Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence

claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:



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.

Yes, you are right, I simply don't do well reading science fiction, I
tend to rush through it giving it the little time it deserves. Modern
hunter gatherers use stone tools for plant-food processing. I expect
data consistent with the evidence. In this case, you have failed to
supply any evidence. Moreover, there is no direct evidence that any of
the apiths were tool users. If you read the paper I cited there is a
discussion on who might have made the first tools, but there is no
proof of who made the tools. If it turns out apiths were not tool
users, then they also couldn't have been using stone tools to drive all
those mean preadators out of their garden.


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.

Nice to be talking with a member of the Flat Earth Society.



Cite your literature that says they were fast.

Cite your literature that says they were slow.

Fat chance, since you have decided that under no circumstances are you
going to cite anything. You expect others to cite, but you have no
intention of citing anything. IOW, you are just a pompous ass.




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.

?

You said the same is true for tortoises, they couls also outrun
anything, yet early Homo managed to catch one. Homo must be faster.





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?

Anyone can hypothesize/imagine anything, proving it is something qiute
different. As I explained to Paul, who doesn't understand anymore about
science than you do, imagination only gets you started. The burden is
on the hypothesizer to gather the evidence, not the other way around.



Your evidence for gardens is?

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

"Did not have"? That is classic negative argument. The burden is on you
to show some sort of evidence. Even weak evidence might work if you
have several independent lines of it. So other than you said so, what
is your evidence?


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.

Well then, we can just sit here and ponder gardens and hopscotch.



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?

?

Your hypothetical thinking was not very well received.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Follow the Evidence
    ... and raw materials for stone tools. ... Not only that but this locality may well have had their main food ... the the dental evidence that does indicated that they consumed grass ... greater savanna? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Preponderence of the Evidence
    ... imply early Homo was in any way tethered to trees any more than ... If any evidence exists, ... If there were any, you would cite it, but since there isn't any, we ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Preponderence of the Evidence
    ... It's the preponderance of the evidence that indicates such. ... If there were any, you would cite it, but since there isn't any, we ... Homo e was not a modern human. ... In the sense that agriculture can be defined, at least in part, as the ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The Knight of Common Sense Vs. the Pope of Vagueness
    ... and raw materials for stone tools. ... Not only that but this locality may well have had their main food ... the the dental evidence that does indicated that they consumed grass ... eating prey species can be better explained as as aspect of ambushing hunting ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Atheists dying
    ... using of fire by humans), but I am connecting fire use with human ... could stretch this to 10 millions or more (I am connecting it with the ... Evidence of fire is actually evidence of hearts. ... Stone tools development was very slow. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)