Question For Lee Olsen
Claudius Denk
What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved bipedality?
Lee Olsen
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
Claudius Denk
> What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved
> bipedality?
Real scientists have no need for propaganda tactics.
Admit it Lee. You don't have an answer to this question. This does not
make you a bad person. It doesn't make a a stupid person. But it does show
that you have propagandistic goals that are inconsistent with an open and
intellectually honest approach to the science. Like all the losers you
quote so often (Caldararo, Barnes, Solomon) you wish to conceal the
weaknesses of your thinking. Because you are not concerned with finding
truth. Instead you are mostly concerned with preserving the illusion that
you already know the truth.
You are not fooling anybody worth fooling.
Lee Olsen
wrote:
> Real scientists have no need for propaganda tactics.
Tell us again about tactics in Podunk....
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved
> bipedality?
Real scientists have no need for propaganda tactics.
Admit it Lee. You don't have an answer to this question. This does
Lee Olsen
>
> Real scientists have no need for propaganda tactics.
You are not fooling anybody worth fooling.
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Don"t look now, but you've become Marc.
Lee Olsen
Subject: Jim "the snake oil salesman" McGinn, Should have been born in
1850.
Message-ID: <pv7e0t8dkffug8qjp...@4ax.com>
McGinn: "By perfectly sound do you mean that it is a comprehensive
description? If
you do then I would suggest you are allowing the evidence to lead you
by the
nose."
Deitiker: "'lead you by the nose' is phraseology meant to
ridicule the methodology of science. It is
designed to implement the ego of man in as much
saying in as man is not in control of science. But
the error of the statement is that scientist data
leads them to 'plan' more experiments, which then
lead them further. The true scientist comes into
play when he actually plans the experiment
therefore obtaining the data. Both Max Plank and
Albert Einstein planned experiments and obtained
data from these experiments. Jim McGinn has never
published the results of an experiment in his
life, thus he is therefore ridiculing something he
knows little about."
McGinn: "That's right. And I'm saying we should follow these rules."
Deitiker: "This is another form of propaganda in as much it
is made with some sort of confidence that Jim
understands the rules of science, 'that we should
follow his rules'. This is classic McGinn, Jim was
using the same retort 2 years ago when he was
making it clear, he never seriously studied
biology, ecology of evolution, and on numerous
occasion was found to lack any relevant insight on
either of these. Notice how the answer 'these'
circumvents the problem of Jim actually addressing
the issues about the way he follows:
a). Inability to answer specific question
b). Disrespect for the peer review and publication
process.
c). Claim made to many 'trained' here that being
trained somehow irreversible corrupted so that
they could not understand his theory.
d). That arrogance is somehow a part of good
science.
These are what Jimmy acts upon as the rules of
science, and are probably apart of his mental
equation for strict rules.
I would actually be surprised if Jim actually read
a primary source of information prior to 1998,
given his complete lack of familiarity with how
papers are laid out and why."
Claudius Denk
"Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c259a22-2c6f-4ae9...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Flash back to Date: 2000/11/06
> Subject: Jim "the snake oil salesman" McGinn, Should have been born in
> 1850.
> Message-ID: <pv7e0t8dkffug8qjp...@4ax.com>
>
> McGinn: "By perfectly sound do you mean that it is a comprehensive
> description? If
> you do then I would suggest you are allowing the evidence to lead you
> by the
> nose."
>
> Deitiker: "'lead you by the nose' is phraseology meant to
> ridicule the methodology of science.
Uh, no. Not quite. It's meant to ridicule your (Deiteker's) dimwitted
interpretation of the evidence.
> It is
> designed to implement the ego of man in as much
> saying in as man is not in control of science. But
> the error of the statement is that scientist data
> leads them to 'plan' more experiments, which then
> lead them further. The true scientist comes into
> play when he actually plans the experiment
> therefore obtaining the data. Both Max Plank and
> Albert Einstein planned experiments and obtained
> data from these experiments. Jim McGinn has never
> published the results of an experiment in his
> life, thus he is therefore ridiculing something he
> knows little about."
He seems rather eager to dismiss me doesn't he? Poor guy. He seems
desperate.
> McGinn: "That's right. And I'm saying we should follow these rules."
>
> Deitiker: "This is another form of propaganda in as much it
> is made with some sort of confidence that Jim
> understands the rules of science, 'that we should
> follow his rules'. This is classic McGinn, Jim was
> using the same retort 2 years ago when he was
> making it clear, he never seriously studied
> biology, ecology of evolution,
That's not true. I have lain claim to the world's greatest evolutionary
theorist.
> and on numerous occasion was found to
> lack any relevant insight on
> either of these.
On numerous occasions I kicked this Texan bozo's ass.
> Notice how the answer 'these'
> circumvents the problem of Jim actually addressing
> the issues about the way he follows:
> a). Inability to answer specific question
Example?
> b). Disrespect for the peer review and publication
> process.
Example?
> c). Claim made to many 'trained' here that being
> trained somehow irreversible corrupted so that
> they could not understand his theory.
Yes. And I standby this statement.
> d). That arrogance is somehow a part of good
> science.
This is only true in Texas.
> These are what Jimmy acts upon as the rules of
> science, and are probably apart of his mental
> equation for strict rules.
This sounds embarassingly desperate. You know, I don't know if it's fair to
ol' Phil Deiteker to go dragging his words through the mud again.
> I would actually be surprised if Jim actually read
> a primary source of information prior to 1998,
> given his complete lack of familiarity with how
> papers are laid out and why."
I wish I could remember the context of this discussion.
Nevertheless thanks for the blast from the past.
Are you not, Lee, concerned that your audience might wonder why you did not
include (and/or reference) the context of these remarks?
Lee Olsen
wrote:
>
> Are you not, Jim, concerned that your audience might wonder why you did not
> include (and/or reference) the context of these remarks?
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
Makouli
news:d30d6bae-afa2-436c...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Don"t look now, but you've become Marc.
And what have you become, dipstick? Oh
wait, you haven't changed at all, have you...
============================
"Do you have any intelligent comments to add to
the discussion or are you just going to continue
pissing all over yourself as usual?"
--Dimmy, 12/02/2005
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Don't let anybody tell you you're not special, Mikey.
Claudius Denk
Makouli
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
====================
"Read what I wrote above and see if you
can reformulate your thinking such that it
addresses content." --Dimmy, 12/09/2005
Makouli
news:c1b6d38e-6405-4b5a...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
>
> Don't let anybody tell you you're not special, Mikey.
Dimmy says:
=============================
Humor
Claudius Denk wrote:
> What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved bipedality?
Apith didnt evolve anything. It was already evolved!
rmacfarl
wrote:
> What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved
> bipedality?
You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these that you
have erected your straw man?
- The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
- The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
- The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
See: http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
Now, your [cough] competing hypothesis... Could you briefly describe
it? Or perhaps refer us to an abstract in a published journal?
Hmm?
Ross Macfarlane
Paul Crowley
news:1e18ee3f-2c68-4d73...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved
>> bipedality?
>
> You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these that you
> have erected your straw man?
>
> - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> See: http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
It reminds me of Chemistry when it was
based on the four elements: earth, air,
fire and water.
The 'science' of PA has not progressed
beyond infant-school level. It is no more
than a collection of vague superstitions.
> - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
Not one of these 'theories' acknowledges
the problem of predation. WHY and HOW
did this taxon abandon its fast form of
locomotion, in order to adopt a very much
SLOWER one, in the presence of large
predators?
All of these 'theories' work on the
assumption that the entire taxon consisted
of adult males. None recognise that it
is impossible to carry infants while
walking (let alone running) in a bipedal
manner.
Each of these 'theories' represents a
huge step backwards from Darwin, and
his generation, who recognised that
tool and weapon usage was integral to
hominid existence.
Paul
Makouli
news:wAHij.24125$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
> "rmacfarl" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1e18ee3f-2c68-4d73...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved
>>> bipedality?
>>
>> You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these that you
>> have erected your straw man?
>>
>> - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
>> - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
>> - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>>
>> See: http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
>
> It reminds me of Chemistry when it was
> based on the four elements: earth, air,
> fire and water.
>
> The 'science' of PA has not progressed
> beyond infant-school level. It is no more
> than a collection of vague superstitions.
You know, Pauly, when you say stuff like this,
you're not hurting anyones' feelings or making
any substantive accusations or making even
the tiniest ripple in the greater scheme of things.
You're just standing up and proclaiming to the
world that you haven't got the slightest idea
what you're talking about. I suspect you know
this and continue to do it because you're into
some curious form of self-degradation.
>> - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
>> - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
>> - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> Not one of these 'theories' acknowledges
> the problem of predation. WHY and HOW
> did this taxon abandon its fast form of
> locomotion, in order to adopt a very much
> SLOWER one, in the presence of large
> predators?
If you had been reading the literature in
the last 20 years, you'd know that your
extremely outdated caricature is just that.
Go dig up some dead person to puzzle
over your carefully constructed straw
questions. Take Marco with you.
> All of these 'theories' work on the
> assumption that the entire taxon consisted
> of adult males. None recognise that it
> is impossible to carry infants while
> walking (let alone running) in a bipedal
> manner.
Again your "adult males" quip. And again,
what you're saying is that you're an idiot.
The readers of this group already knew that.
> Each of these 'theories' represents a
> huge step backwards from Darwin, and
> his generation, who recognised that
> tool and weapon usage was integral to
> hominid existence.
What would you know about it? You've
already admitted that you wouldn't use the
published literature for toilet paper. Does that
extend to other sciences as well? Do you
learn about astronomy by reading your
horoscope in the newspaper?
> Paul
"Ad hominin [sic] abuse is not an interesting
alternative -- although it's probably all you
can manage." --Paul Crowley.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved
> > bipedality?
>
> You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these that you
> have erected your straw man?
>
> - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
These are titles, you mental retard. Where's the hypothesis? Where
are the details? You need to present details.
> See:http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
>
> Now, your [cough] competing hypothesis... Could you briefly describe
> it?
You've already shown you cannot dispute it. Right?
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:1e18ee3f-2c68-4d73...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved
> >> bipedality?
>
> > You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these that you
> > have erected your straw man?
>
> > - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> > - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> > - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> > See:http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
>
> It reminds me of Chemistry when it was
> based on the four elements: earth, air,
> fire and water.
>
> The 'science' of PA has not progressed
> beyond infant-school level. It is no more
> than a collection of vague superstitions.
So true. Their only goal, it seems, is to conceal the fact that they
really have no answers to questions. There's nothing they really want
to discuss involving A'piths. They just wish they would all go away
so they can go back to their absurd notions of HE being some kind of
heroic hunter/gatherer.
Hominids are the most communal and territorial species that has ever
existed and these dimwits only wish to envision them as free spirits
wandering endlessly.
> > - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> > - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> > - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> Not one of these 'theories' acknowledges
> the problem of predation. WHY and HOW
> did this taxon abandon its fast form of
> locomotion, in order to adopt a very much
> SLOWER one, in the presence of large
> predators?
Well stated.
> All of these 'theories' work on the
> assumption that the entire taxon consisted
> of adult males. None recognise that it
> is impossible to carry infants while
> walking (let alone running) in a bipedal
> manner.
Uh . . er.
> Each of these 'theories' represents a
> huge step backwards from Darwin, and
> his generation, who recognised that
> tool and weapon usage was integral to
> hominid existence.
Vague. And Darwin admitted he was stumped. Not like these phonies.
Makouli
news:40d31a29-bbe4-4148...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 14, 12:20 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved
>> > bipedality?
>>
>> You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these that you
>> have erected your straw man?
>>
>> - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
>> - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
>> - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
> These are titles, you mental retard. Where's the hypothesis? Where
> are the details? You need to present details.
Here's Dimmy's "hypothesis":
http://tinyurl.com/8fomk
And thank you very much for the irony-laden .sig:
" Where's the hypothesis?
Where are the details?"
Dimmy --01/14/08
>> See:http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
>>
>> Now, your [cough] competing hypothesis... Could you briefly describe
>> it?
> You've already shown you cannot dispute it. Right?
Dream on, mouth-breather.
>> Or perhaps refer us to an abstract in a published journal?
>> Hmm?
No published papers, Dimmy? Is that stunned silence
or just your usual dodge?
=================================
"To achieve scientific progress intellectual
honesty cannot be considered optional."
Dimmy --12/30/2002
Lee Olsen
> On Jan 14, 12:20 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved
> > > bipedality?
>
> > You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these that you
> > have erected your straw man?
>
> > - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> > - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> > - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> These are titles, you mental retard. Where's the hypothesis? Where
> are the details? You need to present details.
The details are at the library, someplace you have never been as
demonstrated by your illiterate comments past:
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21...@thegrid.net>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo: " It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you
to continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data."
Dan Barnes: "..a number of people have suggested that the best thing
you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and come back
again."
Greg Laden: "Read the stuff. If you have a vague memory
of it, that is not good enough." "Hit the books, kid!"
Su Solomon: "I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four
hundred words of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time,
then if is not evident in this latest of postings."
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
>
> news:wAHij.24125$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:1e18ee3f-2c68-4d73...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith evolved
> >>> bipedality?
>
> >> You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these that you
> >> have erected your straw man?
>
> >> - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> >> - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> >> - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> >> See:http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
>
> > It reminds me of Chemistry when it was
> > based on the four elements: earth, air,
> > fire and water.
>
> > The 'science' of PA has not progressed
> > beyond infant-school level. It is no more
> > than a collection of vague superstitions.
>
> You know, Pauly, when you say stuff like this,
> you're not hurting anyones' feelings or making
> any substantive accusations or making even
> the tiniest ripple in the greater scheme of things.
> You're just standing up and proclaiming to the
> world that you haven't got the slightest idea
> what you're talking about.
The fact that Paul also is avoiding my challenge doesn't mean that you
are off the hook.
Put up or shut up you bed-wetting twerp. Come on, Mikey, why can't
you tell us what your hypothesis, if any, is on the early years of
hominid (Apith) evolution. Or, at least, be honest about the fact
that you can't answer the question.
> I suspect you know
> this and continue to do it because you're into
> some curious form of self-degradation.
>
> >> - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> >> - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> >> - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> > Not one of these 'theories' acknowledges
> > the problem of predation. WHY and HOW
> > did this taxon abandon its fast form of
> > locomotion, in order to adopt a very much
> > SLOWER one, in the presence of large
> > predators?
>
> If you had been reading the literature in
> the last 20 years,
Specifically?
