>Glenn writes:
>
><<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.
First, notice the date of the quote you are calling the lone author. (~Lewis Binford, In Pursuit of the Past, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1983), p. 68). Lew Binford made major changes to the way archaeologists think. His analyses brought to light many problems and now most archaeologists agree with him. He is no lone voice. If you had read more anthro than Tattersall, you would know this.
>
>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. ;-)
So does this mean that there is no objective knowledge about the past? Is my thesis to Burgy that humanity was formed yesterday afternoon at 2:30 central daylight as valid as any other viewpoint which has been advocated?
>
>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.
It is a disease because no other erectus skeletons show this feature.
>
>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?
>
Quite a bit. There is pollen data, animal burrowing information, sedimenary fabrics to consider, diagenetic features, and volcanic ash flow information. There is palaeomagnetism as well as percentages of various fossil animals which occur in characteristic patterns. Rippled or unrippled sediments tells you a lot about the speed of the water. Feces left by animal life is also informative telling you what the animals ate.
>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.
>
I saw a film of a bunch of people in Bosnia who had been beaten quite severely. They were then put in a pile, semi conscious and in great pain. Gasoline was thrown on them. Those who were conscious did make feeble efforts to get away from the pile but they didn't get very far before it was lit. They died. I would say that their pain won; much to their detriment.
>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?
>
Within 3 hours of the cessation of breathing I would guess that all the cells in a body are dead unless the temperature is rapidly lowered to slow enzymatic activity. Bone cells must expend lots of energy to deposit the calcium carbonate (approx 1240 cal per kg). Without oxygen, they can not deposit bone, nor can the now stopped heart deliver calcium to the cells via the blood stream. Bones don't grow after death, Jim. If you can cite a reference to back up this strange claim of bone growth after death, I would be delighted to stand corrected. The thought just crossed my mind. Does this postmortem bone growth mean that the bones of road kill re-knit themselves as the carcass lays on the side of the highway?
>
>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.
>
Jim, Jim, Jim...
Try using more of the quotation. Context is very important.
They wrote:
"To have such extensive blood clots, she must have been completely
immobilized with pain. Yet, despite her agony, she must have survived
her poisoning for weeks or maybe months while those clots ossified. How
else could her blood clots have been so ubiquitous; how else could they
have turned to the thick coating of pathological bone that started us on
this quest?
The implication stared me in the face: someone else took care of
her. Alone, unable to move, delirious, in pain, 1808 wouldn't have
lasted two days in the African bush, much less the length of time her
skeleton told us she had lived. Someone else brought her water and
probably food; unless 1808 lay terrible close to a water source, that
meant her helper had some kind of receptacle to carry water in. "(Walker and Shipman,p. 165)
You are back to your old tricks of selective quotation. One would think you didn't want the entire context out there. They never said she was alone. The sentence you are quoting is explaining why she COULDN'T be alone. Notice, they poiint out that it would take weeks or months for the clotting to ossify, just like my broken leg.
>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.
I have known his real name since 1982. I was not astonished. And it is a free country. If he is embarrassed about what he writes or is fearful, that he will lose his job then so be it.