I Hereby Formally Dispute Your Theory!!!

[claudiusde]

On Jan 29, 8:36 am, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1170087977.467916.74030@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 8:16 pm, Rich Travsky
> > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> >> claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >> > Rich Travsky wrote:
> >> > > claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >> > > > Rich Travsky wrote:
> >> > > > > claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >> > > > > > Rich Travsky wrote:
> >> > > > > > > claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > Rich Travsky wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any evidence that they did
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not have gardens, or something to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > that effect?
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > But do you have any evidence for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > gardens?
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > Much of the existing evidence is
> >> > > > > > > > > > consistent with gardens/groves, etc.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > Would please give a specific instance and
> >> > > > > > > > > reference and how it "is consistent with
> >> > > > > > > > > gardens/groves"...
>
> >> > > > > > > > This seems like the typical really stupid
> >> > > > > > > > question. It's common knowledge that it's
> >> > > > > > > > we have no record of specific instances
> >> > > > > > > > prior to recorded history. How can this not
> >> > > > > > > > have been obvious to you?
>
> >> > > > > > > It's stupid to ask for your evidence and an
> >> > > > > > > example?
>
> >> > > > > > Read upthread and/or see my hypothesis. (If
> >> > > > > > you're having trouble finding my hypothesis ask
> >> > > > > > Mikey.)
>
> >> > > > > I repeat: It's stupid to ask for your evidence
> >> > > > > and an example?
>
> >> > > > It's common knowledge that it's we have no record
> >> > > > of specific instances prior to recorded history.
> >> > > > How can this not have been obvious to you?
>
> >> > > Surely you have SOME evidence, then, to support your
> >> > > "hypothesis"?
>
> >> > Of course. All the evidence supports my hypothesis.
> >> > None of the evidence contradicts it. (You are
> >> > confirming this last point by way of your inability to
> >> > find any evidence that contradicts my hypothesis.)
>
> >> Post your evidence then.
>
> > It's not necessary. You are not disputing any part of my
> > hypothetical thinking. And you already confirmed that you
> > cannot dispute any of
> > it. Game over. Next contestant.
>
> Me! Me! Me!
>
> I hereby formally dispute your hypothetical thinking.

Uh . . . okay. Why the formality

> You have not provided a single shred of evidence that
> supports any of it

Uh, all the evidence supports it. You've confirmed that you
have no dispute with it.

> to the exclusion of other far more reasonable (and
> supported) hypotheses.

Uh . . . BTW, your delusions about humans outrunning horses
in desert habitat--or whatever plainly dimwitted notion you
have floating around in your head--are not evidence.
Evidence is objective. It's measurable. Like Paul you have
to make more of an effort to distinguish between your
imagination and evidence.

> I hereby claim as an absolutely indisputable hypothesis that
> you are out of your fucking mind.
>
> Game over!!
>
> Where's Paul? Marc? Anybody?

You know what the difference between my hypothesis and that of
all the rest of you. Whereas your hypotheses are unable to
predict the emergence of human society my hypothesis is unable
to not predict it. You've all been at a severe disadvantage.
Trying to describe human evolution without describing the
emergence of human society (including all of the adaptations
that allow us to achieve/maintain society/ community) is like
trying to describe bird evolution without mentioning wings.
It's absurd. And anybody that would propose such, Paul, Marc
and the rest of you Dieteker wannabees, are themselves absurd.

[Day Brown]

I dunno as I have a dog in this fight, but I thot it was
rather common knowlege that Indians ran down horses on the
Great Plains. If you thot about it, which apparently you have
not, you'd realize that the Indian could carry food and water,
whereas the horse cant. Note as well that horse races dont run
much over a mile. After that, they are winded, whereas we have
marathons where hominids run 26 miles. There is no other
creature on Earth that can run that far, that fast. I dunno
about the whales, but they are not on Earth are they.

Most everybody knows the hordes of Genghis Khan swept across
Asia at such remarkable speed that they conquered the world's
greatest empire. Few realize that every Mongol took with him
*5* horses so he could trade off mounts. That, and the fact
that the Mongol himself didnt weigh much, created
unprecidented mobility.

Altho frankly, I dont think hominids bothered running down
prey in open desert or grassland. As I outline in
http://www.dc-pc.org/raj/ raj.html, they would have found it
far more profitable to watch for the circles of vultures. Now,
the speed of a team of hunters becomes critical; if they can
arrive at the kill sight in time, they can use sticks and
stones to drive off *all* other preditors. With stone axes
they can smash the joints to extract the marrow. They can use
the intestines as bags to carry meat slung on the shoulders
like sausage. There wont be much left when they leave. But
only the fastest teams get to live well.

As I outline in Raj, fairly early on, the hominid habit of
attacking all other preditors would have created a safe zone
that herbivores would learn to spend the night in. And if the
hominids only watch the vulture circles and take those kills,
the herbivores would not see hominids as preditors, and allow
the hominids to move among them freely. Which I have done,
walking thru herds of cattle *that have never seen me*, with
no sense of alarm on either their part nor mine. I cant
recommend trying this with American Bison; the interaction
with Indians was different.

[Al Zeller]

Day Brown wrote:
> I dunno as I have a dog in this fight, but I thot it was
> rather common knowlege that Indians ran down horses on the
> Great Plains. If you thot about it, which apparently you
> have not, you'd realize that the Indian could carry food and
> water, whereas the horse cant. Note as well that horse races
> dont run much over a mile. After that, they are winded,
> whereas we have marathons where hominids run 26 miles. There
> is no other creature on Earth that can run that far, that
> fast. I dunno about the whales, but they are not on Earth
> are they.
>
There are several 50 and 100-mile trail races that have both
humans and horses in them. The fastest horses usually beat all
the humans, even tho the horses have a bunch of forced rests
and vet checks.

Al Zeller

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 2, 3:42 am, Al Zeller <r10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Day Brown wrote:
> > I dunno as I have a dog in this fight, but I thot it was
> > rather common knowlege that Indians ran down horses on the
> > Great Plains. If you thot about it, which apparently you
> > have not, you'd realize that the Indian could carry food
> > and water, whereas the horse cant. Note as well that horse
> > races dont run much over a mile. After that, they are
> > winded, whereas we have marathons where hominids run 26
> > miles. There is no other creature on Earth that can run
> > that far, that fast. I dunno about the whales, but they
> > are not on Earth are they.
>
> There are several 50 and 100-mile trail races that have both
> humans and horses in them. The fastest horses usually beat
> all the humans, even tho the horses have a bunch of forced
> rests and vet checks.
>

"forced rests"? If you were hunting them instead of racing
them, the plan would be to keep them away from water.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/1-
804830.stm

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.htmlhttp://www.natura-
lhistorymag.com/1206/1206_samplings.html

John E. Pfeiffer The emergence of man New York, Harper & Row
[1972]. Page 109 gives an example of a lone hunter chasing
down an antelope in even less time than in the article above.
Hunting cooperatively cuts the chase time down even more.

> Al Zeller

[Gerrit Han]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> > I dunno as I have a dog in this fight, but I thot it was
>> > rather common knowlege that Indians ran down horses on
>> > the Great Plains. If you thot about it, which apparently
>> > you have not, you'd realize that the Indian could carry
>> > food and water, whereas the horse cant. Note as well that
>> > horse races dont run much over a mile. After that, they
>> > are winded, whereas we have marathons where hominids run
>> > 26 miles. There is no other creature on Earth that can
>> > run that far, that fast. I dunno about the whales, but
>> > they are not on Earth are they.
>>
>> There are several 50 and 100-mile trail races that have
>> both humans and horses in them. The fastest horses usually
>> beat all the humans, even tho the horses have a bunch of
>> forced rests and vet checks.
>>
>
>"forced rests"? If you were hunting them instead of racing
>them, the plan would be to keep them away from water.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/18-
>04830.stm
>
>http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.htmlhttp://www.natur-
>alhistorymag.com/1206/1206_samplings.html
>
>John E. Pfeiffer The emergence of man New York, Harper & Row
>[1972]. Page 109 gives an example of a lone hunter chasing
>down an antelope in even less time than in the article above.
>Hunting cooperatively cuts the chase time down even more.

See also the paper "Persistence Hunting by Modern
Hunter-Gatherers" by Louis Liebenberg in de december 2006
issue of Current Anthropology: http://www.journals.uchicago.e-
du/CA/journal/issues/v47n6/200064/brief/200064.abstract.html

Lieberman observed several of these hunts that take place at
the hottest time of the day with maximum temperatures at
39-42 C, covering distances of up to 35 km in 3.5 hours. And
here we're talking about hunting highly adapted animals such
as Kudu. Of course, we're also talking about acclimatized
hunters and not about an average Western couch potato. The
former is probably a more apropriate model in questions about
early Homo.

Gerrit

[Marc Verha]

"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net> wrote in
message news:q327s2p8t0tv654tl7v8d483ea8oei4pbt@4ax.com...

>>John E. Pfeiffer The emergence of man New York, Harper &
>>Row [1972]. Page 109 gives an example of a lone hunter
>>chasing down an antelope in even less time than in the
>>article above. Hunting cooperatively cuts the chase time
>>down even more.

> See also the paper "Persistence Hunting by Modern
> Hunter-Gatherers" by Louis Liebenberg in de december 2006
> issue of Current Anthropology: http://www.journals.uchicago-
> .edu/CA/journal/issues/v47n6/200064/brief/200064.abstract.h-
> tml Lieberman observed several of these hunts that take
> place at the hottest time of the day with maximum
> temperatures at 39-42 C, covering distances of up to 35 km
> in 3.5 hours. And here we're talking about hunting highly
> adapted animals such as Kudu. Of course, we're also talking
> about acclimatized hunters and not about an average Western
> couch potato. The former is probably a more apropriate model
> in questions about early Homo. Gerrit

My boy, AFAIK, nobody ever disputed that there are some remote
populations where some adult men (not women, not children)
sometimes hunt like that. The point is:
- The former is no doubt no appropriate model for early Homo,
just see the comparative evidence.
- Everything we know suggests human ancestors were always
strongly waterside.
- Comparative evidence proves human ancestors at one time
after the H/P split parttime dived for food.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

AAT (shoreline adaptations of the genus Homo) is based on the
behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of living humans vs. chimps &
other animals. Sea/lake-side ancestors collecting coconuts,
fruits, bird eggs, turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae etc.
explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes or
australopiths) better than plains- or forest-dwelling : brain
size, diving skills, breath control, vocality, small mouth &
chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
projecting nose, poor sense of smell, handiness, tool use,
late puberty, long legs, aligned body, poor climbing, fur
loss, fatness, high needs of water, sodium, iodine &
poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc. Homo & Pan split ~6-4 Ma.
Most likely, Homo populations dispersed along coasts & rivers,
in savannas & elsewhere : in spite of sea level fluctuations
(difficult fossilisation), Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma are
found near Rift valley lakes, Indian Ocean & African coasts :
Mojokerto, Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea
etc. (18 km sea crossing to reach Flores
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm