Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence

claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:

I see one of your problems, "assumptions." Negative evidence.

If you have proof of an assumption it's no longer an assumptions. (By
the way, this is basically common knowledge.)

Wrong. Evidence is not necessarily proof. Seldom do you find smoking
gun evidence for what was going on 2.5 mya. Two people can look at the
same 'weak' evidence and arrive at a totally opposite conclusion. I'm
supprised you didn't know that.



All scientific hypotheses involve assumptions.

Yep, and until someone gathers some positive evidence, it just sits in
the dead-letter bin.



Nothing
anyone can do to falsify assumptions, anymore than he could falsify the
Atlantis Theory.

Brilliant deduction, Sherlock.

Now, put two and two together and tell me what the difference is
between your hypothesis and the Atlantis Theory?


Science is about forming hypotheses and devising tests
to falsify the null. Assumptions are worthless on their own. Unlike
yourself, he is in a position to make positive contributions, so why
would he take the time to argue someting built on arguments of
ignorance?

Thank you Captain Obvious.

In the case of your own hypothesis, you have demonstrated a profound
ignorance of the literature. So the basis of your hypothesis is on a
foundation of ignorance. At best it can be called science fiction.


"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."

In my scenario the animals come to them during the dry season.

How did they kill giraffes and rhinos?

Ambush.

With what? Any one that can kill a rhino or a giraffe, will have no
fear from lions. By the way, cape buffalo will be certain to find this
garden. Kiss your garden goodbye.


Ignoring hard evidence and making lip service replies only proves what
an illiterate troll you are.
Caldararo is a professor and you are a grade-school student.

Caldararo is an idiot. Any idiot can get a degree in anthropology.

References?

Like yourself and the rest of the whackos on this NG, he doesn't know
what he thinks, doesn't know why he thinks it, but he is sure he is
right.

Lip service, the only argument you have any talent for.


it's not as comically fallacious as A'pith outrunning lion and cheetah.
But it really isn't much better. Hominids normally would not choose
to put themselves anywhere within 5 miles of hyena and lion. You seem
to wish to ignore this.


I'm not sure if you are really not intelligent enough to remember from
one sentence to the next what was said, or if you are too stupid to
know the difference between A'piths and early Homo? I clearly stated
above "For early
Homo," and you immediatelty changed that to "A'pith"

I indicated all hominids, retard.

Yes you did, but I didn't. So if you don't have the intelligence to
quote me directly, I'll understand, retard.

I love the idea that Lucy jumped into a tree to escape big cats
(except leopards of course). Now early Homo--- there was a mean,
running machine.

Homo normally would not choose to put themselves anywhere within 5
miles of hyena and lion. You seem to wish to ignore this.

OK, that's better, back to Homo. I'm listening on this one. How could
they prevent it.

By avoiding carcasses.

Not only did they not avoid them, they were getting the prime cuts of
meat off them also. Cut marks and tooth marks demonstrate they were
right there mixing it up with all the other predators.


I know for a fact tigers watch for buzzards and listen
for any unusual commotion in the distance that might be a signal for a
kill going on. Lions and hyenas would just as soon take a kill away
from another predator as kill it themselves. I know hyena dens have
been found near archaeological sites, so at least they weren't avoiding
them. Tooth marks are over tool marks. The reverse is also true. These
creatures were in the same areas at almost the same time, period.

I agree. They'd have stayed in treed habitat as a result (where they
have a tactical advantage).

Except the stone tools are out in the open areas. You get ambushed in
the trees because that is where all the cats hide, in the tall grass
and in the treeded areas. Think they are going to sit out in the open
where every creature can see them?



In spite of what any secondary source told you, archaeological sites
are found in treeless areas.

There is no evidence that substantiates this.

Niccolo Caldararo:
"You really need to do some reading (and I've said this before). It is
embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data."


So that means no trees to climb if a lion
shows up. But what if the kill was next to a tree. Homo climbs up to
save himself. Pride of lions moves in, eats the dead animal and then
does just what lions do most of the time, sleep. Twenty hours later
Homo is still up the tree. Male lions are still hanging around the area
while females are off hunting the next day.

I agree. In fact this behavior, what I refer to as predatory siege
behavior, is an important part of my hypothesis. The lions would hang
out, waiting for a desperate A'pith to get so hungry or thirsty that
they take a chance and go down from the tree. The lions move in.



Great, so apiths ran real fast to the next tree and planted their
garden there?
Since I was clearly talking about Homo and said so ("Homo climbs..").
Did Homo have gardens also?
Yep, better off out in the open where you can't get trapped.



If you think an acacia tree is some kind of relief from 115 degree
daytime temps, think again. What if the lions move off? What if they
don't?

I never mentioned acacia trees.
I did, because that is the most popular tree out on the acacia savanna.
You had 50-100 yds between trees or at least you said apiths never got
any further away from them than that.
What exactly is the kind of treed area that you think they lived?


Share and share alike.

Do your methods involve a crystal ball?

No, just the same old journal stuff that you were supposed to have read
and didn't.



The only evidence we get from
you is lip service claiming lions descended from saber-toothed cats. No
wonder you are too paranoid to produce your evidence, you are afraid it
will be shot down, just like your saber-tooth lion evidence.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... Homo, they were getting to the prime cuts somehow. ... The point is that you have neither evidence nor a well reasoned ... Hard to believe Homo could kill a rhino, ... Pride of lions moves in, eats the dead animal and then ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedal adaptation
    ... statements that hominis can outrun lions, hyena, dogs, etc. ... yet only one fossil Homo has been found in sixty years ... Cause leopards can climb up in trees better. ... Fossil evidence indicates presence of trees. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... Homo, they were getting to the prime cuts somehow. ... The point is that you have neither evidence nor a well reasoned ... Hard to believe Homo could kill a rhino, ... Pride of lions moves in, eats the dead animal and then ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... miles of hyena and lion. ... OK, that's better, back to Homo. ... But what if the kill was next to a tree. ... Pride of lions moves in, eats the dead animal and then ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... miles of hyena and lion. ... OK, that's better, back to Homo. ... But what if the kill was next to a tree. ... Pride of lions moves in, eats the dead animal and then ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading