Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


Lee Olsen wrote:

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."

Homo was probably considerably better at surviving in treeless habitat
(especially after the discovery of fire). But even so the general PA
supposition that homo's stone tools would have been effective against
the large predators found in treeless savanna habitat is inconsistent
with reality as we know it, IMO. And this means that the general
notion that homo was a dedicated hunter, scavenger is nonsense.

This means that the stone tools found in association with homo serve
agricultural ends--keeping food-competitor species out of their
gardens--and not the hunting/scavenging lifestyle that has become
popularized. And the stone tool cut marks found on bones associate
with Homo fossils are the result of ambush hunting in the context of
their garden-like communal territory.

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?

You've already demonstrated a propensity to intepret (misinterpret IMO)
the evidence of homo based on the current climate. You have to make
more of an effort to rule out the possibility that the current climate
at these locations was not wetter and more heavily wooded when these
fossils were laid down than it is currently.


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.

Nothing about the evidence is obvious. It has to be interpreted.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

So, you think saber-tooth cats chased down their prey with the speed of
a lion?

Of course. Only an idiot would assume otherwise.

Lions give up after on 50 to 100 yards, how far do you think a
saber-tooth is good for?

This seems like a desperately stupid argument.



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?

If you don't theorize a slow moving feline then what's your point?

Homo can and does outrun any mammal alive given enough of a head start.

The same is true for tortoises.

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.

Now your stupidity seems blatant, intentional.

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.

Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumptions that
underly my hypothesis?

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.

In this discipline if you are not honest with yourself about the
evidence you've already failed.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not ... Homo was probably considerably better at surviving in treeless habitat ... Yes, the evidence is pretty indisputable on this point, AFAICT. ... You are the lying clown that claims he is familiar with the literature. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Savanna salt in abundance (Re: meat fuel of human evolution
    ... Have a dose of evidence for your affliction: ... Department of Archaeology ... AAT is not a 'credible alternative theory'; ... The Homo maxilla AL 666, dated to 2.3 Ma, along with a stone tool assemblage ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Faster Than A Hyena?
    ... and all he other predators around ... Homo were certainly not an obligate ... much of a carnivore at all. ... bears, and dire wolves, would interfere with the emergence of Erectus. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: AAT is based on comparative data (Re: Algis ranting about AAH
    ... Another words, he has out-of-date savanna beliefs, but he is up to date ... > Evidence they butchered animals, ... > littoral-lifestyle anywhere in the history of Homo, not now, not ever. ... We don't need good smell. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Homo & molluscs
    ... tell me exactly when it was Homo lost the fur. ... Did you say savanna animals don't have fat? ... Do you have any evidence at all to support the aquatic theory? ... > scenario because ostriches are savanna birds. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)