Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
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.

The issue was whether or not A'pith would have been confined to treed
habitat. As to whether or not the exact predators involved have the
label of lion or some other label I don't give a flying ***


No, you simply backed down from what you first said.
Message-ID: <1165297102.665010.205640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
JimMcGinn: "When lions and hyena came into their habitat they had to
get high in trees to survive."

They?

A'pith only. This would be apparent if you included the context.


Jim McGinn: "Both" (Meaning Homo). Which is it and how many times are
you going to change your position? My objection was to both. But I did
agree about Lucy being---"cat bait" remember?

Yes, the evidence is pretty indisputable on this point, AFAICT. It
would be a problem for my hypothesis if the evidence did not indicate
that lucy was heavily preyed upon. Especially considering that
predation is essential to the group selective mechanism of my
hypothesis of early hominid evolution.

But another problem was
your statement that "Sabertoothed lion" (no such thing) were bigger and
that was supposed to be a problem and you also proclaimed the lions
speed was also a factor.

So, you're suggesting we should just pretend they are tame? Why not
let paleo-reconstruction of habitat based of fossil evidence dictate
your conclusion. Accordingly we can only come to one conclusion: there
were a lot of violent, vicious beasts in their habitat. Nothing you're
saying here amounts to a dispute with this supposition. So, get over
it.


You are wrong on both counts. Saber-toothed cats were very specialized
animals. They wouldn't have evolved giant canines just to stab a tiny
apith.

Come come, now. That's a ridiculous assertion. Why would they not
want to eat A'pith. (And this directly contradicts the evidence that
indicates feline predation on A'pith (lucy).)

They were geared for giant slow moving creatures.

So you theorize a slow moving feline? How do you expect anybody to
take this seriously?

If he is talking about Smilodon and its near relatives, he is talking
about an animal that cannot, judging from its skeleton, have been
anywhere near as fast as a lion. The saber-toothed cats were
closely-coupled, short-leged ambush hunters. It is easy to imagine one
hunting the way a Black bear hunts deer, except much more often and
much more efficiently. It would crouch in concealment and rush out at
the last instant. It would be a very poor strategy for any of them to
rely much on catching small game, such as apiths.

The scimitar-toothed cats were somewhat more gracile and smaller, both
things making them MORE dangerous to a primate away from the trees.
Also, they are present in the African fossil record, while the true
saber-tooth is not. Still, we are talking about a hulking monster, much
less gracile than a jaguar, the least gracile modern cat, without many
of the qualities that say "cat" to the modern person.

Leopards were undoubtedly more of a danger. Although they hunt alone
and are not much danger to groups of armed men, leopards are very
dangerous to individual humans in the brush, to this day. And a modern
human in good shape would be more of a challenge to a leopard than an
a'pith.

The problem here is that treed environments are not very good
protection from leopards while hanging around in as large a group as
possible IS. Treed environments would be a wonderful defense against
scimitar-tooth cats, just as they are against lions, but hanging around
in groups would be a terrible defense for people without spears and the
mass to use them effectively. In fact, it would the recipe for a
massacre if lions were involved or if scimitar-tooth cats hunted in
groups. I don't believe that they did but there is an argument there.

A'pith had to either stay in treed environments and try to mob
leopards, accepting that they would lose individuals to leopards, or
move into more open environments and avoid the scimitar-tooth cats AND
the leopards, which are at home in the open. Leopards are especially at
home in open country where there are no lions.


They had
bob-tails, further indication they were slow ambush hunters. The only
way they would be a threat to a hominid is if hominids were wandering
around in tall grass or thick bush, otherwise they could be seen a
mile away and would never be able to catch Lucy.

Obviously you're just making this up as you go along. As I explain in
my hypothesis, they would have been especially vulnerable to predation
in the dry season. As inidcated there, these would often result in
predatory massacres.

Neither of those statements is really objectionable. Certainly there is
some truth to both of them. However, unless your hypothesis is that we
became extinct thereby, I don't know what it proves. He is not,
however, making up anything about the saber-toothed cats. The consensus
is that they were as he describes them.



As long as she stayed
out of the ambush zones (and stayed near trees), saber-tooths would
have been no problem. Lions weren't around early, so no matter how
fast they were, what early apith would care?

True or false, Apith were preyed upon by feline predators?

Of course they were. Humans still are. It's rough to be the victim but
not a problem for the species. That it was a worse problem for Apiths
is clear. How MUCH worse is not clear.

Will in New Haven

--



(Let's see how this evasive twit tries to avoid answering this
question.)


All the above demonstrates the lack of thought you have put into
this. The same applies to your sci-fi hypothesis. You were told by
qualified people (Greg Laden, Su Solomon etc.) in 1999 that you needed
to go back to the library. You have made it very clear you didn't take
their advice.


Answer the question you evasive twit.

.

Quantcast