Re: Preponderence of the Evidence

On Dec 31, 12:52 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 31, 11:43 am, claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Why not refer directly to my highly detailed hypothesis?

Because
1) it has been peer-reviewed by competent professionals and
got 100% negative reviews (Laden, Solomon, etc).

From an evidence-based perspective those reviews were 100% positive.
Science involves evidence not propaganda.


2) Not even your own mother would believe this:

 Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."

Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."

Jim McGinn:  "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
and arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?"

All as false as your night-vision abilities as compared to other more
nocturnal
creatures.

Details in a hypothesis prove nothing if the details are false.

If you have a dispute with the content of my hypothesis you should
present it and avoid propaganda statements.
.