Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
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.

Well, I think your comments only bolster my claim that my hypothesis is
indisputable. You do admit, don't you, that you have not presented any

Of course it's indisputable, so is the Hopscotch Theory, prove me
wrong. You can't.




kind of dispute of my assertions. Are you saying that stone tipped
spears would not be useful to a community of Apiths that wished to keep
inmigrating herbivorous species from getting access to their garden
habitat? Are you saying that a community of Apiths that wished to keep
inmigrating herbivorous species out of their garden habitat would not,
as a result of maintaining their general health and well being through
the depth of the dry season, be less likely to be a target for
predators during the dry season? Are you saying that predators would
not instinctively key in on communities (of Apith and other species)
that are the most starving, desperate and, therefore vulnerable? Are
you saying anything at all?


You made every bit of that up. It is sci-fiction at it's worst. Think
about a career in stand-up comedy.


Modern
hunter gatherers use stone tools for plant-food processing.

Relevance?

You are an idiot.


I expect
data consistent with the evidence. In this case, you have failed to
supply any evidence.

In this discipline we all use the same evidence.

Then how have you managed to hide this evidence from the world for so
long?


Moreover, there is no direct evidence that any of
the apiths were tool users.

Relevance. You seem to not be following the gist of the thread.

There is no evidence that any apith ever used a stone tool. You made
all that up, just like you made up "saber-tooth lion."


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.

Relevance?

You don't have even the basics for understanding science, get to the
library.

If it turns out apiths were not tool
users,

Well, according to my hypothesis they employed rocks and sticks to head
off or drive out these large, mammalian pests. So if what you're
saying is true it effectively refutes my whole hypothesis.

Unsuported, undocumented demented ramblings. Chimps throw rocks. This
has been known for years. There is nothing new about this, so what is
your point?



then they also couldn't have been using stone tools to drive all
those mean preadators out of their garden.

Are you saying that A'pith could not have used rocks and sticks? Are

Idiot, you have simply copied what the entire field has said for years.
What is new about that that you couldn't have gotten from Nova?



you saying that even if they could they would not have been (or could
not have been) effective preventing the inmigration of large mammallian
pests and thereby preserving territorial resources? Are you saying
that even if it did preserve territorial resources in the manner I
indicate that it would make no difference because A'pith were typically
not confined to patches of treed habitat in the manner I specified and
therefore they would just meander over and across treeless habitat to ?
Are you saying anthing? Or are you, again, saying that you are saying
something but really you aren't saying anthing or, at least, not
anything relevant to the issue at hand?

I'm saying that you made up gardens. There is no more evidence for
gardens than there is the Hopscotch Theory.


<snip>

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.

It is only ever necessary to site something if it is disputed. You
have dismissed much of my thinking. But you haven't disputed any of
it.

Gardens are negative evidence, sci-fi. You have been watching too much
TV.




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.

No. It's the burden of those critical of a hypothesis to dispute it.
When they fail, as you have done here, this is the best indicator of
scientific validity. (Once again, retard, we all use the same
evidence.)

Congradulations, you are the only person on the planet (besides the
other sci-illiterates) that believes that. Do you hear voices often?


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?

Obviously this is a wash, retard. So you only look even more stupid
(and desperate) to even bring it up. Obviously I have no direct
evidence of these gardens. And obviously you have no direct evidence
that disputes their existence.

Then cite anyone besides you that thinks so, besides the creationists
that 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?

No.

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

I'll leave that to you.

Can't refute the Hopscotch Theory eh? Didn't think you could.



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.

They appear to be a bit threatened, don't they.

Prove it, Mr. Lip Service.


How about your own hypothesis, Lee. Is it threatened by any of this?

Do you have a hypothesis of early hominid evolution? Yes? No? Maybe?
Not yet? I haven't thought about it yet? Anything?

You are confusing science fiction and unsupported imagination with
science. Get a library card and try to get an education.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... the large predators found in treeless savanna habitat is inconsistent ... Are you saying that a community of Apiths that wished to keep ... data consistent with the evidence. ... Is there any evidence that they did not have gardens, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... the large predators found in treeless savanna habitat is inconsistent ... Are you saying that a community of Apiths that wished to keep ... data consistent with the evidence. ... I'm saying that you made up gardens. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... Of course it's indisputable, so is the Hopscotch Theory, prove me ... Are you saying that a community of Apiths that wished to keep ... data consistent with the evidence. ... I'm saying that you made up gardens. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... Of course it's indisputable, so is the Hopscotch Theory, prove me ... Are you saying that a community of Apiths that wished to keep ... data consistent with the evidence. ... I'm saying that you made up gardens. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Cameron & Groves latest book positive about AAH
    ... > I thought McGinns capital ape theory has some merit before he ... > derived from fish, not out of desire but out of neccesity. ... > attraction of a habitat and other variations of the habitat. ... > certain specific form of evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading