Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence

Lee Olsen wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


1) NC: "It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to continually
make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data. You need
to
read the literature and find which ideas you have which are just plain
wrong
and which are worthy of development."

2)DB "best thing you can do is do
substantial background reading,..."

3 GL "Hit the books, kid!"


4) SS "Once again we have unsubstantiated claims re your
interepretation of the
mechanisms of evolution and the palaeoanthropolgical literature. I
gathered that in the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'."

Your replies then are the same as they are now, unsubstantiated
lip-service.

Lee, you somehow navigated around all the substantive parts of these
old post and now you've reduced yourself to a propagandist. There was
nothing substantive to anything you posted here. These comments were
from people that, like yourself, didn't know what they thought, didn't
know why they thunk it, but were sure they were right.

You really don't get it do you? The point of the above is that you
continually advertise your complete ignorance of the literature by
making idiotic statements that prove you do not have even a basic
understanding of it.

I think your assertion would be more convincing if it was based on
content and not propaganda. If what you're saying is true (and you
know it isn't) then it only stands to reason that you can quote me
directly. How many times to I have to make this request? (If you were
a real scientist I would never have to make this request.)

From then on you make a continuous barrage of ad
hominem attacks and circular arguments,

Quote me directly you evasive twit.

everyone else is a dimwit until
you get caught in a "saber-tooth cat" or McGinn: "IOW, it makes about
as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo, neanderdudes,
and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and guns) in treeless
savanna habitat..." BS. So then guns and jeeps become another "
pointless diversion." No, not pointless in the sense that it proves you
did not know what you are talking about in the first place. Too many of
these, a point which you surpassed years ago, and they aren't going to
waste the time discussing anything with an illiterate.

Why not quote the substantive aspects of my conversations at PalAnt,
then you won't have to base your assertion on propaganda?

Go ahead, Lee. Make my day.

If you include the context it is apparent that these comments were
their excuses for why they couldn't answer difficult questions. Post
the conversations that lead up to those dimwitted comments. Then
you'll see what really took place at that idiotfest Palant.

That has nothing to do with the fact that you have made it clear that
your are ignorant of the literature, this makes any hypothetical
thinking from you based on ignorance---- therefore worthless.

IOW, you aren't interested in discussing the substantive aspects of
those conversations. Right? Why do you wish to avoid the substantive
aspects of those conversations? What are you trying to hide (like it's
not obvious).

I don't have a website.

Well, blogs are free.

So is this NG.

So are bathroom walls.

This is your best response yet.

If you now admit that these big cats would not have been slower than
A'pith then why did you bring it up?

I didn't. Slow doesn't mean you will get caught, getting ambused you
will, so stay out of areas where you will get ambushed. That didn't
work for leopards because they can go right up in the tree after you,
and at night, especially, you are duck soup. This is the most
parsimonious reason for all the apiths bones in the caves since leopard
tooth marks match holes in a few apiths skulls. They don't match
saber-tooth cat teeth.

References?

CK Brain (1983)

This is good. But, as I stated previously, I think we need a more
comprehensive analysis on this issue. Until then, if ever, I see no
reason to jump to any conclusions.

As we discussed, I'm not convinced the evidence can be interpreted so
simply as you seem to indicate here. Late miocene ecology--which we
know by way of faunal assemblages reconstructed based on fossil
evidence--was distinctive. This was not only pre-ice age but it was in
the miocene. Different climate, different environment. Different
migratory patterns (more local). There's no reason to jump at the
conclusion that these were leopards or leopard like cats. It's best to
do some kind of quantitative analysis of the evidence and let the
result thereof dictate our conclusions.

Nothing different about your thinking, it never changes. "saber-toothed
lions.....guns and jeeps"

Shut up, retard. I retracted this statement. (And you know I have.)
The only thing that hasn't changed is your desperation.

You haven't had a point for two days now. Why start now?

So you admit it was a good point?

Are lies the only
argument that you can make? To refresh your senile memory:
Message-ID: <1165161275.617844.228160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Lee : "Homo has little problem kicking any of the African
predators off of their kills, they don't have to hunt." Kicking
predators off kills is hardly "peacefully coexist with lions."
Now wonder you always go brain dead when it is pointed out you have a
pointed head.

The difference between genius and dimwittedness is that genius has its
limits.

IOW, you have no rebuttal to the many papers that claim otherwise, that
modern and ancient Homo can kick all predators off kills.

Try me.

