Throwing pebbles at grizzly bears just makes them want to maul your more.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Were Neanderthals Unable To Throw Their Spears During Hunting?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
No grizzly bears in the African Congo basin though. Remember that modern day chimpanzees have over 3 times the strength of the world's strongest man! Our ancestors could have become proficient at acquiring their throwing arm by bombarding potential predators with a contant hail of large rocks. Their aim would have become more and more accurate with time. Their cooperation and communication skills would have aided their defensive dominance. Even a troop of baboons is a formidable adversary to a group of lions, for example, which don't have the advantage of defensive stand-off projectile weapons.Throwing pebbles at grizzly bears just makes them want to maul your more.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Huh? We've got mountains of fossils and we've got so much DNA that our computers are working overtime on it. Two rich sources of evidence from two independent fields of research, which corroborate each other. Just exactly how much evidence do you want? Skeptical is fine, iconoclastic is fine, devil's advocate is fine, that's all good science. But you routinely cross the line into just plain ornery and that's not science.And all that is just pure speculation based on a few old bones! . . . .It's much like the theory of evolution itself ...say something, repeat something often enough and more and more people come to believe that it's all true and factual. ...when it's all just pure speculation!
If you've found substantive flaws in the evidence for evolution, why aren't you up there at the top of the Biology directory in the Evolution Denialism debate, imparting to it some of your legendary respectability?
.... Skeptical is fine, iconoclastic is fine, devil's advocate is fine, that's all good science. But you routinely cross the line into just plain ornery and that's not science. ....
Yeah, perhaps. And perhaps you and others continually repeat things that neither you nor anyone else knows for sure, and you present it in a factual format so as to lead the reader into believing that it's facts ......when it ain't!
Is repeating the speculations of others good science, Fraggle?
In fact, I'm not even so sure that most scientists are as totally convinced as some of y'all appear to be. I've read numerous articles in Nat'l Geo magazine with internationally known scientist expressing some concerns or questions about some of the evo speculations. Yet, y'all seem so convinced that you'd likely hang me in the public square for being a heretic! Personally, I don't think that's good science, Fraggle.
Baron Max
If they're reasoned and reasonable. It's better than repeating the disproven or nonsensical objections of oneself.baron said:Is repeating the speculations of others good science
I've got ten bucks says you missed the point, or it had nothing to do with "the theory of evolution".baron said:I've read numerous articles in Nat'l Geo magazine with internationally known scientist expressing some concerns or questions about some of the evo speculations.