"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:x8eoh.17341$j7.337484@news.indigo.ie...

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168190766.044555.307200@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

More specifically, everything you are saying here
makes perfect sense in the context of my scenario. But that is because
my scenario successfully predicts the emergence of communalism
(society), which is a prerequisite for everything you are stating here.
Ironically, this is something your own scenario fails to predict.

Not true. A ground-living species which had
bands the size of chimps could just as readily
have adopted such a strategy. (Although, I'm
sure the first hominids would have had larger
bands.)

On further thoughts, anything like a 'chimp
society' would not work. Chimp bands usually
have tiny territories; and all the local hominid
bands would require access to the local burial
site, or sea-cliff, or deep cave, or vulture-
mountain, or whatever. So you are right in
that the hominids would need to be organised
on a much wider basis -- each 'tribe' being, say,
at least a couple of hundred adults.

This is not a problem to me,

and I don't see all
the 'communalism' that you see as necessary.

Many species work in groups of such a size
or much greater, such as Gelada baboons.

Paul Crowley wrote:
When predators acquire a taste for human
flesh, they can be devastating. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Corbett_(hunter)

" . . . Between 1907 and 1938, Corbett tracked and put down at
least a dozen man-eaters. It is estimated that the combined total
of men, women and children these twelve animals had killed was
in excess of 1,500. . . "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_of_Rudraprayag

One of these animals was the "Leopard of
Rudraprayag" which is claimed to have killed
over 125 people. It is said to have acquired
the taste for human flesh during the influenza
epidemic when there were too many copses
to be disposed of properly (cremation being
the standard method in India), and fresh
human bodies were left out in the open.

Whether or not that is true, there is no doubt
that very few wild predators attack humans
even when they would seem to have plenty of
fairly risk-free opportunity. The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Makes perfect sense.

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:

is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Makes perfect sense.


Yes, it would make perfect sense to a loon who thinks apiths guarded
gardens at night from cape buffalo and lions.

Lee Olsen wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:
When predators acquire a taste for human
flesh, they can be devastating.

Is that why the the human population in India outnumbers tigers 500,000
to 1?


Whether or not that is true, there is no doubt
that very few wild predators attack humans
even when they would seem to have plenty of
fairly risk-free opportunity. The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Really? If your pub logic were correct, then the Maasai should have
gone extinct thousands of years ago.

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.

Lee Olsen wrote:

You could disprove this by
quoting some examples of good logic from
such a source. How about: "The first
hominids stood and walked upright to
minimise the heat of the midday sun" . . .?

Or: "The first hominids stood and walked
upright to feed from trees as they gradually
moved further and further apart as the climate
grew drier" . . .?

Why? You don't have the intellegence to find a library?

Give it up you evasive twit. Paul's right. You conventional dimwits
have nothing but this kind of vague silliness which you couch in a
bunch important sounding words.

Stick with arrowheads and other stone tools. Like all athropologists
you are out of your element discussing the issues of homind evolution
in the context of biological evolution. You phonies aren't fooling
anybody worth fooling.

Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:

The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Makes perfect sense.


Yes, it would make perfect sense to a loon who thinks apiths guarded
gardens at night from cape buffalo and lions.

IOW, you admit you have no dispute with this supposition. Right?

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

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

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.

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:

The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Makes perfect sense.


Yes, it would make perfect sense to a loon who thinks apiths guarded
gardens at night from cape buffalo and lions.

IOW, you admit you have no dispute with this supposition. Right?

IOW, you admit you are a loon who thinks apiths guarded gardens at
night. Right?

For 2007 you need to work on how C4 grass was getting into the apith.
diet. If they were
actually planting gardens,

then why were they planting savanna grass
under their trees?

Why would they need to plant grass at all, since it
grows there naturally.

Why would you want to call grass a garden in the
first place, whether deliberately planted or not?

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?

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

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

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.

Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:

The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Makes perfect sense.


Yes, it would make perfect sense to a loon who thinks apiths guarded
gardens at night from cape buffalo and lions.

IOW, you admit you have no dispute with this supposition. Right?

IOW, you admit you are a loon who thinks apiths guarded gardens at
night. Right?

Answer the question you evasive twit, you have no dispute with this
supposition. Right?

For 2007 you need to work on how C4 grass was getting into the apith.
diet. If they were
actually planting gardens,

I never stated A'piths planted gardens, retard.

then why were they planting savanna grass
under their trees?

I never stated any such thing you desperate strawman baiting twit.

Why would they need to plant grass at all, since it
grows there naturally.

I think you just answered your own question.

Why would you want to call grass a garden in the
first place, whether deliberately planted or not?

Don't ask me. I never stated such, you idiot.

Many species work in groups of such a size
or much greater, such as Gelada baboons.

Are you paying attention? There's more to my scenario than group size.

It's the group selective aspect that is necessary. Until you recognize
this there's not much hope for you. Why is it you think human
social/communicative/cultural adaptations need no evolutionary
explanation?

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168226623.028069.48070@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Many species work in groups of such a size
or much greater, such as Gelada baboons.

Are you paying attention? There's more to my scenario than group size.

It's the group selective aspect that is necessary. Until you recognize
this there's not much hope for you. Why is it you think human
social/communicative/cultural adaptations need no evolutionary
explanation?

Humans possess some extraordinarily
sophisticated capacities -- especially
language. They do indeed need an
evolutionary explanation, but yours is
not it.

You are following the tradition (which
continued up to about 1940) which
assumed that large brains came first,

followed later by other changes in
morphology. Like the large brain, the
language capacities, etc., should not
been seen as crucial to the niche,

as later add-ons, to a species that was
already in the right sort of niche.
Our first task is to explain the nature
of that niche.

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:

The key, it seems,
is to discourage them from ever eating human
flesh, so that they never start to see humans
as prey. A crucial part of this strategy is to
dispose of human dead in a way that prevents
consumption by predators and scavengers.

The first hominid society to adopt this policy
would do far better than its neighbours. In
fact, it is likely that with this policy a hominid
population could survive in numerous places
where otherwise hominid life would be out
of the question.

The most obvious means of disposal of the
dead is by burial. It was, almost certainly,
an integral part of the hominid niche from
the origin of the taxon.

Makes perfect sense.


Yes, it would make perfect sense to a loon who thinks apiths guarded
gardens at night from cape buffalo and lions.

IOW, you admit you have no dispute with this supposition. Right?

IOW, you admit you are a loon who thinks apiths guarded gardens at
night. Right?

Answer the question you evasive twit, you have no dispute with this
supposition. Right?

Wrong, idiot. What part of that are you too stupid to understand?

For 2007 you need to work on how C4 grass was getting into the apith.
diet. If they were
actually planting gardens,

I never stated A'piths planted gardens, retard.

Oh, so you are denying you made an association between apiths and
gardens?

then why were they planting savanna grass
under their trees?

I never stated any such thing you desperate strawman baiting twit.

Oh, so you are denying you made an association between apiths and
gardens?

Why would they need to plant grass at all, since it
grows there naturally.

I think you just answered your own question.

And at the same time destroyed any association between gardens and
apiths, in case there was any lingering doubt.

Why would you want to call grass a garden in the
first place, whether deliberately planted or not?

Don't ask me. I never stated such, you idiot.

So you admit apiths never had anything at all to do with gardens?

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net 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?

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

Define "situated" exactly you evasive clown.

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.

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?

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?

Paul Crowley wrote:
claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168226623.028069.48070@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Many species work in groups of such a size
or much greater, such as Gelada baboons.

Are you paying attention? There's more to my scenario than group size.

It's the group selective aspect that is necessary. Until you recognize
this there's not much hope for you. Why is it you think human
social/communicative/cultural adaptations need no evolutionary
explanation?

Humans possess some extraordinarily
sophisticated capacities -- especially
language. They do indeed need an
evolutionary explanation, but yours is
not it.

Wrong. My scenario explains it. Yours does not. Your scenario just
assumes it.

You are following the tradition (which
continued up to about 1940) which
assumed that large brains came first,

I'm not following anything but the evidence and logic. It's ludicrous
to assume these abilities only evolved recently.

followed later by other changes in
morphology. Like the large brain, the
language capacities, etc., should not
been seen as crucial to the niche,

It is crucial to the niche. That's why it evolved. If it wasn't then
it wouldn't have evolved. It's that simple.

but
as later add-ons, to a species that was
already in the right sort of niche.
Our first task is to explain the nature
of that niche.

I've already done that. Game over.