Dennell (2002) claims Hadza scare predators (mostly lions) off their
kills with 100% success rate, so do some other groups of good hunters,
but they do have bows, but I've seen photos of their bows and I'm not
impressed. They don't normally kill the lions to get the kill. Other
groups like the smaller San (and lighter bows yet) and those who aren't
as skilled do get themselves killed by lions more often. The other
cats are easy to scare away and so are hyenas.

Early Homo figured out how to do this also. Cut marks on the bones show
they were getting to meat bearing carcasses somehow and defending them
long enough to get major portions of large animals butchered. If they
were so slow and so helpless, how were they beating the faster animals
to the kills or were they doing the killing and just got lucky by not
having any preadators show up? Hard to believe Homo could kill a rhino,
something else must have killed it and they just chased it away. Nor is
it likely they could keep a large kill a secret for very long, with all
those killers able to smell blood a mile away.

This is all anecdotal and modern evidence. (Who was it, Wagler, that
found pictures of lions lounging in trees.) Nevertheless I can see
much of what you're stating here as possible both for modern humans and
for homo if it takes place in treed habitat and by relatively large,
cooperative groups of hominids. None of this could have possibly taken
place in treeless savanna habitat.

All? Boy, you just read right past anything you don't want to know
about don't you? No, quite the contray, Pleistocene Homo was getting to
the fully-fleshed large carcusses and keeping them long enough to get
them butchered. This has been proven at countless sites in treeless
areas.

Yes, and in each case the fossil evidence indicates that the locality
upon which this butchering took place was heavily treed. You cannot
dispute this. In fact, as you keep demonstrating over and over again,
you refuse to even acknowledge this issue.

BTW, the evidence of homo's stone tools is *not* associated with
treeless habitat.

References?

Just as you have no references that contradict this assertion I have
none that confirm it. Again, its a wash.

That's even sillier than your comment: McGinn: "IOW, it makes about as
much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo, neanderdudes,
and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and guns) in treeless
savanna habitat..."

BTW, I have already cited one source for my position, bet you forgot
already didn't you? Well, learn to use the sap search engine, you'll
find it.

You haven't cited anything that associated stone tools with treeless
habitat. And I know for a fact that no such evidence exists.

They are all
lying do you think?

About what?

Taking kills away from the lions and such.

Plausible by large groups in treed habitat (as I explained above.)
Implausible out in treeless habitat.

That's even sillier than your comment: McGinn: "IOW, it makes about as
much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo, neanderdudes,
and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and guns) in treeless
savanna habitat..."

You have never have dealt with anything larger
than a house cat, but you know different?

So, your saying you have hands on experience with big cats? That's
great, but how is it relevant to the issues at hand. Keep in mind I
never claimed to be a mind reader.

Yes and if you know their habits, you can avoid the soup kettle.

The only real worry is tigers and lions, all the rest are just big
chickens (except at night).
Even tigers and lions are very finicky at how they go about what and
who they kill. Early Homo must have figured out these habits. You just
don't walk up to a dead rhino or giraffe and start cutting unless you
know what you are doing.

And you wouldn't walk out into treeless habitat, be anywhere near a
dead animal, and not expect to be swarmed by hyena and lions. This

Not alone, but Hadza do in groups and so did Pleistocene Homo, it
definately would take more talent and courage than you or I have. But
one of the secrets is in numbers. Maasai in groups, with spears,
always win, sure one or two may get mauled pretty bad, but the lion
always ends up dead. So early Homo must have been in large enough
groups to get kills away from the big predators.

evidence can be more parsimoniously explained along the lines that
rhino and giraffe came into A'pith treed habitat where they were
ambushed by hominids or even attacked by predators who then were, as
you describe, chased off by hominids. There's really no good reason
for early hominids to be out in treeless habitat where they were at
such a severe disadvantage.

Sorry, just the opposite and it only takes a few minutes on Google to
show you are wrong. You tried to bluff your way through your
"saber-tooth cat" fiasco, by claiming "they don't know that" Well you
got caught with your pants down, now you want to try again?

You, who lied extensively
about your "saber-toothed lion" knowledge, are very much in denial.

References?

Been cited once, how many times do you need something repeated?


You need mental help.

How so?

The very fact that you forgot the above is a clue.

It was a pointless diversion. I never claimed to be an expert on
saber-toothed lions.

Just about everything you say is a pointless diversion. So is your
Miocene gardens.

Niccolo Caldararo: "It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data. You need to read the literature and find which ideas you
have which are just plain wrong and which are worthy of development."

Propaganda. Real scientists have no need for propaganda. Real
scientist are happy to let their thinking stand on the merit of its
content.

Why don't you show us the question I asked the brought Niccolo to make
these evasive statements? (If you were anything but a propagandist I
wouldn't have to make this request.)

.

Quantcast