| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caldervangogh@gmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:13 am Post subject: Re: are "we," modern humans, about 195,000 years old or only |
 |
|
On Oct 7, 9:58 am, Charles <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 2:02 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
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.
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- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
"We" have gotten taller since even the 1920>s... and much of that is
assumed to be because of better nutrition. Our lives are longer now
because of things like vaccinations and vast improvements in
sanitation and medicine. None of that implies a genetic change, and
one does not have to look very far to find "exceptions" to the taller,
healthier, well-fed human. So, a scientist in a million years looking
at our fossils... would find... what? a short malnurished person or a
tall healthy one? it>s a crapshoot. So we do have to consider the
same issue when we look at the fossils that have been found.
Current scientific belief is that we are one, single species of hss on
this planet. I believe this too, and, I would even argue that it is
scientific fact. I believe that one day humanity will live at peace
with ourselves. That however, is OT for this ng. The Neanderrtal
discussion is not OT though.
Our one human race is divided into various "populations" and not
different races. I have problems with this issue, but it has been
discussed a zillion times here on sap, and is unresolved. Point is,
all the human populations can interbreed. They are all so spread out
on the planet & large in size, that it is assumed that no more
physical eevolution can occur in our species. (referring to the
concept that you probably know about.. that a group from the species
must become isolated in order to evolve.) It is axiomatic that after
our dispersal from Africa... or even within that continent.. some 195
kya, no further physical or genetic evolution has occured in our
species.
The thinner legs are something I do not know about.... perhaps it is
like the "taller" and longer-lived.
The 40 kya mental change can be attributed to an increase in .. if you
wish to use this term... education. Education is passing our culture,
our accumulated knowledge, on to the next generation. So, over long
periods of time, the general knowledge increases. now, when two
"populations" or groups of hss meet each other, they are prone to
exchanging info. In this way, knowledge can pass rapidly over large
geographic areas. A more modern example of this would be how
knowledge of certain types of pottery making spread through the Native
Americans in the Woodland period. One way that spearhead and
arrowheads are dated is by their "traditions" ... how they are made
and shaped... which is apparently knowledge passed from parent to
child over a long period of time.
gotta' scoot
regards
calder |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Marc Verhaegen
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:36 am Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
Savanna Fool:
[quote]Stupid wetloon doesn>t understand you don>t have to run 36 km/hr to
catch a kudu.
[/quote]
me:
[quote]our little boy
[/quote]
SF:
[quote]pervert
apparently doesn>t see that hmuans have 0 features of
cursorials
[/quote]
SF:
[quote]Tell that to Mr. Karoha,
[/quote]
my little netloon do yo really believe that because your Mr.K runs after
kudus the sapiens LCA did that??
SFs are stupid stupid stupid |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: are "we," modern humans, about 195,000 years old or only |
|
|
caldervangogh@gmail.com wrote:
[quote][..] It is axiomatic that after
our dispersal from Africa... or even within that continent.. some 195
kya, no further physical or genetic evolution has occured in our
species.
The thinner legs are something I do not know about.... perhaps it is
like the "taller" and longer-lived.
[/quote]
It is that, and more than that. "Cro-Magnon man" was
more rugged than modern humans, with heavier eye-brow
ridges, bigger jaw, bigger teeth and stronger bones
generally. With the development of sharper knives --
especially for weapons -- physical strength ceased to
be of such great importance.
[quote]The 40 kya mental change can be attributed to an increase in .. if you
wish to use this term... education. Education is passing our culture,
our accumulated knowledge, on to the next generation. So, over long
periods of time, the general knowledge increases. now, when two
"populations" or groups of hss meet each other, they are prone to
exchanging info.
[/quote]
I doubt if this is important -- over the huge timescales
we are thinking about. There have been numerous
highly developed civilisations which have gone, leaving
only the archaeological record -- e.g. in Central America
or Western Africa. The current inhabitants of the area
are, highly probably, the descendants of the people who
built those cities, but they inherited little or no knowledge
from them.
There may be a minimal size for a population that can
pass on, or develop, a culture. The Tasmanian aboriginal
culture steadily went down (losing artefacts, and
abandoning behaviours like fishing) after it became
isolated from the mainland.
I think we have to accept that Hss has, since it first
evolved , had the 'genetic capacity' to form large societies
and develop complex cultures. Clearly the opportunity
was not there for the first many tens of thousands of
years. As Hss expanded from Africa, H.erectus and the
Neanderthals got in the way and often had to be wiped
out first.
BUT the roughly simultaneous appearance of advanced
civilisations in widely dispersed locations all over the
world after 10 kya needs an explanation. There should
be signs of settlements the size of villages or towns, and
possibly cities, before (say) 25 kya or 50 kya.
