Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


Lee Olsen wrote:
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?

Sure.


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.

"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.....

This is perfectly consistent with what I stated.

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"

I never asserted they used stone tools for plant processing. They used
their teeth for plant processing. I asserted stone weapons for pest
control, specifically as a deterent to large, mammalian herbivorous
pests. Pest control was part of their strategy to survive the dry
season and it's predatory implications.

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).



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.

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

There is no evidence that indicates such.





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.

Cite your literature that says they were slow.



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.

So you don't dispute my hypothetical thinking you dispute the
hypothesizer, myself. Right?





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?

Is there any evidence that they did not have gardens, or something to
that effect?

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?

No.




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.

Is that why all those people back 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 ... 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 ... You are the lying clown that claims he is familiar with the literature. ... and slighter than moden humans and the Sabertoothed lion ..." ...
    (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)
  • 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: 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)