| Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » Meet "Ardi"... |
|
Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| RichTravsky... |
 Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mclark wrote:
[quote:d430cdf840]On Oct 3, 2:41 am, "rmacfarl" <rmacf... at (no spam) alphalink.com.au> wrote:
On Oct 2, 6:23 am, mclark <mbclar... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
"After sampling carbon and oxygen stable isotopes in five
Ardipithecus individuals, they conclude that it had a C4
plant consumption much less than later australopithecines,
while higher than the very minimal value in chimpanzees,
and that it habitually lived in mesic
(not too wet, not too dry) habitat."
The finding of arboreal quadruped and a terrestrial biped doesn't
seem consistent with a hypothesis that bipedality evolved in the
trees, would you agree Mike?
Yea, that would be my first thought. On second thought,
I'm not so sure I'm going to sign on to the "arboreal
quadruped" thing. Clearly bipedal on the ground,
clearly a "slow climber", clearly "transitional", I
[/quote:d430cdf840]
"slow climber" but not suspensory in nature.
[quote:d430cdf840]don't see any ~other~ substrate on the horizon nor
any other selective choreography which would
produce such a desirable end. I would add here
that I'm a bit skeptical of Lovejoy's reduced canine
-> altered social structure but it makes large sense
[/quote:d430cdf840]
A little less dimorphism...
[quote:d430cdf840]and adds a new dimension to this whole discussion.
Let's see what other discussion we can find today.[/quote:d430cdf840] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote:0d03abb327]. . . The result would be reduced
agonism in unrelated females, and cooperative expansion of
day ranges among equally cooperative males, eventually
leading to exploitation of new habitats. "
No matter how good the science, Mikey unerringly
locates the nonsense -- here some flower-power
fantasies based on interpretations that have only
one 'virtue' -- they are politically correct.
Ramidus exhibits reduced/feminized canines in males.
That is the data. No political correctness involved.
[/quote:0d03abb327]
So any loss of weaponry is 'feminization'?
Let's list all the 'feminization' that has
taken place in armies, and by individual
soldiers, in recent times:
. . no longer carrying clubs
. . giving up the wearing of swords
. . abandoning all their pikes
. . discarding all their javelins
. . no longer building up store of stones
. . melting down their cannon-balls
. . scrapping all their flint-muskets
. . and so on and on.
Modern armies (such as the Israeli) must
now all be really gentle -- unwilling to
hurt anyone
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote:eb94623537]
RichTravsky wrote:
. . . The result would be reduced
agonism in unrelated females, and cooperative expansion of
day ranges among equally cooperative males, eventually
leading to exploitation of new habitats. "
No matter how good the science, Mikey unerringly
locates the nonsense -- here some flower-power
fantasies based on interpretations that have only
one 'virtue' -- they are politically correct.
Ramidus exhibits reduced/feminized canines in males.
That is the data. No political correctness involved.
So any loss of weaponry is 'feminization'?
Let's list all the 'feminization' that has
taken place in armies, and by individual
soldiers, in recent times:
[/quote:eb94623537]
Where does it say that?
[quote:eb94623537]. . no longer carrying clubs
. . giving up the wearing of swords
. . abandoning all their pikes
. . discarding all their javelins
. . no longer building up store of stones
. . melting down their cannon-balls
. . scrapping all their flint-muskets
. . and so on and on.
Modern armies (such as the Israeli) must
now all be really gentle -- unwilling to
hurt anyone
[/quote:eb94623537]
Compare your canines with a chimp's and get back to us with the results... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 14, 10:45 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:7832d11c13]
It is a clear assumption.
[/quote:7832d11c13]
The only clear assumption so far is that you are a netloon.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote:e29a18f04b]Ramidus exhibits reduced/feminized canines in males.
That is the data. No political correctness involved.
So any loss of weaponry is 'feminization'?
Let's list all the 'feminization' that has
taken place in armies, and by individual
soldiers, in recent times:
Where does it say that?
[/quote:e29a18f04b]
It is a clear assumption. The nonsense
continues with MORE -- including the
daft notion that female hominids must have
PREFERRED males with small canines
-- that being (in the minds of utter dopes
like Lovejoy) the only possible mechanism
for their disappearance.
It seems that PAs must necessarily lose all
sense of means and ends as part of their
training. Or is it an entry requirement?
[quote:e29a18f04b]. . no longer carrying clubs
. . giving up the wearing of swords
. . abandoning all their pikes
. . discarding all their javelins
. . no longer building up store of stones
. . melting down their cannon-balls
. . scrapping all their flint-muskets
. . and so on and on.