There is IMO only one likely reason for their absence --
they would have been located close to sea-level, and
were destroyed (or flooded) when the seas rose, after
about 16 kya.
Paul. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Claudius Denk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
On Oct 8, 4:53 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 2:05 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
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]
Lee, don>t let your imagination get the best of you. This is *not*
evidence that early hominids regularly occupied treeless savanna
habitat. Paleohabitat reconstruction indicates that this site was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
(by you and other savanna theorists). (In fact all of east Africa was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
by you and other savanna theorists.) Most likely this animal has
migrated into hominid treed communal habitat (probably during the dry
season) where it was ambushed by hominids The silly notion that
this evidence (cut marks on bones) confirms the conventional notion of
early man being an ever-travelling (constantly mobile) 'hunter-
gatherer' is not confirmed by this evidence. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lee Olsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
On Oct 8, 5:36 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
[quote]Savanna Fool:
Stupid wetloon doesn>t understand you don>t have to run 36 km/hr to
catch a kudu.
me:
our little boy
SF:
pervert
apparently doesn>t see that hmuans have 0 features of
cursorials
SF:
Tell that to Mr. Karoha,
my little netloon do yo really believe that because your Mr.K runs after
kudus the sapiens LCA did that??
[/quote]
Wetloon pervert, how else do you think they got to the bones first, by
swimming? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lee Olsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
On Oct 9, 12:08 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 4:53 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 2:05 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
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.
Lee, don>t let your imagination get the best of you. This is *not*
evidence that early hominids regularly occupied treeless savanna
habitat. Paleohabitat reconstruction indicates that this site was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
(by you and other savanna theorists). (In fact all of east Africa was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
by you and other savanna theorists.)
[/quote]
Typical Dimbo re, all lip service and no content. How do think C4 got
into their teeth, by eating
well-watered plants?
[quote]Most likely
[/quote]
you need to get to a library. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marc Verhaegen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: SF believes that because Mr.K runs after kudus, our ancestor |
|
|
Savanna Fantast:
[quote]Stupid wetloon doesn>t understand you don>t have to run 36 km/hr to
catch a kudu.
[/quote]
me:
[quote]our little boy
[/quote]
SF:
[quote]pervert
apparently doesn>t see that hmuans have 0 features of
cursorials
[/quote]
SF:
[quote]Tell that to Mr. Karoha,
my little netloon do yo really believe that because your Mr.K runs after
kudus the sapiens LCA did that??
[/quote]
SF:
[quote]Wetloon pervert, how else do you think they got to the bones first, by
swimming?
[/quote]
You must be the most stupid of the SFs (& that>s not easy): my little boy,
they caught stranded whales, drowned bovids, turtles, shellfish etc.
What don>t you for once read the literature?? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Claudius Denk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
On Oct 10, 2:11 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 12:08 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:53 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 2:05 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
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.
Lee, don>t let your imagination get the best of you. This is *not*
evidence that early hominids regularly occupied treeless savanna
habitat. Paleohabitat reconstruction indicates that this site was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
(by you and other savanna theorists). (In fact all of east Africa was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
by you and other savanna theorists.)
Typical Dimbo re, all lip service and no content. How do think C4 got
into their teeth, by eating
well-watered plants?
[/quote]
We have proof that C4 plants were readily available to them at their
garden locations of their monsoon forest habitat.
Do you dispute this proof? (Answer the question you evasive jackass.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
caldervangogh@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: are "we," modern humans, about 195,000 years old or only |
|
|
On Oct 9, 8:28 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
[quote]caldervang...@gmail.com wrote:
[..] It is axiomatic that after
our dispersal from Africa... or even within that continent.. some 195
kya, no further physical or genetic evolution has occured in our
species.
The thinner legs are something I do not know about.... perhaps it is
like the "taller" and longer-lived.
It is that, and more than that. "Cro-Magnon man" was
more rugged than modern humans, with heavier eye-brow
ridges, bigger jaw, bigger teeth and stronger bones
generally. With the development of sharper knives --
especially for weapons -- physical strength ceased to
be of such great importance.
[/quote]
I do not disagree. However, the only explanation for this difference
that I have read about would be along the lines of "Cro-Magnon is a
different population..." of the same species... us. You and I have
discussed this partly as a response to "race." And as we know, "race"
does not exist... so back to square one, as the saying goes...
another response that I could have to your observation is "I don>t
know" why Cro-Magnon had a larger eye brow and etc... Was it merely
because of environmental influence? or was there really some sort of
genetic difference?
