Correct. We just don’t know for sure. Which makes definitive statements like this one ridiculous…
You have no more idea than the rest of us. There’s no proof that there were ever giant humans, no. There’s speculation, because we don’t fully know the history of our own world, and evidence hasn’t proven any of that speculation right or wrong. As far as Russell’s teapot, you’re using that analogy wrong. I’m not demanding that you acknowledge that belief is right despite the lack of evidence. I’m just telling you that a lack of evidence does not prove or disprove something. Russell, on the other hand, was commenting on religion and the tendency among people of faith to insist that others believe as well, despite the lack of evidence.
I think it’s quite apt, since the burden is on you making the unfalsifiable claim.
The whole “well you weren’t there for the entire 500K years so you can’t say it didn’t happen”.
Nothing in the fossil record supports this. Further it’s a big evolutionary risk to be huge. Human physiology doesn’t even work well on particularly large people. Prone to all sorts of health problems. It’s pure conjecture and it’s so unlikely I feel comfortable saying it never happened. Then the jump to aliens I mean…c’mon.
The carnivorous teapot was clearly an ambush predator, scalding it’s prey. And 100% cold blooded. The clay is an exoskeleton around some sort of squishy innards.
Again, I’m not claiming anything, unfalsifiable or not. I’m telling you that I’ve seen no evidence, from you or anyone else, that proves anything about our history hundreds of thousands of years ago. The lack of evidence is not evidence. You’re definitively stating that something does not and never did exist. Science doesn’t support you in that - science recognizes that nothing can be definitively proven or disproven.
For some reason I’m getting deja vu. @shag, didn’t you have this argument with @vernal for like two weeks over apogamy, where he insisted you were claiming it was true just for bringing it up and thinking about it? I seem to recall I even got dragged into it, again, for simply trying to say that there’s no evidence one way or the other.
Anyway, I’m not responding to this any more. I think I’ve made myself perfectly clear, regardless of whether you want to continue to argue and put words into my mouth.
For real though, I saw the actual Lucy skeleton at the natural history museum in Houston and the most interesting thing about it was a lack of evolutionary adaptation to bipedalism. Where the spine met the pelvis was obviously chipped and damaged and must have been very painful.
I think that is how it went down.
My only point on that topic was to keep an open mind that it could very well be possible.
It does seem like a bit of deja vu here.
it shows that an animal that is large exists in the fossil record with about six pieces of fossil. do you suppose that there are six pieces of fossil of a human giant waiting to be discovered? that shows that it is possible, even though we don’t have proof. that is all, carry on.
No, I don’t. Every hominid fossil we find is small. As mentioned before, it doesn’t evolutionarily benefit us to be overly large. Too costly calorie wise. Doesn’t work well with our bipedal physiology.
i beg to differ, as these were from a specimen almost 10 ft tall, and as pointed out above this they are hominids, and the article says it leads some to speculate that we had giant ancestors because of this find. but of course you know more than they do. enjoy the day,