Modern armies (such as the Israeli) must
now all be really gentle -- unwilling to
hurt anyone
Compare your canines with a chimp's and get back to us
with the results...
[/quote:e29a18f04b]
Compare your flintlock musket with a
Kalashnikov. Or, if you have already put
it away (in a museum) in favour of a modern
weapon, would that mean you must be a
much nicer person, and more appealing to
the opposite sex?
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Paul Crowley" <dsfdsfdsfs at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote in message
news:hb52pi$og2$2 at (no spam) aioe.org...
[quote:209894355f]RichTravsky wrote:
Ramidus exhibits reduced/feminized canines in males.
That is the data. No political correctness involved.
So any loss of weaponry is 'feminization'?
Let's list all the 'feminization' that has
taken place in armies, and by individual
soldiers, in recent times:
Where does it say that?
It is a clear assumption. The nonsense
continues with MORE -- including the
daft notion that female hominids must have
PREFERRED males with small canines
-- that being (in the minds of utter dopes
like Lovejoy) the only possible mechanism
for their disappearance.
It seems that PAs must necessarily lose all
sense of means and ends as part of their
training. Or is it an entry requirement?
. . no longer carrying clubs
. . giving up the wearing of swords
. . abandoning all their pikes
. . discarding all their javelins
. . no longer building up store of stones
. . melting down their cannon-balls
. . scrapping all their flint-muskets
. . and so on and on.
Modern armies (such as the Israeli) must
now all be really gentle -- unwilling to
hurt anyone
Compare your canines with a chimp's and get back to us
with the results...
Compare your flintlock musket with a
Kalashnikov. Or, if you have already put
it away (in a museum) in favour of a modern
weapon, would that mean you must be a
much nicer person, and more appealing to
the opposite sex?
Paul.
[/quote:209894355f]
Okay I'll give you one. I doubt if the females thinking guys with small
canines looked manly caused smaller canines to become common. It was more
likely that the guys with small canines could still get laid.
I also don't consider it to be feminization when something is lost because
the critter can get along without it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rwalker... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:238d0b0849]RichTravsky wrote:
Where does it say that?
It is a clear assumption. The nonsense
continues with MORE -- including the
daft notion that female hominids must have
PREFERRED males with small canines
-- that being (in the minds of utter dopes
like Lovejoy)
[/quote:238d0b0849]
You stupid fuck. Lovejoy's dirty socks have more intelligence than
you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 15, 2:20 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:a65044d5e5]
To avoid doubt, I am saying that early hominids
started to use weapons (i.e. clubs, crude 'spears',
stones) mainly made of wood.
[/quote:a65044d5e5]
How do you know? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
deowll wrote:
[quote:4a7c92cea5]Compare your canines with a chimp's and get back to us
with the results...
Compare your flintlock musket with a
Kalashnikov. Or, if you have already put
it away (in a museum) in favour of a modern
weapon, would that mean you must be a
much nicer person, and more appealing to
the opposite sex?
Okay I'll give you one.
[/quote:4a7c92cea5]
To avoid doubt, I am saying that early hominids
started to use weapons (i.e. clubs, crude 'spears',
stones) mainly made of wood. For that they
needed to be bipedal.
[quote:4a7c92cea5]I doubt if the females thinking guys with small canines
looked manly caused smaller canines to become common. It
was more likely that the guys with small canines could
still get laid.
[/quote:4a7c92cea5]
They lost their large canines because they no
longer needed them. That's all. Large teeth
are expensive, and more liable to injury.
Those with smaller teeth had a slight advantage
(maybe only a tenth of one percent) but it was
enough (over say 100 Kyr) for chimp-sized
canines to reduce to Ardipithecus size.
[quote:4a7c92cea5]I also don't consider it to be feminization when something
is lost because the critter can get along without it.
[/quote:4a7c92cea5]
The 'feminisation' stuff is all crap -- quite
outside the (rather unpleasant) facts of animal
and human life -- and devised in the minds of
those who think like Margaret Mead.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Lee Olsen" <paleocity at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3abed10d-571b-41c0-abcd-e66713093787 at (no spam) a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 15, 2:20 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:1f1bfa5fc5]
To avoid doubt, I am saying that early hominids
started to use weapons (i.e. clubs, crude 'spears',
stones) mainly made of wood.
[/quote:1f1bfa5fc5]
How do you know?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Ah now that is the rub. At most location no matter how many wooden tools
might have existed you aren't going to find any evidence to confirm it
however we might actually get lucky and find something this time. There
seems to be a lot of fossil wood at this location and if you look at enough
of it... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 16, 2:47 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:cabff3f78d]Not a chance. Huge amounts of wood grows every
year -- and has grown during the past few million
years. Barely a trace of it remains in the fossil
record.
Paul.
[/quote:cabff3f78d]
Liar, traces of wood are found at archaeological sites everywhere,
except where wood wasn't growing in the first place. What do you
think coal and petrified wood is? Pollen and grass roots are even
found at savanna sites. What are you doing here, troll? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
deowll wrote:
[quote:19052727e1]
"Lee Olsen" <paleocity at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3abed10d-571b-41c0-abcd-e66713093787 at (no spam) a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 15, 2:20 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
To avoid doubt, I am saying that early hominids
started to use weapons (i.e. clubs, crude 'spears',
stones) mainly made of wood.
How do you know?
Ah now that is the rub.
[/quote:19052727e1]
Not so. Or it is 'the rub' only in a pretend-
science, from which all logic is banned. An
equally relevant question here is "How do you
know the opposite?".
Early hominids were either like virtually all
other roughly comparable species (and all
other hominoids) in possessing weapons
(natural or artificial) OR they were unique.
Which should be the default assumption?
[quote:19052727e1]At most location no matter how many wooden tools might
have existed you aren't going to find any evidence to
confirm it however we might actually get lucky and find
something this time. There seems to be a lot of fossil
wood at this location and if you look at enough of it...
[/quote:19052727e1]
Not a chance. Huge amounts of wood grows every
year -- and has grown during the past few million
years. Barely a trace of it remains in the fossil
record.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Lee Olsen" <paleocity at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd7ed3c0-ead4-42c9-bbc1-465fe2c9fadd at (no spam) b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 16, 2:47 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:1391833198]Not a chance. Huge amounts of wood grows every
year -- and has grown during the past few million
years. Barely a trace of it remains in the fossil
record.
Paul.
[/quote:1391833198]
Liar, traces of wood are found at archaeological sites everywhere,
except where wood wasn't growing in the first place. What do you
think coal and petrified wood is? Pollen and grass roots are even
found at savanna sites. What are you doing here, troll?
____________________________________________________
As least as much to the point the stuff was clearly showing up in the
pictures showing what was going on and could be found at the location in
which the remains of Ardi were being found. There was fossil wood all over
the place.
They did say that the cellular structure was by and large not being
preserved so you couldn't identify the species in most cases but for our
purposes all we need is the shape.
By the way I was just reading John Hawks and he doesn't seem to buy the idea
that Ardi was a bipid. Now that's a real kick in the teeth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 17, 2:26 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:087fa38f84]
It's like talking to a small child -- with not
the faintest conception of geological timescales.
[/quote:087fa38f84]
Says the brainless idiot who claims handaxes were not held
while being made.
How do you think the wood spears were preserved in
Gemany and at Hoxne and the carved wood at Kalambo Falls? Duh.
Why are you the most illiterate fool on the internet? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
deowll wrote:
[quote:0007d64278]"Lee Olsen" <paleocity at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd7ed3c0-ead4-42c9-bbc1-465fe2c9fadd at (no spam) b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 16, 2:47 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
Not a chance. Huge amounts of wood grows every
year -- and has grown during the past few million
years. Barely a trace of it remains in the fossil
record.
Liar, traces of wood are found at archaeological sites
everywhere, except where wood wasn't growing in the first
place. What do you think coal and petrified wood is? Pollen
and grass roots are even found at savanna sites. What are you
doing here, troll?
[/quote:0007d64278]
It's like talking to a small child -- with not
the faintest conception of geological timescales.
How many metric tonnes of wood are produced
annually per hectare in woodland? I don't know,
but let's say 'five'. If the site is productive
for 2 million years, that 10 million tonnes of
wood. Imagine a pile that high on one hectare.
Now see how much actually remains.
That's what I call "barely a trace".
[quote:0007d64278]As least as much to the point the stuff was
clearly showing up in the pictures showing what
was going on and could be found at the location
in which the remains of Ardi were being found.
There was fossil wood all over the place.
They did say that the cellular structure was by
and large not being preserved so you couldn't
identify the species in most cases but for our
purposes all we need is the shape.
[/quote:0007d64278]
They were mostly looking at small grains.
There is not a hope of establishing any
kind of substantial shape in such remains.
That is all I am saying.
[quote:0007d64278]By the way I was just reading John Hawks and he
doesn't seem to buy the idea that Ardi was a
bipid.
[/quote:0007d64278]
Where does he say, or suggest, that?
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