Perhaps you are right that development of sharper weapons lead to less
muscular mass. There is known skeletal evidence from a cultural
behaviour in a group of Ecuadorian skeletons. "Analysis...suggests
that the unique features in the foot skeleton developed from the
stresses produced from frequent and extreme hyperdorsiflexion of the
metatarsophalangeal joints....The movement would result from the
individual>s assuming a kneeling position witht he wieght of the body
pressing down on the joints within the foot. ...are found most
frequently in female skeletons...suggests that this body position was
assumed by women as they ground maize on stone metates." D.H.Ubelaker
AJPA 51, 1979, pp 679-.686.
[quote]
The 40 kya mental change can be attributed to an increase in .. if you
wish to use this term... education. Education is passing our culture,
our accumulated knowledge, on to the next generation. So, over long
periods of time, the general knowledge increases. now, when two
"populations" or groups of hss meet each other, they are prone to
exchanging info.
I doubt if this is important -- over the huge timescales
we are thinking about. There have been numerous
highly developed civilisations which have gone, leaving
only the archaeological record -- e.g. in Central America
or Western Africa. The current inhabitants of the area
are, highly probably, the descendants of the people who
built those cities, but they inherited little or no knowledge
from them.
[/quote]
Well, yes, I totally agree. Gibbon says that England "lapsed into
barbarism" after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Frederick Hartt in his book "Art, a History of Painting, Sculpture and
Architecture" says that the modern day Greeks have none of the
knowledge that was possessed by their predecessors in the Classical
Greek Period.
Perhaps these rises and falls in civilization are just cyclic, so that
a civilization will rise and fall with a sort of regularity, like a
wave. I suppose that MY civilization (if we indeed are civilized?)
will fall... and these last couple of weeks could be the beginnings of
that. I once heard it said, though, that we are "fireproof" now... in
the sense that with the invention of printing and modern archives and
etc. that we are not subject to a loss comparable to say, the burning
of the Library in Alexandria.
In my region of North American (North Carolina), it is NOT known if
the Paleo-Indians were the ancestors of the Archaic culture. It is
sometimes assumed that they are so, but there is no proof one way or
the other. What is rather well-known though is the spread of various
types of pottery in the Southeast at the start of the Woodland
period.
[quote]
There may be a minimal size for a population that can
pass on, or develop, a culture. The Tasmanian aboriginal
culture steadily went down (losing artefacts, and
abandoning behaviours like fishing) after it became
isolated from the mainland.
[/quote]
They were also subjected to genocide and disappeared completely
thereafter.
[quote]
I think we have to accept that Hss has, since it first
evolved , had the 'genetic capacity' to form large societies
and develop complex cultures. Clearly the opportunity
was not there for the first many tens of thousands of
years. As Hss expanded from Africa, H.erectus and the
Neanderthals got in the way and often had to be wiped
out first.
BUT the roughly simultaneous appearance of advanced
civilisations in widely dispersed locations all over the
world after 10 kya needs an explanation.
[/quote]
I agree. There is not yet an adequate explanation for this
simultaneous appearance.
[quote]There should
be signs of settlements the size of villages or towns, and
possibly cities, before (say) 25 kya or 50 kya.
There is IMO only one likely reason for their absence --
they would have been located close to sea-level, and
were destroyed (or flooded) when the seas rose, after
about 16 kya.
[/quote]
Perhaps. That is as good an explanation as any at the moment.
regards
calder
[quote]
Paul.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
Lee Olsen wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 12:08 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:53 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 2:05 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
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.
Lee, don>t let your imagination get the best of you. This is *not*
evidence that early hominids regularly occupied treeless savanna
habitat. Paleohabitat reconstruction indicates that this site was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
(by you and other savanna theorists). (In fact all of east Africa was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
by you and other savanna theorists.)
Typical Dimbo re, all lip service and no content. How do think C4 got
into their teeth, by eating
well-watered plants?
Most likely
you need to get to a library.
[/quote]
Kill-file time again,
Paul. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: SF believes that because Mr.K runs after kudus, our ance |
|
|
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[quote]Savanna Fantast:
Stupid wetloon doesn>t understand you don>t have to run 36 km/hr to
catch a kudu.
me:
our little boy
[/quote]
Kill-file time again,
Paul. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Makouli
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
"Paul Crowley" <crowleyx@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:gcql3q$lk4$1@aioe.org...
[quote]Lee Olsen wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:08 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[..]
Lee, don>t let your imagination get the best of you. This is *not*
evidence that early hominids regularly occupied treeless savanna
habitat. Paleohabitat reconstruction indicates that this site was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
(by you and other savanna theorists). (In fact all of east Africa was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
by you and other savanna theorists.)
Typical Dimbo re, all lip service and no content. How do think C4 got
into their teeth, by eating
well-watered plants?
Most likely
you need to get to a library.
Kill-file time again,
[/quote]
Yea, that>s right, Pauly. Put your fingers
in your ears.
http://tinyurl.com/3jfvqr
[quote]Paul.
______________________________[/quote]
"Any attempt to get you to be honest
is self-defeating..." Pauly - 09/28/2008 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lee Olsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: are "we," modern humans, about 195,000 years old or only |
|
|
On Oct 11, 2:18 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
[quote]caldervang...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 9, 8:28 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
caldervang...@gmail.com wrote:
[..] It is axiomatic that after
our dispersal from Africa... or even within that continent.. some 195
kya, no further physical or genetic evolution has occured in our
species.
The thinner legs are something I do not know about.... perhaps it is
like the "taller" and longer-lived.
It is that, and more than that. "Cro-Magnon man" was
more rugged than modern humans, with heavier eye-brow
ridges, bigger jaw, bigger teeth and stronger bones
generally. With the development of sharper knives --
especially for weapons -- physical strength ceased to
be of such great importance.
I do not disagree. However, the only explanation for this difference
that I have read about would be along the lines of "Cro-Magnon is a
different population..." of the same species... us. You and I have
discussed this partly as a response to "race." And as we know, "race"
does not exist... so back to square one, as the saying goes...
another response that I could have to your observation is "I don>t
know" why Cro-Magnon had a larger eye brow and etc... Was it merely
because of environmental influence? or was there really some sort of
genetic difference?
Perhaps you are right that development of sharper weapons lead to less
muscular mass.
How then do you explain the fact that H.n., with very sharp
Levallois (and other) projectile points (something the actual
Cro-magnon folks also used--but later), retained their physical
strength until the end?
[/quote]
It depends on how one defines sharp. One can butcher meat (or ones
fingers) with almost any broken rock.
If you do a lot of wood working with stone tools you will find stone
really isn>t a very efficient material.
It takes a lot of serious muscle to shape a spear or cut down a tree
with a handaxe.
[quote]
Also, of course, flakes of toolstone are usually incredibly
sharp,
[/quote]
The sharpest edges are obtained by pressure. Next, soft hammer, and
then hard hammer.
I can take a handaxe made with a soft hammer and with my bare hand
push it into a bathroom scale until it reads 25 pounds with no
problem. If I were to drag it across my hand with one ounce of
pressure, I would end up with a nasty
cut.
When people tell you obsidian can break out to a few molecules on an
edge and it is the sharpest edge known, that is true. But what they
aren>t telling you is that even laying such an edge on something as
soft as a Kleenex Tissue will ruin that edge, so for all practical
purposes such an edge is worthless in daily life (practicle in the
medical industry, however). A steel knife may be 10 times duller to
start with, but it is also a million times more durable and that is
what a good blade is all about and that is why the stone age was over
in one generation here on the coast.
[quote]and clearly were used for hunting and gathering, as well
as preparing and eating, food for at least hundreds of thousands
of years. I have seen, and participated in, the butchering of a
whitetail deer with Acheulean hand axes, pebble 'choppers',
bifacial knives and simple, unretouched flint flakes. Some were
sharper than others, but all were plenty sharp enough to do the
job. (I had a chert flake, and I cut off the tail, including the
tail bone and significant meat and fat, of the poor dead deer in
fewer than 20 seconds. Made me a believer.)
[/quote]
Yes, some people claim they have skinned an entire deer with a single
flake. Trouble is, all you have to do is hit one bone (or if the hide
is particulary gritty from sand) and you need to find another edge.
I know four people who skinned a buffalo with stone knives; one person
resharpend for those doing the cutting. The guy doing the sharpening
for the other three said it was all he could do to keep up with the
cutters dulling the knives.
[quote]
And every flintknapper knows (to her/his bloody sorrow) that it
ain>t the tool you>re making that will cut you so much as it is
the flakes you weren>t paying enough attention to.
I>ll be curious to read responses.
[/quote]
Me too! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lee Olsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
On Oct 11, 12:04 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2:11 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:08 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:53 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 2:05 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
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.
Lee, don>t let your imagination get the best of you. This is *not*
evidence that early hominids regularly occupied treeless savanna
habitat. Paleohabitat reconstruction indicates that this site was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
(by you and other savanna theorists). (In fact all of east Africa was
much more well treed and well-watered than has been generally assumed
by you and other savanna theorists.)
Typical Dimbo re, all lip service and no content. How do think C4 got
into their teeth, by eating
well-watered plants?
We have proof that C4 plants were readily available to them at their
garden locations of their monsoon forest habitat.
[/quote]
Liar.
[quote]
Do you dispute this proof?
[/quote]
Do you have a citation for this proof?
(Answer the question you evasive jackass.) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lee Olsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
On Oct 11, 9:33 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
[quote]
Kill-file time again,
Paul.
[/quote]
Thanks, now I don>t have to listen to anymore of your "chimps can>t
dig" replies." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
