Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Will in New Haven wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Will in New Haven wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

A'pith were not small animals.
Not small to a mouse, but small to big cat normal prey.

You're putting forth a specious argument.

Says the loon who thinks lions evolved from saber-toothed cats.


and don't bother to chase them. They don't do the stalking that is the
necessary prelude to a chase. If the small animal stumbles into them,
sure they kill it and eat it.

And if they caught one outside of treed habitat they'd chase it down
and eat it. It's that simple.

Sorry, wrong again.

Shut up idiot. You've turned into Marc. The behavior of large feline
predators is common knowledge, you idiot.

You just got though telling us cat habits were diferent back in the
Miocene, now you say they weren't. You belong in a zoo.

Quote me directly you evasive twit.




Remember, this is the guy claiming that apiths were driving predators
out of their gardens with weapons.

I never stated that, idiot. Quote me directly you strawman baiting
phoney.

What did you say they were using tools for again?

Read upthread.



Look, ***. I said that they were faster _in a straight line_ _for a
very limited distance_ If no scimitar-tooth cat ever ate an apith, it
would be shocking. If any population of scimitar-tooth cats ever made
much of their living at it, it would be shocking. Fool.

Yes. Obviously and Apith could not survive open habitat. So they were
isolated at their treed patches in the greater savanna. Now you seem
to be getting it.

Why happened to all the weapons you claimed they might have had?

What's your point, retard?

What did you say they were using tools for again?

Read upthread.



Life would be tough enough without the very large cats. An apith alone
would have no defense against a leopard. A band of them could, if they
were always vigilant, protect themselves against a leopard much of the
time. If they went into the open, hyenas would be the big danger, not
the big cats, and would be a big enough danger to suit anyon.

Relevance?

You have a hypothesis. You think it will help your argument to bring up
predators that would have almost NO impact on an apith population.

The behavior in my hypothesis involves predatory massacres. This

Evidence?

You can't dispute it? Right?

You can't dispute they weren't playing hopscotch either, so what is
your point? Lots of things can be made up that can't be refuted.
Proving them is something you can't do.

You admit you have no hypothesis of your own. You admit you can't
dispute my hypothesis. Right?




phenomena, predatory massacre at hominid sites, no longer takes place.
(The reason they no longer take place is because hominids occupy and
control these sites.) Consequently there currently are no predators
that have the behaviors thereof. So for you to draw conclusions based

Evidence?

You can't dispute it? Right? And it sure explains a lot. Right?
(You can't dispute this either.)

You made the claim retard, the burden is on you to provide the
evidence. Cite any qualified scientist that states otherwise.

My statements are consistent with the evidence. And you confirmed this
by way of your failure to find any evidence that disputes it. Correct?



on present day observation of predators and conclude that therefore the
phenomena I hypothesize was not possible is an invalid approach to
disputing my hypothesis.

You mean refuting your dimwitted imagination.

Are you saying that the ecology of late miocene east Africa would not
be distinctive in the manner I stated?

What does that have to do with the fact that the only big cats around
at the time, other than leopards, can't catch Lucy in a tree?

What are you talking about?




Lee, you seem incapable of discussing any of this and emotionally
incapable of taking a stand on any evidence based issue.

For an illiterate that hasn't supplied one bit of evidence to back up
any of your imaginary statements, that is your best comedy line yet.

In short, predators are different now than they were back then because
of human dominance. In the late miocene, humans weren't dominant,
predators were.

You just got through saying they weren't.

Quote me directly and in context you retard. Or go find a new hobby.

Shithead, I told you four times I never said there were no big
predators in the Miocene, yet you kept stating otherwise with no direct
quote. You begged for the flame war, now you have it, now you whine,
what a baby. You can dish it out but you can't take it. Grow up.

I don't know what you're talking about. You have a problem with
quoting people directly? Is it against your religion?




Let
it rest and go argue with the rest of the people here who are intensely
interested in primates. I am telling you where you are building your
case on nonsense, not saying that your case as a whole is nonsense.

And I'm telling you that you are basing your conclusions on present day
observations. They are not applicable to late miocene ecology. The

Says who, the loon that thought saber-tooth cats were ancestral to
lions?

Yeah, and you're so desperate to save face that you can't even stay on
topic.

? Take another look at your topic that you started in your first
thread. Then you switched to gardens. That is sticking to the topic?

But, just the same, pointing out your ignorance is very much on topic.
It shows there is no sound foundation for your claims, you just make it
up as you go.

If you have no hypothesis of hominid evolution and no ability to
dispute those of others, then what are you doing here?




world was a different place back then. It was wetter. The monsoon
climate was a new phenomena. There were no humans to dominate as we do
now. If you want to dispute my hypothesis you have to do it in the
context of late miocene ecology. Not present day ecology.

No one can dispute negative evidence gardens, dimwit.

I'm not presenting evidence, retard. I'm presenting a theoretical
interpretation of the evidence. Theoretical interpretations don't come
with plus or minus signs. Nor does evidence for that matter.


I'm not saying my hypothesis represents absolute truth. All I'm saying
is that it is better than all of the alternative explanations. And
your efforts have gone a long way toward helping me establish this
publicly.

Imagination only gets you started. Data and tests complete to job.

My hypothesis is consistent with all the data and tests. Do you
dispute this?

Any
fool can claim anything they want happened in the past, proving it is
the rest of science. The burden is on the person that makes the claim,
not the rest of the world to disprove a negative. Your scenario is no
more viable than the Atlantis Theory.

Nevertheless you cannot dispute it. Or, at least, not without
misrepresenting late miocene ecology.


By the way, where is the abstract and references to your alleged
"Theoretical interpretations" located?

Search engine.

.

Quantcast