Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Charles · Guest

On Oct 7, 2:02 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
[quote]Charles wrote:
Paul, you would point out that my conclusions are "wrong" because "the
data is incomplete."

Not so. You are wrong (if following others) because your
logic is bad. You accept that humans dispersal started
a long time before 40 kya. To maintain that there has
been significant genetic evolution (towards 'higher
culture' or some such) since, necessarily implies that
it took place in one population (or a few) and not in
others. You are immediately into the worst kind of racism.

I think what is going on is that you are primarily engaged or
dedicated to finding new data

Not so. My interest in this is a minor hobby -- being
more amused at the astonishing level of incompetence
of the professionals, many of whom would spout
something like your stuff on 'genetic evolution since
40 kya', but not realise its implications.

Calder:
When you say "they" were genetically the same as "we" I am not sure
what you mean. Are you saying we are genetically the very same as the
Ancient Sapiens who emerged perhaps 195,000 years ago? If so, does
that mean there has been absolutely no further biological evolution
since then? I have read from Science Magazine that since then we have
evolved a slightly smaller cranial size, thinner legs and more
resistance to influenza. I don>t think they were mistaken. Do you?

Farming and more sophisticated tools and weapons
allowed even weaker bones and muscles. This is
certainly 'genetic', but quite minor. (It is parallel
to the physical effects of the domestication of farm
animals.) It would be reversed in a few generations,
should stone-age conditions ever return.

And if there has been change, the fact that we suddenly began to take
off culturally about 40,000 years ago would seem to me to be the last
real genetic change. Before that, we lived 160,000 years with the
same more primitive stone tool/weapon technology of the Neanderthal.

Stone tools are, pretty much, all that survive.
You should not base too many judgements on
them for the extent of the culture.

Ed,
I hope you are not offended by that reference to your "friend."
Personally, I am glad we out hunted him and crowded him off the
surface of the Earth so we could have it---even killed or slaughtered
him as needed! That was pay-back for his pushing our ancestor Sapiens
back into Africa and almost dying out about 70,000 years ago after
making their first big move out of Africa.

This is, of course, sheer nonsense. It is a conclusion
based entirely on the absence of evidence.

Or perhaps it was the
explosion of the Lake Toba volcanic caldera that caused caused world
weather to change and the ancients numbers down to a mere few thousand
then. No one knows.

As regards Mount Toba (et al.), other species do not
show genetic constriction from that time so, somehow,
it did not affect them, apparently picking out only
humans. The theory is crazy, and based on a hopeless
misreading of the evidence.

Paul.
[/quote]
Why be so rude, even venomous? Did I insult you by assuming you were
an anthropology professional? Is it built up hostility---or were you
never taught how to deal with other humans? Instead of attacking
them, why not slam your fist into a pillow to feel better? You pose as
the arbiter of "Truth" and play with the words "minor" and
"significant" to assist you in that task. You have interpreted each
statement I made in a way that distorts it and then label my statement
"nonsense" or "not so." You even purport to answer for the others by,
in that same way drawing mis-implications from what I wrote them.

Ed and Calder,
Paul made one good point that deserves discussion and to be resolved,
the first one. I would very much like to hear what you think on
that. If we can evolve thinner legs, does it mean that all of us have
thinner legs than we did 100,000 years or so ago? If some slight
mental change did not occur some 40,000 years ago that enabled the
acceleration of cultural change, what did cause it? Are we supposed
to NOT try to figure out what happened from what evidence (the data)
is available? I think that is why data is being collected, that its
function is to be be used to figure out as well as we can what
happened. Otherwise, it is of no value to humanity. Each time new
data becomes available, it is used to test the interpretation and if
necessary, change it. The EFFECT of the change 40,000 years ago was
"significant" but it does not mean the mental change itself was or
that it was so significant that the whole human race was not able to,
sooner or later, move into larger groups---thus, making that final
genetic change of no further evolutionary significance. I believe the
clear and obvious differences between sections of the human race, even
the most subtle ones, are of no significance as we are all able to
build civilization.

charles

Paul Crowley · Guest

Charles wrote:

[quote]Paul, you would point out that my conclusions are "wrong" because "the
data is incomplete."
[/quote]
Not so. You are wrong (if following others) because your
logic is bad. You accept that humans dispersal started
a long time before 40 kya. To maintain that there has
been significant genetic evolution (towards 'higher
culture' or some such) since, necessarily implies that
it took place in one population (or a few) and not in
others. You are immediately into the worst kind of racism.

[quote]I think what is going on is that you are primarily engaged or
dedicated to finding new data
[/quote]
Not so. My interest in this is a minor hobby -- being
more amused at the astonishing level of incompetence
of the professionals, many of whom would spout
something like your stuff on 'genetic evolution since
40 kya', but not realise its implications.

[quote]Calder:
When you say "they" were genetically the same as "we" I am not sure
what you mean. Are you saying we are genetically the very same as the
Ancient Sapiens who emerged perhaps 195,000 years ago? If so, does
that mean there has been absolutely no further biological evolution
since then? I have read from Science Magazine that since then we have
evolved a slightly smaller cranial size, thinner legs and more
resistance to influenza. I don>t think they were mistaken. Do you?
[/quote]
Farming and more sophisticated tools and weapons
allowed even weaker bones and muscles. This is
certainly 'genetic', but quite minor. (It is parallel
to the physical effects of the domestication of farm
animals.) It would be reversed in a few generations,
should stone-age conditions ever return.

[quote]And if there has been change, the fact that we suddenly began to take
off culturally about 40,000 years ago would seem to me to be the last
real genetic change. Before that, we lived 160,000 years with the
same more primitive stone tool/weapon technology of the Neanderthal.
[/quote]
Stone tools are, pretty much, all that survive.
You should not base too many judgements on
them for the extent of the culture.

[quote]Ed,
I hope you are not offended by that reference to your "friend."
Personally, I am glad we out hunted him and crowded him off the
surface of the Earth so we could have it---even killed or slaughtered
him as needed! That was pay-back for his pushing our ancestor Sapiens
back into Africa and almost dying out about 70,000 years ago after
making their first big move out of Africa.
[/quote]
This is, of course, sheer nonsense. It is a conclusion
based entirely on the absence of evidence.

[quote]Or perhaps it was the
explosion of the Lake Toba volcanic caldera that caused caused world
weather to change and the ancients numbers down to a mere few thousand
then. No one knows.
[/quote]
As regards Mount Toba (et al.), other species do not
show genetic constriction from that time so, somehow,
it did not affect them, apparently picking out only
humans. The theory is crazy, and based on a hopeless
misreading of the evidence.

Paul.

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Oct 6, 4:29 pm, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
They were a much bigger problem in the past. Keep in mind that the
most problematic pests have, probably, become extinct in their
competition with hominids over the last 6 million years.

But the measures taken against them have not
changed much in 3 or 4 million years -- fences
made of thorn bushes, etc.

Yeah, so?

I am really saying that such 'gardens' would best
be in places with a certain amount of natural
protection -- the head of a valley, for example.
[/quote]
Oh, okay. Yes. This is a good point. They would be at strategic
locations. And or locations that naturally hide the garden location.

[quote]
and there are predators where you go.

Predation is normally a very serious problem --
which has to be faced. But one way of hominids
would have 'dealt' with it, was by having bases
on offshore islands (similar to modern Zanzibar).

Absurde nonsense.

Shame that you can>t say why.

It>s contrived, not natural.

You think that only because you could
not work it out yourself.
[/quote]
No, I think that because it is plainly an absurd notion. It>s
cartoonish.

[quote]
Treed habitat is the realm of chimps -- and quite
a few large predators.

And hominids--especially earlier hominids.

Nonsense. Like standard PA you have not got
a grasp of basic ecology. The new species
occupied a niche, and established almost
everything at the start.
[/quote]
What? Surely you>re not suggesting that hominids didn>t reside in
treed habitat. Are you? (Please, say it ain>t so.)

[quote]
Take a look at human
children, and infants, and females especially when
heavily pregant (as would have been more common).

We>re not talking about humans. We>re talking about chimpanzee-like
Apith.

They were chimpanzee-like only in their brain
size.
[/quote]
Absurd.

Every so often you should refamiliarize yourself with the fossil
evidence so that you don>t keep making silly statements.

[quote]Almost everything else was established.
That>s how speciation works. Do you think
(for example) that flamingoes gradually got
longer necks, or worked their way to salt-lakes
through a series of less salty ones, over a
period of a few million years?

Hominids managed to occupy a relatively small
number of sites, where they could keep predators
away. That was the overwhelming consideration.

In a monsoon forest habitat there would have been (and to a lesser
extent still are) many localities in which the conditions were/are
similar to a rainforest habitat in which they were quite comfortable--
except for the dry season when herds of food-competitors and ferocious
predators would migrate in.

Your populations are supposed to be isolated.
[/quote]
They were, more or less. I never suggested they were not.

[quote]
All such sites were on the coast.

Absurd assumption.

Neither an assumption nor absurd.
[/quote]
This is comically bad theory. You should be ashamed.

[quote]
Of course, that
was also the hominid habitat, since before huts
and fire, the coast was the only place where
nocturnal temperatures were high enough, and
condensation low enough, for conditions to be
tolerable to hominid young and infants.

Another absurd assumption.

Try sleeping outside sometime, entirely naked,
and without any kind of tent or other covering.
Then try to imagine an infant doing the same.
[/quote]
This is true for all animals, you idiot.

Charles · Guest

On Sep 2, 8:10 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Brine wrote, On 02/09/08 05:32 AM:

Earliest Known Modern Human

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/22/earliest-human-ethiopia.html

Aug. 22, 2008 -- The world>s first known modern human was a tall,
thin individual -- probably male -- who lived around 200,000 years
ago and resembled present-day Ethiopians, save for one important
difference: He retained a few primitive characteristics associated
with Neanderthals, according to a series of forthcoming studies
conducted by multiple international research teams.

This is and interesting article, and not just because of the subject it
covers. The article is an example of both good scientific journalism and
bad scientific journalism in the same article.

The bad:

In this first paragraph the writer uses the phrase "retained a few
primitive characteristics associated with Neanderthals". You know that
the average person, lacking in a good basic science foundation, is going
to misinterpret that, along with the headline "Earliest Known Human Had
Neanderthal Qualities", as meaning humans are descended from
Neanderthals. You know that means some ignorant creationist somewhere is
going to claim "You used to say that humans were descended from
Neanderthals, but then you said people weren>t and now you>re saying
again that we are!" I wouldn>t be surprised if some creationists,
understanding the misrepresentation, will still dishonestly make that
false claim in order to try and make evolution look bad.

The good:

However, if one takes the time to read the full article, at the end of
page two there is a redeeming note . The article acknowledges that while
this is the oldest Homo sapiens found so far, it is possible that
earlier skeletons might be found elsewhere. "We only have evidence for
what we have found," said John Fleagle, anatomy professor, adding that
there "almost certainly were modern individuals before Omo I." This
shows the falsity of Adman>s claim that science makes it self out to teh
be the 100% correct truth about the way things are. Science makes its
theories based on current knowledge but is always willing to change when
new evidence appears.

It>s a shame that most people don>t read to the end of articles. If they
did, people like Adman might get the hint that science does not work in
the way they think it does.

If there were no females, what did the creature mated with? the yeti?

You, obviously, didn>t read the entire article, did you?

Try, just once, to correctly parse the difference between "the first
known human" and "the first human", and perhaps you>ll have the grace to
be embarrassed at your ignorance.
[/quote]

Cory Albrecht:

It is pleasant to see that someone is willing and able to put in a
thoughtful post in this thread. Is it because the others have to hunt
and peck at the keys? I just don>t understand why a scientific forum
has to be cluttered up with "cute" one-liners. I do see there is a
"creationist" or two mixed in with the rest of us but some insects are
alright to just ignore and not let them distract us from serious
matters.

My last best experience with scientific magazine journalism was about
a year ago in a Science Internet mag. site. I read an article
purported to show how human evolution is continuing. Of course, that
was interpreted by the average reader as the explanation for all the
change that has occurred in the last five to forty thousand years.
Because of religious and secular considerations, the subject of social
evolution has been stalled for the last century or so. So, with no
evolutionary explanation, people WANT to believe evolution has caused
the change---biological evolution. Anyway, in the very last paragraph
of a long article, it stated that the experts found we had evolved a
slightly SMALLER brain case, thinner legs and a better immunity to
influenza! It hardly seems likely those changes have anything to do
with the rise and fall of civilizations!

How journalists distort science this way is a good way to look into
what people believe and hence want to hear. What people want to read
largely determines what journalists write and how they interpret
science for the public.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Oct 6, 1:40 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

Stupid wetloon doesn>t understand you don>t have to run 36 km/hr to
catch a kudu.

[quote]Savanna Fool doesn>t know that humans run at most 36 km/hr, and that
H.erectus were much heavier hence slower.

Cursorials like dogs & horses are lightly-built, the opposite of erectus.
[/quote]
Dogs & horses run on two legs????

[quote]
The article suggests that the first running
hominid was Homo erectus.
What the article suggests here is obviously wrong: erectus were very
heavily-built creatures, unlike cursorials (canids, equids...).
This does not preclude running. Even obese moderns can run. *You* can
run.[/quote]

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Oct 7, 11:14 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
Predation is normally a very serious problem --
which has to be faced. But one way of hominids
would have 'dealt' with it, was by having bases
on offshore islands (similar to modern Zanzibar).

Absurde nonsense.

Shame that you can>t say why.

It>s contrived, not natural.

You think that only because you could
not work it out yourself.

No, I think that because it is plainly an absurd notion.

You repeat the same empty phrases.
HOW is it absurd?
[/quote]
Bases of offshore islands? Apith? If the ridiculousness of this is
not obvious to you there>s nothing anybody can do for you.

[quote]It>s cartoonish.

That>s actually praise
[/quote]
Maybe for you it is.

[quote]-- and praise of the
highest sort. It should be possible to draw
pictures of every stage of hominid evolution.
But Standard PA types could never present
any kind of cartoons for their ideas. Too
many things would be seen to be wrong. The
same applies to you. Imagine showing a family
of bipeds -- with children and infant bipeds
-- sleeping in trees, and competing with
chimps.
[/quote]
You are too confused by your own simpleminded (and vague) notions.
I>m not going to pretend to be able to untangle this idiocy.

[quote]
Treed habitat is the realm of chimps -- and quite
a few large predators.

And hominids--especially earlier hominids.

Nonsense. Like standard PA you have not got
a grasp of basic ecology. The new species
occupied a niche, and established almost
everything at the start.

What? Surely you>re not suggesting that hominids didn>t reside in
treed habitat. Are you? (Please, say it ain>t so.)

Hominids have always liked trees, and usually
lived in, or near them. They provide food and
shelter. But bipeds became bipeds so that they
could move away from 'sleeping trees'
[/quote]
Absurd.

[quote]-- those
that chimps are obliged to find every night.
Hominids can live on a beach, where there are
few, if any, trees.
[/quote]
Absurd.

[quote]Take a look at human
children, and infants, and females especially when
heavily pregant (as would have been more common).

We>re not talking about humans. We>re talking about chimpanzee-like Apith.

They were chimpanzee-like only in their brain
size.

Absurd.
[..]
Every so often you should refamiliarize yourself with the fossil
evidence so that you don>t keep making silly statements.

Chimps were their ancestors, so Apiths retained
the broad body-shape (of relatively short legs)
the small brain, and a few minor vestigial features.
But . . . in every other significant respect they
were closer to modern humans.
[/quote]
Absurd.

[quote]In what respects are YOU claiming they were
like chimps?
[/quote]
It seems to me you are asking me to explain the obvious.

[quote][..]

All such sites were on the coast.

Absurd assumption.

Neither an assumption nor absurd.

This is comically bad theory. You should be ashamed.

Your idea of 'the niche' occupied by Apiths
is close to that of standard PA.
[/quote]
Specifically?

[quote]It>s almost
identical to that of chimps -- ignoring the fact
that chimps were around in large numbers.
Then, remarkably, this taxon got down from
the trees, adopting a lifestyle close to a modern
hominid -- with, of course, no significant
change in morphology. The old tree-bound
species conveniently went into existence,
realising that its existence would embarrass
PA types 3 million years later.
[/quote]
You lost me. You have too much nonsense floating around in your head
to ever get to something that is significant.

[quote]
Of course, that
was also the hominid habitat, since before huts
and fire, the coast was the only place where
nocturnal temperatures were high enough, and
condensation low enough, for conditions to be
tolerable to hominid young and infants.

Another absurd assumption.

Try sleeping outside sometime, entirely naked,
and without any kind of tent or other covering.
Then try to imagine an infant doing the same.

This is true for all animals, you idiot.

Here you show your knowledge of nature is up
to PA standards. I will try to keep it simple,
and go back to basics:

Mammals were designed to be active at night,
and sleep during the day.
[/quote]
Dimwitted assumption.

[quote]The great bulk kept up
that pattern after the dinosaurs were wiped out.
Those which broke it, had to devise special
methods for coping with a lifestyle unsuited to
their basic design. One was the primate family,
which is nearly all active by day -- monkeys need
to see where to jump. They devised methods to
stay warm (and safe) at night -- such as bunching
together on a tree branch, or using long hair.
They do suffer from some nocturnal condensation
-- but it is only a small fraction of that which
occurs at ground level. When one species
descended to sleep on the ground, it soon
discovered that it could only do so in a small
number of places.
[/quote]
This is your fantasy, Paul. Leave me out of it.

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Oct 7, 11:05 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 6, 1:40 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

Stupid wetloon doesn>t understand you don>t have to run 36 km/hr to
catch a kudu.
[/quote]
They>d have to run a lot faster than that to outrun the lions and
hyens they would surely come across in savanna habitat.

Paul Crowley · Guest

Charles wrote:

[quote]Why be so rude, even venomous?
[/quote]
Unthinking and unacknowledged racism is OK then?

On a more general point, if you have particular
criticisms of my words, quote the particular
words.

[quote]Did I insult you by assuming you were
an anthropology professional?
[/quote]
Yes. One of the worst in the world. ;)

[quote]You pose as
the arbiter of "Truth" and play with the words "minor" and
"significant" to assist you in that task.
[/quote]
If you want to make a point about some of my
words quote them directly.

[quote]You have interpreted each
statement I made in a way that distorts it
[/quote]
Quote my words and show how. It would
not be hard -- if the accusation were true.

[quote]and then label my statement
"nonsense" or "not so." You even purport to answer for the others by,
in that same way drawing mis-implications from what I wrote them.
[/quote]
These are not private discussions about
personal matters. Most of the matter
strongly interrelates.

Paul.

Paul Crowley · Guest

Claudius Denk wrote:

[quote]Predation is normally a very serious problem --
which has to be faced. But one way of hominids
would have 'dealt' with it, was by having bases
on offshore islands (similar to modern Zanzibar).

Absurde nonsense.

Shame that you can>t say why.

It>s contrived, not natural.

You think that only because you could
not work it out yourself.

No, I think that because it is plainly an absurd notion.
[/quote]
You repeat the same empty phrases.
HOW is it absurd?

[quote]It>s cartoonish.
[/quote]
That>s actually praise -- and praise of the
highest sort. It should be possible to draw
pictures of every stage of hominid evolution.
But Standard PA types could never present
any kind of cartoons for their ideas. Too
many things would be seen to be wrong. The
same applies to you. Imagine showing a family
of bipeds -- with children and infant bipeds
-- sleeping in trees, and competing with
chimps.

[quote]Treed habitat is the realm of chimps -- and quite
a few large predators.

And hominids--especially earlier hominids.

Nonsense. Like standard PA you have not got
a grasp of basic ecology. The new species
occupied a niche, and established almost
everything at the start.

What? Surely you>re not suggesting that hominids didn>t reside in
treed habitat. Are you? (Please, say it ain>t so.)
[/quote]
Hominids have always liked trees, and usually
lived in, or near them. They provide food and
shelter. But bipeds became bipeds so that they
could move away from 'sleeping trees' -- those
that chimps are obliged to find every night.
Hominids can live on a beach, where there are
few, if any, trees.

[quote]Take a look at human
children, and infants, and females especially when
heavily pregant (as would have been more common).

We>re not talking about humans. We>re talking about chimpanzee-like Apith.

They were chimpanzee-like only in their brain
size.

Absurd.
[..]
Every so often you should refamiliarize yourself with the fossil
evidence so that you don>t keep making silly statements.
[/quote]
Chimps were their ancestors, so Apiths retained
the broad body-shape (of relatively short legs)
the small brain, and a few minor vestigial features.
But . . . in every other significant respect they
were closer to modern humans.

In what respects are YOU claiming they were
like chimps?
[..]

[quote]All such sites were on the coast.

Absurd assumption.

Neither an assumption nor absurd.

