Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> Idiot. Of course, the measures sometimes
> >> fail. People are lazy, or get tired or distracted
> >> and have other things to do, and sometimes
> >> don't take all the care they should.
> > Nobody said your weren't lazy. Of course you are.
> Such childishness could take you far
> -- especially in PA.
You have certainly proven you are too lazy to go to the library.
> >> All social institutions -- and especially
> >> those 'sciences' concerned with the nature
> >> of humanity and its origins -- are riddled
> >> with masses of unstated, unrecognised
> >> assumptions.
> > Says who? Paul the nobody that divines all the evidence he needs just
> > by invoking his silly imagination.
> Are you actually denying this? It's virtually
> a tautology. Yet I can see how your need
> for an absolute faith in what you think of
> as 'science' forbids that you will ever get the
> slightest glimmerings of the uncomfortable
There is no denial that your imagination is running amuck here on sap.
> >> >> If PA ever catches up with the rest of Biology,
> >> >> it will begin to realise that the hominid taxon is
> >> >> no different from every other one on the planet
> >> >> and acquired its distinctive characteristics
> >> >> when it first speciated. Then it may begin to
> >> >> question its standard assumption: that no
> >> >> human or hominid behaviour should be thought
> >> >> to have existed until just before hard evidence
> >> >> can be found to demonstrate its presence.
> >> >
> >> > That is nothing more than meaningless rhetoric.
> >> There is nothing rhetorical. Does (or does not)
> >> the 'science' maintain that the hominid taxon is
> >> unique -- unlike every other known species on
> >> the planet -- in that its distinctive characteristic
> >> did NOT appear at its point of origin?
> > The Greeks were certainly mentally capable of inventing hang gliders.
> Is that supposed to be an answer?
You seem to be confused. Lucy was not the same species as Homo, so
naturally not all behavior would be expected to be the same. Also, as
with the Greeks, just because someone didn't do something doesn't
mean they couldn't. Either way, there is no evidence for Lucy burying
her dead even if she had the capacity to do so.
> Do you claim that hominids are the sole
> exception to the rule that applies to every
> other species on the planet?
What does that have to do with your 3 million years lacking any
evidence what-so- ever for burials. Do you think a little subterfuge
will hide the fact that you don't have evidence?
> >> > You are trying to substitute imagination for tests.
> >> There is NO imagination in that question.
> >> Yet it is never considered by the crap
> >> discipline that you regard as a 'science'.
> > Evidence is not all about questions you fool, it's about finding the
> > evidence to back up your imaginary claims
> You don't seem capable of reading the
> question -- no matter how many times
> it is asked. You ALWAYS have to
> retreat in to some abusive irrelevance.
Asking irrelevant questions will not hide the face that you are missing
3 million years of evidence for burials.
> >> You are getting there -- slowly. IMPRINTS
> >> of grasses and tree roots survive -- typically
> >> when they are encased in rocks. But a layer
> >> of thorns, well above a grave, would highly
> >> unlikely finish up encased in anything. It
> >> would rapidly disappear, and dissolve into
> >> the soil.
> > Well above? You don't know that. What is your imaginary evidence that
> > thorns were always placed well above graves 3 million years ago?
> I did not say 'always'. The standard
> practice is to dig as deep a hole as feasible
> -- in soft sand, you could go down a few
> feet with no trouble. After re-filling most
> of it, you put the top of a thorn bush just
> under the surface. That stops any scavenger
> from starting to dig, if they detect the smell.
Soft sand is also found in flood zones, so why invoke something for
which you have no evidence? You haven't even demonstrated thorns are
prevalent where the majority of fossils are found.
> >> How long would thorns last, buried in
> >> 'average' fairly well-watered ground?
> >> Do you think that archaeologists of, say,
> >> the Tudors, or of the Virginian settlement
> >> period, often encounter thorns in something
> >> like their pristine state?
> > We are making progress.
> Nope. You have not answered the question.
> You have to avoid reality. What archaeological
> dig has ever been impeded by thorns that were
> buried one-hundred (or more) years earlier ?
Why would steel shovels and trowels have a problem with thorns? Were
you a comedian before you started posting your rubbish here on sap?
Why are you being evasive? If grass roots are there, where are the
thorns at any level? What you are so foolishly arguing, is that thorns
are not as durable as grass.
What well-watered ground? Where is your reality for that? You just
> > You already conceded rocks and logs were also
> > used, those dissolved into the soil also, every time without fail?
> Logs would (like thorns) rapidly rot away.
No, they would not if covered quickly by flood waters. No point in
citing Kalambo Falls and the wood preserved there in well-watered soil,
you wouldn't have the skills to find the hard evidence in the library
even if you tried.
> > You
> > also forgot about another fail safe place humans inter their dead that
> > makes for great preservation-caves.
> Are your immediate ancestors buried in
> caves? Do you personally know anyone
> who was buried in a cave? Or who had a
> recent ancestor who was? My point is
> that the incidence is RARE -- and probably
> all post-dates the use of fire.
If they were so rare, why does the hard evidence show up 3 million
years later rare or not? Your ignorance becomes more astounding every
day. The South African caves are loaded with Lucy bones.
Brain, C.K., The hunter or the hunted? An introduction to African cave
taphonomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1988
Sorry, no tombstones, just leftover cat meals.
> > Funny Lucy and her kin avoided caves for 3 million years.
> Caves are not nice places to go, especially
> without any form of lighting.
Get a life, check out Shanidar Cave in Iraq, there is nothing but
burials and plenty of light also. Seemed to be plenty of light at Mt.
> > Don't be ridiculous thinking Lucy always
> > had thorns and never rocks to cover her graves. If you can imagine
> > thorns, then you have to grant be the same right you grant yourself.
> > Therefore I imagine rocks were used a million to one over thorns. Prove
> > me wrong.
> They would generally have used whatever
> was most convenient. Many sandy places
> don't have rocks, but most have thorns.
I said "prove" me wrong. You just gave an imaginary scenario.
> > No steel picks and shovels 3 million years ago. Any fool would realized
> > the thorns would have to be in close proximity to the bones and would
> > not always be washed away. But that still doesn't help the fact that
> > moderns also use rocks to cover graves and they don't dissolve into
> > the soil. You have not given any rational reason why rock piles
> > shouldn't be in evidence also.
> I did not say that they weren't 'in evidence'.
> I said that IF they were they would not
> have been noticed for what they were.
Mary Leakey documented details of rock alignments and noticed unusual
rock formations. Lou Binford did a critique on what she found.
Anything that deviates from the normal background pattern would be
picked up if it existed.
> >> Such cairns are often large and are created
> >> to mark and _commemorate_ the dead.
> >> They are FAR in excess of what is needed
> >> to ward off animal scavengers.
> > Often?? More imagination at work. Since you imagine deliberate burial 3
> > million years ago, what eliminates _commemorating_ the dead then also?
> > This is the problem inventing evidence as you go along as you have been
> > doing. You can then pick and chose just what imaginary scenarios you
> > need to invent a case. No logic or facts needed.
> Nope. The logic is based on the most
> unremarkable theory that -- like ever other
> species on the planet -- our taxon evolved
> its distinctive characteristics at its origin.
Geez you are dense. What makes you think Lucy was the same species as
> That include the use of semi-permanent
> 'camps' -- near water, and with good shelter.
> Such sites are not easy to find. Dead bodies
> are most unpleasant to have around, and
> they attract dangerous animals. So they
> would have been disposed of -- with respect
> -- i,e. buried.
You go from one lunatic statement to the next. Even the modern Hasda
camp twenty minutes walk from water, why would you think Lucy did?
There is absolutely no evidence for "semi-permanent camps" in the Lucy
> >> > In 3 million years they should be out there by the billions.
> >> A layer of rocks to keep away predators
> >> would not be noticeable 3 million years
> >> later. Even if it were, it would not be
> >> noticed by those who do not have eyes
> >> to see.
> > Noticeable to who, an untrained, ignorant layperson like yourself?
> I should have added (and probably did --
> but you've snipped) that even if those
> 'trained eyes' saw a 3-million-year-old
> 'cairn', they would not have dared to put
> it into their learned paper.
Well, Mary Leakey dared. Isaac dared. Just more rubbish you made up.
