Re: Absolutely Bonkers

Glenn wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> in message news:D_aOe.3175$WO2.278@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>Glenn wrote:
>>
>>>"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> wrote
>
>>>in message news:IV8Oe.8223$cO6.5083@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>>Glenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>But no animal has the ability to predate to any substantial degree what
>>>
>>>human's
>>>
>>>
>>>>>are capable of, and no animal has the ability to defend against humans, even
>>>>>primitive humans with sticks.
>>>>
>>>>When did this capacity of humans to successfully prey on every
>>>>animal on the planet happen, Glenn?
>>>>
>>>>Was it when we were limited to the African savanna?
>>>>
>>>>Was it when we first left Africa?
>>>>
>>>>Was it at the first appearance of Homo sapiens?
>>>>
>>>>Was Homo sapiens neandertalensis also able to successfully prey
>>>>on every animal on the planet?
>>>>
>>>>Was it when we developed stone weapons?
>>>>
>>>>When exactly did we get to be the top predator on the planet?
>>>>
>>>
>>>What is the relevance, or are you a monkey on a typewriter?
>>>
>>
>>I'm an ape with a keyboard.
>>
>>You assert that humans can kill any animal, and there is nothing
>>the animals can do to prevent this. As this was clearly not true
>>throughout all of human history, I was asking you to define for
>>me when that change occurred.
>
>
> You make it sound as if I had been saying that animals just stand around letting
> humans do whatever they want. But what is clear to you? What animals could humans
> not kill, your choice of the time in history.

You specified humans using only sticks. Using only sticks, the
time could be any time. Could you reliably bring down a mountain
lion with a stick? Let us give you a brawny branch, with a knot
in the end. Could you do it today? Reliably?

Or let's give you a band of twenty humans: five adult males, two
sub-adult males, three males under age, say, 8; five adult women
(two significantly pregnant), three sub-adult females and two
females under the age of 8.

Now, let's set your band on a pride of hunting lions. You get
stout sticks.

We'll make it a middling-size pride: two adult males, two
juvenile males; four adult females (two significantly pregnant),
two juvenile females; and three cubs of assorted genders.

How many lions do you suppose you and your band could bring
down? At what cost to your band?

> The word was "clearly", so be
> specific. The excuse that before 5 billion years nothing was being killed or
> killed would be a cop out.

I think it's fair to say that humans could not reliably kill
*large* animals before they put the sharp stone point on the end
of a stout stick. This appears to have started with Homo erectus;
let's call it an even million years ago.

I suspect that humans found it more, um, prudent to hunt weak,
small or isolated large animals for most of the last million years.

The development of the atlatl and the bow and arrow would give
the edge to the human predators over any single large animal, and
some groups of medium-large animals. The atlatl may be as old as
ca. 50,000 years; the bow and arrow is perhaps 15,000 years
later. Of course, these dates are estimates, but should be good
enough to be going on with. Also, of course, not all populations
had the technology at the same time. The bow and arrow, for
instance, is only known in North America north of Mexico from
about 700 A.D.

So let's call human mastery of nearly all land fauna as
starting, in some places, about 50,000 ybp.

> I also asked you to explain the relevance, not to ask me to define when some
> change you claim occured.

Pretty funny stuff there, Glenn. You made a sweeping statement
of human mastery over all animals. I guess you thought that had
some relevance to some argument you were making.

Let's assume you were right, and human mastery of all (or most)
animals is true now. Since this was clearly (to those who pay
attention to such things, as do I) not the case for all of
hominid history, and was not the case for the first members of
genus Homo (Homo habilis), I asked you if you could pin-point
when it did become the case.

The relevance, Glenn, is that whatever you were trying to say by
saying humans could take any animal, is not supported until
perhaps 50,000 years ago. So what about the time before that?
Homo sapiens has been around for perhaps 120,000 years. If you
count Homo sapiens neandertalensis, it is even longer. So for
half or less of the existence of the species, humans were at
least equally often prey as predator.

> Humans were alleged to have arrived in the America's
> around 30,000 years ago,

The actual date is a bit up in the air. But let's take your
date, just to be inclusive.

> land with many predators and prey animals. Humans are
> alleged to have existed in Africa for at least that long, a land with many
> predators and prey animals.

Alleged? At least 30,000 years? Huh.

We *know* that there was a genetic 'bottle-neck' about 70,000
years ago, and the folks who survived it to become us were in
Africa.

> What is relevant about when humans gained the ability to reason and plan, hunting
> with their brain instead of their teeth.

Sorry, can't parse that. Try again?

>>You say that humans with sticks can do in any animal. Let's
>>assume you mean land animals, as sharks and whales would seem to
>>require somewhat more in the way of technology. How did humans
>>with sticks (and no other weapons) fend off a pride of lions, or
>>a pack of hyenas, or a crazed bull elephant in must?
>
>
> You tell me, since the story is that humans in the America's killed off many of
> the animals now extinct. Did they have express rifles and gun bearers?

Nope, sorry. The 'sticks only' deal was yours. You defend it, or
you abandon it. I did my work; you do yours.

>>I'm very interested in archaeology and humans' development of
>>technology. You seem to have information that I've missed in
>>those areas. I wish to learn.
>>
>
> Then do. Start by reading. No one knows when bow and arrow were first used, but
> some arrowheads, spearpoints and other rock weapons are said to be rather old.
> Learn how primitive tribes even today hunt.

LOL! Now that's entertainment!

Listen, Glenn baby; some of us have actually studied these
things, and know about the general age of many, many
technologies--including those you mention. When you make stupid
claims in the presence of those, like me, who have studied (and
continue to study), and *then* you tell us to do the reading, the
only rational response is a little outrage (since what you write
is outrageous), and a lot of laughter.

> By the way, how do people now fend off huge attacks of whole prides of lions,
> mixed with howling hyenas leading them and charging crazy bull elephants playing
> on the outside? Do they all have AK's? Have we evolved to outrun them? What? I'm
> interested, and since you are as well, you might be able to tell me.

It's your party, Glenn baby; you tell me. After all, you must
have done the reading to know better than the rest of us.

<walks away, shaking head and laughing, muttering "AK's. That
Glenn is a hoot.">

--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sweating is a dryland, not an aquatic adaptation in humans.
    ... > Animals migrate to where they can survive in competition with other ... How long have humans lived in the namib, ... > specific desert adaptations. ... wet, relatively lush lowlands by the coasts, water holes and rivers. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... governments for treating humans as animals. ... I believe that there is something special about humanity. ... from the rest of the animal kingdom to buttress one's personal morals ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Spiked Article/Atheists and EcoChristians
    ... I am sure that everyone here would agree that humans are distinct and unique. ... Do you think humans are interesting and successful *animals*, or do you think they deserve a classification that effectively removes them from the animal kingdom? ... Skinner created a paradigm that was designed to be objective, but in the process it also predefined the way scientists were able to talk about animal behaviour. ... A bit like we are with chimps and bottle nose dolphins. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: OT: Spiked Article/Atheists and EcoChristians
    ... *No one* is saying that humans are 'the same' as other animals. ... Do you think humans are interesting and successful *animals*, ... that they reckon bottle-nosed dolphins have roughly the same mental ... A bit like we are with chimps and bottle ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Is the new 60,000 sq.ft. Creation Museum anti-science ???
    ... 'gee- considering we look like made-over apes,and share 99% of our DNA ... nature of apes and monkeys are largely fantasy. ... primates hold in common with humans. ... One increasingly hears phrases such as 'humans and other animals'. ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
Loading