"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "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 you're running away like the other predictable losers.
>
> Obviously

To the point where you must unethically edit what your opponent writes.

> >> > 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, timewaster. Get a hobby.
>
> I know.

Get to it then.

> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >> >> >> 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 contradictory at all, you moron.
>
> Not in his element, in a well-armed group. No predator attacks man or any
> other animal when they are well-defended.

Ah... so 'in his element' means in a group armed to the teeth. LOL!

Were weapons originally developed for defensive purposes? Maybe.

> >> >> >> >> > 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.

Rotfl! That's you, liar ditch. Still feeling good deluding yourself?

> >> >> >> >> >> 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.

The non-human animal doesn't have to be big to leave you well behind.

> > Marathon running rabbits, huh.
>
> You're a two-dimensional person.

Tell us which wild animals you can chase and catch, marathon man.

> >> ....
> >> > 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.

Hope for it in a more appropriate place then, besides your fat gut.

> >> > "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.

Indeed.

> >> >> >> >> > 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?

Relevance?

> >> [..]
> >> >> >> 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?

Hello? Shall I try to answer this for you, dutch?

'Rivers's book has ambitions to be more than a history of a minor
literary and regionalist genre. He wants to make some very large
claims for hunting as the heritage of all humans; so despite his
disavowal of theory, he marshals his own theorist on behalf of
what he calls "hunting's indelible heritage" (xii). He draws heavily
on José Ortega y Gasset, the Spanish philosopher whose 1942
book Meditations on Hunting served for a time as a kind of bible
of modern hunters. Ortega y Gasset argues that hunting returns
humans to our Paleolithic and zoological origins. Hunting occurs
"throughout the zoological scale" (Ortega y Gasset 46), and
Paleolithic man had to "devote himself wholly to hunting." It was
our "first occupation" and part of our "universal history" (118).

By the 1950s and 1960s, hunting as human origin became a privileged
theory in anthropological literature and was given a scientific pedigree.
This view of the role of hunting in human evolution climaxed in a 1969
conference and book of proceedings called Man the Hunter (1968),
edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore. The idea was popularized
by a number of writers, perhaps most famously by Robert Ardrey in
The Hunting Hypothesis (1976). According to this theory, human
evolution-biological, behavioral, cultural- can be understood by
hunting. Hunting hardwired into our genes certain traits and behaviors.
As William S. Laughlin wrote in "Hunting: An Integrated Behavior
System" in Man the Hunter, hunting is "the master behavior pattern
of the human species" (Lee and DeVore 311). Human reason and
forethought, the sexual division of labor, cooperation among males,
violence, war, and tool use were all the products of the evolutionary
pressures of hunting. Hunting propelled us past the beasts and into
humanity. As Ardrey put it, we became human because "for millions
and millions of years we killed for a living" (11).

<however>

So overdetermined is this view of hunting that it could not long survive
critique. Feminists were among the most critical. Mary Zeiss Stange's
Woman the Hunter (1997) clearly glances at this view of hunting,
because she wants to take on one of its central features-gender.
Reviewing the literature of feminist anthropologists, Stange shows how
this overweening theory of the prehistoric hunter was critiqued. As many
anthropologists have noted, it amounts to little more than a scientific
"just-so story," not so much explaining the past as projecting the present
into prehistory. A theory of the violent origins of humanity fit well in
explaining the circumstances of World War II and the Cold War. It also
explained rigid gender roles in the middle of the century- man the hunter
and woman the gatherer. But the problems are scientific and logical as
well: if human reason and intelligence are the gifts of hunting, why are
they shared by both men and women, when only men hunted? Evolution
does not squander such gifts. Additionally, Richard B. Lee himself noted
that hunting is not universal, as the theory claims. Modern hunting cultures
sometimes devote as little as "only twelve to nineteen hours a week" to
getting food (37). More devastating, as Lewis Binford noted in Bones:
Ancient Men and Modern Myths (1981), proto-humans were scavengers
and prey before they were hunters. But man the scavenger is not as
romantic as man the hunter.

For its theoretical hubris and scientific inaccuracies, anthropologists
were led "to abandon the hunting hypothesis long ago" (Stange 57).
....
The tough realism of the hunter is just as much a fantasy as anything
hunters accuse non-hunters of doing. They try to dress their sport in
Darwinian terms, but the view of nature is really Hobbesian-nasty and
brutish. Their Darwinism is skewed in the same way that social
Darwinism is a skewed attempt to justify predatory economic behavior.
Darwinism posits a struggle for life, but Darwin himself is clear that
struggle is a complex interaction of climate, geography, adaptation,
and population dynamics. It is not simply about predation.

Recently, I traveled to the Galápagos Islands, the location most intimately
associated with Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact, it is often called a
living laboratory of evolution. Research continues there to this day on
"Darwin's finches," the seed-eating exemplars of evolution. These finches
are not predatory. The greatest predation in the Galápagos was introduced
by humans, the whalers and buccaneers who devastated the populations
of iguanas and Galápagos tortoises. Those who visit these islands
comment on the animals and their "tameness." Darwin noted it, too, as he
played with marine iguanas and rode the tortoises. Melville did as well.
The animals are variously called tame, friendly, curious, silly, stupid,
fearless. Sea lions swim up to you in the sea or walk up to you on the
beach. Mockingbirds land on you. Blue-footed boobies let you approach
to within inches. Over five million years of evolution without predators
gave the creatures this wonderful tameness.

