Talk:Raymond Dart: Difference between revisions
Xenobot Mk V (talk | contribs) m Bot) Assessing for WP:BIOGRAPHY - Inherit class from other projects (report errors?) (Plugin++) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
the things he had found was related to human |
the things he had found was related to human |
||
== Headline text |
== Headline text |
||
Byff: is the author of the article (or the section on criticisms) around to defend the assertion that Dart's argument that gazelle long bones were weapons has been "dismissed"? This is an assertion I sometimes hear from opponents of the Hunting Hypothesis, but as more findings mount, it's an increasingly untenable position. Just this year a discovery was announced that cuts on various prey animal bones had to have been made by bone tools, a finding which gains additional gravitas from the fact that some soft tissues (such as the tongue) were cut away from inside the jaw in a manner inconsistent with predation by other African predators. As Ardrey expounds, it does indeed appear to be instinctive for Man to grasp and wield weapons. Our own everyday experience supports this somewhat, in the observation that most boys will reflexively pick up and carry sticks with them while walking outdoors. Dart's assertion stems from the marked reduction in fighting-canine size in the australopithecines. A loss in native attack / defense capability must have been balanced by some other factor, including behavior, else the lineage wouldn't have been likely to survive very long at all. |
|||
I'm starting to think that the anti-Hunting Hypothesis opposition is political rather than scientific. Can someone please provide a cite to support that argument, or can we consider editing that section to provide some details of the controversy? |
|||
Revision as of 19:56, 29 December 2010
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Biography Start‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Australia Start‑class   | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
When I first saw the reference in the article ("(Source: Lucy)") I assumed this was a book or website or something similarly "authoritative." I can't find anything like this, so maybe someone can clarify what this source is and maybe even (!) format it into the article in the usual way... My Thanks to You in advance... Ben (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
In Lucy they state how Taung was discovered, which didn't match exactly how this article had it. So I corrected it to match the summary given in Lucy. Wjhonson 23:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC) lucy, was a very important discover for world.
the things he had found was related to human == Headline text
Byff: is the author of the article (or the section on criticisms) around to defend the assertion that Dart's argument that gazelle long bones were weapons has been "dismissed"? This is an assertion I sometimes hear from opponents of the Hunting Hypothesis, but as more findings mount, it's an increasingly untenable position. Just this year a discovery was announced that cuts on various prey animal bones had to have been made by bone tools, a finding which gains additional gravitas from the fact that some soft tissues (such as the tongue) were cut away from inside the jaw in a manner inconsistent with predation by other African predators. As Ardrey expounds, it does indeed appear to be instinctive for Man to grasp and wield weapons. Our own everyday experience supports this somewhat, in the observation that most boys will reflexively pick up and carry sticks with them while walking outdoors. Dart's assertion stems from the marked reduction in fighting-canine size in the australopithecines. A loss in native attack / defense capability must have been balanced by some other factor, including behavior, else the lineage wouldn't have been likely to survive very long at all.
I'm starting to think that the anti-Hunting Hypothesis opposition is political rather than scientific. Can someone please provide a cite to support that argument, or can we consider editing that section to provide some details of the controversy?