"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "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.

What? You're going to have to support your claim with evidence, you know.

> > 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.

"Man in his element fears no animal."

> >> > 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.

Gutter language now as well. You're really shinin', jack.

> >> >> 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.

You should know it too, as I've posted relevant information.

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

Not in the least. <sigh>

> >> >> 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.

".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much
meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging.
It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000
years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .." - The Rise
and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34

'Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
whom you believe."

Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm

> >> > "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.

He is hardly alone.

'It has long been held that big game hunting is THE key development
in human evolutionary history, facilitating the appearance of patterns
in reproduction, social organization, and life history fundamental to
the modern human condition. Though this view has been challenged
strongly in recent years, it persists as the conventional wisdom, largely
for lack of a plausible alternative. Recent research on women's time
allocation and food sharing among tropical hunter-gatherers now
provides the basis for such an alternative.

The problem with big game hunting

The appeal of big game hunting as an important evolutionary force
lies in the common assumption that hunting and related paternal
provisioning are essential to child rearing among human foragers:
mother is seen as unable to bear, feed and raise children on her
own; hence relies on husband/father for critical nutritional support,
especially in the form of meat. This makes dating the first
appearance of this pattern the fundamental problem in human
origins research. The common association between stone tools
and the bones of large animals at sites of Pleistocene age suggests
to many that it may be quite old, possibly originating with Homo
erectus nearly two million years ago (e.g. Gowlett 1993).

Despite its widespread acceptance, there are good reasons to be
skeptical about the underlying assumption. Most important is the
observation that big game hunting is actually a poor way to support
a family. Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed
with bows and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat
acquire large animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days,
not nearly often enough to feed their children effectively. They
could do better as provisioners by taking small game or plant
foods, yet choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting
serves some other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship
(Hawkes et al. 1991). Whatever it is, reliable support for children
must come from elsewhere.

The importance of women's foraging and food sharing

Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns
shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's
gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). The most difficult
time of the year for the Hadza is the dry season, when foods
younger children can procure for themselves are unavailable.
Mothers respond by provisioning youngsters with foods they
themselves can procure daily and at relatively high rates, but that
their children cannot, largely because of handling requirements.
Tubers, which require substantial upper body strength and
endurance to collect and the ability to control fire in processing,
are a good example.

Provisioning of this sort has at least two important implications:
1) it allows the Hadza to operate in times and places where they
otherwise could not if, as among other primates, weaned offspring
were responsible for feeding themselves; 2) it lets another adult
assist in the process allowing mother to turn her attention to the
next pregnancy that much sooner. Quantitative data on time
allocation, foraging returns, and changes in children's nutritional
status indicate that, among the Hadza, that other adult is typically
grandmother. Senior Hadza women forage long hours every day,
enjoy high returns for effort, and provision their grandchildren
effectively, especially when their daughters are nursing new
infants (Hawkes et al. 1989, 1997). Their support is crucial to
both daughters' fecundity and grandchildren's survivorship,
with important implications for grandmothers' own fitness.
....
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes.../oconnell.html

> >> >> > 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.

You don't even know it.

> > 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.

You haven't, and you don't. You're bleeding all over the place.