| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » I Hereby Formally Dispute Your Theory!!!
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:16 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jan 29, 8:36 am, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Quote: claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1170087977.467916.74030@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 28, 8:16 pm, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Is there any evidence that they did not have
gardens, or something to
that effect?
But do you have any evidence for gardens?
Much of the existing evidence is consistent with
gardens/groves, etc.
Would please give a specific instance and reference and
how it "is consistent
with gardens/groves"...
This seems like the typical really stupid question. It's
common
knowledge that it's we have no record of specific instances
prior to
recorded history. How can this not have been obvious to
you?
It's stupid to ask for your evidence and an example?
Read upthread and/or see my hypothesis. (If you're having
trouble
finding my hypothesis ask Mikey.)
I repeat: It's stupid to ask for your evidence and an example?
It's common knowledge that it's we have no record of specific
instances
prior to recorded history. How can this not have been obvious to
you?
Surely you have SOME evidence, then, to support your "hypothesis"?
Of course. All the evidence supports my hypothesis. None of the
evidence contradicts it. (You are confirming this last point by way of
your inability to find any evidence that contradicts my hypothesis.)
Post your evidence then.
It's not necessary. You are not disputing any part of my hypothetical
thinking. And you already confirmed that you cannot dispute any of
it. Game over. Next contestant.
Me! Me! Me!
I hereby formally dispute your hypothetical
thinking.
Uh . . . okay. Why the formality
Quote: You have not provided a single
shred of evidence that supports any of it
Uh, all the evidence supports it. You've confirmed that you have no
dispute with it.
Quote: to the exclusion of other far more reasonable
(and supported) hypotheses.
Uh . . . BTW, your delusions about humans outrunning horses in desert
habitat--or whatever plainly dimwitted notion you have floating around
in your head--are not evidence. Evidence is objective. It's
measurable. Like Paul you have to make more of an effort to
distinguish between your imagination and evidence.
Quote: I hereby claim
as an absolutely indisputable hypothesis that
you are out of your fucking mind.
Game over!!
Where's Paul? Marc? Anybody?
You know what the difference between my hypothesis and that of all the
rest of you. Whereas your hypotheses are unable to predict the
emergence of human society my hypothesis is unable to not predict it.
You've all been at a severe disadvantage. Trying to describe human
evolution without describing the emergence of human society (including
all of the adaptations that allow us to achieve/maintain society/
community) is like trying to describe bird evolution without
mentioning wings. It's absurd. And anybody that would propose such,
Paul, Marc and the rest of you Dieteker wannabees, are themselves
absurd. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Day Brown |
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I dunno as I have a dog in this fight, but I thot it was rather common
knowlege that Indians ran down horses on the Great Plains.
If you thot about it, which apparently you have not, you'd realize
that the Indian could carry food and water, whereas the horse cant.
Note as well that horse races dont run much over a mile. After that,
they are winded, whereas we have marathons where hominids run 26
miles. There is no other creature on Earth that can run that far, that
fast. I dunno about the whales, but they are not on Earth are they.
Most everybody knows the hordes of Genghis Khan swept across Asia at
such remarkable speed that they conquered the world's greatest empire.
Few realize that every Mongol took with him *5* horses so he could
trade off mounts. That, and the fact that the Mongol himself didnt
weigh much, created unprecidented mobility.
Altho frankly, I dont think hominids bothered running down prey in
open desert or grassland. As I outline in http://www.dc-pc.org/raj/
raj.html, they would have found it far more profitable to watch for
the circles of vultures. Now, the speed of a team of hunters becomes
critical; if they can arrive at the kill sight in time, they can use
sticks and stones to drive off *all* other preditors. With stone axes
they can smash the joints to extract the marrow. They can use the
intestines as bags to carry meat slung on the shoulders like sausage.
There wont be much left when they leave. But only the fastest teams
get to live well.
As I outline in Raj, fairly early on, the hominid habit of attacking
all other preditors would have created a safe zone that herbivores
would learn to spend the night in. And if the hominids only watch the
vulture circles and take those kills, the herbivores would not see
hominids as preditors, and allow the hominids to move among them
freely. Which I have done, walking thru herds of cattle *that have
never seen me*, with no sense of alarm on either their part nor mine.
I cant recommend trying this with American Bison; the interaction with
Indians was different. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Al Zeller |
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Day Brown wrote:
Quote: I dunno as I have a dog in this fight, but I thot it was rather common
knowlege that Indians ran down horses on the Great Plains.
If you thot about it, which apparently you have not, you'd realize
that the Indian could carry food and water, whereas the horse cant.
Note as well that horse races dont run much over a mile. After that,
they are winded, whereas we have marathons where hominids run 26
miles. There is no other creature on Earth that can run that far, that
fast. I dunno about the whales, but they are not on Earth are they.
There are several 50 and 100-mile trail races that have both humans and
horses in them. The fastest horses usually beat all the humans, even tho
the horses have a bunch of forced rests and vet checks.
Al Zeller |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 2, 3:42 am, Al Zeller <r10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: Day Brown wrote:
I dunno as I have a dog in this fight, but I thot it was rather common
knowlege that Indians ran down horses on the Great Plains.
If you thot about it, which apparently you have not, you'd realize
that the Indian could carry food and water, whereas the horse cant.
Note as well that horse races dont run much over a mile. After that,
they are winded, whereas we have marathons where hominids run 26
miles. There is no other creature on Earth that can run that far, that
fast. I dunno about the whales, but they are not on Earth are they.
There are several 50 and 100-mile trail races that have both humans and
horses in them. The fastest horses usually beat all the humans, even tho
the horses have a bunch of forced rests and vet checks.
"forced rests"? If you were hunting them instead of racing them, the
plan would be to keep them away from water.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/1804830.stm
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.htmlhttp://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1206/1206_samplings.html
John E. Pfeiffer The emergence of man New York, Harper & Row [1972].
Page 109 gives an example of a lone hunter chasing down an antelope in
even less time than in the article above. Hunting cooperatively cuts
the chase time down even more.
> Al Zeller |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc Verhaegen |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net> wrote in message
news:q327s2p8t0tv654tl7v8d483ea8oei4pbt@4ax.com...
Quote: John E. Pfeiffer The emergence of man New York, Harper & Row [1972].
Page 109 gives an example of a lone hunter chasing down an antelope in
even less time than in the article above. Hunting cooperatively cuts
the chase time down even more.
See also the paper "Persistence Hunting by Modern Hunter-Gatherers" by
Louis Liebenberg in de december 2006 issue of Current Anthropology:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CA/journal/issues/v47n6/200064/brief/200064.abstract.html
Lieberman observed several of these hunts that take place at the
hottest time of the day with maximum temperatures at 39-42 C, covering
distances of up to 35 km in 3.5 hours. And here we're talking about
hunting highly adapted animals such as Kudu. Of course, we're also
talking about acclimatized hunters and not about an average Western
couch potato. The former is probably a more apropriate model in
questions about early Homo. Gerrit
My boy, AFAIK, nobody ever disputed that there are some remote populations
where some adult men (not women, not children) sometimes hunt like that.
The point is:
- The former is no doubt no appropriate model for early Homo, just see the
comparative evidence.
- Everything we know suggests human ancestors were always strongly
waterside.
- Comparative evidence proves human ancestors at one time after the H/P
split parttime dived for food.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
AAT (shoreline adaptations of the genus Homo) is based on the
behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of living humans vs. chimps & other animals.
Sea/lake-side ancestors collecting coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
shell-, crayfish, algae etc. explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes
or australopiths) better than plains- or forest-dwelling : brain size,
diving skills, breath control, vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles,
tongue bone descent, longer airway, projecting nose, poor sense of smell,
handiness, tool use, late puberty, long legs, aligned body, poor climbing,
fur loss, fatness, high needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated
fatty acids etc.
Homo & Pan split ~6-4 Ma. Most likely, Homo populations dispersed along
coasts & rivers, in savannas & elsewhere : in spite of sea level
fluctuations (difficult fossilisation), Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma are
found near Rift valley lakes, Indian Ocean & African coasts : Mojokerto,
Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea etc. (18 km sea crossing
to reach Flores http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:01 am
|
|