"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" > wrote
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
>> >> [..]
>> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "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.
>> >>
>> >> The evidence is in the archives, forever. Who is going to benefit from
>> >> me
>> >> digging up crap that has been posted a hundred times before? Do you
>> >> think
>> >> that if you outlast your critics and make the final denial that it
>> >> will
>> >> all
>> >> evaporate?
>> >
>> > Evidence for -what-?
>>
>> Apparently you do.
>
> Apparently

Obviously

>> > What will "all evaporate"? What indeed has it
>> > benefitted you to resort to the same old ad hominem crap that your
>> > equally desperate ex fellow trolls have shat a thousand times before?
>> > Nothing. They're gone without a shred of respect, and you'll follow.
>>
>> The people who have wasted their time with you before have themselves to
>> blame.
>
> That's right

I know.

>> >> [..]
>> >> >> >> >> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or
>> >> >> >> >> dangerous, no predator does.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Man in his element fears no animal."
>> >>
>> >> Those statement are not contradictory. Use your head, I can't think
>> >> for
>> >> you.
>> >
>> > They certainly are contradictory. Use your head to think for yourself.
>>
>> No they're not.
>
> Man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous, because
> ........ man fears no animal. Yep...

Not in his element, in a well-armed group. No predator attacks man or any
other animal when they are well-defended.

>
>> >> >> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> Cram your phony sensibilities up your ass princess, along with your
>> >> crocodile tears over animals.
>> >
>> > I was brought up to value decency, and I do. You are projecting.
>>
>> BULL-SHIT, you don't have a shred of decency, if you did you would not
>> hold
>> the good people of the world in such contempt. An "F word" and you're
>> shrieking?? You're disgusting.
>
> Projection.

Accurate observation. You project your own self-loathing causing you to hold
the rest of the human race in contempt.

>> >> >> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> You posted selectively, information that tells a small part of a very
>> >> long
>> >> complex story. A huge part of that story involves the development and
>> >> use
>> >> of
>> >> weapons and tools for hunting among early hominids. The archeological
>> >> evidence is overwhelming. Did ALL hominids hunt? No, they didn't, and
>> >> they
>> >> didn't survive long either.
>> >
>> > Nothing to do with "Size, strength, endurance, hunting tactics,
>> > etc..etc..
>> > all the biological adapations that made hominids successful hunters."
>> >
>> > **"biological adaptations".**
>> >
>> > "early hominids"?
>> >
>> > '... 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.
>>
>> There's that "big-game" strawman again.
>
> You're the one claiming humans' endurance is because of hunting.

Endurance is one of the qualities that aids hunting. The game does not have
to be big.

> Marathon running rabbits, huh.

You're a two-dimensional person.

>> ....
>> > Western male writers and anthropologists are not the only men with
>> > an exaggerated view of hunting. In New Guinea I have lived with real
>> > hunters, men who recently emerged from the stone age. .... To listen
>> > to my New Guinea friends, you would think that they eat fresh
>> > kangaroo for dinner every night and do little each day except hunt.
>> > In fact, when pressed for details, most New Guinea hunters admit
>> > that they have bagged only a few kangaroos in their whole life.
>> > The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991,
>> > pp.33-34
>> > ...'
>> > http://web.archive.org/web/200303011...mc/origins.htm
>>
>> "Venus-Veganmc.." Ya - right.
>
> More intelligence and knowledge in his big toe than you'll ever have.

I never hoped for intelligence in my big toe.

>> > "survive"? The Hadza (c) cannot rely on their 'hunters' to survive.
>>
>> So? Survival depended on the ability to sustain the tribe through
>> shortages
>> of game or of edible plants.
>
> In those times it is the Hadza grandmothers who provide critical support.

Terrific, yay granny.

>> >> >> >> > And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Established.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not in the least. <sigh>
>> >>
>> >> What is the relevance?
>> >
>> > Hominids were terrestrial frugivores.
>>
>> Which hominids? What tribe, which period?
>
> ALL hominids.

Good lord. Did they live in caverns under mountains? Were they descended
from aliens?

>> [..]
>> >> >> 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
>> >>
>> >> Strawman, I never stipulated that all hominids hunted "big game", I
>> >> didn't
>> >> use the term. In fact they probably began with insects, shellfish and
>> >> worked
>> >> their way up though the animal kingdom until they eventually could
>> >> take
>> >> down
>> >> buffalo and other large game. That's exactly what archeologists will
>> >> tell
>> >> you the evidence shows. Also, the fact that they were also sometimes
>> >> prey
>> >> is
>> >> irrelevant.
>> >
>> > That depended on weapons and tools; not biological adaptations.
>>
>> The ability to use weapons and tools is a biological adaptation,
>> selection
>> for intelligence, an adaptation you seem bent on reversing.
>
> 650,000 Iraqis killed since the beginning of your 'war', according to a
> new study, from your "ability to use weapons". How does that fit into
> your "biological adaptation" and "selection for intelligence" scenario?
>
>> > Humans canot "take down" large animals with their bare hands.
>>
>> A weakened buffalo, separated from the herd, with several spears to the
>> vitals.
>
> "weakened" how?

Any number of possible ways. Think. Fatigue, hit by a spear, injured, old,
young.

> How do you 'separate it from the herd' exactly?

Planning to do some hunting are you? You *surround it* once it falls back
from the herd. There are always stragglers. I can't believe I am bothering
to answer such stupid questions.

>> >> <snip a shitload of rubbish>
>> >
>> > The usual evasion. The only rubbish here is coming from you.
>>
>> The usual rubbish, you think you can make a case by sheer volume.
>
> Real scientists with genuine research.

Sometimes, always chosen selectively, seldom making the point you claim.

> You are a foolish liar.

Omigod I am shocked at such language <shriek!>

>> Your audience: "Look pearl pasted more quotes than Dutch, she wins".
>
> You've lost it, troll. It is quality, not quantity, that counts.

Then you lost ages ago.
>
>> > --unrestore--
>>
>> That didn't prove what you claim. Hominids hunted
>
> Unproven assertion.

You're not only so arrogant that you believe you can rewrite human morality,
you believe you can rewrite history too.

>> AND gathered, the two are
>> not mutually exclusive, hence the term "hunter-gatherer". We do it to
>> this
>> day. Also "big game" is not necessarily the only or primary form of
>> hunting.
>> Subsistence hunters to this day hunt for small animals like rodents or
>> rabbits. That behaviour is still seen in isolated tribes.
>
> Using weapons and tools - a recent development; not running after them.

Weapons and tools are not a recent development, even apes use them.