Re: Homo Erectus Traits in Hss

On Aug 19, 6:59 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
J.LyonLayden wrote:

To what community are you referring? No one on s.a., to my
knowledge, has written that they believe He didn't have wooden
implements.

Everything has to be cited. No one can just agree on the obvious so
that the discussion can continue. I feel I can scarcely say "A
cockroach is a bug" without providing references to a peer reviewed
journal.


And 'common sense' is not synonymous with 'common knowledge'.

Likewise, if every aussie I meet tells me the same thing about
aboriginals, I tend to think it must have some basis in reality.

There are scads of urban legends that many folks will tell you
are true. Does that mean every urban legend that many folks
repeat as true *must* have some basis in reality?

Most of the time they have SOME basis in reality.


That's what I meant. Why do you think I am inferior to an
Aboriginal?

I don't. I think you have an inferior skull for fighting as compared
to an aboriginal.




To consider an entire group superior, when they are currently
under fairly intense evolutionary pressure, is difficult for me
to understand.

True. I didn't mean to state it that way.


That's a pretty impossible task.

Why? I think it is a pretty easy proposition to test.

To prove it's not endemnic to other populations besides aboriginals,
wouldn't you have to test every single person in the world for a
thicker skull?



Remember that it was once politically correct to hunt Aboriginals
like wild animals. It was once politically correct to think that
black Africans were a separate species from white folks. It was
once politically correct to imagine that the Sons of Ham were by
nature and God's judgment fit only to be slaves.

And remember why we no longer think those things are correct,
politically or otherwise. It is because of those in the dark, as
you would have it, those scientists who formulated the questions,
set up the tests, conducted the trials and found out the facts.

Was it the scientists who stopped it? Or was it those brave souls who
had compassion and common sense, who knew from the get-go that these
people weren't animals? I think it just took a little time for the
slow process of law to catch up with the opportunistic ventures of
evil men.



I'd think that, as a writer, you'd be intensely interested in
finding things out by using, among other tools, the methods of
science.

Well that's what I have research books and you guys for. But there
will be no footnotes in my writing. Alot of it has to be speculation
because we know so little. I just don't want to make speculations that
have a high percentage chance of later being proved wrong.


You might then ignore the findings for the purposes of your
story, as many excellent writers do. But you would at least know
when you were doing so, and not make egregious errors by
inadvertence that your readers would take as ignorance or
carelessness on your part.

That's why I run these things by you guys, so that you can burn me at
the stake before I publish.
For instance: thanks to you guys there will be no true bows in my
model before 13,000 BC.
I just wouldn't be able to get away with it.


I write, too. I am very conscious of needing to know when I'm
going beyond the facts, or ignoring them, for effect. I assume
from your early postings here that you are the same. God send you
are.

I guess what i'm saying is that I am damn sure that neither the multi-
regional nor the "out-of-africa" theory are wholly correct, and that I
strongly suspect that in the future we will find that the truth lies
somewhere in between. And I'm just getting a little frustrated with
all the PC misinformation that is keeping us from that future.




.