"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "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?

You.

>> 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.

**** off if you can't articulate coherent questions.


>> >> 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.

How would you know? When we develop better tools we generally use them.

>> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.
>
> Established.

Irrelevant.

>> >> 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.

The line of thinking supported by the archeological evidence and espoused by
the rest of the scientific community. You've read the references. The
article you posted even says this.

>> > "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.

He pronounces that he examined the evidence as if he invented the concept,
as if the rest of the scientific community, blinded by some ovewhelming bias
that he escapes, somehow neglected to do so.

>> >> > 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.

Not in the least.

> Try addressing what has actually been said.

I have, I just choose to consider everything, not search out minority
conclusions that appear to reinforce my bias.