https://youtu.be/Aa6zCMY6Apk

So it shares lots of traits with australopithecus, it's
brain is actually smaller than habilis -- they describe
it as overlapping the SMALLEST of habilis -- but it's
unambiguously Homo????

And I love the description of the cave itself! Someone
would need to be deprived of oxygen in order to think
that Naledi were making round trips, in total
darkness, and dragging a dead body with them in one
direction...

Australopithecus naledi.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681208752375054337

I Envy JTEM wrote:

> https://youtu.be/Aa6zCMY6Apk
> And I love the description of the cave itself! Someone
> would need to be deprived of oxygen in order to think
> that Naledi were making round trips, in total
> darkness, and dragging a dead body with them in one
> direction...
>
> Australopithecus naledi.

One incredibly obvious reason why you'd need something wrong
with you in order to believe that there was this australopithecine
burying it's dead is...

There are no other species of Homo burying their dead in
Africa for more than 200,000 years.

Mungo Man, over in Australia, is an incredibly old burial. And it's
only dated to some 40k years ago, in addition to being quite a
distance from anything that might be mistaken for Africa.

And, no, I am NOT saying that Africans are dumber! Just the
opposite. I'm on record saying that so called "Moderns" that
spread out of Africa -- "Out of Africa" -- were probably better
grouped with Eurasians than sub saharan populations. I mean,
what we think of as "African" today is mostly the result of the
Bantu Expansion, and they were NOT moving from south to
north if that's what anyone was thinking...

But they appear to have been quite different culturally. I've
even argued that they were sexually selected, while Eurasian
populations for the most part were not. Well, the ones that
spread out of Africa anyway. It's why they "Won" after Toba.
It's why they could bounce back quicker than other populations,
even African populations, and flow into the vacuum left
elsewhere by the great Toba die-off.

Anyway, there are none. Burials, that is. None without earshot
of Mungo Man and Mungo Man is only 40k years old. And then
to say that this australopithecine was burying it's dead 200,000
years before THAT? But only here. And only for a few dozen
individuals?

Wait. The upward limit on any Naledi age would be more than
300,000 years!

This is just stupid. And before anyone defends such idiocy
with "But the researchers said.." please keep in mind that they
didn't take basic precautions, they contaminated the finds
even by their own documentation, and they claimed it was a
human ancestor over 2 million years old... with modern brains...
or modern structures in their brains... blah, blah, blah, blah-blah,
blah...

And in the dark?

Again: LISTEN TO THE DESCRIPTION of the cave. They were
carrying bodies in total darkness, in THAT cave, and then turning
around and finding their way out?

You've heard of the Duck Test, right?

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it's
a duck."

How appropriate then, because only a bird brain would believe that
Naledi was burying it's dead...

Is this thing even real? Or is it just a fantasy grafted on to the exact
same monkey fossils they were finding in a different cave WITHOUT
modern human brains & intentional burials?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681208752375054337

Op dinsdag 12 april 2022 om 07:28:14 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
> https://youtu.be/Aa6zCMY6Apk
>
> So it shares lots of traits with australopithecus, it's
> brain is actually smaller than habilis -- they describe
> it as overlapping the SMALLEST of habilis -- but it's
> unambiguously Homo????
>
> And I love the description of the cave itself! Someone
> would need to be deprived of oxygen in order to think
> that Naledi were making round trips, in total
> darkness, and dragging a dead body with them in one
> direction...
>
> Australopithecus naledi.

Of course: google
"not Homo, but Australopithecus or Pan naledi? verhaegen PPT"

Discoverers of the hominid naledi fossils (300-250 ka, Gauteng, southern Africa, first described in 2015) anthropocentrically assume that naledi
1) belonged to the genus Homo,
2) buried their dead in caves,
3) were tool makers,
4) ran over African plains.
Comparative anatomy shows these assumptions to be wrong, and suggests that naledi
1) generally resembled bonobos and belonged to the genus Pan or Australopithecus,
2) fossilized in a natural way,
3) were no better tool makers than extant chimpanzees are,
4) spent an important part of their day wading bipedally in forest swamps or wetlands, in search for wetland foods, possibly waterlilies or other aquatic herbaceous vegetation (AHV, possibly containing small snails), like bonobos and lowland gorillas still do but more frequently.

On Tuesday 12 April 2022 at 06:53:16 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:

> How appropriate then, because only a bird brain would believe that
> Naledi was burying it's dead...
>
> Is this thing even real? Or is it just a fantasy grafted on to the exact
> same monkey fossils they were finding in a different cave WITHOUT
> modern human brains & intentional burials?

On Tuesday 12 April 2022 at 07:05:31 UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Discoverers of the hominid naledi fossils (300-250 ka, Gauteng, southern
> Africa, first described in 2015) anthropocentrically assume that naledi
> 1) belonged to the genus Homo,
> 2) buried their dead in caves,
> 3) were tool makers,
> 4) ran over African plains.

False: they do not suggest that there was any
running over African plains.

> Comparative anatomy shows these assumptions to be wrong,

When discovered facts conflict with long-held
theories, you have a choice:
A) Abandon or mdify your theories;
B) Ignore the facts.

Guess which one both you dolts will go for?

Paul Crowley wrote:

> False: they do not suggest that there was any
> running over African plains.

Well they absolutely positively state long-distance walking.

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-homo-naledi-03224.html

"Endurance hunting" is as often expressed as walking as it is hunting...

> When discovered facts conflict with long-held
> theories, you have a choice:
> A) Abandon or mdify your theories;
> B) Ignore the facts.

Well in the case of Naledi they made everything up. The age, the
intentional burials, the modern brains... or at least "modern
structures"...

AND THE CONCLUSIONS ARE ALL THE SAME!

All their fake "Facts" were crushed under the heel of reality, but
their conclusions never wavered. They still say "Homo" Naledi,
they still say "intentional burials" and there's still not a lick of
support for their conclusions.

..Here's reality, even knowing you can't cope:

The found Sediba. In a cave. They said it was like 2 million years
old. Then they found Naledi. In a cave. The two don't look all that
far apart, so they decided they were about the same age. Naledi
may have been older, who knows? And we had to re-write the
Human family tree, because this Naledi was so advanced for it's
age.

They dated Sediba to like 2 million years so they used Sediba.

Well, if it clusters so closely to Sediba only it's orders of magnitude
younger, AND THAT makes it Human?

There is not one lick of support for an intentional burial.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681310560493699072

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:14:43 PM UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:

> There is not one lick of support for an intentional burial.

How else did they (including infants) get there?

Paul Crowley wrote:

> How else did they (including infants) get there?

Wait. So living animals can carry/drag dead ones but it's impossible
to get in without a dead body?

You're not discussing this, you're looking to invent obstacles.

You are claiming that Naledi could of course get inside WHILE
CARRYING/DRAGGING a dead body, but it's a mystery how they
could have gotten inside if they were alive and without any dead
bodies...

Were you part of the original Naledi team? Because you sound
like them.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681310560493699072

On Wednesday 13 April 2022 at 02:09:15 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:

>> How else did they (including infants) get there?
>
> Wait. So living animals can carry/drag dead ones
.. .
Of course they can -- especially if the dead
body is tied onto a 'bier' -- a framework of
long sticks and short cross-pieces. So they
need to be highly intelligent 'animals' with
quite advanced cultures in the making and
use of ropes and in the ability to use fire
for lighting.
.. .
> but it's impossible to get in without a dead body?
.. .
No idea what you are on about here. They
had little trouble getting in and out without
bodies. They had lighting -- some kind of
candle, and they had long ropes, and maybe
other ways of making and following trails
in the dark (for when their 'candles' blew
out).
.. .
> You're not discussing this, you're looking to invent obstacles.
.. .
Obstacles to what?
.. .
You are the one ducking questions.
.. .
>> How else did they (including infants) get there?

Paul Crowley wrote:

> > Wait. So living animals can carry/drag dead ones
> Of course they can -- especially if the dead
> body is tied onto a 'bier' -- a framework of
> long sticks and short cross-pieces.

Lol!

