https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498
Actually, the early Chimp fossils were never missing.
We've always had them. We just never knew that they
were Chimps, or their ancestors, because they don't
look the way we thought Chimp ancestors should
look.
JTEM wrote:
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498
Actually, the early Chimp fossils were never missing.
We've always had them. We just never knew that they
were Chimps, or their ancestors, because they don't
look the way we thought Chimp ancestors should
look.
What you linked to in "tumblr" is a bare quotation with no source identified.
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
JTEM wrote:
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498
Actually, the early Chimp fossils were never missing.
We've always had them. We just never knew that they
were Chimps, or their ancestors, because they don't
look the way we thought Chimp ancestors should
look.
What you linked to in "tumblr" is a bare quotation with no source identified.
The source is rather prominent.
The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.
However, the body of the article seems to show you talking to someone:
Is this from a personal email exchange
Anyway, back to what looks like the main theme of this thread:
The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.
Which fossils are those? are they commonly called Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus, or Sahelanthropus?
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
However, the body of the article seems to show you talking to someone:Here. Consume heartedly:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/7mY1XyllRlM/m/Wq7xISueBgAJ
Is this from a personal email exchangeOh, Holy christ on toast points!
The oldest so called "Chimp" remains are 500,000 years old, yet the oldest so called
chimp "Tools" are on the order of 4,000 years old? And they actually have to bullshit
us in order to make the case that they were left behind by Chimps?
"Well rocks don't last, you know. It's remarkable for them to have lasted for all of 4
thousand years. It's unreasonable to be asking for half a million year old tools, much
less 5 million years old..."
Anyway, back to what looks like the main theme of this thread:
Or only theme.
The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.
Which fossils are those? are they commonly called Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus, or Sahelanthropus?
In a court of law, one needn't prove who the murderer is in order to prove the
innocence of a defendant. As a matter of fact you'd weaken your position by attempting to do so...
"Well you say that your client didn't do it and this other guy did. But I believe
this other guy is innocent so that means your client is guilty!"
So let's just concentrate on what everyone has to accept: The oldest so called
"Chimp" tools are only maybe 4k years old. They are NOT clearly Chimp
tools, so it may be a huge leap claiming that they are. However, if Chimps split
from humans millions of years ago and Chimps use tools, there should be millions of years worth of such archaeology... and there isn't even 10k years worth?
All the assumptions are clearly wrong.
It starts right
The oldest so called "Chimp" remains are 500,000 years old, yet the oldest so called
chimp "Tools" are on the order of 4,000 years old? And they actually have to bullshit
us in order to make the case that they were left behind by Chimps?
"Well rocks don't last, you know. It's remarkable for them to have lasted for all of 4
thousand years. It's unreasonable to be asking for half a million year old tools, much
less 5 million years old..."
Anyway, back to what looks like the main theme of this thread:
Or only theme.
But it isn't what comes next:
The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.
Instead, you go way off on a tangent in reply to my next question
In a court of law, one needn't prove who the murderer is in order to prove the
innocence of a defendant. As a matter of fact you'd weaken your position by attempting to do so...
What relevance does
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
It starts right
You have a lot of issues. You seem incapable of addressing what is being said, seeking to distract with meaningless "Investigations" into the manner it was stated...
The oldest so called "Chimp" remains are 500,000 years old, yet the oldest so called
chimp "Tools" are on the order of 4,000 years old? And they actually have to bullshit
us in order to make the case that they were left behind by Chimps?
"Well rocks don't last, you know. It's remarkable for them to have lasted for all of 4
thousand years. It's unreasonable to be asking for half a million year old tools, much
less 5 million years old..."
Anyway, back to what looks like the main theme of this thread:
Or only theme.
But it isn't what comes next:Of course it is...
The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.
Instead, you go way off on a tangent in reply to my next questionIt's not a tangent. It's a refusal to go on a tangent.
We have the missing "Chimps." They simply do not look like what we want them to look like, i.e. chimps.
In a court of law, one needn't prove who the murderer is in order to prove the
innocence of a defendant. As a matter of fact you'd weaken your position by
attempting to do so...
What relevance doesLol! You keep trying to steer things off topic.
The point is to show people that their assumptions are wrong, both about so called Chimp "Tool use" and the Chimps themselves. The fact that we are missing
MILLIONS of years worth of Chimp fossils is usually passed off as an artifact of preservation: Lack there of. But these imaginary "Tools" wouldn't face that
problem. Rocks would survive. Yet there are none.
I don't have to detail "The right answer" in order to point out the wrong one. Your
insistence on racing off into random, irrelevant directions highlights the error in
that approach.
"Stick to the point."
And I shouldn't even have to spell out THAT entirely! It should be enough to eliminate the incorrect assumptions...
Science doesn't work like a court of law.
It is perfectly legitimate to say
things like the following:
I hypothesize about a 50-50 chance that Sahelanthopus is a Chimp ancestor
and about the same for some species of Australopithecus and for some species of Ardipithecus.
And I hypothesize about an 80% chance that AT LEAST ONE of these is a chimp ancestor.
Does anyone have evidence that none of the three is ancestral to modern day chimps?
Remember, you DID claim that we have chimp fossils that we just don't recognize
as such
candidates for ancestors of Homo, and which are recent enough to conform to the conventional wisdom that we split off from chimps no more than 8myo.
The point is to show people that their assumptions are wrong, both about so called Chimp "Tool use" and the Chimps themselves. The fact that we are missing
MILLIONS of years worth of Chimp fossils is usually passed off as an artifact
of preservation: Lack there of. But these imaginary "Tools" wouldn't face that
problem. Rocks would survive. Yet there are none.
All granted, but *shaping* rocks into what are recognizable as tools
could be a relatively recent development, and confined to Homo.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 302 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 98:43:17 |
Calls: | 6,767 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 12,295 |
Messages: | 5,376,396 |
Posted today: | 1 |