Re: Born to run long distances

Op 16-09-2007 17:23, in artikel
1189956237.597661.97850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

Parotted for the 100th time this irrelevant blabla:

Says the amateur who doesn't know a capybara from a mountain beaver.

My little boy, you're no doubt the most stupid of the savanna believers
(which is not easy):

ROFL! That's the best argument you have, insults? How childish.

Well, Wagler seems to be even more stupid that you: he now claims (see other
post) humans have no myoglobin... :-DDDDDDDDD

Whether or not mountain beavers (with enamel microwear cf.*apiths*) are
semi-aquatic is of no importance for the waterside evolution of *Homo*.

No answer, of course (I guess too difficult), only the usual irrelevant
blabla:

Everyone on this planet knows, except you, that garbage in equals
garbage out. Sloppy research equals sloppy conclusions. If you can't
get the simple basics right, how can you get the more complex issues
right?
Do you think the mountain beaver error was the only one in your
pathetic TREE 2002 paper?

It's not even an error. There were a few errors, but I'm afraid you're too
stupid to find them (esp.in Box 1).
I'm waiting for *your* publications, my little boy, the self-named
Scientist. Afraid to show them?

On page 215 you argue: "....(e.g. tools attributed to A. robustus
now suggest termite-eating [30])."

And?? Have you checked ref.30??

Then on page 217 you turn right around and claim: "Oldowan: earliest
stone tool industries, usually attributed to early Homo."

And?? Any point?? What does our little boy want to say??

You simply switch arguements for whatever page you happen to be on at
the time. Okidoki?

Switching?? You're crazy.

My little boy, short-sighted imbeciles like you confuse a logical inventory
& comparison & discussion of the facts with just-so interpretations à la
savanna.

That Homo was watereside in savannas or elsewhere is beyond doubt for any
sensible person.

The same claim can be made for any creature that walks to a waterhole
for a drink of water. Are baboons littoral?

Confusing baboons with humans, my boy? :-) Already seen naked, fat baboons
with small canines, atrophied olfaction, aligned body etc.? I suggest you
do a bit primatology.

The bonobos are closely surrounded by rivers and swamps (far more so
than early Homo, who is continually found with associated with dry-
land ostriches) does that make them littoral? Do chimps, baboons, and
Homo have web feet like capybaras who are waterside creatures? So
water has nothing what-so-ever to do with accounting for our
differences from chimps as AAT so ridiculously claims.

Well, after all you're more stupid than Wagler (luckily: I've always liked
Wagler more than you).
Never heard of, eg, clawless otters who search for shells etc.& use stone
tools to open them & have remarkably humanlike fingers? Probably not.
Well, my boy, these creatures have no webs... :-) Only imbeciles like you
claim that semi-aq.animals have to have webbed fingers. Sigh. Go to
school, my boy.

.

Loading