These things are so primitive they immediately concluded
they were more than 2 million years old, apparently basing
their estimates on their estimates for Sediba, THAT'S HOW
RIDICULOUSLY PRIMITIVE THEY ARE! But you've got them
weaving rope, building MAGICAL wooden frames which
can squeeze & turn in spaces that are difficult for the smallest
humans, and they did all this because they just about NEVER
buried their dead, but had to go through this bother for the
tiniest fraction of the population.... BUT UNENCUMBERED
INDIVIDUALS COULD NOT POSSIBLY MAD THE TRIP, GOT
STUCK & DIED.

Look. They followed the cool, moist air into the darkest
bowels of the cave, searching for water, and then got
trapped & died.

They lacked light, didn't even have fire, no ropes... no way
of communicating beyond ear shot, and what's to say that
they even had speech?

It was the roach motel: Naledi went in but they didn't go out.

It's also possible that a pre adult stupidly wandered into the
darkness, causing one or more adult to run in after it. That
didn't have to happen very often to account for the body
of individuals found... not over a 100,000 year period.

> No idea what you are on about here. They
> had little trouble getting in and out

There's literally ZERO evidence for any of them having so much
as ONCE getting out.

Try it with humans. Take away everything -- lights, ropes,
cameras & communications, and tell them to reach a specific
point, deep into a chamber, leave a marker and then come
back.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681310560493699072

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:03:49 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
>
> > > Wait. So living animals can carry/drag dead ones
> > Of course they can -- especially if the dead
> > body is tied onto a 'bier' -- a framework of
> > long sticks and short cross-pieces.
> Lol!
>
> These things are so primitive they immediately concluded
> they were more than 2 million years old, apparently basing
> their estimates on their estimates for Sediba, THAT'S HOW
> RIDICULOUSLY PRIMITIVE THEY ARE! But you've got them
> weaving rope, building MAGICAL wooden frames which
> can squeeze & turn in spaces that are difficult for the smallest
> humans, and they did all this because they just about NEVER
> buried their dead, but had to go through this bother for the
> tiniest fraction of the population.... BUT UNENCUMBERED
> INDIVIDUALS COULD NOT POSSIBLY MAD THE TRIP, GOT
> STUCK & DIED.
>
> Look. They followed the cool, moist air into the darkest
> bowels of the cave, searching for water, and then got
> trapped & died.
>
> They lacked light, didn't even have fire, no ropes... no way
> of communicating beyond ear shot, and what's to say that
> they even had speech?
>
> It was the roach motel: Naledi went in but they didn't go out.
>
> It's also possible that a pre adult stupidly wandered into the
> darkness, causing one or more adult to run in after it. That
> didn't have to happen very often to account for the body
> of individuals found... not over a 100,000 year period.
> > No idea what you are on about here. They
> > had little trouble getting in and out
> There's literally ZERO evidence for any of them having so much
> as ONCE getting out.
>
> Try it with humans. Take away everything -- lights, ropes,
> cameras & communications, and tell them to reach a specific
> point, deep into a chamber, leave a marker and then come
> back.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681310560493699072
They were not seeking water, but a shaded cool rest area. Water leaves a scent which animals can smell, fauna would have entered and died there seeking the water. Fauna seeking cool shade would have stopped just after entering, but hominoids seek larger rest stops, so they went deeper. The article claims it was warm, but that's during the winter. Hot summer weather drove them there.

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> They were not seeking water, but a shaded cool rest area.

Problem is, they were shaded & cooled long before they got THAT deep
into the cave, and died.

> Water leaves a scent which animals can smell, fauna would have entered and died there seeking the water.

Speaking of water, I have no idea what is in the water in your parts to
consistently look at the the word "air" and think you just read the word
"Water."

"Moist air." The word moist is an adjective, and an adjective describes
a noun. What is moist? THE FUCKING AIR!

So for the last time will you PLEASE take your meds, learn rudimentary
English, getting some reading comprehension and STOP with the
idiocy?

Thanks in advance.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681475087810052096

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 3:14:15 AM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> > They were not seeking water, but a shaded cool rest area.
> Problem is, they were shaded & cooled long before they got THAT deep
> into the cave, and died.

Solution is they liked to be together while chilling out, just like chimps in that cave I cited. So they went into the big rear chamber, went to sleep, never woke up.

