn't you know bush is where you find trees where you claim Homo was
hiding?

Don't be ridiculous. I never indicated bush. That's your delusion.




It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and
Homo quite another.

I agree.

So does CK Brain.

Who?

CK Brain. Google 101--enter

.

Quantcast