> can manage." --Paul Crowley.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lee Olsen
> The fact that Paul also is avoiding my challenge doesn't mean that you
> are off the hook.
You are citing Paul? Why don't you cite from the published literature?
>
> Put up or shut up you bed-wetting twerp.
Says the bed-wetting twerp:
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
> Come on, Mikey, why can't
> you tell us what your hypothesis, if any, is on the early years of
> hominid (Apith) evolution. Or, at least, be honest about the fact
> that you can't answer the question.
For someone who has the nerve to call his dirty diaper a hypothesis,
you are in no position to be demanding anything from anybody.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Jan 14, 7:45 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > The fact that Paul also is avoiding my challenge doesn't mean that you
> > are off the hook.
>
> You are citing Paul?
Uh, what?
> Why don't you cite from the published literature?
I regards to what? You're not disputing my hypothesis you idiot.
>
>
>
> > Put up or shut up you bed-wetting twerp.
>
> Says the bed-wetting twerp:
>
> 1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
> 2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
> 3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
> 4 Climate change is not happening presently.
> 5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
> of thousand if not millions of years.
> 6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
> 7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
> 8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
> arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
> mya?
>
> > Come on, Mikey, why can't
> > you tell us what your hypothesis, if any, is on the early years of
> > hominid (Apith) evolution. Or, at least, be honest about the fact
> > that you can't answer the question.
>
> For someone who has the nerve to call his dirty diaper a hypothesis,
> you are in no position to be demanding anything from anybody.
Why are you so defensive, Lee? It's as if you are trying to hide
something. Why don't you just admit that you are stumped. Honesty is
always the best policy.
Admit it, Lee, you have no hypothesis of how and why Apith went
bipedal. And this reveals a big inconsistency in your position.
Lee, you're not a scientist. You're a propagandist.
Lee Olsen
> On Jan 14, 8:00 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 7:45 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > > The fact that Paul also is avoiding my challenge doesn't mean that you
> > > are off the hook.
>
> > You are citing Paul?
>
> Uh, what?
>
> > Why don't you cite from the published literature?
>
> I regards to what? You're not disputing my hypothesis you idiot.
You haven't got a hypothesis you brainless idiot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Put up or shut up you bed-wetting twerp.
>
> > Says the bed-wetting twerp:
>
> > 1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
> > 2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
> > 3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
> > 4 Climate change is not happening presently.
> > 5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
> > of thousand if not millions of years.
> > 6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
> > 7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
> > 8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
> > arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
> > mya?
>
> > > Come on, Mikey, why can't
> > > you tell us what your hypothesis, if any, is on the early years of
> > > hominid (Apith) evolution. Or, at least, be honest about the fact
> > > that you can't answer the question.
>
> > For someone who has the nerve to call his dirty diaper a hypothesis,
> > you are in no position to be demanding anything from anybody.
>
> Why are you so defensive, Lee? It's as if you are trying to hide
> something. Why don't you just admit that you are stumped. Honesty is
> always the best policy.
Says the dishonest troll who claims:
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
>
> Admit it, Lee, you have no hypothesis of how and why Apith went
> bipedal. And this reveals a big inconsistency in your position.
>
You're so ignorant you don't even realized
how ignorant you are. Truely pathetic.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> > > > The fact that Paul also is avoiding my challenge doesn't mean that you
> > > > are off the hook.
>
> > > You are citing Paul?
>
> > Uh, what?
>
> > > Why don't you cite from the published literature?
>
> > I regards to what? You're not disputing my hypothesis you idiot.
>
> You haven't got a hypothesis you brainless idiot.
No *you* don't have a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis. You have
nothing but a religious belief in conventional vagueness. That's the
only reason you talk to Marc so much. You seem to think that by
focussing on the inadequacies of Marc's thinking that it draws
attention away from the vacuousness of conventional theory.
Lee Olsen
>
> No *you* don't have a hypothesis.
Idiots who don't know the literature do not have hypotheses.
Your illiteracy is proven time after time. You have a
diaper, not a hypothesis.
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Jan 14, 10:56 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > No *you* don't have a hypothesis.
>
> Idiots who don't know the literature do not have hypotheses.
Then you should read more.
>
> Your illiteracy is proven time after time. You have a
> diaper, not a hypothesis.
Real scientists have no need for propaganda tactics.
>
> 1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
> 2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
> 3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
> 4 Climate change is not happening presently.
> 5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
> of thousand if not millions of years.
> 6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
> 7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
> 8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
> arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
> mya?
Roboposting jackass.
>
> Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21...@thegrid.net>#1/1
> Niccolo Caldararo: " It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you
> to continually make
> statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data."
>
> Dan Barnes: "..a number of people have suggested that the best thing
> you can do is do
> substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and come back
> again."
>
> Greg Laden: "Read the stuff. If you have a vague memory
> of it, that is not good enough." "Hit the books, kid!"
>
> Su Solomon: "I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four
> hundred words of
> your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
> the
> intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
> comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
> extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
> taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
> time,
> then if is not evident in this latest of postings."
Who are these idiots, anyways?
Lee Olsen
> On Jan 14, 11:14 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 10:56 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > > No *you* don't have a hypothesis.
>
> > Idiots who don't know the literature do not have hypotheses.
>
> Then you should read more.
>
>
>
> > Your illiteracy is proven time after time. You have a
> > diaper, not a hypothesis.
>
> Real scientists have no need for propaganda tactics.
>
>
>
> > 1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
> > 2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
> > 3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
> > 4 Climate change is not happening presently.
> > 5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
> > of thousand if not millions of years.
> > 6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
> > 7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
> > 8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
> > arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
> > mya?
>
> Roboposting jackass.
Says the droning asshole who has been posting the same delusional
crap on this board for years. Look in the mirror, moron.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21...@thegrid.net>#1/1
> > Niccolo Caldararo: " It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you
> > to continually make
> > statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data."
>
> > Dan Barnes: "..a number of people have suggested that the best thing
> > you can do is do
> > substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and come back
> > again."
>
> > Greg Laden: "Read the stuff. If you have a vague memory
> > of it, that is not good enough." "Hit the books, kid!"
>
> > Su Solomon: "I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four
> > hundred words of
> > your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
> > the
> > intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
> > comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
> > extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
> > taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
> > time,
> > then if is not evident in this latest of postings."
>
> Who are these idiots, anyways?
Why would an illiterate want to know?
Claudius Denk
As I recall from past conversations, the people you quote here were much
like yourself. They completely avoided and conversation that involves
content. And other than that they pretend to know something that they
obviously don't. The reason you all can't answer any questions is obvious,
you/they are all clueless about anything remotely resembling a scientific
understanding of biological evolution. There's no mystery here. The main
thing that underlies your confidence in the validity of your unmistakeably
sketchy thinking is ignorance.
Lee Olsen
wrote:
...more brainless drivel.
You don't cite anything because you don't know anything.
Your are an illiterate, as demonstrated by the absurd content
of your posts.
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Lee Olsen
>
> The fact that Paul also is avoiding my challenge doesn't mean that you
> are off the hook.
Says who?
>
> Put up or shut up you bed-wetting twerp.
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
Have your mother change your diapers before you get a rash.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
What is the conventional theory for the selective origins of hominid/
human social behaviors, including culture and language? Are these not
rather obvious indications of group selection? Where is the group
selection in your hypothesis. You dont' indicate any group behavior
or group selection any different from chimps.
Did you think nobody would notice?
Lee Olsen
Why are you talking to yourself?
Makouli
news:ecd67070-295e-4a6c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Oh! Here's a good one:
"Did you think nobody would notice?"
Dimmy --01/15/08
==========================
"I think my point is obvious."
Dimmy --12/29/07
Makouli
news:d94a6785-7e77-4f67...@n22g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Oh now here's an expecially good one:
"The main thing that underlies your confidence
in the validity of your unmistakeably sketchy
thinking is ignorance." Dimmy --01/15/08
==============================
"Climate change is not happening presently."
--Dimmy (aka Claudius) 11/23/2006
Claudius Denk
"Makouli" <m...@work.com> wrote in message
news:6vydnf7gO_M0yBDa...@comcast.com...
Mikey,
With your complete unwillingness to address any content in your responses
will allow you to fit right in with a Global Warming cultists over in
sci.environment and alt.global-warming (Lee too).
Everybody,
I like to introduce you all to Michael Clark. He's a regular in
Sci.anthropology.paleo.
Mikey,
Tell us why you are so sure climate change is happening presently.
Lee Olsen
wrote:
> I like to introduce you all to Michael Clark. He's a regular in
> Sci.anthropology.paleo.
Could you introduce us to Claud and Jim???
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:> > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
No response.
Lee Olsen
>
> No response.
What part of this are you too stupid to understand?
McGinnian illiteracy:
rmacfarl
> On Jan 14, 12:20 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith
> > > evolved bipedality?
>
> > You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these
> > that you have erected your straw man?
>
> > - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> > - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> > - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> These are titles, you mental retard. Where's the
> hypothesis? Where are the details? You need to
> present details.
No, I don't. You need to show that you've read them, and made some
kind of effort to understand their significance (or lack thereof, as
the case may be.
My point, which as usual was at a level of subtlety far below your
detection limit, was that your original question is non sequitur.
There is no "conventional theory/hypothesis" for why A'pith evolved
bipedality. If you disagree with this, it is incumbent on you to show
that such a "conventional theory/hypothesis" exists, and what it is.
Typically, all you've done thus far is demonstrate that you are
remarkably ignorant of a topic on which you have memorably described
yourself, in the past, as a "world-class theorist".
>
> > See:http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
>
> > Now, your [cough] competing hypothesis... Could you briefly
> > describe it?
>
> You've already shown you cannot dispute it. Right?
How can I dispute that which you have not described?
Surely you do not wish to claim that the [ahem] "hypotheses" that I
comprehensively debunked in 1998 and 2003 are "indisputable"?
Or do you wish to base our discussion on that most recent mix of
stream of conciousness and begged questions which slip down the slope
to this non sequitur? -
"
Would this or would this not indicate a shift to communal
territorialism and its associated mob oriented, stick wielding, rock
throwing aggression as indicated in my Ecological Gatekeeper
Hypothesis?
"
[No.]
>
> > Or perhaps refer us to an abstract in a published journal?
> > Hmm?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ross Macfarlane
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Jan 15, 2:33 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 12:20 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> > > On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith
> > > > evolved bipedality?
>
> > > You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these
> > > that you have erected your straw man?
>
> > > - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> > > - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> > > - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> > These are titles, you mental retard. Where's the
> > hypothesis? Where are the details? You need to
> > present details.
>
> No, I don't. You need to show that you've read them,
No, you need to describe them in enough detail so that they can be
tested against the evidence.
> and made some
> kind of effort to understand their significance (or lack thereof, as
> the case may be.
Why would I bother. You pretty much end all debate on this non-issue
with the following:
> My point, which as usual was at a level of subtlety far below your
> detection limit, was that your original question is non sequitur.
> There is no "conventional theory/hypothesis" for why A'pith evolved
> bipedality. If you disagree with this, it is incumbent on you to show
> that such a "conventional theory/hypothesis" exists, and what it is.
I agree. Thank you for your honesty. Now let's see if we can get Lee
to agree.
> Typically, all you've done thus far is demonstrate that you are
> remarkably ignorant of a topic on which you have memorably described
> yourself, in the past, as a "world-class theorist".
Let me get this straight. Me asking questions which you (and the rest
of you conventional theorists) cannot answer demonstrates *my*
ignorance? Are you sure about this, Ross?
> > > See:http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
>
> > > Now, your [cough] competing hypothesis... Could you briefly
> > > describe it?
>
> > You've already shown you cannot dispute it. Right?
>
> How can I dispute that which you have not described?
>
> Surely you do not wish to claim that the [ahem] "hypotheses" that I
> comprehensively debunked in 1998 and 2003 are "indisputable"?
How can you claim to have debunked that which you claim I, "have not
described?"
> Or do you wish to base our discussion on that most recent mix of
> stream of conciousness and begged questions which slip down the slope
> to this non sequitur? -
Sounds like a personal problem.
> Would this or would this not indicate a shift to communal
> territorialism and its associated mob oriented, stick wielding, rock
> throwing aggression as indicated in my Ecological Gatekeeper
> Hypothesis?
> "
>
> [No.]
Do you have anything specific? And keep in mind we don't have direct
access to your imagination.
Lee Olsen
>
> Sounds like a personal problem.
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
rmacfarl
> On Jan 18, 1:21 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 2:33 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > On Jan 14, 12:20 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith
> > > > > evolved bipedality?
>
> > > > You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these
> > > > that you have erected your straw man?
>
> > > > - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> > > > - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> > > > - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> > > These are titles, you mental retard. Where's the
> > > hypothesis? Where are the details? You need to
> > > present details.
>
> > No, I don't. You need to show that you've read them,
>
> No, you need to describe them in enough detail so that they can be
> tested against the evidence.
No, I do-o-o-on't. Hunt, Lovejoy and Wheeler already did that. A World
Class Evolutionary Theorist would be highly familiar with the works,
I'm quite sure: have read them, absorbed and critiqued the hypotheses
in detail.
What did you think of Johanson's comments about Lovejoy in "Lucy's
Child"? Over the top, hey?? He lost me completely.
>
> > and made some
> > kind of effort to understand their significance (or lack thereof, as
> > the case may be.
>
> Why would I bother. You pretty much end all debate on this
> non-issue with the following:
Oh, Jimmy. Waving the white flag over a bit of criticism so soon? Not
like you to be so precious...
> > Typically, all you've done thus far is demonstrate that you are
> > remarkably ignorant of a topic on which you have memorably described
> > yourself, in the past, as a "world-class theorist".
>
> Let me get this straight. Me asking questions which you (and
> the rest of you conventional theorists) cannot answer
> demonstrates *my*ignorance? Are you sure about this, Ross?
Of course. My kids often ask me questions I can't answer. Nothing
unusual about that.
The difference between them and you, of course, is they're not holding
on to the deluded belief that they do know the answers. The fact that
you do is what has clearly marked you amongst our most pervasive and
pernicious SAP netloons for many a long year.
In short, Jim, yes, this is demonstrating *your* ignorance. I am
*very* sure about that.
>
> > > > See:http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
>
> > > > Now, your [cough] competing hypothesis... Could you briefly
> > > > describe it?
>
> > > You've already shown you cannot dispute it. Right?
>
> > How can I dispute that which you have not described?
>
> > Surely you do not wish to claim that the [ahem] "hypotheses"
> > that I comprehensively debunked in 1998 and 2003
> > are "indisputable"?
>
> How can you claim to have debunked that which you claim I, "have
> not described?"
Reading comprehension was never your strong suit was it Jim? I was
giving you the opportunity to present something new. Apparently you
are instead falling back on your old tripe instead.
>
> > Or do you wish to base our discussion on that most recent mix of
> > stream of conciousness and begged questions which slip down the
> > slope to this non sequitur? -
>
> Sounds like a personal problem.
You really hate it when I use big words you don't understand, don't
you Jimmy?
>
> > Would this or would this not indicate a shift to communal
> > territorialism and its associated mob oriented, stick wielding,
> > rock throwing aggression as indicated in my Ecological
> > Gatekeeper Hypothesis?
> > "
>
> > [No.]
>
> Do you have anything specific? And keep in mind we don't have
> direct access to your imagination.- Hide quoted text -
>
Mike! Here's another one! You got this one?
Do you have anything specific? And keep in mind we don't have
direct access to your imagination.
- Dimmy, 19 Jan 2008
Ross Macfarlane
Makouli
news:97d1ab71-1978-4d05...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 19, 2:33 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 1:21 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Do you have anything specific? And keep in mind we don't have
> > direct access to your imagination.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Mike! Here's another one! You got this one?
> Do you have anything specific? And keep in mind we don't have
> direct access to your imagination.
> - Dimmy, 19 Jan 2008
Well, no, but I have pretty much the same thing in
two other forms:
"Be specific."
Dimmy, --12/04/2005
&
"I don't have access to your imagination."
Dimmy --12/24/07
I like the first part of that one --which I
think that I shall permanently enshrine:
"Do you have anything specific?"
Dimmy --01/18 08
Thanks, Ross.. ;-)
> Ross Macfarlane
========================
"You make it obvious that your [sic]
an amateur." Dimmy --11/21/2005
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Jan 19, 2:33 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 1:21 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 2:33 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > On Jan 14, 12:20 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 14, 10:12 am, "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > What's the conventional theory/hypothesis for why A'pith
> > > > > > evolved bipedality?
>
> > > > > You tell us Dimmy. Try these ones... Is it about one of these
> > > > > that you have erected your straw man?
>
> > > > > - The postural feeding hypothesis (Hunt 1996).
> > > > > - The behavioral model (Lovejoy 1981).
> > > > > - The thermoregulatory model (Wheeler 1991).
>
> > > > These are titles, you mental retard. Where's the
> > > > hypothesis? Where are the details? You need to
> > > > present details.
>
> > > No, I don't. You need to show that you've read them,
>
> > No, you need to describe them in enough detail so that they can be
> > tested against the evidence.
>
> No, I do-o-o-on't. Hunt, Lovejoy and Wheeler already did that.
They certainly have not. They've presented nothing but vague,
untestable notions.
> A World
> Class Evolutionary Theorist would be highly familiar with the works,
> I'm quite sure: have read them, absorbed and critiqued the hypotheses
> in detail.
This stuff is on about the same level as AAT.
>
> What did you think of Johanson's comments about Lovejoy in "Lucy's
> Child"? Over the top, hey?? He lost me completely.
Why don't you quote it word for word?
>
>
>
> > > and made some
> > > kind of effort to understand their significance (or lack thereof, as
> > > the case may be.
>
> > Why would I bother. You pretty much end all debate on this
> > non-issue with the following:
>
> Oh, Jimmy. Waving the white flag over a bit of criticism so soon? Not
> like you to be so precious...
*Me* waving the white flag?
>
> > > Typically, all you've done thus far is demonstrate that you are
> > > remarkably ignorant of a topic on which you have memorably described
> > > yourself, in the past, as a "world-class theorist".
>
> > Let me get this straight. Me asking questions which you (and
> > the rest of you conventional theorists) cannot answer
> > demonstrates *my*ignorance? Are you sure about this, Ross?
>
> Of course. My kids often ask me questions I can't answer. Nothing
> unusual about that.
This proves what?
>
> The difference between them and you, of course, is they're not holding
> on to the deluded belief that they do know the answers. The fact that
> you do is what has clearly marked you amongst our most pervasive and
> pernicious SAP netloons for many a long year.
>
> In short, Jim, yes, this is demonstrating *your* ignorance. I am
> *very* sure about that.
Does this make sense to you on a rational level?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > See:http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html
>
> > > > > Now, your [cough] competing hypothesis... Could you briefly
> > > > > describe it?
>
> > > > You've already shown you cannot dispute it. Right?
>
> > > How can I dispute that which you have not described?
>
> > > Surely you do not wish to claim that the [ahem] "hypotheses"
> > > that I comprehensively debunked in 1998 and 2003
> > > are "indisputable"?
>
> > How can you claim to have debunked that which you claim I, "have
> > not described?"
>
> Reading comprehension was never your strong suit was it Jim? I was
> giving you the opportunity to present something new. Apparently you
> are instead falling back on your old tripe instead.
My recollection is that you were unable to find even one aspect of the
evidence that is inconsistent with my hypothesis.
>
>
>
> > > Or do you wish to base our discussion on that most recent mix of
> > > stream of conciousness and begged questions which slip down the
> > > slope to this non sequitur? -
>
> > Sounds like a personal problem.
>
> You really hate it when I use big words you don't understand, don't
> you Jimmy?
Face it Ross. You have no hypothesis of your own and no dispute with
my hypothesis.
Lee Olsen
>
> This stuff is on about the same level as AAT.
Says the loon who has claimed:
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 150 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
You need mental help.
rmacfarl
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Makouli
news:3b649762-4518-4f77...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 18, 2:02 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 2:33 am, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
[boink]
> Does this make sense to you on a rational level?
OMG! This is absolutely PRECIOUS!
"Does this make sense to you on a rational level?"
Dimmy -- 01/18/08
Thank you, Dimmy! LOL!
[bonk]
=================================
"The list of things you refuse to discuss is
very very long." Dimmy --01/08/2008
Claudius Denk
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > rmacfarl wrote:
> > > "rmacfarl" <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:437e6...@news.chariot.net.au...
> > > > Since Jim's starting to get delusions of grandeur because so many
> > > > people
> > > > are apparently taking him seriously (owing to the fact that Algis
> > > > has for
> > > > the time being taken his bat & ball & gone home), it's time to
> > > > explore the
> > > > depths of Jimbo's genius, and demonstrate just how well justified
> > > > his
> > > > claims to same are:
> > > So Jim wants me to address his answers from 3 years ago? OK...
> > > jimmcg...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
> > > <news:ac6a5059.0302...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > Ross,
> > > > > > Can you dispute the following?
> > > > > The question is, can you support it?
> > > > The answer is that you can't dispute it.
> > > No, the answer, after 3, 5, 8 years, is you still can't produce a
> > > scintilla
> > > of evidence that indisputably supports your vague and unoriginal
> > > thought
> > > processes.
> > But you don't deny that you have no evidence-based dispute
> > with my hypothesis. Right?
> For those of you playing at home, what we see here is evidence of one
> manifestation of Jim's psychopathology: a fixation with the idea that
> his idea is so good it cannot be challenged. Well, not by him anyway.
How about you just answer the question, you evasive twit.
> However, you may divine as the discussion proceeds that Jim does
> actually seem to have a little rational voice that tries to whisper to
> him occasionally that his idea is unsupported crap. The evidence for
> this is when he shies away deliberately from any suggestion that he try
> to publish his material in front of a real scientific audience - such
> as in his discussion with Jason recently.
> The other signs of this that I'll highlight anon relate in particular
> to his propaganda technicques for deflecting questions that he doesn't
> know the answer to.
> > > > > Questions: 1. What is your evidence (references) that a move away
> > > > > from a
> > > > > rainforest environment occurred in the LCA,
> > > > (They didn't move, the climate changed.)
> > > > I wouldn't have thought you'd dispute this. It's considered a
> > > > standard
> > > > assumption. Do you have any evidence (references) that a "move"
> > > > away from
> > > > a rainforest environment did not occurred in the LCA?
> > > Kingston, J. D., Marino, B. D. & Hill, A. (1994). Isotopic evidence
> > > for
> > > Neogene hominid paleoenvironments in the Kenya Rift Valley. Science
> > > 264,
> > > 955-959.
> > > WoldeGabriel, G., White, T. D., Suwa, G., Renne, P., de Heinzelin, J.,
> > > Hart,
> > > W. K. & Helken, G. (1994). Ecological and temporal placement of early
> > > Pliocene hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia. Nature 371, 330-333.
> > > Now which papers did you read that told you that a move away from a
> > > rainforest environment did occur in the LCA Jimmy?
> > I'm not following you. What's your point. Why are you not quoting
> > these papers directly?
> This is an example (there are better ones below) of a classical
> McGinnian technique for fact avoidance. On the (many) occasions when a
> direct, en pointe question is put to him that Jim simply doesn't
> understand, he covers up by asking a rhetorical question. The intent is
> to imply that the other contributor wouldn't be asking their question
> if they could match his intellect (which is true. :-) It's an example
> of what Phil Deitiker once identified as Jim's propagandistic
> tendencies.
Ross, if you have a question ask it. The reason I ask it is because
I made it very clear in my hypothesis that the climate changed from
rainforest habitat to monsoon habitat. Did you not see this? Do
you dispute this? Do you have any point at all?
> It also helps to highlight the key point that I make in reference to
> Jim's "Big Idea": it's a "Big Nothing". Jim has never cited a primary
> source scientific text related to paleoanthropology in all his years on
> SAP, possibly because he's never read one, but more likely owing to the
> fact that he couldn't understand a word of any such paper he's ever
> tried to read.
You make it obvious that you are an amateur.
Not that there's the slightest chance it will happen, but if you ever
develop
a hypothesis on hominid evolution you can put all the "primary source"
in
there that you want. If you need to quote others to make your thinking
appear more valid then you should do it.
> > > > > thereby promoting the shift to niche independence?
> > > > The shift to niche independence, in my estimation, happened
> > > > considerably
> > > > later with the emergence of homo. It happened after they had gained
> > > > a
> > > > considerable degree of ecological dominance. (The situational
> > > > factors
> > > > that enabled them to gain ecological dominance are indicated in the
> > > > communal selective aspects of my scenario.)
> > > The phrase "niche independence" - is this your own? What is the
> > > definition
> > > and where was it published?
> > This is an easy concept *if* you understand what a niche is. And if
> > you
> > understand that niches are the cause of stasis. I'm not going to
> > attempt
> > to educate you on this Ross. Sorry, your on your own here.
> As above. This is McGinnian for "What did you say?" And the veiled
> confusion here is in reference to his own "hypothesis".
Sorry Ross, your education is not my responsiblity.
> > > > > 2. On what evidence (references) do you base your assumption of
> > > > > "The
> > > > > onset of a climate characterized by seasonal dessication (a
> > > > > distinct and
> > > > > severe dry season)", and "Patchiness of their [the LCAs'] treed
> > > > > habitat"?
> > > > I've provided my support of this in other posts. Why did you not
> > > > read
> > > > them and respond to them at that time? If you want to dispute
> > > > either of
> > > > these suppositions then please respond to these posts directly. You
> > > > should
> > > > have no trouble finding these posts in Google groups. (If you need
> > > > help
> > > > finding these posts let me know. Try going to the advanced search
> > > > function of Google Groups. It's excellent!)
> > > The word "evasive" - is this your own? What is the definition and
> > > where was
> > > it published?
> > Why don't you take my advice and go to Google Groups, as I stated?
> Third verse, same as the first.
Yep. Laziness is no excuse.
> > > > > 3. When did this occur,
> > > > As I explained previously, about 8 to 10 mya.
> > > And what primary scientific research papers have you read that provide
> > > evidence that a behavioural change such as you postulate occurred.
> > I don't understand. Be more specific. What behavioral change?
> Once again, Jimbo can't understand the question. In this case it's more
> a fault of Kuliukan reading comprehension skills. Parsing my questions
> together:
> On what evidence (references) do you base your assumption of "The onset
> of a climate characterized by seasonal dessication (a distinct and
> severe dry season)", and "Patchiness of their [the LCAs'] treed
> habitat"? When did this occur,
I think you have the right idea. Check out this link:
http://www.cix.co.uk/~awhitec/HumanOrigins/Climate.htm
This new climate, what climatologists call monsoon climate,
is characterized by a distinct and severe dry season in the
context of what is mostly a moist, rainy, climate.
Our chimpanzee-like ancestors were one of many species that
now had to develop somekind of strategy to deal with the
dry season and implications thereof.
> and what primary scientific research
> papers have you read that provide evidence that a behavioural change
> such as you postulate occurred.
I'm confused? Your saying I should quote a, "scientific research
paper," to verify that human behaviors exist? If not then please
be more specific.
> > > Please note: I am not aware that any such papers exist, and as a
> > > result I
> > > specifically dispute that your hypothesis is explanatory in any way.
> > > Note
> > > that: I *dispute* your hypothesis.
> > > Now this next exchange of Jim's is fascinating. It should be cited
> > > every
> > > time Jim queries why we call his reasoning convoluted and hard to
> > > follow:
> > > > and specifically which known fossils
> > > > All of them.
> > > > > would you cite as being the Last Common Ancestor in question?
> > > > We probably will never actually see a fossil of the LCA.
> > > > > In identifying the above fossil as the LCA, which scientific
> > > > > references,
> > > > > particularly those of a taphonomic nature, did you refer to?
> > > > Stop playing games, Ross. You know perfectly well that we don't
> > > > have an
> > > > LCA fossil.
> > > > The significant thing here is that you have no dispute with my
> > > > interpretation of the evidence. Nor can you dispute my claim that
> > > > my
> > > > interpretation better explains the evidence than any other
> > > > hypothesis.
> > > I asked: "specifically which known fossils would you cite as being the
> > > Last
> > > Common Ancestor in question?"
> > > Jim answered: "All of them", and then "We probably will never actually
> > > see a
> > > fossil of the LCA" and "You know perfectly well that we don't have an
> > > LCA
> > > fossil."
> > > So which is it Jim? All or nothing?
> > Are you saying you are aware of an LCA fossil? If not then what's the
> > point of your question here?
> Sigh...
Well, Ross, since you are uable to explain your thinking, why don't you
answer the question and maybe then I'll have some idea of what your
point is.
> > > And while you're at it, can you answer the question? Have you read any
> > > descriptions in the primary literature of any hominid fossils, or of
> > > the
> > > taphonomy of hominid fossil find sites?
> > > Do you even understand what I'm talking about?
> > Are you saying there is literature in there that disputes my
> > hypothesis? If not then I don't understand the point of your
> > questions. (Remember, now, I'm not the one on trial here. My
> > hypothesis is. Try not to fall back into your typical political
> > tactics.)
> Nope. Jim is the one on trial.
If there's nothing in there that disputes my hypothesis then
what's your point?
> > > > > 4. Define the phrase "Communal territorialism"
> > > > See below.
> > > > > , and explain how it is materially different from the territorial
> > > > > behaviour of chimpanzees, baboons or other relevant mammals.
> > > > Good question. The answer is that the territorialism in my scenario
> > > > is
> > > > more human. Let me explain. If you were to be drafted into the
> > > > Australian army to fight a war you'd find yourself fighting
> > > > alongside many
> > > > who you did not know up until then. You might even find yourself,
> > > > for
> > > > example, fighting alongside somebody from a different country. The
> > > > same
> > > > kind of thing is indicated in my hypothesis. As I've explained, the
> > > > members of the communities in my hypothesis do not necessarily like
> > > > each
> > > > other or even know each other, or not necessarily very well. Each
> > > > troop
> > > > or band (extended family unit) has property in the context of an
> > > > extensive
> > > > community site. (See Note below). For the most part these bands got
> > > > along, or at least were able to put up with each other. And, as
> > > > explained
> > > > in my scenario, these intercompeting/intercooperative bands fought
> > > > alongside each other to achieve communal territorialistic ends. So,
> > > > this
> > > > is your answer. Hominids have the ability or instinct to recognize
> > > > their
> > > > neighbors or compatriots as sharing common interests that can be
> > > > achieved
> > > > through communal territorialsm. (The selective rational for the
> > > > emergence
> > > > of these adaptations is indicated in my hypothesis in its entirety.)
> > > > Chimpanzees, baboons or other relevant mammals don't have this
> > > > behavior/ability/instinct.
> > > Can you think of any other ways that hominid co-operation might have
> > > developed that did not involve this hypothetical behaviour?
> > Nothing comes to mind. What's your point?
> Don't worry about it Jimbo. Everyone else got it. In fact, you just
> made it for me.
Did they? How do you know?
> > > How could we
> > > test which scenarios are more likely than others?
> > It's hard to say since you haven't presented any alternatives.
> > > Are you familiar with "Game Theory"?
> > Yes. What's your point? (Let me guess. You think your point is
> > obvious. It isn't.)
> Now this is classical Jimbo. Rephrasing, Jim has just tried to say "I
> have no idea what you're driving at, you idiot."
That's right. I have no idea what your driviing at, you moron.
> > > Certainly the World's Greatest
> > > Evolutionary Theorist would have have made some effort to apply a
> > > standard
> > > technique like this to his ground-breaking hypothesis?
> > Apply it? What do you mean by this? Give us an example.
> Disappointing. He even claims to have read The Selfish Gene. You'd
> think he'd have some inkling, wouldn't you? ...
I've read all of Dawkin's books. What's you point. And, no, I'm not
talking about the one on top of your head.
> > > > (Note: The number of troops or bands within a community was, IMO,
> > > > largely
> > > > determined by the size of the community site. In especially large
> > > > sites
> > > > there might be upwards of 100 troops. And the areal extent of a
> > > > community site may have often been upwards of 100 square miles. Who
> > > > knows.)
> > > Not you, apparently.
> > Do you?
> Keep it up Jimbo, you're doing an exceptional job of proving my point
> for me.
You have a point?
> > > > > 5. Define the phrase "group selection".
> > > > Natural selection at the group level.
> > > > > a. In particular, explain how its dynamics are consistent with
> > > > > "Selfish
> > > > > Gene" theory (a la Richard Dawkins).
> > > > You would first have to explain how selfish gene theory (actually
> > > > calling
> > > > it a "theory" is a misnomer) is consistent with reality. This has
> > > > never
> > > > been done. In fact it's plainly demonstrable that whether or not
> > > > genes
> > > > really are "selfish" pivots off what one means with the word
> > > > selfish. In
> > > > the absolute sense of what it means to be selfish, genes, clearly
> > > > and
> > > > indisputably, are NOT selfish. For example, at this very moment
> > > > there are
> > > > genes within cells on your body that are directing the death of the
> > > > cells
> > > > in which they are contained (fingernails for example). As a result,
> > > > the
> > > > genes within these cells will soon be reduced to inert matter. Is
> > > > this
> > > > selfish? In the absolute sense of what it means to be selfish the
> > > > answer
> > > > is, clearly, no.
> > > > Dawkins, to his credit, never presented selfish gene "theory" as a
> > > > formal
> > > > proof. Selfish gene "theory" is little more than a clever analogy
> > > > meant
> > > > to provide a conceptual focus for his explanation of natural
> > > > selection to
> > > > an audience that generally believes in creationism.
> > > > One must never forget that Dawkin's audience is the common man, not
> > > > scholars.
> > > > > b. Alternatively, explain why Selfish Gene Theory does not apply
> > > > > to
> > > > > humans,
> > > > It is applicable to all species, including humans, AFAICS.
> > > > > why it did not apply to the LCA,
> > > > It did.
> > > > > and when it stopped applying.
> > > > It didn't.
> > > > The problem here is that you, mistakenly IMO, see selfish gene as a
> > > > theory
> > > > and I, rightly, see it as nothing but a literary device.
> > > > For more on my opinion of selfish gene do the following: 1) Go to
> > > > Google
> > > > Groups: http://groups.google.com 2) Cut the following and paste it
> > > > into
> > > > the search box: mcginn "selfish gene" group:sci.bio.evolution 3)
> > > > Click on
> > > > the "google search" button. (Note: I've included one of these posts
> > > > at the
> > > > end of this post.)
> > > Is this rubbish part of your hypothesis?
> > Is this rubbish your dispute? Now I know why you didn't respond.
> > > If so, I dispute your hypothesis,
> > > as the above would have to be the most comprehensive misrepresentation
> > > of
> > > Selfish Gene theory I've ever come across.
> > There is no such thing as "selfish gene theory," you idiot.
Why don't you explain how selfish gene disputes my theory.
> > > > > 6. Explain and justify the following statements: "HUMAN evolution
> > > > > is a
> > > > > group selective process.
> > > > This is explained in the entirety of my hypothesis.
> > > > > From the perspective of comparative biology, this couldn't be more
> > > > > obvious. Anybody that tells you differently is whacked.
> > > > You're not disputing it. As such, I'll let the arguments I made
> > > > previously stand on their own.
> > > Your arguments stand on their own in the way that jugged hare does.
> > Jugged hare? I don't speak Australian.
> > > > > You can safely dismiss *any* scenarios that don't explicate a
> > > > > group
> > > > > selective process."
> > > > Let's face the facts Ross, you can't present any selective scenario
> > > > that
> > > > explains the rather obvious social adaptations that are evident in
> > > > humans.
> > > > Be honest with yourself.
> > Be honest, Ross.
> To be honest, you're such a self-evident nonentity that I really don't
> know why I bother pointing it out to everyone else.
> > > > > 7. Your post gives a definition of "the mentality of 3 to 5 year
> > > > > olds",
> > > > > which the "earliest hominids" were said to have. What evidence can
> > > > > you
> > > > > cite that this was a valid reconstruction of their behaviour?
> > > > > Specifically:
> > > > Observation of extant chimps.
> > > > > a. How did you reconstruct the behaviour of the earliest hominids?
> > > > > Please cite references as appropriate.
> > > > Mostly from reading Goodall's work on extant chimps.
> > > > > b. What analyses of 3 to 5 year old human behaviour did you
> > > > > reference to
> > > > > draw the above analogy?
> > > > Any and all.
> > > In other words, none.
> > > > > 8. How do you reconcile your conclusion that "life experience was
> > > > > mostly
> > > > > unnecessary" for early hominids, with the observation that extant
> > > > > hominid and pongid apes exhibit long "childhoods" in which they
> > > > > require
> > > > > considerable learning and parental support?
> > > > Well, I think you're missing the context of this statement. So, I
> > > > will
> > > > allow you to reread the relevant section and restate the question if
> > > > you
> > > > are still perplexed on this point.
> > > For those of you unused to McGinnian discourse, this is code for "What
> > > did
> > > you say?"
> > > > > 9. "From a locomotory standpoint bipedalism was a compromise. The
> > > > > shift
> > > > > to a more communal and stationary lifestyle de-emphasised
> > > > > locomotion."
> > > > > What evidence did you rely on to conclude that this lifestyle
> > > > > shift had
> > > > > taken place?
> > > > Well, all the evidence I've seen supports this supposition and/or
> > > > fails to
> > > > dispute it. Don't you agree? If you disagree then please be
> > > > specific
> > > > about what evidence you think disputes this contention.
> > > > > 10. Justify your assertion that "Bipedalism is, primarily,
> > > > > a
> > > > > throwing adaptation
> > > > My whole hypothesis serves as this justification. Can you dispute
> > > > it?
> > > > > 11. "If they did evolve along the lines that I describe, we'd
> > > > > expect
> > > > > those that were most successful to be capable of maintaining
> > > > > larger and
> > > > > larger pieces of territory. And this, IMO, would predict a trend
> > > > > of
> > > > > throwing longer distances in that this would be the most efficient
> > > > > way
> > > > > to keep potential trespassing species at bay."
> > > > > Given that all comparable primates' territories are far larger
> > > > > than the
> > > > > distance that the longest distance any human, or by implication,
> > > > > hominid
> > > > > LCA, could throw, how can you justify reaching the conclusion that
> > > > > a
> > > > > better throwing arm would imply the ability to maintain a larger
> > > > > territory.
> > > > I think you're misreading me. I never suggested a direct
> > > > coorelation
> > > > between throwing distance and size of territory. So I can't answer
> > > > your
> > > > question. My point was only that throwing longer distances would be
> > > > associated with the ability to maintain (prevent inmigration of
> > > > other
> > > > species into) larger patches of treed territory, the selective
> > > > benefits of
> > > > which are obviated in my hypothesis.
> > > Based on your Game Theory modelling?
> > Huh?
> Not based on your Game Theory modelling then?
> > > > > 12. "Previous to 10mya there was little or no migration but
> > > > > there
> > > > > has been a lot since then."
> > > > > Please cite references to support this assertion.
> > > > See the post included in my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis that
> > > > was
> > > > written by a paleontologist named Yousuf Khan. Can you dispute
> > > > Yousuf's
> > > > assertion?
> > > Yousef (the correct spelling) wrote:
> > > "
> > > . . . about 10mln years ago the Earth entered climatic
> > > roller-coaster, with periods of advancing and retreating
> > > glaciation. <snip>
> > > <snip>
> > > . . . . the very fact that the Earth became a colder and
> > > more inhospitable place to live, led to the creation of
> > > man, so we shouldn't complain too loudly about how
> > > cold it is outside. If the Earth were still warm and wet,
> > > then we'd just have big, dumb, lumbering creatures
> > > who would just eat easy-to-find plants all day long --
> > > doesn't require the development of much intelligence.
> > > <snip>
> > > "
> > > Yousef doesn't cite any primary sources, nor any exact dates, & we
> > > only have
> > > Jim's word that he is a paleontologist. In any case, nothing in his
> > > words
> > > specifically gives cause to grant the slightest molecule of credence
> > > to
> > > Jim's claims.
> > But you admit you can't dispute it. Right?
> Wrong. I already told you that I dispute that there was any behavioural
> change 8-10 million years ago. (So did Jason.) Do pay attention Jim.
What I meant was that you are unaware of any evidence that disputes it.
Right? (Just answer the question you evasive twit.)
> > > > > 13. "The patchiness of the remaining forested habitat which
> > > > > divided
> > > > > our ancestors up into "communities" between which gene flow
> > > > > (interbreeding) was greatly reduced..."
> > > > > How do you reconcile this statement with the apparently
> > > > > contradictory
> > > > > assumption that the successful communities among the LCAs were
> > > > > able to
> > > > > expand their territories, and would then by implication tend top
> > > > > overlap
> > > > > those groups which you now assert they have become geographically
> > > > > isolated from?
> > > > I don't think these assumptions (conclusions) are contradictory.
> > > > Note
> > > > the distinction between communities in general and "successful
> > > > communities." Then, if you still think you see a contradiction,
> > > > rephrase
> > > > the question accordingly.
> > > [Sigh...] The above quote suggests that the patchy forests restricted
> > > the ranges of "our ancestors", so that there was no gene flow between
> > > them & fertility barriers developed. However, you state elsewhere
> > > that:
> > > "If they did evolve along the lines that I describe, we'd
> > > expect those that were most successful to be capable of
> > > maintaining larger and larger pieces of territory."
> > > So the successful ones had larger territories. By implication, their
> > > territories expand, at the expense of their neighbours'. But in order
> > > to evolve fertility barriers, they have to be geographically isolated.
> > I made no mention of fertility barriers. Beyond that, it seems to me
> > that your confusion on this point has more to do with your own
> > dogmatic reading of my hypothesis. I suggest you do you best to
> > restate the question.
> Classic McGinnian, yet again. I must be an idiot, because he has no
> idea what I said.
> > > This, Jim, is what's known as an inconsistency - a sub group of the
> > > logical fallacies known as non sequiturs. Look it up:
> > > http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
> > > > > 14. "So, the selective realities of our ancestors shifted
> > > > > from
> > > > > those of the chimpanzee lifestyle-focussed only on being
> > > > > successful
> > > > > individuals and members of successful breeding groups (bands,
> > > > > extended
> > > > > family units)--to those of the A'pith lifestyle--focussed on being
> > > > > successful individuals and members of successful breeding groups
> > > > > AND on
> > > > > being members of communities that successfully effect the
> > > > > preservation
> > > > > of resources at their community sites in the face of the onslaught
> > > > > of
> > > > > multi-species inmigration to their community sites."
> > > > > Please provide supporting data to show that australopithecines in
> > > > > fact
> > > > > did become members of these communities.
> > > > Show me data that indicates that they didn't become members of these
> > > > communities. (If you do find any such data I will withdraw my
> > > > claims and
> > > > send you a check for $10 thousand american dollars.)
> > > No Jim, that's not how it works.
> > This is how it works, Ross. If you don't like it then I suggest you
> > avoid
> > science altogether.
> The Prosecution rests m'lud...
> Ross Macfarlane
> - Jim, the null hypothesis here is that you're the idiot.
You seem incapable of coming to a point.
Lee Olsen
>
> Specifically?
Specifically you are an illiterate:
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 50/100 yds away from a tree.