Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


Lee Olsen wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee, you have to stop telling us what you didn't say.


Jim, you have to stop reading (between the lines) what I 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?

Not only treeless savanna, but highlands (of the lake basins), lowland
flood plains, woodlands (you should like that), edges of rainforests,
inbetween lake basins and Asia.
I don't think they missed much.

Wishful nonsense.



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?

Yes, I cited it and it got flamed without counter evidence.

You were flamed because your statements were argumentative and
irrelvant to the point under discussion. You tried to dismiss the
existence of large feline predators in the earliest years of hominid
evolution based on an irrelevant observation.




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?

Be more than happy to, just as soon as you start backing up the claims
that you make with citations of your own.




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.

Ooops, missed that one. Are you sure I won't find any "no response"
questions of mine if dig back through these posts? Anyway, I was
referring to your statement "This means that all through the stone age
hominids were strictly limited to treed habitat." So "all through"
would mean modern hunter gatherers, who still use stone tools in some
cases.

Obviously not.


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?

If modern H/G aren't cultivating, why should chimp-like creatures do
it? Not to mention chimps don't cultivate gardens either.

Humans do. Humans are hominids.








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.

You seem to be ignoring plenty of evidence yourself. In fact, you seem
to be making most of your evidence up as you go along.

Be specific.

.

Relevant Pages