> > Water leaves a scent which animals can smell, fauna would have entered and died there seeking the water.
> Speaking of water, I have no idea what is in the water in your parts to
> consistently look at the the word "air" and think you just read the word
> "Water."

You're dribbling.

> "Moist air." The word moist is an adjective, and an adjective describes
> a noun. What is moist? THE FUCKING AIR!

Again, they sought cool retreat on hot days, they found it.
Simple.

> So for the last time will you PLEASE take your meds, learn rudimentary
> English, getting some reading comprehension and STOP with the
> idiocy?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681475087810052096

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Solution is they liked to be together while chilling out

There's 16 known individuals for a period encompassing over 100,000
years. "They" can not be characterized in any such way.

I'm arguing exception: They would not attempt such a thing except
maybe individuals under extraordinary circumstances.

Morons, on the other hand, "argue" a rule: THEY, and this characterizes
the whole population of not the species, buried their dead! That's why
there's almost none. Or they habitually huddled in caves like this, only
they clearly didn't."

Do you see the problem? there are precious few individuals, given the
time span identified. This can't be a "Rule." Whatever put them there
was an exception. It was not something that characterized them, it
was not a defining characteristic of the population.

This is basic even rudimentary stuff. You're supposed to be speaking
of a viable breeding population over a span of 100,000 years AT LEAST,
just for this one place. They're supposed to actually trace their origins
back MILLIONS of years. Yet you have LESS THAN 20 individuals
accounted for.

STOP arguing some "Rule" when it couldn't be more obviously an
exception if it peed down your leg.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681309289092153344

On Thursday 14 April 2022 at 03:03:49 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:

>>> Wait. So living animals can carry/drag dead ones
>. .
>> Of course they can -- especially if the dead
>> body is tied onto a 'bier' -- a framework of
>> long sticks and short cross-pieces.
>. .
> Lol!
> . .
> These things are so primitive they immediately concluded
> they were more than 2 million years old, apparently basing
> their estimates on their estimates for Sediba, THAT'S HOW
> RIDICULOUSLY PRIMITIVE THEY ARE! But you've got them
> weaving rope,

Your conception of early hominins is childish.
What advantages did they have over other
species, that enabled them to survive and
prosper?

They were slower on the ground than
any other mammal. They were much the
same as tortoises, without the carapace.
They were barely able to climb, and were
no match for any arboreal species. The
only answer is that they made and used
tools. One of the most obvious is string/
rope. They are very easy to fabricate.
The material (natural fibers) is all around
and the initial stages are simple -- extend
lengths of fiber by plaiting, weaving in
new fibers when needed. All it took for
this 'invention' was one bright hominin
and the rest copied. The first might well
have come about by chance.

> building MAGICAL wooden frames

There is nothing magical about tying
bits of wood together to make a frame.
Nor about tying a corpse to a frame.

> which can squeeze & turn in spaces that are difficult for the
> smallest humans,

H.naledi was small. There was no need
to turn. Moving a dead body on a 'bier'
would be difficult but a group of
hominins with lights, and using ropes,
could manage it.

> and they did all this because they just about NEVER buried
> their dead, but had to go through this bother for the tiniest
> fraction of the population....

We have no idea how often, nor for how
long, this population followed this
practice. All we know is that, in the caves
investigated so far, few remains have
been found. But that's a common
pattern for fossils of all species.

> BUT UNENCUMBERED INDIVIDUALS COULD NOT POSSIBLY
> MAD THE TRIP, GOT STUCK & DIED.

It's not likely that 17 individuals ended
up on one small, especially remote
chamber.

> Look. They followed the cool, moist air into the darkest
> bowels of the cave, searching for water, and then got
> trapped & died.

If they could get in, they'd have got out
or, at least -- if they couldn't, and died
there -- their bodies would have been
much more dispersed.

> They lacked light, didn't even have fire, no ropes... no way
> of communicating beyond ear shot, and what's to say that
> they even had speech?

Without light, they'd never have ventured
so far and so deep. No other fauna
anywhere near them.

> It's also possible that a pre adult stupidly wandered into the
> darkness, causing one or more adult to run in after it.

Not a viable scenario. Infants could not
possibly climb and crawl extremely
awkward distances in the dark, including
ascents of dangerous 'ladders' and descents
of many metres down narrow chutes.

>> No idea what you are on about here. They
>> had little trouble getting in and out
>. .
> There's literally ZERO evidence for any of them having so
> much as ONCE getting out.

17+ bodies all in one tiny place.
If it wasn't a tomb, it's a crime scene.

> Try it with humans. Take away everything -- lights, ropes,
> cameras & communications, and tell them to reach a specific
> point, deep into a chamber, leave a marker and then come
> back.

Impossible, even for expert cavers.
You just have to accept that they had
lights and (almost certainly) ropes, and
that they were also expert cavers.

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:56:06 AM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> > Solution is they liked to be together while chilling out
> There's 16 known individuals for a period encompassing over 100,000
> years. "They" can not be characterized in any such way.
>
> I'm arguing exception: They would not attempt such a thing except
> maybe individuals under extraordinary circumstances.
>
> Morons, on the other hand, "argue" a rule: THEY, and this characterizes
> the whole population of not the species, buried their dead! That's why
> there's almost none. Or they habitually huddled in caves like this, only
> they clearly didn't."
>
> Do you see the problem? there are precious few individuals, given the
> time span identified. This can't be a "Rule." Whatever put them there
> was an exception. It was not something that characterized them, it
> was not a defining characteristic of the population.
>
> This is basic even rudimentary stuff. You're supposed to be speaking
> of a viable breeding population over a span of 100,000 years AT LEAST,
> just for this one place. They're supposed to actually trace their origins
> back MILLIONS of years. Yet you have LESS THAN 20 individuals
> accounted for.
>
> STOP arguing some "Rule" when it couldn't be more obviously an
> exception if it peed down your leg.
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681309289092153344
Rule?
Read what I wrote, not what you imagine. It was hot, they found cool, vaped and croaked.

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Your conception of early hominins is childish

"There's your problem right there, lady."

What they are telling you jives with what you like to imagine about
early hominins, even though it doesn't, so you cling to it like a
drowning man to a life preserver.

The word you need to look up is "enumerated."

I'll wait.

Are you done? Because now you have to modify it some, just a tad,
to arrive at "Unenumerated."

If that's too much you can use "unspoken" but we're trying to up your
game here..

So every claim has both enumerated & unenumerated components.

Do you understand this?

Like if I said that there was a giant sauropod dinosaur out in front
of my window earlier, but it walked away, the enumerated portion
of my statement is pretty clear. But the unenumerated, well...

A sauropod dinosaur is a living creature. It needs to eat & drink, it
needs to poop. As I said "Giant" sauropod it's too big to fit in
anything, right? A Diplodocus was like 11 tons, more than a breeding
pair of African elephants, the largest examples more than TWICE
that big... it was incredibly long...

We're talking foot prints, tons of witnesses, in this day & age that
means cell phone footage... RING cameras... we're talking a
media frenzy...

And, again, it's a living flesh & blood animal. Where'd it come from?

A lab? A breeding population?

And how old did these things get? Over 100 years! They grew their
whole lives so the larger the older and I did say "Giant"...

So there was a great deal of unenumerated elements to my claim
about seeing a sauropod dinosaur outside my window. There are a
lot of things that have to be true, and many questions that arise
from my claim.

But not for you though.

Nope.

Someone said "De burweed der dead" and you stop there. You don't
even notice the unenumerated portions of their claim.

I mean, less than 20 individuals? Over what they claim is a span of
100,000 years or more?

No. No they most certainly did NOT bury their dead. The unenumerated
portion of their claim is that these remains are of the mostest special
individual in the whole widest world!

They didn't bury their dead, "Burying their dead" can not be a behavior
that characterizes this species at all, there just aren't enough, and none
what so ever elsewhere, so we know for a fact that they didn't bury their
dead.

No, the unenumerated portion of their claim, your claim, is that these
"Burials" are not a rule but an exception. They don't fit the picture of
the species. They are unusual. Uncommon. Rare.

Why?

Let's say 20 years between generations -- and it was probably less than
that -- and let's call it 20 generations (it's not, it's less) that's 400 years
represented.

400.

400 out of 100,000.

And you think this fits ANY model for a species that buries it's dead?

No. Not at all. It's dumb. It's incredibly stupid. It is at face value quite
ridiculous.

"So they buried their dead, but almost never!"

Why? Why say that?

The obvious answer is that they weren't burying their dead. This animal
which was so goddamn primitive, by their own descriptions, that it
must've been over 2 million years old did NOT perform the only African
prepared burials in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681309289092153344

> H.naledi was small.

My boy, it was not even Homo:
google "Pan or Australopithecus naledi PPT"

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 2:47:43 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > H.naledi was small.
>
> My boy, it was not even Homo:
> google "Pan or Australopithecus naledi PPT"

Probably in between H, P & A.

On Saturday 16 April 2022 at 03:30:22 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:

>> Your conception of early hominins is childish
>. .
> "There's your problem right there, lady."
> . .
> What they are telling you jives with what you like to imagine about
> early hominins, even though it doesn't, so you cling to it like a
> drowning man to a life preserver.
.. .
You need to state what it was that early
hominins had that allowed them to survive
and prosper -- as I asked, and you ducked.
.. .
It wasn't superior speed, nor climbing ability,
nor anything physical.
.. .
> So every claim has both enumerated & unenumerated components.
.. .
All claims here are about those bodies.
most of them in a tiny remote chamber in
deep dark chamber that is (and was) very
hard to access.
.. .
> I mean, less than 20 individuals? Over what they claim is a span of
> 100,000 years or more?
.. .
False. Those bodies were deposited at some
time WITHIN ~100 Kyr.
.. .
> They didn't bury their dead, "Burying their dead" can not be a behavior
> that characterizes this species at all, there just aren't enough,
.. .
The fossils in that cave have more than
doubled the TOTAL number of fossils
from the whole of Africa before ~30 ka.
.. .
> and none what so ever elsewhere,
.. .
There are quite a few (by hominin
fossil standards -- i.e. as rare as hen's
teeth) encased in breccia in the
general neighbourhood.
.. .
> so we know for a fact that they didn't bury their dead.
.. .
Your 'logic' here escapes me.
.. .
> No, the unenumerated portion of their claim, your claim, is that these
> "Burials" are not a rule but an exception. They don't fit the picture of
> the species. They are unusual. Uncommon. Rare.
.. .
So? What's the problem? Maybe it was a
bright idea in one population at one time.
Maybe there was one psychotic murderer
(or a group of them) who were bumping off
various members of their (or another) tribe,
and hiding the bodies. There are no marks
indicating violent deaths, but there don't
have to be.
.. .
> "So they buried their dead, but almost never!"
>
> Why? Why say that?
.. .
It SEEMS (at the moment) to be what
the data indicates.
.. .
> The obvious answer is that they weren't burying their dead.
.. .
That's not an answer. It's ducking the question.
.. .
> This animal which was so goddamn primitive, by their own
> descriptions, that it must've been over 2 million years old did NOT
> perform the only African prepared burials in HUNDREDS OF
> THOUSANDS OF YEARS!
.. .
So how did 20 or so bodies end up in
remote chambers?

Paul Crowley wrote:

> You need to state what it was that early
> hominins had that allowed them to survive
> and prosper

Why? Because if I don't then they went extinct?

And when you say "Early" what do you mean by "Early?"

How early? When?

I mean, if they all died out because I didn't respond to
an irrelevant question -- one that has no bearing what
so ever on this thread about Naledi -- how am I to know
how desperate you're getting?

Naledi isn't "Early" by any stretch of the imagination!

Younger than tools, younger than fire... younger than throwing
spears... younger even the "Modern" man by many claims of
the laughing stock that is paleo anthropology.

So Naledi isn't early at all. It's quite late.

> > So every claim has both enumerated & unenumerated components.
> . .
> All claims here are about those bodies.

Wrong. Behaviors. And their associated cognitive abilities.

> most of them in a tiny remote chamber in
> deep dark chamber that is (and was) very
> hard to access.

"So hard, in fact, it only makes sense for them to do it if they
were making a round trip in the pitch blackness, lugging
around a dead body with them in one direction. Absent that
dead body and, well, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!"

> > I mean, less than 20 individuals? Over what they claim is a span of
> > 100,000 years or more?

> False.

It's not false at all.

Actually, they gathered age ranges from as low as 100k to more than
300k. I was being conservative here, knowing your brain might blow
a gasket if I over burdened it. Could they all be only 100k? Or 300k?
Of course. But it also makes your position even stupider than it already
was. You would be testifying that this "Naledi" absolutely positively
did NOT bury it's dead. Nope. It was something it NEVER ever did,
except for this once.

You just jumped from claiming it was exceptional behavior to UNIQUE,
utterly destroying yourself, and you never even noticed!

I have to stop right here & laugh at you.

Lol!

This is hilarious... "No it wasn't an exception, it was an entirely unique
event in the annuals of this species!"

All that, just to avoid admitting that you're wrong, that you were gullible
and fell for a ridiculous claim...

Lol!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Ukraine/page/3

On Sunday 17 April 2022 at 13:30:30 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:

>> You need to state what it was that early
>> hominins had that allowed them to survive
>> and prosper
>
> Why? Because if I don't then they went extinct?

I assumed that you wanted to develop an
viable theory of human evolution. (That's
why others take part in this ng). But I
accept that -- in your case -- I got that
wrong.

> And when you say "Early" what do you mean by "Early?"
>
> How early? When?

As early as you can manage. I gather that
you believe the chimp/homo common
ancestor grew wings. And that chimps
lost theirs and then went into the forest.
Or something like that. So you can start
with the wing loss and from the chimp/
homo split.

>> most of them in a tiny remote chamber in
>> deep dark chamber that is (and was) very
>> hard to access.

No attempt to explain this finding.

< Pointless remainder snipped.>

Paul Crowley wrote:

> I assumed that you wanted to develop an
> viable theory of human evolution.

Omg, FOCUS!

The thread is about Naledi and, even more focused, the fantasy that
they buried their dead.

That's what it's about.

The thread is about how this claim is transparent idiocy, something even
you attested to when you went much further than my "Exception" and
raised the idea that these so called "Burials" could be seen as utterly
unique.

....the bar just keeps getting raised higher & higher.

> > And when you say "Early" what do you mean by "Early?"
> >
> > How early? When?

> As early as you can manage.

Well, as you're focused and not at all trying to distract from the ridiculous
position of Naledi intentionally burying their dead, that would be back no
further than the absolute oldest dates given for the finds... no further back
than the 300k year range. Tops.

Because we are both focused here, and the thread is about Naledi and the
fairy tale about it burying it's dead...

Here. I even gave the most oh so subtle tint as to the subject of the thread
in the subject line when I said:

"Naledi: You need something wrong with you to see graves"

So THAT is the topic of discussion, THAT is the context, THAT is our frame
of reference here.

Naledi. Burials. THAT claim.

> I gather that
> you believe the chimp/homo common
> ancestor grew wings.

This is odd. As you have reading compression and you can follow a thread,
stick to your own arguments without confusing yourself, why would you
PRETEND (and you must be pretending, you being so astute) that any of
what you're saying here is relevant in the least?

"Hey! Naledi buried their dead exactly like chimps don't!"

Lol! You're not fooling anyone. We all know you're trolling and that you
couldn't be this desperate.

'Fess up!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681683323967373312

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 1:31:58 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Sunday 17 April 2022 at 13:30:30 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
> >> You need to state what it was that early
> >> hominins had that allowed them to survive
> >> and prosper
> >
> > Why? Because if I don't then they went extinct?
> I assumed that you wanted to develop an
> viable theory of human evolution. (That's
> why others take part in this ng). But I
> accept that -- in your case -- I got that
> wrong.
> > And when you say "Early" what do you mean by "Early?"
> >
> > How early? When?
> As early as you can manage. I gather that
> you believe the chimp/homo common
> ancestor grew wings. And that chimps
> lost theirs and then went into the forest.
> Or something like that. So you can start
> with the wing loss and from the chimp/
> homo split.
> >> most of them in a tiny remote chamber in
> >> deep dark chamber that is (and was) very
> >> hard to access.
> No attempt to explain this finding.
>
> < Pointless remainder snipped.>
Poli Crap vs Jermy
Who is more wrong?