"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "pearl" > wrote
> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> [..]
> >> >
> >> >> >> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid
> >> >> >> warrior-hunters.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yeah... you're soooo intimidating...
> >> >>
> >> >> Not me, a band of hominid hunters. You're damn right they were
> >> >> intimidating.
> >> >
> >> > lol. Early |bi-pedal| hominids stood between 3 to 5 feet tall.
> >> > Terrifying!
> >> >
> >> >> > moreso than large animals with
> >> >> > teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those
> >> >> > sticks
> >> >> > you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Run!
> >> >>
> >> >> You're the one living in the fantasy world miss little green men.
> >> >
> >> > You can't even get your oh-so-tired ad hominem factually correct.
> >>
> >> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your
> >> ridiculous
> >> beliefs.
> >
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> Well-documented and admitted.

What is? And it's not me making utterly laughable comments..

> >> >> Hominid
> >> >> hunter bands would NEVER be attacked by any other animal, except other
> >> >> hominids. Your perception that they were like sheep, weak and vulnerable is
> >> >> absurd, if they had been we would not be here today. Wild animals attack
> >> >> vunerable individuals.
> >> >
> >> > Like an animal being run to exhaustion? You've got company.....
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >
> > That's right. And you wouldn't make it that far.
>
> Whaaa?

Uhuh.

> >> > 'The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
> >> > afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
> >> > There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
> >> > and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
> >> > Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
> >> > and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
> >> > social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
> >> > them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."
> >>
> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous, no
> >> predator does. Of course hominids were prey,
> >
> > And your small band running about the countryside were different, how?
>
> Different than what? Your comments are becoming increasingly obtuse.

Than hominid prey. You're becoming progressively more dense.

> >> that does not mean they were
> >> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also apparently quite
> >> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the capabilities
> >> of
> >> later hominids.
> >
> > What 'capabilities'?
>
> Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics, etc..etc.. all the biological
> adapations that made hominids successful hunters.

When? We are *still* not successful hunters using primitive weapons.

> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.

Established.

> >> I love the supreme arrogance of Sussman in this paragraph,
> >> "The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human
> >> evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology
> >> of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when
> >> you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is
> >> just not the case.""
> >>
> >> In one broad stroke he accuses the rest of the scientific community of
> >> basing their findings on religion and speculation, and suggests a novel
> >> approach, "really examine the fossil.. evidence". What a colossal ego the
> >> man must possess! *I* am the first archeologist to properly examine
> >> fossil evidence!
> >
> > What arrogance yourself. Who are you? What are *your* qualifications?
>
> I didn't dismiss the bulk of anthropological science, he did that.

No he hasn't, actually. He dismissed a certain line of thinking.

> > "We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
> > bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
> > hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."
>
> I'm sure the rest of the scientific community is rushing to study these
> novel ideas. Study fossil remains!? What a concept!

He hasn't pointed out anything scientifically contradictory.

> >> > Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
> >> > preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
> >> > on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
> >> > into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
> >> > rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
> >> > today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.
> >> >
> >> > Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
> >> > human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
> >> > developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
> >> > ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
> >> > trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.
> >> >
> >> > "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
> >> > physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
> >> > all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
> >> > permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
> >> > pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
> >> > In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
> >> > and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
> >> > by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
> >> > is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
> >> > being preyed upon."
> >> >
> >> > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011
> >>
> >> As you always do, you dig up a tiny minority opnion that fits your bias
> >> and present it as indisputable fact.
> >
> > Argumentum ad populum. Another of those fallacies you rely on, ditch.
>
> It's not a fallacy, it's a rational approach. If we are going to rely on
> quoting articles and studies, which you appear to like to do, then what's
> the superior approach, only quote ones that say what you want to hear, or
> look at all of it and see what the majority says?

You're confused. Try addressing what has actually been said.

> >> >> >> >> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are
> >> >> >> >> > sometimes
> >> >> >> >> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the
> >> >> >> >> > desert.
> >> >> >> >> > ..
> >> >> >> >> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45
> >> >> >> >> > minutes.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > ***** Advantage
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must
> >> >> >> >> > make
> >> >> >> >> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
> >> >> >> >> > ...'
> >> >> >> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Not if he is surrounded.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably
> >> >> >> > surrounded.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> See above. Man in his element fears no animal.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Where do you get this crap from?
> >> >>
> >> >> That's the million dollar question you need to answer.
> >> >
> >> > I need to guess what your sources are. Interesting.
> >>
> >> Everything below is thoroughly referenced
> >
> > 'beyondveg'... riiight.
>
> Every single statement is extensively documented and cited, you predictable
> ditz.

Keep on running, ditch...

>
> <!>
>
>
>
>