1 posted on
01/02/2006 11:59:42 AM PST by
blam
To: SunkenCiv
2 posted on
01/02/2006 12:00:18 PM PST by
blam
To: blam
" . . . in contrast to previous opinions . . ."Of course!
3 posted on
01/02/2006 12:03:34 PM PST by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: blam
What happens when there is only enough work for 5,000 PhDs and you have 25,000 PhDs...
4 posted on
01/02/2006 12:03:57 PM PST by
pabianice
To: blam
Good information. Thanks ===> Placemarker <===
5 posted on
01/02/2006 12:06:07 PM PST by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: blam
Unlike most animals, which either sit and wait to ambush prey or use stealth and pursuit techniques, human hunters use a wealth of information to make context-specific decisions, both during the search phase of hunting and after prey is encountered. Specifically, information on ecology, seasonality, current weather, expected animal behaviour and fresh animal signs are all integrated to form multivariate mental modules of encounter probabilities that guide the search and are continually updated as conditions change. Either this means that, as a hunter, I'm a very evolved individual, or I'm a Neanderthal; I'm not sure which.
6 posted on
01/02/2006 12:11:10 PM PST by
Redcloak
("If you can't say something nice about someone, then you must be talking about Hillary Clinton.")
To: blam
Do you think they really know all this stuff?
To: blam
How did liberals and vegetarians survive?
To: blam
Neanderthal hunting methods involved hand to hoof combat, and injuries were common. They would wrestle the beast to the ground and beat it with clubs and rocks after running it down or ambushing it. They would summon the women to drag the carcass home and cook it, and then sit around and evaluate their performance such as why so and so was gored, bitten or trampled and how to avoid that next time. The women would also sit around while the beast was cooking and evaluate the performance of the hunters, not necessarily hunting related. There was much joking, some of it not so good-natured, which was the origin of the dramatic form that eventually became formalized as the comedy.
9 posted on
01/02/2006 12:23:10 PM PST by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
To: blam
Ye gods, the prose! The prose! Would it not be a good thing to ritually slaughter one or two of the worst-writing academics each year?
11 posted on
01/02/2006 1:13:46 PM PST by
Grut
To: blam
13 posted on
01/02/2006 1:30:48 PM PST by
siunevada
(If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
To: blam
So, in a nutshell, 'primitive' folks just weren't as primitive as they thought...D'oh!
Heck, I'd even go so far as to speculate that as time progressed, Neanderthals developed intellectuals who spent so much time 'talking' about hunting and so little time doing it that they starved...
16 posted on
01/02/2006 1:54:45 PM PST by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
To: blam
20 years ago it was thought that the Neanderthal was incapable of vocalization, due to the shape of its bones in the neck and throat area.
I understand that this thinking has changed somewhat.
Do you know where we stand on the question of Neanderthal speech?
To: blam; FairOpinion; Ernest_at_the_Beach; StayAt HomeMother; 24Karet; 3AngelaD; asp1; ...
20 posted on
01/02/2006 8:30:09 PM PST by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/pledge)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson