Man-eaters

[Paul Crowl]

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.

Paul.

[Paul Crowl]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167957855.981373.140780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>> 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.

You will get better thinking about human evolution on any day
in any pub than you will get in 10 years of any PA
'scientific' journal. 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" . . .?

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

The Maasai are pastoralists, and evolved their way of life
quite recently (certainly NOT 'thousands of years ago'). They
moved up into the highlands (and into lion country) only
within the last century or so

http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept2/faculty/lonergan/Lectures_214_3-
71/Kenyan_Essays.doc
>
> "They eschew all aspects of civilization and do not believe
> in digging into the earth. They don't even bury their dead,
> preferring to allow nature (and vultures) to take its
> course."
>
> Ditto for the Hadza and numerous other H/G groups.

It's near-impossible to get through virgin sun-baked ground
without something like a jack-hammer.

Vultures are fine as scavengers -- from this point of view.
Even if they acquire a taste for human flesh, they are not
likely to attack a live human in the middle of the night.

Paul.

[Lee Olsen]

Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1-
> 167957855.981373.140780@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> 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.
>
> You will get better thinking about human evolution on any
> day in any pub than you will get in 10 years of any PA
> 'scientific'

Says Crowley, who thinks:
1) chimps can't dig,
2) rocks turn to dust on an ocean beach in a matter of months,
3) that nothing grows in permafrost,
4) that Neandertals didn't hunt,
5) that there were no lions in Pleistocene Europe,
6) that imagines Lucy buried her dead,
7) that ordinary animals weren't the norm on cave walls in
Pleistocene Europe,
8) that Neandertals lived only on the coast. What will he
dream up down at the pub in 2007?

> journal. 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?

>
> > Really? If your pub logic were correct, then the Maasai
> > should have gone extinct thousands of years ago.
>
> The Maasai are pastoralists, and evolved their way of life
> quite recently (certainly NOT 'thousands of years ago').
> They moved up into the highlands (and into lion country)
> only within the last century or so
>

I see, so you believe the Maasai are in the process of going
extinct from lion predation because they don't bury their dead
and Lucy went extict because she did?

> http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept2/faculty/lonergan/Lectures_214-
> _371/Kenyan_Essays.doc
> >
> > "They eschew all aspects of civilization and do not
> > believe in digging into the earth. They don't even bury
> > their dead, preferring to allow nature (and vultures) to
> > take its course."
> >
> > Ditto for the Hadza and numerous other H/G groups.
>
> It's near-impossible to get through virgin sun-baked ground
> without something like a jack-hammer.

Hadza only inhabit sun-baked ground? You made that up down at
the pub when you made up the fact that chimps can't dig.

Message-ID:
<1160837514.938748.252i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Paul
Crowley: "Chimps do NOT have the capacity to dig."

>
> Vultures are fine as scavengers -- from this point of view.
> Even if they acquire a taste for human flesh, they are not
> likely to attack a live human in the middle of the night.

So?

>
>
> Paul.

[Paul Crowl]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168011850.377336.197750@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> You will get better thinking about human evolution on any
>> day in any pub than you will get in 10 years of any PA
>> 'scientific' journal. 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?

No examples of any logic in PA. Not an unexpected result.

Paul.

[Lee Olsen]

spiznet wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > 1) chimps can't dig,
> > 2) rocks turn to dust on an ocean beach in a matter of
> > months,
> > 3) that nothing grows in permafrost,
> > 4) that Neandertals didn't hunt,
> > 5) that there were no lions in Pleistocene Europe,
> > 6) imagines Lucy buried her dead,
> > 7) that ordinary animals weren't the norm on cave walls in
> > Pleistocene Europe,
> > 8) that Neandertals lived only on the coast.
> >
> > I think you ought to find a new pub.
> >
> >
> > > Paul.
>
> he has also stated that A'piths domesticated dogs which
> provided security for their scurrying bands.

You've got to be kidding...

[Rick Wagle]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168052618.998920.50600@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> spiznet wrote:
>> Lee Olsen wrote:
>> > Paul Crowley wrote:
>> >
>> > 1) chimps can't dig,
>> > 2) rocks turn to dust on an ocean beach in a matter of
>> > months,
>> > 3) that nothing grows in permafrost,
>> > 4) that Neandertals didn't hunt,
>> > 5) that there were no lions in Pleistocene Europe,
>> > 6) imagines Lucy buried her dead,
>> > 7) that ordinary animals weren't the norm on cave walls
>> > in Pleistocene Europe,
>> > 8) that Neandertals lived only on the coast.
>> >
>> > I think you ought to find a new pub.
>> >
>> >
>> > > Paul.
>>
>> he has also stated that A'piths domesticated dogs which
>> provided security for their scurrying bands.
>
> You've got to be kidding...
>
You've missed this? It's Paul's great....ahem.... contribution
to solving the mysteries of human evolution. This and his
obsession with the all important question "When did hominids
start sleeping on the ground?" represents the lofty perch from
which he pisses all over an entire scientific discipline.
Check the Google archive if you've got nothing better to do
such as staring at test patterns, playing Beatles songs
backwards to reveal satanic messages and the like. He's been
at it for years.

Have fun!

Rick Wagler

[claudiusde]

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. 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.

[claudiusde]

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.

[claudiusde]

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]

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> 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.

Only a total fool would defend a person who thinks chimps
can't dig, that thinks rocks turn to sand in a matter of
months on an ocean beach, that thinks Neandertals didn't
hunt, that thinks Neandertals all lived on the coast, that
thinks lions weren't present in Pleistocene Europe etc. The
truth is, you are no brighter than Paul.

>
> 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.

"athropologists"? You can't even spell it, let alone
debate it.

[Lee Olsen]

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?

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/december/hominids.htm

[claudiusde]

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.

[claudiusde]

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.

[Lee Olsen]

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?

[Lee Olsen]

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?

[claudiusde]

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.

[claudiusde]

Lee Olsen wrote:
> 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?

If you have an evidence/theory based dispute then you should
present it and stop whining.

> >
> > >
> > > 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?

Quote me directly and you'll be able to answer your own
question.

>
> >
> > > 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?

Quote me directly and you'll be able to answer your own
question.

> > > 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.

How so?

> > > 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?

Quote me directly and you'll be able to answer your own
question.

[claudiusde]

Lee Olsen wrote:
> 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?

There's nothing vague about my hypothesis.

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

In some respects they were even more situated than extant
humans. Many humans regularly travel outside their immediate
town/city. A'piths were mostly unable to travel outside their
treed community site because if they did they'd end up a meal
for felines, hyena, or dogs. But with respect to moving around
within their community site they would, probably, have been
less situated. The notion of private property was probably not
as well established as it generally is now in human behavior.

> Define "situated" exactly you evasive clown.

It means they didn't travel. Hunter/gatherer behavior is a
recent phenomena. (And therefore is not a model of early man.)
This behavior did not exist until 2.5 mya at the earliest. And
until very recently, it was much more limited than the
conventional dodos choose to believe. (Science isn't about
belief. It's about evidence.)

> > > 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.

It's relevant because hunter/gatherers would have no reason to
bury the dead. They'd just move on. Communalism gives them a
collective incentive: keeping their community off the radar
screen of the predators that dominated the surrounding
treeless habitat.

> > 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?

Take a class in philosophy of science. You've a lot to
learn--trust
me.

> > > 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?

Uh?

[Lee Olsen]

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > > <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:11-
> > > > 68226623.028069.48070@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.
> >
> > Your scenario explains that you are an illiterate nitwit.
>
> Specifically? (Here we go again.)

Apiths guarding gardens, ROFL.

>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > You don't know the first thing about evidence or logic,
> > you are pretty good at imagination and comedy however.
>
> Specifically?

Apiths guarding gardens, we haven't seen one iota of evidence
for this yet---lots of smoke though.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > One thing is clear, you certainly are simple.
>
> Oh, so you're saying that hominid social adaptations were
> not a result of natural selection but, instead, were the
> result of . . . ? Hopefully you're not suggesting a
> higher power.

Oh, so you're still insisting apiths were planting gardens eh?
Hopefully you're not suggesting a higher power.

>
> > > 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.
> >
> > I'll bet your comedy routine is not over.
>
> You can only get so far on pretense.

Yep, more comedy, I just knew it was coming.

[Lee Olsen]

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > If you have an evidence/theory based dispute then you
> > > should present it and stop whining.
> >
> > What childish nonsense. I wasn't the one who made the
> > claim that apiths guarded gardens. The burden is on you to
> > do the proving.
>
> And you admit that you have no evidence based dispute with
> it and what dispute you do have is not based on evidence
> but--by your own admission--on interpretations of the
> evidence of people that you regard as experts. Right? (Come
> on, Lee, it's not like you're fooling anybody. Admit it. You
> have nothing but an argument based on authority.)

So, you finally admit you just made the whole thing up about
apiths guarding gardens. You were done for the second I
pointed out how preposterous it would be for apiths to guard a
garden at night. The whole idea was ill thought out to begin
with. Better luck next time.

>
> > > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Quote me directly and you'll be able to answer your own
> > > question.
> >
> > Since you made the decision not to quote me directly, you
> > will get in return just exactly what you dish out. Got
> > that rat turd?
>
> It's your delusion.

Message-ID:
<1165113030.317266.276860@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
McGinn: "By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your
backtracking. Previously you agreed that hominids could not
survive the

predatory realities in treeless habitat."

Still waiting for the direct quote. But we both know there
isn't going to be one---you lied.

>
> > > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Quote me directly and you'll be able to answer your own
> > > question.
> >
> > If I made such a ridiculous assertion that apiths were
> > guarding gardens as you did, I would want to forget it
> > also, so I understand why you are so evasive.
>
> Don't you think our audience might start to wonder why it is
> you refuse to quote me directly on this issue?

Message-ID:
<1165113030.317266.276860@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
McGinn: "By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your
backtracking. Previously you agreed that hominids could not
survive the

predatory realities in treeless habitat."

Still waiting for the direct quote. But we both know there
isn't going to be one---you lied.

>
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > How not so?
>
> Naturally.

Now, that retraction wasn't that hard, was it?

>
> > > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Quote me directly and you'll be able to answer your own
> > > question.
> >
> > I understand---- you are too cowardly to admit you made a
> > foolish assertion.
>
> Specifically?

see above.
>
> Dontcha think people will start to think that your rather
> obvious attempt to misrepresent my hypothesis is indicative
> of how desperate you've become when you realized you could
> not dispute it?

So, you finally admit you just made the whole thing up about
apiths guarding gardens. You were done for the second I
pointed out how preposterous it would be for apiths to guard a
garden at night. The whole idea was ill thought out to begin
with. Better luck next time.

[Lee Olsen]

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > There's nothing vague about my hypothesis.
> >
> > What hypothesis?
>
> The one you can't dispute.

You are in denial, get some professional help. The garden
guarding hypothesis was dead the second I pointed out how
ridiculous it was for apiths to guard anything at night, let
alone a planted garden.

>
> > The lunatic claim that apiths were guarding gardens is not
> > even good science fiction.
>
> But you admit you cannot dispute it, right?

How many times do you have to see it. You are in denial, get
some professional help. The garden guarding hypothesis was
dead the second I pointed out how ridiculous it was for apiths
to guard anything at night, let alone a planted garden.

>
> > > > Are you really stupid enough to think apiths were
> > > > "situated" the same as extant humans?
> > >
> > > In some respects they were even more situated than
> > > extant humans. Many humans regularly travel outside
> > > their immediate town/city. A'piths were mostly unable to
> > > travel outside their treed community site because if
> > > they did they'd end up a meal for felines, hyena, or
> > > dogs. But with respect to moving around within their
> > > community site they would, probably, have been less
> > > situated. The notion of private property was probably
> > > not as well established as it generally is now in human
> > > behavior.
> >
> > ROTFL
> >
> > >
> > > > Define "situated" exactly you evasive clown.
> > >
> > > It means they didn't travel. Hunter/gatherer behavior is
> > > a recent phenomena. (And therefore is not a model of
> > > early man.) This behavior did not exist until 2.5 mya at
> > > the earliest. And until very recently, it was much more
> > > limited than the conventional dodos choose to believe.
> > > (Science isn't about belief. It's about evidence.)
> >
> > They didn't travel? Your imaginary evidence for that
> > is?????
>
> All of the evidence is consistentd with this supposition.

You evasive twit, what evidence?

>
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > It's relevant because hunter/gatherers would have no
> > > reason to bury the dead. They'd just move on.
> >
> > That's what I said, what are you, a parrot?
>
> Try to keep up, retard. You stated that extant
> hunter/gatherers, "are the only groups that count," when
> modeling early humans. This is a dimwitted notion based on
> absence of evidence (what you call negative evidence).

No I didn't. Did you forget something dipstick? Maybe it's
your lack of intellegence that acts as some sort of mental
block preventing you from using attribution marks.

>
> > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Take a class in philosophy of science. You've a lot to
> > > learn--trust
> > > me.
> >
> > Everyone has a lot to learn, what we get from you here is
> > comedy.
>
> Gee, that's funny. I kinda got the feeling you weren't
> enjoying this.

Got some real bad news for you Jim, not only do I enjoy this,
I get paid for being here. And in a distant way, you
contribute to that pay.

>
> > > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Uh?
> >
> > We? You are spokesperson for the Hadza?
>
> You lost me. And I'm sure your point is so inane that it's
> not worth going back to figure out.

Who is the "we" that you mentioned?????

[claudiusde]

Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing vague about my hypothesis.
> > >
> > > What hypothesis?
> >
> > The one you can't dispute.
>
> You are in denial, get some professional help. The garden
> guarding hypothesis was dead the second I pointed out how
> ridiculous it was for apiths to guard anything at night, let
> alone a planted garden.

Night? Why would night be a problem? Do you believe, like
Paul, that early hominids were incapable of seeing at night?

>
> >
> > > The lunatic claim that apiths were guarding gardens is
> > > not even good science fiction.
> >
> > But you admit you cannot dispute it, right?
>
> How many times do you have to see it. You are in denial,
> get some professional help. The garden guarding
> hypothesis was dead the second I pointed out how
> ridiculous it was for apiths to guard anything at night,
> let alone a planted garden.
>
> >
> > > > > Are you really stupid enough to think apiths were
> > > > > "situated" the same as extant humans?
> > > >
> > > > In some respects they were even more situated than
> > > > extant humans. Many humans regularly travel outside
> > > > their immediate town/city. A'piths were mostly unable
> > > > to travel outside their treed community site because
> > > > if they did they'd end up a meal for felines, hyena,
> > > > or dogs. But with respect to moving around within
> > > > their community site they would, probably, have been
> > > > less situated. The notion of private property was
> > > > probably not as well established as it generally is
> > > > now in human behavior.
> > >
> > > ROTFL
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Define "situated" exactly you evasive clown.
> > > >
> > > > It means they didn't travel. Hunter/gatherer behavior
> > > > is a recent phenomena. (And therefore is not a model
> > > > of early man.) This behavior did not exist until 2.5
> > > > mya at the earliest. And until very recently, it was
> > > > much more limited than the conventional dodos choose
> > > > to believe. (Science isn't about belief. It's about
> > > > evidence.)
> > >
> > > They didn't travel? Your imaginary evidence for that
> > > is?????
> >
> > All of the evidence is consistentd with this supposition.
>
> You evasive twit, what evidence?

All of it.

>
>
> >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > It's relevant because hunter/gatherers would have no
> > > > reason to bury the dead. They'd just move on.
> > >
> > > That's what I said, what are you, a parrot?
> >
> > Try to keep up, retard. You stated that extant
> > hunter/gatherers, "are the only groups that count," when
> > modeling early humans. This is a dimwitted notion based on
> > absence of evidence (what you call negative evidence).
>
> No I didn't.

I quoted you directy, idiot.

Did you forget something dipstick? Maybe it's your lack of
> intellegence that acts as some sort of mental block
> preventing you from using attribution marks.
>
>
> >
> > > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > Take a class in philosophy of science. You've a lot to
> > > > learn--trust
> > > > me.
> > >
> > > Everyone has a lot to learn, what we get from you here
> > > is comedy.
> >
> > Gee, that's funny. I kinda got the feeling you weren't
> > enjoying this.
>
> Got some real bad news for you Jim, not only do I enjoy
> this, I get paid for being here. And in a distant way, you
> contribute to that pay.

You're overpaid, no matter how little you make.

>
> >
> > > > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > Uh?
> > >
> > > We? You are spokesperson for the Hadza?
> >
> > You lost me. And I'm sure your point is so inane that it's
> > not worth going back to figure out.
>
> Who is the "we" that you mentioned?????

It's your delusion.

[claudiusde]

Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > If you have an evidence/theory based dispute then you
> > > > should present it and stop whining.
> > >
> > > What childish nonsense. I wasn't the one who made the
> > > claim that apiths guarded gardens. The burden is on you
> > > to do the proving.
> >
> > And you admit that you have no evidence based dispute with
> > it and what dispute you do have is not based on evidence
> > but--by your own admission--on interpretations of the
> > evidence of people that you regard as experts. Right?
> > (Come on, Lee, it's not like you're fooling anybody. Admit
> > it. You have nothing but an argument based on authority.)
>
> So, you finally admit you just made the whole thing up about
> apiths guarding gardens. You were done for the second I
> pointed out how preposterous it would be for apiths to guard
> a garden at night. The whole idea was ill thought out to
> begin with. Better luck next time.

Answer the question you evasive twit.

>
> >
> > > > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > Quote me directly and you'll be able to answer your
> > > > own question.
> > >
> > > Since you made the decision not to quote me directly,
> > > you will get in return just exactly what you dish out.
> > > Got that rat turd?
> >
> > It's your delusion.
>
> Message-ID:
> <1165113030.317266.276860@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
> McGinn: "By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your
> backtracking. Previously you agreed that hominids could not
> survive the
>
> predatory realities in treeless habitat."
>
> Still waiting for the direct quote. But we both know there
> isn't going to be one---you lied.

So you think that by staying vague you preserve the illusion
that you know what you are talking about. Right?

>
>
> >
> > > > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > Quote me directly and you'll be able to answer your
> > > > own question.
> > >
> > > If I made such a ridiculous assertion that apiths were
> > > guarding gardens as you did, I would want to forget it
> > > also, so I understand why you are so evasive.
> >
> > Don't you think our audience might start to wonder why it
> > is you refuse to quote me directly on this issue?
>
> Message-ID:
> <1165113030.317266.276860@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
> McGinn: "By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your
> backtracking. Previously you agreed that hominids could not
> survive the
>
> predatory realities in treeless habitat."
>
> Still waiting for the direct quote. But we both know there
> isn't going to be one---you lied.
>
>
>
> >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > How so?
> > >
> > > How not so?
> >
> > Naturally.
>
> Now, that retraction wasn't that hard, was it?
>
>
> >
> > > > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > Quote me directly and you'll be able to answer your
> > > > own question.
> > >
> > > I understand---- you are too cowardly to admit you made
> > > a foolish assertion.
> >
> > Specifically?
>
> see above.
> >
> > Dontcha think people will start to think that your rather
> > obvious attempt to misrepresent my hypothesis is
> > indicative of how desperate you've become when you
> > realized you could not dispute it?
>
> So, you finally admit you just made the whole thing up about
> apiths guarding gardens. You were done for the second I
> pointed out how preposterous it would be for apiths to guard
> a garden at night. The whole idea was ill thought out to
> begin with. Better luck next time.

[claudiusde]

Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Your scenario explains that you are an illiterate
> > > nitwit.
> >
> > Specifically? (Here we go again.)
>
> Apiths guarding gardens, ROFL.

I'm not aware of any evidence that contradicts this. Are you?

>
> >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > You don't know the first thing about evidence or logic,
> > > you are pretty good at imagination and comedy however.
> >
> > Specifically?
>
> Apiths guarding gardens, we haven't seen one iota of
> evidence for this yet---lots of smoke though.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > One thing is clear, you certainly are simple.
> >
> > Oh, so you're saying that hominid social adaptations were
> > not a result of natural selection but, instead, were the
> > result of . . . ? Hopefully you're not suggesting a higher
> > power.

Note that Lee did not (and will never) answer this question.

>
> Oh, so you're still insisting apiths were planting
> gardens eh?

Quote me directly you strawman-baiting twit.

> Hopefully you're not suggesting a higher power.
>
> >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I'll bet your comedy routine is not over.
> >
> > You can only get so far on pretense.
>
> Yep, more comedy, I just knew it was coming.

Did ya think it wasn't obvious?

[Paul Crowl]

<claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1168273855.563492.250860@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> > 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.

My scenario does not assume such abilities. Nor does it
attempt to explain them. I see the animal essentially as an
animal,which like all others, occupies a niche. That niche
_allowed_ it to eventually develop these abilities -- but that
is not an explanation, nor an attempt at one.

>> 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.

The evolved over a very long time, and are still continuing to
do so. They certainly did NOT evolve (significantly beyond the
chimp level) prior to the origin of the taxon NOR at its
origin. There simply was not enough time.

>> 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.

An animal like a chimp could readily (and rapidly) evolve to
live in larger groups. Little else was needed. There was
certainly no need for language -- although as it developed
over the millions of years, it gave significant advantages to
those populations or 'tribes' who were better able to use it.

Paul.

[claudiusde]

Paul Crowley wrote:
> <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:11682738-
> 55.563492.250860@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > 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.
>
> My scenario does not assume such abilities.

I don't think you can claim to have "a" scenario. You seem to
have many scenarios. And of these you've explicitly included
human and/or humanlike behavior therein. There is no denying
that you certainly have assumed such abilities.

> Nor does it attempt to explain them.

Then its a useless hypothesis, by your own admission.

> I see the animal essentially as an animal,which like all
> others, occupies a niche. That niche _allowed_ it to
> eventually develop these abilities

No Duh. The question is how.

> -- but that is not an explanation, nor an attempt at one.

You can say that again.

> >> 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.
>
> The evolved over a very long time, and are still continuing
> to do so.

Thank you Dr. Vaguenstein.

> They certainly did NOT evolve (significantly beyond the
> chimp level) prior to the origin of the taxon NOR at its
> origin. There simply was not enough time.

Enough time. If you understood the concept of punctuated
equilibrium you would realize that time not that important of
a factor. In fact now the term "gradualist" is considered
pejorative amongst us evolutionary theorists.

>
> >> 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.
>
> An animal like a chimp could readily (and rapidly) evolve to
> live in larger groups. Little else was needed.

IOW, Paul says the can live in larger groups and therefore
they do. No underlying rationale for the emergence of this
behavior. No shift in climate/environment/fauna. We're just
supposed to take it upon your expertise that this could
have happened.

> There was certainly no need for language

Biological evolution is not driven by, "need." And what
kind of data do you have to support the notion that it was
not needed?

-- although as it
> developed over the millions of years, it gave significant
> advantages to those populations or 'tribes' who were better
> able to use it.

You've done it again. You've just assumed human behavior
would emerge.

[claudiusde]

Lee Olsen wrote:

> > > The garden guarding hypothesis was dead the second I
> > > pointed out how ridiculous it was for apiths to guard
> > > anything at night, let alone a planted garden.
> >
> > Night? Why would night be a problem?
>
> Surely even you are not that stupid. First you claim apiths
> needed trees to escape, presumably during the day
> (McGinn:"And the only safe place against an injured,
> pissed-off lion or hyena is high in a tree."),

Uh huh.

> now you are claiming they didn't need these same trees just
> as desperately at night

I never stated any such thing. You're off your rocker, as
usual.

> (not to mention the obvious night vision handicap)?

What, "obvious night vision handicap?" Why is it that God
has not gifted me with the same ability to see the emperor's
new clothes.

> Any 5-year old could see the contradiction here.

I guess that pretty much counts you out.

> What did they do, sit up in their trees and piss on cape
> buffalo and lions to scare them away to keep them from
> wrecking their garden?

I think it's comical that you would indicate that buffalo
would so carelessly enter treed habitat, at night given the
ambush hunting tactics of the miocene predators.

> Truth is, it would be impossible to defend their planted
> gardens day or night.

It's night for their opponents also.

> Let's face it, your silly hypothesis is the funniest comedy
> to hit sap since Ed's MAOAC.

Humans currently are effective at defending territory from
hebivores. Why would it have been different for the
earliest hominids?

>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > They didn't travel? Your imaginary evidence for that
> > > > > is?????
> > > >
> > > > All of the evidence is consistentd with this
> > > > supposition.
> > >
> > > You evasive twit, what evidence?
> >
> > All of it.
>
> All of your delusions is what you really mean.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's relevant because hunter/gatherers would have
> > > > > > no reason to bury the dead. They'd just move on.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's what I said, what are you, a parrot?
> > > >
> > > > Try to keep up, retard. You stated that extant
> > > > hunter/gatherers, "are the only groups that count,"
> > > > when modeling early humans. This is a dimwitted notion
> > > > based on absence of evidence (what you call negative
> > > > evidence).
> > >
> > > No I didn't.
> >
> > I quoted you directy, idiot.
>
> No moron, what you did is take a statement completely out of
> context that had nothing to do with "when modeling early
> humans" nor did I imply it did. So quote where I used the
> term modeling early humans. You lied again.

Give it up, you evasive twit. Everybody knows what you meant.

>
>
> >
> > Did you forget something dipstick? Maybe it's your
> > lack of
> > > intellegence that acts as some sort of mental block
> > > preventing you from using attribution marks.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take a class in philosophy of science. You've a
> > > > > > lot to learn--trust
> > > > > > me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Everyone has a lot to learn, what we get from you
> > > > > here is comedy.
> > > >
> > > > Gee, that's funny. I kinda got the feeling you weren't
> > > > enjoying this.
> > >
> > > Got some real bad news for you Jim, not only do I enjoy
> > > this, I get paid for being here. And in a distant way,
> > > you contribute to that pay.
> >
> > You're overpaid, no matter how little you make.
>
> Says the nutcase that thinks apiths guarded gardens.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Uh?
> > > > >
> > > > > We? You are spokesperson for the Hadza?
> > > >
> > > > You lost me. And I'm sure your point is so inane that
> > > > it's not worth going back to figure out.
> > >
> > > Who is the "we" that you mentioned?????
> >
> > It's your delusion.
>
> No, unless Google made a cyber error, you really did say we.
> You are so delusional that you imagine you are spokesperson
> for the entire planet, just like you imagine evidence that
> doesn't exist.

[claudiusde]

Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > > > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > > > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > > > > > <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:1168226623.028069.48070@42g2000cwt.googleg-
> > > > > > > roups.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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your scenario explains that you are an illiterate
> > > > > nitwit.
> > > >
> > > > Specifically? (Here we go again.)
> > >
> > > Apiths guarding gardens, ROFL.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any evidence that contradicts this.
>
> Are you actually stupid enough to believe that statement
> actually means something?

You're aren't aware of any such evidence either. Does this
statement mean anything to you?

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't know the first thing about evidence or
> > > > > logic, you are pretty good at imagination and comedy
> > > > > however.
> > > >
> > > > Specifically?
> > >
> > > Apiths guarding gardens, we haven't seen one iota of
> > > evidence for this yet---lots of smoke though.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > One thing is clear, you certainly are simple.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, so you're saying that hominid social adaptations
> > > > were not a result of natural selection but, instead,
> > > > were the result of . . . ? Hopefully you're not
> > > > suggesting a higher power.
> >
> > Note that Lee did not (and will never) answer this
> > question.
>
> Having trouble with reading comp again? The answer is you
> are simple.

Case in point.

> >
> > >
> > > Oh, so you're still insisting apiths were planting
> > > gardens eh?
> >
> > Quote me directly you strawman-baiting twit.
>
> Message-ID: <1165113030.317266.276... </groups/unlock?msg=4-
> 1af284ce303df53&hl=en&_done=/>@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
>
> McGinn: "By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed
> your backtracking. Previously you agreed that hominids
> could not survive the predatory realities in treeless
> habitat." Still waiting for the direct quote. But we both
> know there isn't going
>
> to be one---you lied, you strawman-baiting twit.

You're going off on tangent.

>
>
> >
> > > Hopefully you're not suggesting a higher power.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll bet your comedy routine is not over.
> > > >
> > > > You can only get so far on pretense.
> > >
> > > Yep, more comedy, I just knew it was coming.
> >
> > Did ya think it wasn't obvious?
>
> What is obvious is the fact that you don't have any evidence
> for apiths gardening gardens, nor do you have any rational
> reason to expect there should be any in the first place. It
> is all just a childish fantasy.

I never indicated, "apiths gardening gardens." That's your
delusion. Leave your delusions out of my scenario. My scenario
is perfect. Don't stink it up with your sloppy semantics.

[claudiusde]

Lee Olsen wrote:
> claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Answer the question you evasive twit.
>
> What childish nonsense. I wasn't the one who made the claim
> that apiths guarded gardens. The burden is on you to do the
> proving.

The burden is on my opponents to do the disproving.
>
>
>
> >
> > So you think that by staying vague you preserve the
> > illusion that you know what you are talking about. Right?
>
> So, you think by refusing to use attribution marks you
> actually deserve to have others quote you directly? Have you
> been suffering from this delusion long?

You don't have a scientific argument you have a
political argument.

[Lee Olsen]

claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> > > > The garden guarding hypothesis was dead the second I
> > > > pointed out how ridiculous it was for apiths to guard
> > > > anything at night, let alone a planted garden.
> > >
> > > Night? Why would night be a problem?
> >
> > Surely even you are not that stupid. First you claim
> > apiths needed trees to escape, presumably during the day
> > (McGinn:"And the only safe place against an injured,
> > pissed-off lion or hyena is high in a tree."),
>
> Uh huh.

Wrong again dipstick, that is just exactly the opposite of the
physical evidence.

>
> > now you are claiming they didn't need these same trees
> > just as desperately at night
>
> I never stated any such thing. You're off your rocker,
> as usual.

So, if that is the case, they didn't need trees for protection
day or night. Right?
>
> > (not to mention the obvious night vision handicap)?
>
> What, "obvious night vision handicap?" Why is it that
> God has not

Leopards see better at night, on the ground or in trees than
you (or apiths) do.

> gifted me with the same ability to see the emperor's new
> clothes.

I don't know why you see so well at night, maybe God gave
you such exceptional eyesight because he didn't give you
any brains.
>
> > Any 5-year old could see the contradiction here.
>
> I guess that pretty much counts you out.

Says the loon who loves to make retractions: Message-ID:
<1164704227.718683.98... </groups/unlock?msg=04fbb3c26ba8e19a-
&hl=en&_done=/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/browse_frm/thread/-
3597d023d7604931%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26>@80g2000cwy.googl-
egroups.com>

Jim McGinn: "Both tigers and lions evolved from
Sabertoothed cats."

"The analysis shows that the sabertooth cats were a sister
group to the modern cats--that is, they diverged early on from
the ancestors of

modern cats and are not closely related to any living felid
species." Barnett et al.: "Evolution of the extinct
Sabretooths and the American

cheetah-like cat" Current Biology, Vol. 15, August 9, 2005.

Jim McGinn: "Well then I guess I stand corrected on this
point."

You have been corrected on many points, but your someting less
than 5-year old mentality doesn't seem to allow you to
comprehend them.

>
> > What did they do, sit up in their trees and piss on cape
> > buffalo and lions to scare them away to keep them from
> > wrecking their garden?
>
> I think it's comical that you would indicate that buffalo
> would so carelessly enter treed habitat, at night given the
> ambush hunting tactics of the miocene predators.

No, the idiot idea that "they never ventured more than 50 or
maybe a 100 yards from the safety of trees." was a falicy of
your own making that you have totally failed to demonstrate.

>
> > Truth is, it would be impossible to defend their planted
> > gardens day or night.
>
> It's night for their opponents also.

You might try going to the library for the first time in your
life and check out a book called BONES by Lew Binford.

>
> > Let's face it, your silly hypothesis is the funniest
> > comedy to hit sap since Ed's MAOAC.
>
> Humans currently are effective at defending territory from
> hebivores. Why would it have been different for the earliest
> hominids?

How early? The South African caves prove apiths could not
defend any better than antelope. Homo e could. Any thing else
you would like to know?

>
> >
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They didn't travel? Your imaginary evidence for
> > > > > > that is?????
> > > > >
> > > > > All of the evidence is consistentd with this
> > > > > supposition.
> > > >
> > > > You evasive twit, what evidence?
> > >
> > > All of it.
> >
> > All of your delusions is what you really mean.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's relevant because hunter/gatherers would
> > > > > > > have no reason to bury the dead. They'd just
> > > > > > > move on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's what I said, what are you, a parrot?
> > > > >
> > > > > Try to keep up, retard. You stated that extant
> > > > > hunter/gatherers, "are the only groups that count,"
> > > > > when modeling early humans. This is a dimwitted
> > > > > notion based on absence of evidence (what you call
> > > > > negative evidence).
> > > >
> > > > No I didn't.
> > >
> > > I quoted you directy, idiot.
> >
> > No moron, what you did is take a statement completely out
> > of context that had nothing to do with "when modeling
> > early humans" nor did I imply it did. So quote where I
> > used the term modeling early humans. You lied again.
>
> Give it up, you evasive twit. Everybody knows what you
> meant.

"Everybody'? Is that kind of like "we" where you are
spokesperson for everybody on the entire planet?

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Did you forget something dipstick? Maybe it's your
> > > lack of
> > > > intellegence that acts as some sort of mental block
> > > > preventing you from using attribution marks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Take a class in philosophy of science. You've a
> > > > > > > lot to learn--trust
> > > > > > > me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Everyone has a lot to learn, what we get from you
> > > > > > here is comedy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gee, that's funny. I kinda got the feeling you
> > > > > weren't enjoying this.
> > > >
> > > > Got some real bad news for you Jim, not only do I
> > > > enjoy this, I get paid for being here. And in a
> > > > distant way, you contribute to that pay.
> > >
> > > You're overpaid, no matter how little you make.
> >
> > Says the nutcase that thinks apiths guarded gardens.

[Lee Olsen]

claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > > > > claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > > > > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > > > > > > <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:1168226623.028069.48070@42g2000cwt.googl-
> > > > > > > > egroups.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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your scenario explains that you are an illiterate
> > > > > > nitwit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Specifically? (Here we go again.)
> > > >
> > > > Apiths guarding gardens, ROFL.
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any evidence that contradicts this.
> >
> > Are you actually stupid enough to believe that statement
> > actually means something?
>
> You're aren't aware of any such evidence either. Does this
> statement mean anything to you?

Does the fact that there is no evidence that apiths weren't
brought to this planet by little green men from outer space
mean anything to you? Once you allow imagination as an
argument there is no end to the silly scenarios that can be
claimed. This then is not science, but science fiction.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don't know the first thing about evidence or
> > > > > > logic, you are pretty good at imagination and
> > > > > > comedy however.
> > > > >
> > > > > Specifically?
> > > >
> > > > Apiths guarding gardens, we haven't seen one iota of
> > > > evidence for this yet---lots of smoke though.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >