Re: Man-eaters


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

Give it up Lee. The majority of humans bury the dead (or dispose of it
through cremation).


The desperation of your example reminds me of Marc presenting evidence
of humans swimming as proof of AAT.

I'm surprised even you would make such a fundamentally flawed argument.
The majority of the world's humans are not hunter/gatherers

That's right. The majority of extant humans are communal, territorial,
and situated. And there is no evidence that indicates that prehistoric
man, going all the way back to the LCA (6 to 8 mya), was not also
communal, territorial, and situated. Right? You have no evidence
based dispute with this supposition. Right?

Why are you being so vague, dimwit?

There's nothing vague about my hypothesis.

What hypothesis?

The one you can't dispute.

You are in denial, get some professional help. The garden guarding
hypothesis was dead the second I pointed out how ridiculous it was for
apiths to guard anything at night, let alone a planted garden.


The lunatic claim that apiths were guarding gardens is
not even good science fiction.

But you admit you cannot dispute it, right?

How many times do you have to see it. You are in denial, get some
professional help. The garden guarding hypothesis was dead the second I
pointed out how ridiculous it was for apiths to guard anything at
night, let alone a planted garden.


Are you really stupid enough to
think apiths were "situated" the same as extant humans?

In some respects they were even more situated than extant humans. Many
humans regularly travel outside their immediate town/city. A'piths
were mostly unable to travel outside their treed community site because
if they did they'd end up a meal for felines, hyena, or dogs. But with
respect to moving around within their community site they would,
probably, have been less situated. The notion of private property was
probably not as well established as it generally is now in human
behavior.

ROTFL


Define "situated" exactly you evasive clown.

It means they didn't travel. Hunter/gatherer behavior is a recent
phenomena. (And therefore is not a model of early man.) This behavior
did not exist until 2.5 mya at the earliest. And until very recently,
it was much more limited than the conventional dodos choose to believe.
(Science isn't about belief. It's about evidence.)

They didn't travel? Your imaginary evidence for that is?????

All of the evidence is consistentd with this supposition.

You evasive twit, what evidence?



living in
close proximity to predators, which are the only groups that count,

You mean that you and the rest of the anthro-dimwit establishment
*choose* to assume that only extant hunter/gatherer groups can be used
as a model of prehistoric man. The truth is that this

You are such a brainless idiot you have forgotten what the issue was
already. Go back (if you are capable) and read again what Paul's claim
was. If you haven't got the brains to do that, take your wooden-man
argument somewhere else.

It's relevant because hunter/gatherers would have no reason to bury the
dead. They'd just move on.

That's what I said, what are you, a parrot?

Try to keep up, retard. You stated that extant hunter/gatherers, "are
the only groups that count," when modeling early humans. This is a
dimwitted notion based on absence of evidence (what you call negative
evidence).

No I didn't. Did you forget something dipstick? Maybe it's your lack of
intellegence that acts as some sort of mental block preventing you from
using attribution marks.



assumption/conclusion is based on absence of evidence (what you
erroneously refer to as "negative evidence").

So, you still lack the intelligence to use a dictionary?

Take a class in philosophy of science. You've a lot to learn--trust
me.

Everyone has a lot to learn, what we get from you here is comedy.

Gee, that's funny. I kinda got the feeling you weren't enjoying this.

Got some real bad news for you Jim, not only do I enjoy this, I get
paid for being here. And in a distant way, you contribute to that pay.


no
matter how few of these H/G groups are left. The thousands of humans
that live in cities or other areas in heavy concentrations, have no
other choice than to bury or cremate their dead.

We have a choice. And we chose to bury our dead.

We? You are a Hadza now?

Uh?

We? You are spokesperson for the Hadza?

You lost me. And I'm sure your point is so inane that it's not worth
going back to figure out.

Who is the "we" that you mentioned?????

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Man-eaters
    ... hypothesis was dead the second I pointed out how ridiculous it was for ... defend their planted gardens day or night. ... Humans currently are effective at defending territory from hebivores. ... All of the evidence is consistentd with this supposition. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their
    ... If you could provide any evidence for your god that was ... If you compare the same DNA sequences from humans, chimps, gorillas, ... How, in your opinion or learning, do you think that life ... For sexual organisms to have evolved ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Man-eaters
    ... The desperation of your example reminds me of Marc presenting evidence ... The majority of the world's humans are not hunter/gatherers ... The majority of extant humans are communal, territorial, ... The garden guarding hypothesis was dead the second I ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Monsoon/mosaic
    ... the evidence I'm talking about is objective. ... My supposition that humans are the most ... territorialism. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their
    ... If you could provide any evidence for your god that was 1/10th ... If you compare the same DNA sequences from humans, chimps, gorillas, ... gibbon from the great apes, then the orangutan from the African apes, ...
    (talk.origins)