Re: crowley's memory

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Phillip Bigelow: "Re: Tears, and the Underwood."
• Previous message: Paul Crowley: "Re: Specification for theories on human evolution"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "crowley's memory"
• Next in thread: Phil Nicholls: "Re: crowley's memory"

In article <48aum5$5is@news.global1.net>
pnich@globalone.net "Phil Nicholls" writes:

> Why do you think early hominids didn't climb trees?

It is not a matter of climbing trees. The question is: "Could the
mother/infant dyad, with such as Lucy or the makers of the Laetoli
footprints have *slept* comfortably every night in the trees?

In my view the answer is a categorical "no". Even a PA'ist like
yourself or Alex must concede that it's uncertain. So consider it.
Stop putting your head in the sand.

> Why do you think early hominids showed secondary altriciality?

See above.

> What facts lead you to these conclusions? I'll save you the trouble.
> None. You are making assumptions about early hominids based on
> modern hominids (one of the major flaws of the AAH) and there is no
> evidence to support those assumptions. Until you have evidence we
> don't need to "deal" with it.

Lucy and Laetoli are evidence. Even IF you don't accept them, you
have to concede at some point. 3mya? 2.5mya? 2mya? But you won't.
You'll duck. And you'll wonder why people distrust your science.

Paul.

• Next message: Phillip Bigelow: "Re: Tears, and the Underwood."
• Previous message: Paul Crowley: "Re: Specification for theories on human evolution"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "crowley's memory"
• Next in thread: Phil Nicholls: "Re: crowley's memory"