Re: Who Killed the Australopithecines?
BARD (bard@netcom.com)
Mon, 24 Apr 1995 07:59:54 GMT
In article <3nfcfh$d7a@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
JoeBeaver <joebeaver@aol.com> wrote:
>BARD writes:
>
>> Let's back up a little here....
>
>Good idea.
>
>> We're talking about genocide of A. species by the next
>> "higher" order.
>
>> That would be H. habilis.
>
>Thank you, thank you, thank you. You have just made my life much easier.
>First, A. robustus appears to have outlasted H. habilis. Did they reach
>out of the grave (figuratively, of course) to kill A. robustus?
The overall point here is that A. species was wiped out by
a higher order of primate. The act, not the actor is what
is at issue here.
>
>> I used H.sapiens in my example because of our documented history
>> of genocide not because I believe H.sapiens killed off A. species.
>
>And second, you did indeed use H. sapiens. Are you asking us to ASSUME
>that since H. sapiens has done something, so must H. habilis? That's like
>saying that since my cat likes to play with balls of yarn, so would his
>feline ancestors a couple million years ago.
>
Indeed, and a very apt analogy that is!
>> BARD
>
>Finally, what we see here is an extended chain of maybes and might-bes.
>As you have FINALLY admitted elsewhere (a post responding to Phil
>Nichols), you have no evidence. That being the case, you should have
>posted your hypothesis in a different fashion initially. It would have
>been far more appropriate to present this idea as something to be
>considered, rather than as a polemic against the practice, methodology,
>and assumptions of paleoanthropology.
>
>Joe Beaver
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh, and all along you thought I had EVIDENCE?
Give me a break....
And spare me your self-indulgent pabulum about the
approprite way to present an idea around here.
BARD
|