This intimacy with animals is deeply moving and utterly different from the
violent "blood intimacy" praised by hunters like Ortega y Gasset (91). It is
an intimacy that many people now long for as nature becomes more
threatened and vulnerable, more driven into the remote corners of the world.
Wildlife writer Peter Matthiessen describes the feeling well in The Birds of
Heaven (2001). He is speaking about cranes in this passage: "Perhaps they
will one day regain the confiding trust that is so moving in wild creatures of
remote places which man reached very late, places such as the Galapagos
[sic], or where for centuries man has honored a prohibition against killing,
as in certain Buddhist regions of the Himalaya" (182). In our relations with
animals, I find this ethic much more inspiring and noble than hunting.
...'
http://alh.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/4/818

> >> > 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.

There were many large *real* predators on the lookout for such animals.

What are these "spears" made from and how?

> > 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.

"falls back from the herd"? You are running after herds now? lol.

There were always teams of *real* predators after such animals.

> >> >> <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.

Ipse dixit, and you have zero credibility.

'Most anthropologists have tacitly assumed that human culture was
established by men. The 'Man the Hunter' myth has dominated
palaeoanthropology, now, almost since the inception of the discipline.
Through the 1960s and 1970s, it was taken as self-evident that the sexual
division of labour, with males going away hunting and bringing home the
bacon, emerged millions of years ago in a process linked with the
evolution of bipedalism, tool-making and the unusually large human brain.

In the past decade, there's been a revolution in archaeology and
palaeontology, leading to the view that all this is nonsense, that the early
hominids ('australopithecines') were ape-like creatures leading ape-like
lives,and that it was only in a relatively recent 'human revolution' that
culture as we know it emerged. Leading archaeologists Lewis Binford
and Olga Sofferare now showing that in Europe, at least, there is no
evidence that organized hunting bands were traveling distances, hunting
large game animals and bringing meat back to semi-permanent base
camps until at most 50,000 yearsago.

Up-to-date archaeologists and palaeontologists such as Chris Stringer
of the London Natural History Museum are today almost unanimously
agreed: the Neanderthals were not our ancestors and were not culturally
'modern'. The dominant view today is (a) that the human species
emerged in a revolutionary way, (b) that this revolution began in Africa
about 120,000 years and was consummated on a global level some
60,000-40,000 years ago, and (c) that only during this revolution did
symbolic language and culture emerge. Those primatologists,
sociobiologists and others attempting to work out the internal dynamics
of this revolution, moreover, stress that women's interests and initiatives
must have been paramount. This has little to do with feminist political
thinking. The scientists' confidence on this score is rooted partly in
standard sociobiological theory: among mammalian species including
all primates, it's female strategies which tend to drive evolutionary change.
...'
http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/...rganiser.p df

> > You are a foolish liar.
>
> Omigod I am shocked at such language <shriek!>

What language?

> >> 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.

You wish.

> >> > --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,

'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
...
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
"cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

> you believe you can rewrite history too.

Who are you referring to above? When?

> >> 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.

'Electron microscope studies of fossil teeth found in East Africa
(Walker 1984) suggest a diet composed primarily of fruit, while a similar
examination of stone tools from a 1.5 million-year-old site at Koobi Fora
in Kenya (Keeley and Toth 1981) shows that they were used on plant
materials. The small amount of meat in the early Paleolithic diet was
probably scavenged, rather than hunted (Ehrenberg 1989b).

The `natural' condition of the species was evidently a diet made up
largely of vegetables rich in fiber, as opposed to the modern high fat
and animal protein diet with its attendant chronic disorders
(Mendeloff 1977). Though our early forbears employed their "detailed
knowledge of the environment and cognitive mapping" (Zihlman 1981)
in the service of a plant-gathering subsistence, the archaeological evidence
for hunting appears to slowly increase with time (Hodder 1991).

Much evidence, however, has overturned assumptions as to widespread
prehistoric hunting. Collections of bones seen earlier as evidence of large
kills of mammals, for example, have turned out to be, upon closer
examination, the results of movement by flowing water or caches by
animals. Lewis Binford's "Were There Elephant Hunters at Tooralba?"
(1989) is a good instance of such a closer look, in which he doubts there
was significant hunting until 200,000 years ago or sooner. Adrienne Zihlman
(1981) has concluded that "hunting arose relatively late in evolution," and
"may not extend beyond the last one hundred thousand years." And there
are many (e.g. Straus 1986, Trinkhaus 1986) who do not see evidence for
serious hunting of large mammals until even later, viz. the later Upper
Paleolithic, just before the emergence of agriculture.
.....'
http://www.ranadasgupta.com/notes.asp?note_id=40