Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


Lee Olsen wrote:
You are miquoting me. I never said anything about apiths hunting out on
the savanna. I may have said something about C4 grass, but that is not
that same as saying they were hunting out there as Homo obviously was.

Lee, you have to stop telling us what you didn't say.

So, are you saying that Homo was hunting out in treeless savanna
habitat, fending off lions and hyena, hunting buffaloe? with a stone
tipped spear? What were they hunting? What were they hunting with?

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.

Not likely.






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.

It's unfortunate that, once again, you cannot find and specific
examples of where I have stated something in error.

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

Wonder how many times he has to see this in order to get it?
Sorry about the spelling, it wasn't deliberate.

So you have no examples that are relevant to the topic under
discussion?


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.

Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?

CK Brain, you can get it interlibrary loan.

Why don't you pull a quote from it? Or are you saying that you don't
have a copy of this paper handy? How long ago was it that you looked
at this paper?


We aren't talking about modern hunter gathers. Early man was communal,
not hunter gathering. The hunting/gathering assumption of early man
are little more than an anthropological old wives tale..

Are you aware of any evidence that supports your assertion?

No response.

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).

Relevance?

Yes, they don't like "cultivated certain vegetable and fruit trees"

Uh?






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,

No, chimps aren't communal. Read my hypothesis is you are having
trouble distinguishing them.

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?

My hypothesis answers this question.

Answers are not evidence.

A hypothesis has to be consistent with all the evidence. You can't
just pick and choose what evidence you consider and what evidence you
ignore.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading