Guest BFSleuth Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 The question of how we came to become the dominant species within the genus is an important one. I think it must have happened because of fundamental changes in our technology and organizing ourselves into larger and larger group behavior such as warfare. The change from hunter/gatherer to herder and agriculture, the development of large villages then cities and fortresses, and the change from simple stone age weapons and loosely organized combat to the use of metals and creation of armies that trained for warfare all contributed to our ability to dominate our territory and take more and more territory. I'm sure that for most of the history of interaction between the species of the genus homo that homo sapiens sapiens must have been at a disadvantage and we were dominated to the point that we would avoid forests and mountains and likely flee whenever they came visiting. We are smaller, slower, and weaker than some of the large wild men (BF). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I've read the book and have a little experience with the subject having run 4 marathons and done 2 iron distance triathlons, the books complete malarkley IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 You talking about the Upright Ape Cervelo? Might be, why do you think it's bull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I don't even remember the name of the book. We are sprinters, as most if not all animals on the planet, the theroy/hypothesis/wild guess or whatever you call it has been panned by most training guides and running/triathlon mags I've read, we humans have to be very specifically trained to go long distance and are actually very inefficient runners, very good walkers though! There's very little evidence if any with the exception of some of the runners out of Kenya that long distance running is something we've ever been good at IMO. Working together in short burst sure, but running down deer, antelope on the open plains laughable even as I type it. Seen any reports of it in the past 300 or so years from the native cultures in Africa, if it was so successful and widespread one would kinda think it would have survived as a hunting technique, oh I'm sorry I was using logic we don't like that kinda talk around here.. thats all I got for tonite....nite nite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Cervelo, check this in the morning.. http://phys.org/news/2011-02-early-humans-won-neandertals.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 SY, As always where you see support for what I don't know... most likley just the opposite of whatever I say LOL I see probablys, and maybes all conjecture and "educated" guessing. Still think its malarkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I think the running theory may have some value. If you run and walk every day as your way of life and way of hunting it would become second nature (or first nature). If you google "persistence hunting" there is a lot of information about it. I have a friend I used to climb with that was also a hunter and a competitive cross country skier. The word was that he tried a persistence hunt with an elk, and ran it down to the point of exhaustion and killed it with a knife. He didn't like to talk about it and I never broached the topic with him. Big animals overheat. That is the reason persistence hunting works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 SY, As always where you see support for what I don't know... most likley just the opposite of whatever I say LOL I see probablys, and maybes all conjecture and "educated" guessing. Still think its malarkey It's one of thos things you learn around here, there are few opinions that are on super solid ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 What's that saying opinions are like.....we all got one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Salubrious. It's a little unfair in my view to hold scientists in lower regard because of a mistake over the existence of a falcon. Ornithologists (plus zoologists and other biologists) rely on a combination of field studies and reports from the public and from bird-watchers, wardens, guides, etc. This isn't a perfect system, as you can imagine. Did you ever report the existence of these birds? No? Well, don't you think you ought to have done, particularly if you were going to base your view of all scientists for the next 30 or 40 years on this? Did you ring up a university, or an ornithology club when you heard that the bird had been declared extinct in the area? The reason that scientists didn't see them wasn't because they didn't understand about soaring in rising air. That is assigning your thoughts to their actions without evidence. It is much more likely it was because they either didn't know about the existence of this particular piece of regular rising air, or because when they visited there were no peregrines visible. I am the proud holder for the most northerly ever sighting of the African Black-footed Cat, some 400 miles out of its previously known range (in the northern Kafue National park, Zambia). All the books showed the species to exist south and west of the Zambezi river. I had a clear unambiguous sighting from a distance of 5 yards for at least 5 minutes, and am very familiar with the alternative possibilities, such as a juvenile African Wildcat. It was a 100% certain sighting. No "slab kitty" = no evidence/proof. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Does that mean I hold the scientists who defined the range in contempt for having got it wrong? Being wrong is one thing, but if this had TRULY been a parallel situation, they would have dismissed you out of hand, claiming you were either wrong, seeing things or hoaxing. If you had proffered a photo, it would have been dismissed as at best inconclusive. If you had proffered physical trace evidence (a cast track, etc) it would have been dismissed as being some form of other animal track that was "distorted" or you would have been accused of hoaxing them.... SY, As always where you see support for what I don't know... most likley just the opposite of whatever I say LOL I see probablys, and maybes all conjecture and "educated" guessing. Still think its malarkey In other words: "Don't bother showing me evidence. I've made up my mind and I'm always 100% right so evidence doesn't matter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 "No "slab kitty" = no evidence/proof. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?" Well, yes if we were talking about a new-to-science species. But we weren't. So, no in this instance because we are talking about an animal which is in some of the better field-guide books, and because I took pretty reasonable field notes, including a good description, lat & long co-ordinates, a description of the surrounding countryside, had two other witnesses with me, and returned to the spot in the morning to photograph spoor (footprints) and the environs. It is an entirely different standard required when recognising a species new to science, and simply reporting the sighting of a known species. Someone, somewhere, has a "slab kitty" Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) Not long distance running, long distance travelling was the key. Ability to follow the game, ability to now carry weapons. (Don't forget eyes designed for range finding in the front of the face, good for throwing rocks and things) Want to see why humans dominate the planet? Check out this video, not for the faint of heart. Edited April 23, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) Mulder, I'm happy that you and others believe what you read on the Internet is your version of "evidence" and as always I will not play the google Olympics with you or anyone else it's a waste of my time! But perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject further I've already done my research and obviously reached my conclusion! Sorry that bothers you so much, but thats your problem not mine. I've clearly stated my reasons why and do have some real world experience with the subject. Heck take away fire and spears and one could make a pretty good case for we were tree dwellers for sometime, maybe even canablistic tree dwellers, no way we could have survived on the ground who knows, as always nothing can be proven. How about aqua-ape that's another great one LOL!! But hey as long as your happy your version of the facts I'm happy for you Edited April 23, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Actually we *did* report the presence of the Peregrin several times, once when someone gave a presentation from the Raptor Center (rehabilitation program for injured birds, at that time at the University of Minnesota) gave a presentation to our club and we also reported it to the DNR in both Minnesota and Wisconsin (our flying sites were on the boarders of both states). We were categorically ignored . . . It sounds to me like you're misunderstanding the DNRs' language, salubrious. First, even at their lowest population point (probably in the '70s), Peregrine Falcons most likely were still migrating through Minnesota, Wisconsin, and everywhere else in their former range. They kept right on migrating along the Atlantic Flyway, for example, even though the breeding population had been drastically reduced along the Coast. There'd be no reason to doubt that someone saw a Peregrine Falcon, and your observations likely didn't add to what was already known. So I assume that statements from the DNR that Peregrines were extirpated from WI and MN refer to the breeding population. Can you clarify that? If you reported Peregrines but had no details that could be used to determine that the birds were breeding, then there's really nothing DNR could do with your information. You can be sure that the "state ornithologist" at the very least understands that raptors make use of updrafts as that's about as elementary a concept to us as "beavers use ponds." Once Peregrines reclaimed portions of their former breeding range through the '80s and '90s, it took them a while to get to actual historical nesting sites. Across most of the range in temperate eastern North America, breeding Peregrines were recovered through hacking programs in cities. It's only recently that the birds have returned to some historical breeding locations on cliffs, for example in the gorges near Ithaca, NY. It's also possible that you reported your observations to the wrong person, even though you reported to somebody in the right agency. Birds don't just cavalierly get placed on one list or another. We have technical committees that assess monitoring data usually quarterly. So the paper trail is long before a species is given a new status, e.g., "threatened" versus "special concern." Agencies receive reports like yours all the time, but if the report is in the form of "some guy at a meeting told me that he saw a Peregrine" then there's not much to go on. For something really rare or unusual, an anecdotal report like that isn't going to get anyone excited unless it's submitted to the state bird records committee and it passes muster there. So another scenario might be that you reported your observation, whomever heard it thought "Cool, I hope we can get some confirmation that there are really Peregrines up there," the confirmation ultimately was provided, and then it still took years before that information could be incorporated into official statements from the DNR. This may come as a surprise, seeing as how you're such an expert tracker and all, but state agencies don't have rapid response teams waiting around for you to report all the things you see that they don't have the skills to find on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) "No "slab kitty" = no evidence/proof. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?" Well, yes if we were talking about a new-to-science species. But we weren't. So, no in this instance because we are talking about an animal which is in some of the better field-guide books, and because I took pretty reasonable field notes, including a good description, lat & long co-ordinates, a description of the surrounding countryside, had two other witnesses with me, and returned to the spot in the morning to photograph spoor (footprints) and the environs. It is an entirely different standard required when recognising a species new to science, and simply reporting the sighting of a known species. Someone, somewhere, has a "slab kitty" Mike So, in other words, an evidentiary double standard. One for "known", one for "unknown". Edited April 23, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts