<<I already dealt with this in part. No one on the African plain wants to
live near the predators. Predators come to the watering holes. If you
don't believe this then build a house near a water hole and see how
comfortable you about going outside.
Thus they would not set up camps near the water.>>
But this contradicts what experts say, as in another quote from your original
post, viz:
<<Nevertheless, archaeologists tell us that our hominid ancestors habitually
located home bases in exactly these places.>>
I know your lone author tends to disagree, but I don't see why. Seems to me
being next to a water source is exactly what hominid herds would do. I mean,
these are supposed to be the ones with adaptive advantages over predators.
Responding to my other points:
JB<<1. 1808 had a certain disease which...
2. ...caused a certain clotting pattern which...
GM <<This is what your forensic experts in those courtrooms do every day. If
you were a prosecutor, you would use this type of medical information to
convict a person. If you were a defence attorney, you would use such
information to gain an acquittal. Are you now telling me that your
profession, (lawywers) are lying to us poor citizens in the jury box?>>
Didn't you know that? Welcome to the real world. ;-)
Actually, it's always based on probabilities. And the experts rarely agree.
But at least there's one advantage: it all takes place in the present. When
you're dealing with 1.7 million year old bones, well, you have a bit more
trouble. Not only dealing with assumption #1, but assuming that the pattern
(#2, above) operates today in exactly the same way.
Let's just say I still find too many leaps. The pretzel principle applies
here: the more twists you have to make to get things to fit, the less likely
it is to be accurate.
JB<<3. ...took place in a certain environment which...
GM<<The details of the rocks can be used to determine the environment of
deposition of any strata.
This is your field, so I believe you. But how much detail can we REALLY know
about the world 1.7 million years ago? How much certainty is there?
JB>4. ...was necessarily antithetical to survival and...
GM***Let me assure you. 1808 would have had serious difficulty moving***
While this doesn't directly answer my point, I still have trouble assuming
that when pain and survival are weighed against each other, pain wins. And of
course the assumption about the extent of the disease is still a major one.
JB>5. ...only causes this pattern over an extended period of time
> because...
GM So you believe that ossification and bone growth takes place
instantaneously?>>
I should have made this clearer. I should have said over an extended period of
LIVING time. It can also happen after death. How are we to assume that this
only happened during 1808's long, painful dying process as she was cared for
by Ms. Nightingale?
JB <<6. ...it did not evolve like everything else, so...
GM <<Who said that this deformity evolved?
No one. That's why it's an assumption! But you ARE assuming that bodily
processes and disease froze in place while life and everything else evolved
radically over time. I don't see any basis for that, under your own
evolutionary standards.
So if there was an evolutionary process, how can we be so certain about the
pattern of some speculative disease (assumption #1) 1.7 million years ago?
Make an educated guess, sure, but that's jut another leap.
JB >7. ...it was impossible for 1808 to help herself and...
GM <<I would bet you couldn't help yourself with the pain I experienced with
my broken leg. 1808's pain couldn't be much less.
I dunno, I'd take that bet (you want to break my legs now?). Reminds me of the
joke about New York CPR. You step up to the person lying on the sidewalk and
scream, "Get up or you're gonna die!"
Now we get to the "alone" thing, wherein Glenn graciously advises:
<<Jim, you need new glasses. Re-read what the quote said. The authors were
saying 1808 could not possibly be alone because she would not survive long
enough for the ossification of the woven bone area if she had been alone.
Here is an experiment.>>
Thanks for the ocular advice, Glenn, you seem to have missed the point. The
authors assume she WAS alone, and therefore in need of ANOTHER hominid to
help. Slip on your own glasses and re-read. Here, I'll help:
<< Alone [see? "Alone"] unable to move, delirious, in pain, 1808 wouldn't have
lasted two days in the African bush [UNLESS] [s]omeone else brought her water
and probably food...>>
You see? They assume she was ALONE, save for this mythical helper. Now, why
assume she WAS alone? It's just as likely she was part of the herd.
Too many leaps to make anything of this. I know it's sweet to think this could
have happened, but sweetness is not science.
Jim
P.S. For the record: I was astonished to learn that the fellow who trashes
Glenn in a new book is using a pseudonym! That is very BAD form. If you're
going to try and destroy another's work, you should at least have the guts to
stand up and identify yourself.