Mystery solved. How and why human ancestors became upright.

[Clinton Huxley]

I know what Clinton really thinks is the most badass technology developed by humans. He's not saying though, due to the shame, guilt and embarassment it will cause him.

Admit it Clinton, it's the microwave oven, because it can be used to cook Rustler's burgers. I'm right, aren't I?

Must my degradation be paraded before the entire forum?

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, mind.

[Ilovelucy]

Further, an increase in the consumption of meat, brought about opportunistically by the development of the spear, may have led to constipation. As the Chilean football team that crashed in the Andes and indulged in cannibalism found, a stick up the rear is one way of dislodging a compacted stool. Taking these factors together, it is difficult to see how our hominid ancestors could have survived without spears

To be fair though, many might say that we have no experimental backing for these otherwise solid theories, so I'm off to the back garden with a flip camera. I may be some time.

[Clinton Huxley]

Anyways, the most bad-ass technology is still agriculture. Without it we'd still be throwing rocks and/or spears at leopards.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm going with lycanthropy-on-demand.

[mistermack]

ilovelucy, I think I got you right the first time. You seem to read without understanding.
Your own link clearly bore out what I said about leopards and baboons, yet you seem have concuded the opposite.
Read it again. One lactating female leopard killed a baboon, held off an entire troup, and eventually calmly walked off unharmed with her kill.
The baboons made a huge amount of noise, but were clearly too scared to actually get to grips with a leopard.
And you ignore the fact that big male baboons are much bigger than our early ancestors, and have huge canine teeth. Our ancestors lost these weapons at the very time that they became upright, and would need protection the most.
There's no comparison between a big group of male baboons, and a group of austalopithecenes. Yet your own link show's that a whole troup of baboons couldn't hurt one leopard. What chance would Lucy stand?
You point to the Schoningen spears, and Boxgrove. Irrelevant. I was discussing AFRICA, and the evolution of tool-use. These aren't relevant to this argument. I've made full mention of the Schoningen and Clacton spears earlier in this thread, but I'm talking about Africa, and the earliest tool use. Perhaps you can name the earliest African archaeological record of a spear? Or do you imagine the Europeans invented it?

I'm not averse to the idea that early hominids may have used branches for defence when being attacked but in a less premeditated clubbing sense. Opposable thumbed hominids would have used whatever was at hand from branches to stones, and the first stone tool using hominids may have sacrificed their Oldowan choppers in order to see off a predator. A predator may not have fled from a solitary stone thrower but a troop of them would prove quite effective.

Aren't you being a bit hypocritical here? You scoff at someone else for attempting an hypothesis, and produce one of your own? And an extremely hare-brained one at that.
Firstly, I'll repeat again, choppers were NOT carried around as tools or weapons. They were made and used where they were found.
Secondly, the idea that throwing stones is an effective technique for deterring predators is ludicrous. Even modern humans would have trouble making that work. Early upright apes just wouldn't have the brain power. And you said yourself their bodies hadn't adapted for throwing.
You clearly haven't thought about what you're saying at all. You should have spent less time thumbing your books, and more time trying to understand what was inside them.
And I never claimed that Stringer endorsed anything. You mentioned him in your name-dropping, so I felt justified in mentioning what he said.
And what you don't know is that I actually ASKED for criticism, not approval, when I sent him a summary.
But I argue my own case, anyway. I don't see that name-dropping changes an argument one way or the other.

[Trolldor]

Mystery Solved everyone - evidence be damned. Mistermack's endless unsubstantiated conjecture has solved a non-mystery that has already been reasonable explained by present theories.

[mistermack]

Mystery Solved everyone - evidence be damned. Mistermack's endless unsubstantiated conjecture has solved a non-mystery that has already been reasonable explained by present theories.

Oh, that's great. what was it, and what were the theories? I'm glad you're going to explain it for me.

[Trolldor]

Mystery Solved. Case Closed. End of that chapter.

[mistermack]

Mystery Solved. Case Closed. End of that chapter.

You should change your name to the mad chicken.
.

[Trolldor]

End of Story. Fin. We got closure.

[mistermack]

End of Story. Fin. We got closure.

The bullshit chicken then? The Mad Bullshitter? Actually, that's not bad.
But you are chicken, so I suppose the bullshit chicken it will have to be.
.

[Ilovelucy]

Mistermack, your dismissal seems to miss two things

1. That the article refers to documented kills of leopards by baboons across Africa. You know, the bit I quoted.

2. I wasn't being hypocritical, it wasn't a theory of my own it was something I referred to and provided a link to! It's the bit underneath that says "link". Crafty, I know.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Mistermack, your dismissal seems to miss two things

1. That the article refers to documented kills of leopards by baboons across Africa. You know, the bit I quoted.

2. I wasn't being hypocritical, it wasn't a theory of my own it was something I referred to and provided a link to! It's the bit underneath that says "link". Crafty, I know.

Chimps routinely hunt monkeys.

[mistermack]

That the article refers to documented kills of leopards by baboons across Africa. You know, the bit I quoted.

I'm well impressed. An unnamed writer in a SAFARI webpage refers to RECORDED (not documented) incidents, without any details. I'm tempted to class that as sheer hot air, but if you can give more details, I might well be prepared to upgrade it to gossip status.

I wasn't being hypocritical, it wasn't a theory of my own it was something I referred to and provided a link to! It's the bit underneath that says "link". Crafty, I know.

That link was unreadable. I don't blame you for disowning it though.
Maybe it's out there in more readable form. Do I search for the "throwing stones at predators" hypothesis?
I notice that africans abandoned this devastating technique, in favour of spears. As did the rest of the world. Or maybe it never happened.
.

[Ilovelucy]

That the article refers to documented kills of leopards by baboons across Africa. You know, the bit I quoted.

I'm well impressed. An unnamed writer in a SAFARI webpage refers to RECORDED (not documented) incidents, without any details. I'm tempted to class that as sheer hot air, but if you can give more details, I might well be prepared to upgrade it to gossip status.

So one moment it proves your point, the next it's obviously rubbish because it contradicts you? Incidentally, did you read the part where the observer pointed out that the leopard had to play dead for hours otherwise it would have been killed?

I wasn't being hypocritical, it wasn't a theory of my own it was something I referred to and provided a link to! It's the bit underneath that says "link". Crafty, I know.

That link was unreadable. I don't blame you for disowning it though.
Maybe it's out there in more readable form. Do I search for the "throwing stones at predators" hypothesis?
I notice that africans abandoned this devastated technique, in favour of spears. As did the rest of the world. Or maybe it never happened.
.

Unreadable? Because the page didn't show or because you were unable to read it?

How about posting something that justifies the hypothesis that you tipped off Chris Stringer about? How long should I wait before he mentions it in an article or lecture? I mean, this amazing announcement should be imminent right?