Posted: Jun 29, 2019 7:43 am
Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t know how Pokemon works.
You don't indicate that you know how anything works, JJ. But you're hell on wheels telling everyone the way things look to you.
Jayjay4547 wrote:But an Oldowan hand axe would make an effective weapon.
In close-quarters battle. With a scorpion. If he saw it in time. Same with large felids, if any were around, but perhaps less effective.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Last year a woman in my village was sitting on her bed with her cell phone when an intruder came in with a stone and hit her on the head, killing her instantly.
Was she an australopithecine, by any chance? And what about those large felids, and their cellphones. Oh, wait, that was back in the Miocene.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Your irreducible complexity argument doesn’t work here.
What, you mean, like, the irreducible complexity of the, um, biome?
Jayjay4547 wrote: There may be basically two types of defensive primitive kinetic weapons, (a) the stopper, whose function is to stop the onslaught of the attacker, take the initiative from it and make it vulnerable to (b); the striker weapon. The stopper also gives its user valuable window to choose when to strike. In boxing the left and right hands serve those respective purposes.
Are you fearful of being mugged, JJ? Even more relevantly, are you an australopithecine, with relevant experience in the use of primitive kinetic weapons against large felids, or maybe.... cave trolls?
Jayjay4547 wrote:That isn’t my best argument, I was appealing to shared instinctive knowledge of how dangerous toothy primates are, which I think is a valuable resource for understanding inter-species relations involving us. When a cow flourishes her horns at a dog the cow knows what she is doing, so does the dog and so do I.
Is that supposed to be your best argument? The dangers posed by toothy primates to large predatory felids, if any happen to be in the vicinity? What about back in the Miocene, or whenever the fuck you think you are?
Jayjay4547 wrote:Anyway I have put up plenty of evidence about how dangerous toothy primate bites are; recently, pics of human victims of chimp attacks.
Well, we know how much humans unprepared for chimp attacks resemble large predatory felids, hunting by stealth.
Jayjay4547 wrote:This fascinating article details how a leopord ran from a group of male chimps, presumably because it needed to.
Presumably, JJ? Presumptions aren't data, but just more of your rectal effluent on primate sociobiology.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Wild monkeys or apes? And you just grabbed them with your bare hands? No problem? Goodness me.
Yes. Let your denial erupt in floods. It's your anecdotes against someone else's. How about some data, too. Without presumptions.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Well you also aren’t an australopithecus, armed with a stopper and a striker, in a group of foraging australopithecines similarly armed, alert and expert at using kinetic hand weapons.
Ah, yes. That symbiotic relationship with objects. Right there in the fossil record.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Here you are promoting sexual selection as the only possible driver for long sharp canines, as opposed to natural selection: exactly opposite to my argument.
Yes, well, your 'argument' (I use the term loosely, here) is waving your hands at some mythical symbiotic relationship with objects. Don't forget, all your modern examples in videos and stills are not pictures of australopithecines in their habitat.
Jayjay4547 wrote:On the other hand, if a male fails in defence the effect on the whole troop may be catastrophic, maybe wiping out its entire gene pool and probably weakening the troop’s foraging ability.
That's one ravenous leopard, JJ, assuming one is in the vicinity.
Jayjay4547 wrote:may be catastrophic, maybe wiping out its entire gene pool and probably weakening the troop’s foraging ability.
Entire gene pool! I'm sure that, with a little mental illness and a seething resentment of atheism and atheists, I could come to the same conclusion. That does not need to be your problem, JJ, but if I was to spout the sort of garbage you are producing, I'd have to be delusional about my capacity to be rational and impartial. You just might be nothing more than terminally incompetent at scientific reasoning, or you could be under the influence of the religious claptrap that seems to be behind your years of writing hostile, disjointed, anti-scientific screeds into text boxes at rationalist forums.