Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> >> "Lee (Ace) Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1159510435.308129.149100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip excess baggage
> The question was: "Are you actually denying this? "
> Even you can probably see that you don't
> provide an answer.
One thing for certain you own ideas "are riddled
with masses of unstated, unrecognised assumptions" so you ought to be
an expert at recognizing them.
The fact that anthropology does not have all the answers for everything
and is occasionally found in error stems from not having enough data,
fossils, or a statistically valid numbers of data to form a positive
conclusion. Anyone can get a right conclusion if they have enough good
data. For instance, two scientists look at the only known bone
fragment of a certain species and arrive at a different hypothesis
totally contradictory to each other. If neither goes out and finds some
more bones of the same species, both will argue about the true nature
of that bone until the cows come home. This does not mean the science
of anthropology as a whole is an unriddled assumption. Nobody but you
and the creationists are stupid enough to think otherwise. Same with
election exit polls. If the number of people interviewed is too low
(say < 1% of total), Dewy wins the 1948 presidential election. Does
this mean exit polls are garbage? Nope, just means they probably should
have used <5% before making predictions.
Now, why add another hypothesis, without adding further data? All it
does is add more people into the mix that do not have anymore data than
the first two. Adding a million hypotheses will not add one iota to
the evidence data-base. What it might do, however, is find one
accidentally correct by chance. This then is guessing, not science. If
you have ten blindfolded people throwing darts at a dartboard, someone
might get lucky and hit the center strictly by luck. No science is
needed for that.
> STILL no answer to the question.
There can be no answer because you failed to demonstrate Lucy occupied
the same niche as Homo, nor is there any evidence that Lucy was
continuous or directly ancestral to Homo. You have assumed a
conclusion and then jumped to the next level based only on
> STILL no answer. Science is about dealing
> with hard questions -- not running away
> from them. You missed the first lesson --
> and the only one of any true value.
No, science is just what Huxley described it to be. Dealing with the
hard questions is not imagining something and forming conclusions
without observations and tests. You assumed a conclusion, skipped the
tests, and argued it so just because you said it is so. Imagining
burials 3 million years ago will not generate evidence.
> STILL no answer.
Saying the word "crap" as you did above is not evidence of anything
other than a substitute for lack of evidence to demonstrate Lucy
buried her dead.
> > What about before Lucy? Did Orrorin bury their dead also? If you
> > continue back in time with your flawed reasoning, then it then follows
> > that as you near the time of the last common ancestor of chimps and
> > hominids, then those creatures in that niche could also be argued to
> > be burying their dead.
> That's almost right. You are getting the
> point -- slowly, but steadily. The niche
> dictates the behaviour, and (to a large
> extent) the morphology. Hominids became
> bipedal because they switched to a new
> niche -- very different from that of their
> chimp ancestors.
No, you aren't even close to right. Just because you say something is
so, does not make it so. Lucy did not occupy the same niche as Homo.
> > Then next, because there is an unbroken chain,
> > back to that LCA, chimps should also be burying their dead, but they
> > don't.
> Nope, chimps don't bury their dead,
> anymore than other arboreal species.
> They move around constantly -- even if
> in often very small (2 km x 2 km) territories
> -- so it is not a problem. But it became
> one for hominids.
Besides your uncontrollable imagination, what makes you think Lucy did
not move around even more than chimps? You are making statements
without one iota of evidence to back up your claims. What came later
does not mean it was that way all the time.
> >> > Why would steel shovels and trowels have a problem with thorns?
> >> DODGE FIVE
> STILL no answer.
No, it is you who fails to provide an answer. Where is the evidence for
thorns? Where is the evidence for burial rocks? The bones and grass
root casts remain, yet by divine intervention, the heavy duty thorns
miraculously disappear every time. How delusional of you to think so.
> >> What archaeological dig has ever ENCOUNTERED
> >> thorns that were buried one-hundred (or more)
> >> years earlier ?
> STILL no answer.
