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.

Subject: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
Date: 2 Dec 2006 14:32:48
Message-ID: <1165098768.578213.303960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Jim McGinn: "The supposition that early man,
including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not

completely defenseless against the predators thereof."

Do you know what the words "including Homo" actually means? You started
this thread based on that claim. You can't even remember the statements
you made in your own thread.

Then just to make sure You really were making such a stupid claim I
asked:

Lee Olsen: "You realize he is talking about early Homo, not apiths?"
(meaning Dennell)

Jim McGinn: "Absolutely I realize that. There is no good reason for
homo to regularly travel through treeless habitat. They were
completely incapably of hunting any of the animals that resided there
and they had no defense against lions, dogs, and hyena.

Your quote: "Claudius Denk:
You're going to just continue believing that they hunted and scavenged
out in treeless habitat.

Lee Olsen:
Are you talking about Homo, apiths, or both?
Claudius Denk:
Both.

Lee Olsen:
Are you sure you mean that?

Jim McGinn: "To answer your question, Yes, I do mean that."

Yesterday it was Homo ("This would be apparent if you included the
context."), today it is "A'pith only.
You are so ignorant, you can't even remember what the premis of your
own thread is about.

Jim Mcginn: "The supposition that early man,
including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through
treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not

completely defenseless against the predators thereof."




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.

Then why do you keep babbling about Homo not being able to function out
on the treeless palin, when clearly they did?


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 the lying clown that claims he is familiar with the literature.
I expect someone who claims to be familiar with the literature to know
the simplist of basics, just as I would expect a person claiming to be
a Christian to have heard about the Bible. Does your mother still have
to tell you when to blow your nose, does she still have to wipe your
ass? Does everything obvious have to be explained to you in detail? Get
to the library you illiterate sot.




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).)

So, you think saber-tooth cats chased down their prey with the speed of
a lion? Lions give up after on 50 to 100 yards, how far do you think a
saber-tooth is good for?


They were geared for giant slow moving creatures.

So you theorize a slow moving feline?

Is your memory completely gone? You were the guy just forced to concede
that saber-tooths weren't ancestral to lions (a demonstration of how
little you know). I got that info from the same sources that forced you
into a retraction, now your are going to try for two embarrassements in
a row?


Homo can and does outrun any mammal alive given enough of a head start.
Nobody said these animals can't catch you from ambush, so the safest
place is still out in the open where you can see what's going on.


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.

Cite from the literature, not from science fiction.




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?

Is that question for me, or do you still hear voices? I cited CK Brain.
Since you know the literature so well, what did he say?



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


It's been answered before, at least three times, I think even you
should get it by now.


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.

It's already been answered you senile idiot.

.