Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence

Jim McGinn wrote:


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?

"You're a chicken*** phoney, afraid to quote me directly."

"I see your arguments have disintegrated from simple misinformation to
just plain lies.

Message-ID: <1165382392.924931.265...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Lee: "Apiths were victims of bear-sized hyenas, why not? Saber-tooth
cat bait also. But not lion, I don't think there is any evidence for
those mixing with apiths, maybe late boisei at best."

What part of the simple statement "cat bait" are you too stupid to
understand? As for your imaginary late Miocene lions, cite fossil
evidence for them."

IOW, show where lions, not saber-tooth cats or leopards, were eating
apiths. Hard evidence exists that leopards were killing or scavenging
apiths at Swartkrans for example. You need to be specific. It matters a
great deal if lions were involved. Lions evolved relatively late, if
there were no lions present at many of these sites, it would be hard
for them to kill anything, let alone apiths. Most of this discussion
and Marc's original thread has centered on how dangerous lions are,
well they certainly are dangerous, but if they weren't around, who
cares? Once Homo (and lions were prevalent), bingo, no more caves
loaded with hominid bones. Apiths were well on their way to extinction
at this time, but so far as I know, lions could have played no part in
the predation of the earliest apiths. I have no argument against Lucy
hiding in trees to escape whatever predators were around early, but
that does not include Homo or his ability to function out ("50-100
yds") away from trees, lions or not.

Now, what I can expect from you in reply to this is a complete
mistatement of what I just said.
Lies seem to be the only argument you have.

.

Loading