This is comically bad theory. You should be ashamed.
[/quote]
Your idea of 'the niche' occupied by Apiths
is close to that of standard PA. It>s almost
identical to that of chimps -- ignoring the fact
that chimps were around in large numbers.
Then, remarkably, this taxon got down from
the trees, adopting a lifestyle close to a modern
hominid -- with, of course, no significant
change in morphology. The old tree-bound
species conveniently went into existence,
realising that its existence would embarrass
PA types 3 million years later.

[quote]Of course, that
was also the hominid habitat, since before huts
and fire, the coast was the only place where
nocturnal temperatures were high enough, and
condensation low enough, for conditions to be
tolerable to hominid young and infants.

Another absurd assumption.

Try sleeping outside sometime, entirely naked,
and without any kind of tent or other covering.
Then try to imagine an infant doing the same.

This is true for all animals, you idiot.
[/quote]
Here you show your knowledge of nature is up
to PA standards. I will try to keep it simple,
and go back to basics:

Mammals were designed to be active at night,
and sleep during the day. The great bulk kept up
that pattern after the dinosaurs were wiped out.
Those which broke it, had to devise special
methods for coping with a lifestyle unsuited to
their basic design. One was the primate family,
which is nearly all active by day -- monkeys need
to see where to jump. They devised methods to
stay warm (and safe) at night -- such as bunching
together on a tree branch, or using long hair.
They do suffer from some nocturnal condensation
-- but it is only a small fraction of that which
occurs at ground level. When one species
descended to sleep on the ground, it soon
discovered that it could only do so in a small
number of places.

Paul.

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

[quote]Stupid wetloon doesn>t understand you don>t have to run 36 km/hr to
catch a kudu.
[/quote]
our little boy apparently doesn>t see that hmuans have 0 features of
cursorils

[quote]Savanna Fool doesn>t know that humans run at most 36 km/hr, and that
H.erectus were much heavier hence slower.
Cursorials like dogs & horses are lightly-built, the opposite of erectus.

Dogs & horses run on two legs????
[/quote]
never seen a kangaroo or an ostrich, my little boy??
yes, of course, my little boy: lightly-built

think a *little* bit before opening your big mouth

savanna fools are stupid stupid stupid

Paul Crowley · Guest

Claudius Denk wrote:

[quote]No, I think that because it is plainly an absurd notion.

You repeat the same empty phrases.
HOW is it absurd?

Bases of offshore islands? Apith? If the ridiculousness of this is
not obvious to you there>s nothing anybody can do for you.
[/quote]
How come you are so short of words? When a
proposal is absurd and ridiculous, it should be
possible to say why.

Imagine you and your immediate family lived
1,000 years ago, and you were all exiled to
Africa with the right to choose the location.
If you had any knowledge or sense you would
choose a place like Zanzibar -- on the coast,
a good climate, plenty of rainfall and NO
predators.

[quote]-- and praise of the
highest sort. It should be possible to draw
pictures of every stage of hominid evolution.
But Standard PA types could never present
any kind of cartoons for their ideas. Too
many things would be seen to be wrong. The
same applies to you. Imagine showing a family
of bipeds -- with children and infant bipeds
-- sleeping in trees, and competing with
chimps.

You are too confused by your own simpleminded (and vague) notions.
I>m not going to pretend to be able to untangle this idiocy.
[/quote]
Dodge, dodge and dodge again.

[quote]Hominids have always liked trees, and usually
lived in, or near them. They provide food and
shelter. But bipeds became bipeds so that they
could move away from 'sleeping trees'

Absurd.
[/quote]
Again so inarticulate.

[quote]-- those
that chimps are obliged to find every night.
Hominids can live on a beach, where there are
few, if any, trees.

Absurd.

[..]

Every so often you should refamiliarize yourself with the fossil
evidence so that you don>t keep making silly statements.

Chimps were their ancestors, so Apiths retained
the broad body-shape (of relatively short legs)
the small brain, and a few minor vestigial features.
But . . . in every other significant respect they
were closer to modern humans.

Absurd.
[/quote]
Is that all you can say?

[quote]In what respects are YOU claiming they were
like chimps?

It seems to me you are asking me to explain the obvious.
[/quote]
It>s a simple question.
Do you have an answer?

[quote]Your idea of 'the niche' occupied by Apiths
is close to that of standard PA. It>s almost
identical to that of chimps -- ignoring the fact
that chimps were around in large numbers.
Then, remarkably, this taxon got down from
the trees, adopting a lifestyle close to a modern
hominid -- with, of course, no significant
change in morphology. The old tree-bound
species conveniently went into existence,
realising that its existence would embarrass
PA types 3 million years later.

You lost me. You have too much nonsense floating around in your head
to ever get to something that is significant.
[/quote]
(a) Why wouldn>t chimps live in your 'monsoon
habitat'?
(b) What advantages would Apiths have over
chimps in such a habitat?
(c) In your theory (and that of Standard PA) Apiths
gave rise to hominids that moved away from
sleeping trees. How come Apiths then went into
extinction, having done so well for so many millions
of years?

[quote]Of course, that
was also the hominid habitat, since before huts
and fire, the coast was the only place where
nocturnal temperatures were high enough, and
condensation low enough, for conditions to be
tolerable to hominid young and infants.

Another absurd assumption.

Try sleeping outside sometime, entirely naked,
and without any kind of tent or other covering.
Then try to imagine an infant doing the same.

This is true for all animals, you idiot.

Here you show your knowledge of nature is up
to PA standards. I will try to keep it simple,
and go back to basics:

Mammals were designed to be active at night,
and sleep during the day.

Dimwitted assumption.
[/quote]
So mammals were not designed
to be active at night?

[quote]The great bulk kept up
that pattern after the dinosaurs were wiped out.
Those which broke it, had to devise special
methods for coping with a lifestyle unsuited to
their basic design. One was the primate family,
which is nearly all active by day -- monkeys need
to see where to jump. They devised methods to
stay warm (and safe) at night -- such as bunching
together on a tree branch, or using long hair.
They do suffer from some nocturnal condensation
-- but it is only a small fraction of that which
occurs at ground level. When one species
descended to sleep on the ground, it soon
discovered that it could only do so in a small
number of places.

This is your fantasy, Paul. Leave me out of it.
[/quote]
You are out of it. You can>t say why
it is fantasy, nor can you find anything
critical to say about it.

Paul.

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Oct 7, 10:36 pm, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
No, I think that because it is plainly an absurd notion.

You repeat the same empty phrases.
HOW is it absurd?

Bases of offshore islands? Apith? If the ridiculousness of this is
not obvious to you there>s nothing anybody can do for you.

How come you are so short of words? When a
proposal is absurd and ridiculous, it should be
possible to say why.

Imagine you and your immediate family lived
1,000 years ago, and you were all exiled to
Africa with the right to choose the location.
If you had any knowledge or sense you would
choose a place like Zanzibar -- on the coast,
a good climate, plenty of rainfall and NO
predators.
[/quote]
Relevance?

[quote]
-- and praise of the
highest sort. It should be possible to draw
pictures of every stage of hominid evolution.
But Standard PA types could never present
any kind of cartoons for their ideas. Too
many things would be seen to be wrong. The
same applies to you. Imagine showing a family
of bipeds -- with children and infant bipeds
-- sleeping in trees, and competing with
chimps.

You are too confused by your own simpleminded (and vague) notions.
I>m not going to pretend to be able to untangle this idiocy.

Dodge, dodge and dodge again.
[/quote]
Who cares.

[quote]
Hominids have always liked trees, and usually
lived in, or near them. They provide food and
shelter. But bipeds became bipeds so that they
could move away from 'sleeping trees'

Absurd.

Again so inarticulate.

-- those
that chimps are obliged to find every night.
Hominids can live on a beach, where there are
few, if any, trees.

Absurd.

[..]

Every so often you should refamiliarize yourself with the fossil
evidence so that you don>t keep making silly statements.

Chimps were their ancestors, so Apiths retained
the broad body-shape (of relatively short legs)
the small brain, and a few minor vestigial features.
But . . . in every other significant respect they
were closer to modern humans.

Absurd.

Is that all you can say?
[/quote]
That>s it.

[quote]
In what respects are YOU claiming they were
like chimps?

It seems to me you are asking me to explain the obvious.

It>s a simple question.
Do you have an answer?

Your idea of 'the niche' occupied by Apiths
is close to that of standard PA. It>s almost
identical to that of chimps -- ignoring the fact
that chimps were around in large numbers.
Then, remarkably, this taxon got down from
the trees, adopting a lifestyle close to a modern
hominid -- with, of course, no significant
change in morphology. The old tree-bound
species conveniently went into existence,
realising that its existence would embarrass
PA types 3 million years later.

You lost me. You have too much nonsense floating around in your head
to ever get to something that is significant.

(a) Why wouldn>t chimps live in your 'monsoon
habitat'?
[/quote]
Read my hypothesis

[quote](b) What advantages would Apiths have over
chimps in such a habitat?
[/quote]
Ditto.

[quote](c) In your theory (and that of Standard PA) Apiths
gave rise to hominids that moved away from
sleeping trees. How come Apiths then went into
extinction,
[/quote]
Natural selection. See my hypothesis for details.

[quote]having done so well for so many millions
of years?
[/quote]
Uh, you couldn>t possibly be this stupid.

[quote]Of course, that
was also the hominid habitat, since before huts
and fire, the coast was the only place where
nocturnal temperatures were high enough, and
condensation low enough, for conditions to be
tolerable to hominid young and infants.

Another absurd assumption.

Try sleeping outside sometime, entirely naked,
and without any kind of tent or other covering.
Then try to imagine an infant doing the same.

This is true for all animals, you idiot.

Here you show your knowledge of nature is up
to PA standards. I will try to keep it simple,
and go back to basics:

Mammals were designed to be active at night,
and sleep during the day.

Dimwitted assumption.

So mammals were not designed
to be active at night?
[/quote]
Only in your imagination.

[quote]

The great bulk kept up
that pattern after the dinosaurs were wiped out.
Those which broke it, had to devise special
methods for coping with a lifestyle unsuited to
their basic design. One was the primate family,
which is nearly all active by day -- monkeys need
to see where to jump. They devised methods to
stay warm (and safe) at night -- such as bunching
together on a tree branch, or using long hair.
They do suffer from some nocturnal condensation
-- but it is only a small fraction of that which
occurs at ground level. When one species
descended to sleep on the ground, it soon
discovered that it could only do so in a small
number of places.

This is your fantasy, Paul. Leave me out of it.

You are out of it. You can>t say why
it is fantasy, nor can you find anything
critical to say about it.
[/quote]
It>s your fantasy. You support it.

RichTravsky · Guest

RichTravsky wrote:
[quote]Marc Verhaegen wrote:

our netloon doesn>t know the difference between suction feeding & suckling:

Describe the differences then -
[/quote]
Still waiting...

[quote]Op 01-09-2008 07:18, in artikel 48BB7B2F.440E6AE5@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

SF has never heard of suction feeding:

What do you think suckling is, Marc????

Here>s puppies suction feeding:
http://www.realstandards.info/suckling.jpg

Sheep suction feeding:
http://pix.alaporte.net/pub/d/15644-1/Baby+Sheep+Suckling+Mom.JPG

Horse suction feeding:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Camargue_suckling.JPG

Deer suction feeding:

http://www.client.teagasc.ie/images/advisory/ruraldev/deer/fawn%20suckling.jpe
g

Humans:
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2004/112-10/suckling.jpg[/quote]

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Oct 7, 2:05 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
[quote]Stupid wetloon doesn>t understand you don>t have to run 36 km/hr to
catch a kudu.

our little boy
[/quote]
pervert

[quote]apparently doesn>t see that hmuans have 0 features of
cursorils
[/quote]
Tell that to Mr. Karoha, wetloon. Who put the stone tool cut marks on
the bones BEFORE the lions
and hyenas got there? Right, the guys who got there first. Glad you
agree.

[quote]
Savanna Fool doesn>t know that humans run at most 36 km/hr, and that
H.erectus were much heavier hence slower.
Cursorials like dogs & horses are lightly-built, the opposite of erectus.
Dogs & horses run on two legs????

never seen a kangaroo or an ostrich, my little boy??
yes, of course, my little boy: lightly-built
[/quote]
Kangaroos and ostriches can run down a kudu?

think a *little* bit before opening your big mouth

wet ape fools are stupid stupid stupid

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

[quote]our netloon doesn>t know the difference between suction feeding & suckling:
[/quote]
Savanna Fantast:
[quote]Describe the differences then -
[/quote]
SF:
[quote]Still waiting...
[/quote]
:-DDD

SFs are stupid stupid stupid


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology - Paleo Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 43, 44, 45 Next
Page 26 of 45