> > How
> > is it archaeologists can find grass-root throws and not rock patterns
> > (which they do all the time)? By they way, I own an old homestead
> > (pre-backhoe days). I know exactly how many rocks are required to
> > prevent coyotes from robbing stock graves (and presumably more in
> > hyeana territory)
> A 'stock grave' is somewhat larger than
> would have been needed for ''Little Lucy'.
Unbelievable. How would a critter know how large the body was if it
was deterred by rocks?
> > I live in an area of basalt outcrops and geologically younger loess
> > soil blown into the area by chance. Any rocks larger than can be blown
> > by wind are exotic and had to have been placed there by humans in
> > loess soil. The only exceptions are rocks moved by water, and it is
> > very easy to distinguish the difference. See any work by Harlan Bretz.
> > http://www.spokaneoutdoors.com/scabland.htm
> > One does not have to be a trained scientist to notice these
> > differences. But one can not be completely brain dead, as you are, to
> > notice these things.
Well, I did notice, so how does that make me brain dead? Not too good
at logic are you?
> Early hominids hardly moved rocks any
> distance for this purpose. They would
> not have been bothered about the risks of
> polluting water-tables or the like.
Since early hominds have been documented moving tons of rock many
kilometers for other purposes, why would they not do same for an event
of such importance as a grave? Or is Crowley the nobody, who has never
written a site report, calling Isaac a liar?
> >> Roots often grow_through_
> >> a fossil. The cast will be preserved in it and
> >> with it. Dead, mature thorns, laid in the soil
> >> some feet above, don't go anywhere; all they
> >> 'do' is decay into dust.
> > How convenient that you think you can imagine your way into reality.
> > You can invent in your feeble mind any reply you wish, no evidence is
> > ever needed. Your reasoning makes no sense at all.
> Curiously, you don't get around to showing
> where it is wrong. Isn't that strange?
You can't read. I said the grass throws are found below, immediately
above and even occupy entire layers. You are claiming then that thorns
are less durable than grass.
> > It is a simple
> > matter for archaeologists to determine if the layers above a fossil are
> > disturbed or not.
> It is sometimes clear to an archaeologist.
> But not when going back three million years
> in the Afar badlands -- especially not when
> such a phenomenon would be unthinkable.
You are confusing surface finds with excavated sites.
> > How is it that grass throws are found immediately
> > above bones (in between alleged burial depth and original surface) and
> > thorns are _always_ turned to dust? How do you imagine your way out of
> > that simple fact?
> Grass throws would have been made by the
> tens of thousand, after deposition of the corpse
> and before the hardening, or concretion of the
> remains and their surroundings. All you get in
> the fossil are the very last instances, ten, hundreds
> or thousands of years after the deposition of the
> corpse. It's a 'freezing in time' of the state of the
> ground at one instance. Any thorns buried at the
> same time as the corpse will disappear soon after.
> About the only way they could be preserved
> would be if concrete were poured in and around
> the grave soon after burial. That is fairly unlikely.
What part of "immediatley above" are you too stupid to understand? The
grass is there, there thorns are not. Making up just-so stories that
eliminate the thorns and not the grass is lip service at its worst.
> > I agree. Most people will require at least three independent
> > verifications, nothing wrong with that at all. Except Olorgesailie is
> > not just one site, it is a series of many sites in a large basin
> > covering many square miles. Pleistocene age sediments are exposed on
> > the surface (1% of the total land area, I think, but could be more).
> > This area has been systematically searched and excavated for over sixty
> > years. I have given one example and you have demonstrated zero. Not one
> > 3 million-year-old grave even suspected in all of Africa, let alone at
> > Olorgesailie. An artificially dug hole in the ground is easy to detect
> > because soil is not replaced in exactly the same order, this can be
> > detected by matching the soil profile around the hole, whether it is
> > three million years old or a thousand.
> Numerous species dig holes, often very large
> ones when searching for water. If the material
> removed and replaced is not well-layered -- as,
> say, on a sand bank, than ancient diggings
> will be hard to spot.
Nope, a dug hole, easy to spot or not is impossible to hide.
> >> that time. In any case, they were close to
> >> chimps. Why were no chimps ever apparently
> >> caught in flash floods?
> > So, modern dogs can't smell as well as wolves? You made the
> > statement, now prove it.
> Do you want to also prove that the
> sky is blue?
We'll worry about the weather later.
> >> To repeat:
> >> Chimps and gorillas are routinely found on
> >> more open ground -- similar or identical to
> >> that on which early hominids are thought
> >> to have made their habitat.
> > If that is so (and I doubt it is true very far back into the past),
> > it's only true because pressure from over population of humans have
> > driven them out of their normal ranges.
> Nonsense. Modern human populations
> have driven them DEEPER into dense jungle.
> Jane Goodall remarks on this, and on the
> fact that within historical times chimps used
> to range -- more or less continuously -- from
> Lake Tanganyika to the Indian Ocean.
I was talking about the ones on the savannah and those affected by
> > If many were living outside rain forest 3 million years ago, we would
> > have just as many chimp fossils as we have hominids.
> You really believe that? All I can say is that
> you constantly reinforce my deep prejudices
> as to the utter stupidity of all PA people.
> The training was clearly carefully designed
> to destroy brains.
Belief has nothing to do with the evidence at hand. There are neither
Pleistocene hominid or chimp fossils found in the rain forests. There
are considerably more hominid fossils in the rift than chimp fossils.
These are facts, why did you reply with lip service again? Cite your
evidence to the contrary.
> > You argue that large rock cairns were commemorative, but you have not
> > demonstrated why Lucy was incapable of being commemorative also, since
> > she was being so human burying her child. After all, isn't that what
> > graves are all about?
> No, they are about hygiene. They always
> have been.
No, hard evidence shows up for graves in the archaeological record at
the same time other items of ceremony, i.e., beads, red ochre, cave
> > Today, with six billion of us around, and most
> > of the predators gone, burial is a matter of hygiene too, but that
> > certainly wasn't a problem 3 million years ago.
> From where do you get that daft notion?
> No known human tribe ever abandoned its
> dead in the way you assume your ancestors
> did 3 mya. They can't afford to -- for reasons
> of hygiene. Good places to live are hard to
> find, and you can't leave Uncle Joe to rot
> when he dies in his sleep. His corpse is not
> nice company.
Loon, what makes you think Lucy was a "human tribe". Who are you to
define just what was good and what was bad 3 million years ago?
> The notion that early hominids wandered
> around, sleeping in a different place each
> night, is ancient. Not merely does it predate
> the concept of 'niche', it also predates that of
So what's your point other than contradicting the evidence?
> While human conflict over territory was
> common, such fighting was thought to be
> a direct result of the FALL and the expulsion
> from the Garden of Eden. Wild animals were
> not thought to possess such a sophisticated
> and unpleasant awareness. PA people keep
> up that tradition and do not think of early
> hominids as being territorial. They are
> thought to wander around like cattle. Most
> of the other 'thinking' within PA is also a
> direct inheritance from the Bible.
Then why do chimps simply walk off and leave there dead? Lucy knew
about hygiene and they do not?
> But hey, it's what your professor told you, and
> it's what his professor told him, and his told him
> before -- way back to the days of Noah and his
> Ark (or as near as makes no difference). So why
> should it ever be changed? HOW could it ever
> be changed? The very idea is inconceivable.
> These ancient 'truths' cannot possibly be
Gee, I wonder why your scenario didn't apply to Huxley when he
trashed Wilberforce? Once again your imagination looks just like the
junk it is.
> > One must conclude
> > that ceremony was the basis of burials in the first place.
> You must also think that they had their
> arses on the front of their bodies. That
> would make as much sense.
Hard evidence for burials shows up at the same time as other evidence
of ceremony. Evidence has no impact on a creationists such as yourself.
> > You got caught red-handed lying about the events surrounding first
> > family.
> Somehow, you 'forgot' to tell me what this
> 'lie' was. Just an oversight, no doubt
If you actually read what was cited back to you, it would immediately
be clear that your statement (1) is just the opposite of what you
claimed. You made it up.
(2) would only demonstrate wildebeest also buried their dead. But that
wasn't a lie, that was just another witless claim. (3) Does not seem
to be relevant to evidence of burial.