Disproving your negative-evidence argument is not my burden.
> There are, of course. Nor are they hard
> to find. Many of the well-known fossils
> suggest burial. This is shown by the
> probable cause of death (as suggested
> by the lead researchers). Is someone who
> dies from a mouth abscess likely to then
> drown in lake and thus (somehow) get
> fossilised? Is someone who dies from
> acute hypervitaminosis-A (the result of
> eating a large number of meals of carnivore
> liver) likely to drown and (somehow) get
You are of course referring to the KNM-WT 15000 skeleton.
I'm starting to feel sorry for you. How do you think the Homo people
were able to fake the depression in which most of the teeth were found?
This depression was thought to be the footprint of a large animal,
since other footprints are found at that same level No rocks, no
thorns, but plenty of tiny sponges and broken fish bones. In fact,
everything one would expect to find in slow moving over-bank
floodwaters that covered the badly decomposed and somewhat scattered
body. The secondary nature of the skeleton disproves deliberate burial.
It rotted apart and separated before it was buried by the flood.
There is no evidence that either of these hominids died from drowning.
You made it up. You make up any lie you have to in order to make an
After a 4 billion year absence for evidence of deliberate burials in
this world, hard evidence of them then shows up at virtually the same
instant (geologically speaking) in time as the other evidence of
ceremony. A 3 million year gap in the record disproves any burials
before about 100,000 years ago.
> > Cats stacked the record.
> Only in a minor way. Few hominid fossils
> are cat left-overs.
Minor way? Says who, an uneducated creationist who invents imaginary
evidence? Cat intervention is easily demonstrated and is a perfect
example of how they get there. There is no such comparable evidence
for burials by other hominids.
> > Hominids did
> > not, or else they would be found at a greater percentage than other
> > animal bones that are preserved by chance.
> They would -- IF they lived in such locations.
> But they didn't. They occasionally wandered
> there, finishing up as corpses, sometimes buried
> by their surviving companions. They were
> strangers on the landscape, in much the same
> way as Mawson was a stranger in Antarctica
> and, in roughly similar conditions, ended up
> eating carnivore liver.
Since you know they wandered in, then you must also have evidence of
from where they wandered in from. But guess what, you don't have any
evidence to support you claim. You lied, you don't have any evidence at
all for your claim that they were from somewhere else. Excellent UFO
argument though, they probably wandered in from Andromeda.
> >> >> > 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.
> >> > Carmel also.
> >> Neanderthals had fire, and light -- and travelled
> >> through cold high mountains, where there was
> >> little in the way of shelter. Lucy and her family
> >> never did anything like that.
> > If you can claim Lucy buried her dead with no evidence, then how can
> > you claim Lucy did not have fire? After all, there is no evidence for
> > that either.
> The regular use of fire often leaves a good
> record. Of course, the dating of the first
> good record is extremely controversial.
> But that's the nature of the science.
Not as good evidence as rocks and thorns and you don't have any
evidence of that either. Zero.
> A burial of a corpse before it begins to
> stink too much is not difficult. Numerous
> animals bury their faeces, and other objects,
> -- without having first got a degree in PA.
Burials are not difficult? Says who, the delusional crackpot who has
never buried one?
> Curved flanges are neither here nor there.
> What is the advantage in having them
> straight? What would the curves stop you
> doing? Typing? Shaving? Holding things?
> Gorilla-like scapula would also be an
> evolutionary hang-over, and they were
> probably much less obvious in adults.
Wrong, too many differences and you have a new species. A new species
did bury their dead and make stone tools. There is no evidence Lucy
made stone tools, beads, or buried her dead. You are confusing a
cultural burial of the dead with biological traits like eyes. Just
because we have eyes biologically inherited from fish does not mean we
are fish or fish buried their dead.
> Are human infant scapula more gorilla-
> like than those of human adults? I bet
> no one has thought to ask, nor to look.
> (Infants often demonstrate ancestral
> characteristics to a higher degree -- in
> much the same way as foetuses show gills.)
> NONE of these things begin to indicate that
> Lucy occupied a different niche from Homo.
You drew another unsupported conclusion. That isn't science, that is
> > I spelled Hasda wrong, it's Hadza. If Lucy (according to your screwed
> > logic) was doing such a modern human thing as burying her dead, and
> > occupying the same niche as moderns, then she was also smart enough to
> > carry water in an ostrich shell
> Ostrich shells don't carry much water, and
> it's not easy to balance several at a time
> on your head, keeping them all upright.
Who said how many shells were needed? Do you think she needed large
containers to wash her clothes also, like the Hadza? Do you think a
creature that is a different species and only half as tall as the Hadza
needed the same amount of water? Your logic here is as sound as it is
> This is a foolish discussion. You have to
> be completely naive not to recognise the
> social pressures not to see 'uncomfortable
> data', not to record it, not to discuss it, and
> not to publish it. It happens in every field,
> not just science, and it happens ALL THE
If it is not discussed, then how do you even know something is missing
from the discussion? If it happened all the time, it should be an easy
matter then to show just exactly what has been suppressed. Sounds like
an imaginary-conspiracy theory. Just like you imaginary-burial theory.
Mary Leakey hid evidence of thorns I suppose? You are indeed insane.
> > Sorry, but not all hominids were tiny infants. Not all stock burials
> > are cows. So we only need to concern ourselves here with how many rocks
> > are required to discourage predators from scavenging a deliberately
> > buried Lucy. And would this pile of rocks be visible in the
> > archaeological record? You set the conditions for a burial, not me.
> > Soft sand IIRC? It only takes a dozen or so easy to carry rocks to
> > discourage a coyote from digging in a dogs grave for instance. A
> > consistent pattern of a dozen rocks found directly above homind bones
> > is something that would be impossible to hide.
> A hominid graveyard (like that for the
> first family) would only have those rocks
> (assuming they did not use thorns, logs
> or something else) over the latest grave.
There was no cultural burial of the first family. You lied about other
animal bones being found with them.
> Even if ALL of them became fossilised
> (which is most unlikely), there would still
> not be a 'consistent pattern'. In any case,
> given all the likely disturbance of the site
> over the millions of years, the finding of
> any pattern at all would be unlikely even
> if the investigators were looking for one.
Who says, the lip service king who has done no excavations, made no
site reports, and probably has never been to Africa is now challenging
those who have? What a joke.
> > Do what, make you look like a fool?
> There's only one fool around here -- the
> guy who argues violently with himself.
> Do you often have fights with your
> image in the mirror? No doubt your
> wife regularly hears loud noises coming
> from your bathroom in the morning.
> I bet you emerge, with bleeding fists,
> telling her that you've given that nasty
> guy a real good thrashing again. She
> sighs, and rings the familiar number of
> the mirror replacement people.
Your comments only prove how delusional you are.
IOW, you have no evidence at all to back up your foolish claims. No
evidence of burials at all and no reason to think there were any. You
made it all up.
> >> The evidence consists of the bands of chimps
> >> roaming open savanna -- occupying exactly
> >> the sort of territory that PA people say was
> >> the hominid habitat for most of the past 6
> >> million years. There are plenty of flash floods,
> >> yet not one chimp fossil.
> > Nope, you are confusing their extremity of range with where they are
> > found normally.
> They are found normally on the savanna.
> It is a part of their range.
If that were true, then that means they were occupying the same niche
as Homo. Where are their bipedal legs?
> > The percent of their fossil teeth (since that is all we
> > have) is a direct reflection of their numbers on the savanna as
> > compared to other species that also make up that same percent of the
> > total population of species that exist on the savanna. I'll
> > exaggerate just so you can understand. If chimps were out on the
> > savanna during the Pleistocene, in equal numbers as say wild dogs, then
> > archaeologists should find just as many chimps teeth by chance as they
> > do dogs teeth.
> Nope. Dogs often die in dens. Whereas
> chimps never go underground. Dog
> corpses will be fossilised at a very much
> higher rate than those of species that
> never use dens.
Nope, if you know x numbers of dogs are buried in dens, then you
calculate for that.
> > They don't. It is a simple matter to get a fairly
> > accurate population count of extant animals today and see if their
> > numbers match the differences in percentages of what they find in
> > Pleistocene excavations or even surface finds for that matter.
> Sure. So the fossil record tells us that
> most species of hominoid never existed.
> (Likewise for nearly all bird species, and
> for most primates.)
If lions make up 2% (I just made that up for an example) of all the
animals out on the savanna today and if fossil lion bones make up 2% of
all the bones found a large excavation at 2 million years ago, then
nothing has changed between then and now (within reason). Noel Boaz has
done this with numerous animals, then and now. If the ratios do not
change for other animals on the savanna, one can reason they wouldn't
change for chimps either. If chimps bones are rare 600,000 years ago
and throughout all the Pleistocene, I predict that they are rare on
the savanna today also. Now, give me the number of chimp groups that
are found on the savanna today as compared to the total number of chimp
groups found in the rain forests. Pretty low percent of the total are
found on the savanna, right?
> >> >> > 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
> >> > paintings etc.
> Try to think -- for a change, and even if all
> attempts to do so are banned by official PA.
> This 'hard evidence' emerges LONG after the
> H.s.s. diaspora. Yet ALL Hss tribes dispose
> of their dead in an 'organised manner' -- most
> by burial. This _universal_ practice must be
> assumed to be an integral part of the original
> Hss tribe's 'culture' way back in Africa some
> 200-300 kya. Why should it not be assumed
> to be part of that of all other hominid tribes,
> species or quasi-species, around at the same
Nope, just because someone doesn't do something doesn't mean they
couldn't. No TV sets found with early Homo or Lucy.
> OK. I know it is a silly question -- at this
> point I am running into a wall of solid
> prejudice and utter stupidity.
Says who, the lunatic who sites nothing, knows nothing, and imagines
> >> >> 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".
> >> I fully understand how your religious beliefs
> >> (derived from the Bible) require you to believe
> >> that modern hominids had nothing in common
> >> with their pre-Biblical ancestors. But, since
> >> Biblical 'science' reigned widely, Biology
> >> developed the concept of 'niche'. As a result,
> >> it is quite foreign to PA and you have probably
> >> not have heard of it. But its principles imply
> >> that occupants of the same niche (even if
> >> spread over many millions of years, or over
> >> different continents) behave in similar ways.
> > Wrong, many predators occupy the exact same niche that aren't the
> > same taxon or species. They feed on exactly the same animals. It
> > doesn't mean they all hunt the same way or behave exactly alike.
> A niche is not solely about the kind of food.
> It is also about the kind of shelter, sleeping
> habits. the manner of rearing, the means by
> which competitors are kept at bay, and so on.
> Wild dogs do not occupy the same niche
> as jackals, nor hyenas, nor lions, nor leopards
> nor cheetahs. But wild dogs can be seen to
> be roughly similar to wolves, using a team
> and stamina to hunt down individual prey
> selected from a herd. Jackals are close to
> coyotes; and so on -- many quite unrelated
> species occupy very similar niches.
Yep, and Lucy was one of those similar species occupying a similar
niche. Until you provide evidence to the contrary. You lied about
knowing Lucy slept under a tree. You have no idea where she slept. You
are a delusion fool the makes up evidence in your ignorant mind and
then wonders why people think you are a nut case.
> > Doesn't mean they were all burying their dead.
> Humans are intensely territorial -- just like
> chimps. All hominids can be presumed
> to be the same. In the territories of most
> chimps there are NO sites on the ground
> that could be regarded as safe from predators.
> Hominids can therefore be seen as having
> HUGE problems finding safe sites for their
> young and infants when they began to sleep
> on the ground (WHENEVER that was).
Intensely? Unlike chimps, Homo occupied the same niche as P. boisei for
over 1 million years. They weren't as territorial as you claim. Now,
shit for brains Crowley will ask how do I know they occupied the same
niche? I don't, just like you don't know Lucy occupied the same
niche as people who bury their dead.
> PA simply does not face up to this problem.
> Of course, that is routine for the 'science'.
> It ignores ALL problems.
Who says, an uneducated, ignorant buffoon like Crowley?
> But once having found a good site, the
> hominids are not going to leave it because
> one of them dies.
Good sites that demonstrate continuity of occupation are ubiquitous and
easy to find for Homo. None have been found for other species of
hominds such as Lucy in spite of the fact that she was around for a
million years longer and had a million years longer to produce them.
Lip service from a clown like you will not alter this fact, nor will
imagination produce scientifically documented evidence for this fact.
Lucy did not use deliberately manufactured stone tools, she did not use
fire, and she did not bury her dead.
> >> > Who are you to
> >> > define just what was good and what was bad 3 million years ago?
> >> It's not what is good or bad, but what fits the
> >> niche. Given the HUGE range in behaviour
> >> in human tribes, is it not surprising that not
> >> one of them behaves in the manner you
> >> claim their ancestors did?
> > Get off the niche kick, it is irrelevant.
> Ridiculous. Niche is crucial to the life of any
Then where are the deliberately manufactured stone tools made by Lucy?
After all, every Homo used them in his niche. No stone tools, no
burials. This is by your own definition.
> > First you argue for Lucy
> > burials, then you tell us they didn't have fire like the Neandertals
> > or couldn't carry water like the Hadza.
> Hominids did develop technology -- gradually
> over millions of years. Hasn't anyone told
> you that? And, sorry, no; it did not suddenly
> appear by magic the day you were born. OK,
> I know your parents told you that, but it's
> not true. Likewise, the story of Santa Claus
> is also false. Sorry about all that.
You are confusing biological traits with cultural traits. Technology of
stone tool manufacture shows up literally overnight (geologically
speaking), but burials did not. The order is documented in the
archaeological record and easily demonstrated to anyone but an
uneducated clown like your self. Neither Lucy or early Homo buried
their dead. Evidence for burials show up just as suddenly as stone
tools. Evidence for thorns, rock cairns, tombstones is as easy as
demonstrating the sky is blue. Except to a uneducated creationist like
yourself who simply, in his delusional mind, invents the chosen facts
to suit his fancy.
> > Make up your mind, they were
> > either exactly like us or they were limited in capacity in some way.
> > You can't simply imagine that they were the same in some areas and
> > different in others at your own whimsical choosing.
> OK, at Sunday School, you were told that
> all civilisation came with the Bible. Then
> you went to college and were told that your
> ancestors, until just before Biblical times, were
> near-monkeys who could barely grunt. I can
> see how you find it all so confusing.
No, that is creationist thinking, not scientific thinking. I can easily
find evidence for the graves of Homo and his manufactured stone tools
through testing. I can't find evidence of you walking on water. You
can't walk on water, nor can you divine evidence for Lucy burials
simply by preaching it so.
> >> >> 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
> >> >> 'territory'.
> >> >
> >> > So what's your point other than contradicting the evidence?
> >> I'm pointing out the Biblical nature of your
> >> religious 'scientific' beliefs.
> > Same as above. First you argue for Lucy burials, then you tell us they
> > didn't have fire like the Neandertals or couldn't carry water like
> > the Hadza. Make up your mind, they were either exactly like us or they
> > were limited in capacity in some way.
> They were limited in many ways -- in
> comparison with us. BUT they had all the
> culture or 'instincts' (if you prefer) necessary
> for their niche. When Uncle Joe dies in his
> sleep, it's not hard to remember that you
> should get around to burying him. He
> begins to stink.
No, that is creationist thinking, not scientific thinking. Scientists
can easily find evidence for the graves of Homo and his manufactured
stone tools through testing. I can't find evidence of you walking on
water. You can't walk on water, nor can you divine evidence for Lucy
burials simply by preaching it so. You have not demonstrated Lucy
stayed at a home base, she was, as you admit, limited in comparison to
us. Burying her dead was one of those limitations until you have hard
> > You can't simply imagine that
> > they were the same in some areas and different in others at your own
> > belief. Evidence that you can't refute is a belief, but imagining it
> > is OK in your twisted mind.
> How did KNM-ER 1808 become a fossil?
She was covered with slow moving over-bank flood waters, just as all
the evidence suggests.
> Remember that she died a excruciatingly
> painful death (after weeks of incapacitation)
> from hypervitaminosis-A. She had been
> looked after by her companions -- who with
> the kindest (but most ignorant) of intentions,
> feed her the soft livers of carnivores. Then
> she died. Was there, purely by chance, a
> flash flood coming along just at that
If it wasn't a chance event, after a million years of deliberate
burial by her companions, the archaeological record would be as stacked
with Lucy bones as there are antelope bones. Scientists would then have
as many hominid bones to study as antelope bones. They don't.
> >> > Then why do chimps simply walk off and leave there dead? Lucy knew
> >> > about hygiene and they do not?
> >> Chimps sleep in trees, relatively safe from
> >> predators; they make new nests every night,
> >> and so need to find new trees, which they can
> >> fairly readily do. But once hominids moved to
> >> the ground, their range of 'camps' -- safe from
> >> predators, etc., became highly restricted.
> > Says who, evidence of the imagination?
> PA accepts (with much reluctance) that, at
> some stage, hominids began to sleep on the
> ground. It finds the whole episode
> embarrassing, because (a) it cannot date it;
> (b) it cannot explain the reasons why this
> step was taken; (c) it cannot give any account
> of how it was achieved; (d) it appears to have
> happened without the slightest change in
> morphology . . . and so on and on.
> PA therefore never discusses it -- heck, it's
> a science, and you can't expect it to consider
> the basic issues.
> You follow suit here. You seem to think
> (a word that, in your case, should always be
> in quotes) that hominids (up to about 10 kya)
> lived in exactly the same way as chimps,
> except that they now moved around on the
Who are these imaginary PA's ? These Imaginary PA's you keep
inventing are the same hallucinations as the imaginary evidence for
burials that you keep divining. Just because some creature sleeps on
the ground is not evidence that same creature buried their dead. You
wonder why people call you an idiot?
> > Lucy appears to have some tree
> > climbing abilities. How do you know where she slept? There is no
> > evidence for camps in that era period, but there is some arguable
> > evidence for climbing trees. Your arguments always run counter to the
> > facts at hand.
> Sure, they slept under the nearest tree.
> And the predators stayed away, because
> they were nice predators, and knew that if
> they didn't, Lee Olsen would never get born.
Lip service is not evidence. Homo does a lot of things that Lucy did
not have the capacity to do, you admitted that yourself. If that is the
case, then the burden of proof is on the person proposing the change
in the record. Orrorin was far closer to chimps in capacity than Homo.
Yet you seem to imagine only Orrorin (or whatever the first hominid
was) could bury their dead, yet chimps did not have that capacity. Why?
What would be the reason the term "hominid" would define burials
and not the ancestor of both? Chimps could presumably dig holes 3 or 6
million years ago, just as well as any hominid. Chimps also show
concern for their dead. Next you argue chimps move around a lot, so
their dead would not stink up a camp they didn't have. They had
territory, hominids had home bases by your thinking. Bipedalism by
definition proves more mobility than knuckle walking in terms of size
of territory used, hence easier to get away from the home bases and the
dead even more so than chimps.
Your arguments contradict themselves because you are so willing to
lead the evidence with imagination. Your reasoning is circular: home
bases caused burials, because burials were needed at home bases. You
have demonstrated evidence for neither.