Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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

"completely defenseless" does not translate into "considerably better"
in the English language. Do I take your revised view as a retraction of
the former?

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.

The word "nonsense" is nothing more than a troll's fustrated response
proving his total ignorance of the literature.


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.

The reason you can't cite anything is because you don't know anything.
Semaw: "The recent cut-mark data from Bouri indicates that early
hominids c. 2.5 Ma began incorporating some amount of meat in their
diet.....It is not clear whether or not the first stone artifacts were
used for the processing of plant foods. There are certain indications
from microwear studies on artifacts from Koobi Fora (Keeley & Toth,
1981) and from Gona (Beyries, 1993), but strong cases have yet to be
made based on the archaeological record to demonstrate the use of
flaked stones for processing plant food items"

Sileshi Semaw 1999.
The World's Oldest Stone Artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their
Implications for Understanding Stone Technology and Patterns
of Human Evolution Between 2·6-1·5 Million Years Ago.
Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 1197-1214

This is article available on line (free).



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.

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.

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

You mean not obvious to an illiterate like you.


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

Of course. Only an idiot would assume otherwise.

Your knowledge of saber-tooth cats is well documented on this list.
Jim McGinn: "And then consider the fact that A'pith were shorter
and slighter than moden humans and the Sabertoothed lion ..."
ROTFL


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.

Your knowledge of saber-tooth cats is well documented on this list.
Jim McGinn: "And then consider the fact that A'pith were shorter
and slighter than moden humans and the Sabertoothed lion ..."
ROTFL





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?

Cite your literature that says they were fast.


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

The same is true for tortoises.

Well, one must have had a broken foot, because he ended up with
stone-tool cut marks in the neck area.


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.

No, you are just flat lying about your familiarity with the literature.



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?

Your evidence for gardens is? There isn't any, it is a negative
argument. Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumption
that Lucy was making elaborate sand paintings, playing with string
cradles, or playing Hopscotch?




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.

Is that why all those people in 1999 gave you an F?

.

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: 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 ... your statement that "Sabertoothed lion" were bigger and ... You are the lying clown that claims he is familiar with the literature. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • 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 ... the large predators found in treeless savanna habitat is inconsistent ... Yes, the evidence is pretty indisputable on this point, AFAICT. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading