Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Dec 2006 21:54:45 -0800
pete wrote:
Are there any species that lions eat,
that don't live where lions live?
Your question seems too vague to consider.
That's pretty stupid, even for you, Jim.
What's your point?
The point is that big cats DID eat early hominids,
which they couldn't have done,
if they didn't share the same habitat with them.
Uh, okay. I suspect you think you've stated something profound. I
don't see it. What's your point?
http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/eyeteeth.htm
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/root1.html
"Most South African sites consist of remains of the lairs of
predators who ate australopithecines for dinner,
as suggested by the many
carnivore tooth marks on hominid skulls and bones."
Yep.
Let's keep it simple. Yes or no, IYO, did lion sized (or bigger)
predators exist in the earliest (late miocene) years of hominid
evolution?
Yes.
Why do you think Lee wishes beyond hope to not believe this?
It's a simple question, Pete.
Why not give us a simple answer (you evasive twit)?
I don't know.
Having just answered your first question,
makes that second one a lot tougher.
Feel free to answer the second question first.
As you can see, Lee is bending over
backwards to avoid this question.
Will you do the same?
Each of your questions after the first one,
contain at least one invalid hypothesis.
(My guess is you will.)
There isn't any difference between your
lack of guessing skill and your lack of hypothesizing skill,
because all your hypothesese are just uneducated guesses.
And stupid too.
I wish I was more smarter like yew.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: pete
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- References:
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: pete
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- From: pete
- Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- Prev by Date: Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- Next by Date: Re: Genetic advantage in interracial mating.
- Previous by thread: Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- Next by thread: Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading