Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence

claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Claudius Denk:
You're going to just continue believing that they hunted and scavenged
out in treeless habitat.

Lee Olsen:
Are you talking about Homo, apiths, or both?

Claudius Denk:
Both.

If that is the case, then you have misquoted me again. So between that
and this one:
Message-ID: <1165113030.317266.276860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jim McGinn: "Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the
predatory realities in treeless habitat." I'm afraid we are going to
have to officially register you as a sap liar.


Lee Olsen:
Are you sure you mean that?

Claudius Denk:
(I take everybody else to task for vagueness. It's only
fair that I be held to the same standard.)

Wow, are you going to regret that statement.



To answer your question, Yes, I do mean that. In fact I think that the
current paradigm of anthropology has greatly underestimated the effect
of large predators on the ability of early hominids to colonize and/or
even just survive in open habitat. In fact I think this was a
tremendous limiting factor to the eventual achievement of civilization,
because the colonization of open habitat must have been achieved first
before the agricultural revolution could occur). I'll even go out on a
limb and say that until the development of metal tools/weapons open
habitat was largely (for all practical purposes) uninhabitable to
hominids. This means that all through the stone age hominids were
strictly limited to treed habitat. (And, yes, I'm perfectlfy aware
that I'm including modern humans in this.)

Thanks for the clarification. But unfortunately all it does is confirm
the fact you know no more about large predators or hominids and their
habits than you understand about their evolution.

Message-ID: <1164704227.718683.98910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jim Maginn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from Sabertoothed cats."


* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lee Olsen:
It is obvious apiths were doing one thing and Homo quite another."

Claudius Denk:
I agree."

Lee Olsen:
We are dealing with two different species, doing two different things,
in two different habitats. Perhaps you would like to qualify your
answer with something more specific, just so we can avoid any possible
misunderstanding.

Claudius Denk:
Again, you are right to ask. Now that I read how you've interpreted
it, however, I think I must retract that statement. Both of them were
the communal territorialists I describe in my hypothesis. Homo, unlike
A'pith, eventually achieved a level of sophistication--as a result ot
the group selective aspects of communal territorialism--that they
became the masters of treed parts of savanna habitat (or large parts of

Since Homo also became masters of the desert, we can also assume they
became masters
of the treeless savanna. They also did woodworking, so we can assume
they were also masters of the bush. Home bases have not yet been
identified, so proving where they were spending the majority of their
time remains unknown. I have not kept up on the home-base issue like I
used to, maybe recent cases have been found, I don't know.


it). This was not the case for Apith. Apith were not the masters of
the treed habitat that they inhabitated. When lions and hyena came
into their habitat they had to get high in trees to survive. As
described in my hypothesis, predatory sieges/massacres would have been
a regular part of existence for these earliest hominids.

Apiths were doing about the same as baboons as far as % of victims in
the South African caves. Lions are late in the record, they probably
didn't have much impact on Apith evolution.
Baboons kill leopards in the day, and are victims at night. No reason
to believe Apiths were any different.



Homo, I suspect, probably had other differences from A'pith. They were
more likely to be on the ground (day and night) than A'pith. They had
some degree of trade. They had more sophisticated linguistic
abilities. They may have cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees.
And, of course, they had more sophisticated tools/weapons than did
A'pith.

Trade is imagination. But, since rock was moved around the landscape in
large quantities, your idea can't be falsifed either. Wonder what "more
sophisticated" means?
Unless forced to cultivate crops, modern hunter gathers can be quite
resistant to planting anything. My neighbors still go out and dig wild
roots with digging sticks, just like they have for the last 4000 years
(the sticks are now made of metal rather than wood).



There were other differences, of course. But even these were mostly
difference in degree rather than kind. As I indicated previously, both
A'pith and Homo were communal territorialists and, as such, they had
many behaviors in common. And I see no reason to categorize them, or
any hominid, as members of different species. Hominids exist in one
ever-broadening niche.

Well, there certainly are lumpers and splitters out there, but the
differences between early Homo and apiths are quite profound. Chimps
are communal terrorialists also, and also can get away from lions by
hiding in the trees. Why aren't we still chimps if trees are so
necessary in hominid lifestyles?




* * * * * * * * * * * * *


Claudius Denk:
Do you have any evidence that the habitat was treeless when the tools
were put there.

Lee Olsen:
Yes, there is several lines of evidence, but since you have decided you
are exempt from the citing process, I see no reason why I should.

Claudius Denk:
That's unfortunate.

It is very easy to counter any line of reasoning with a flame job, so
and so is a dimwit. If you do not want to play the science game on a
sci. list, I guess we will just continue with the flame game.
Unfortunate indeed.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading