Albert Einstein and the Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
Claudius Denk
Quotes by Albert Einstein:
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
when we created them.”
“If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let
us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would
be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped
inside it.”
“It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems
longer .”
“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”
“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”
Tom McDonald
>
> Quotes by Albert Einstein:
>
> �We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
> when we created them.�
>
> �If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let
> us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would
> be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped
>
> �It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems
> longer .�
>
> �The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.�
>
> �If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it�
But Einstein was a world-class genius who had an extremely firm
grounding in the science he was to revolutionize.
You, my dear Denk, are no Einstein. You're closer to that other famous
person everyone laughed at; you know, the one with the big, floppy shoes
and big round red nose.
pete
>
> On 7/31/2011 11:21 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > Quotes by Albert Einstein:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
The Crackpot Index
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
> You, my dear Denk, are no Einstein. You're closer to that other famous
> person everyone laughed at; you know, the one with the big,
> floppy shoes and big round red nose.
Jim McGinn?
--
pete
Tom McDonald
RichTravsky
AKA Dim Jim
RichTravsky
All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
millions of years.
Well, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but the obvious
implication here is that hominids of 4 to 5 million years ago were so
successful at excluding food competitor species like these fruit
eating horses from their communally claimed garden habitat that it
drove horses out into the grasslands where they evolved into grass
eaters.
brough,civilization-overview dot com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am bewildered as to why quotes of Einstein would lead to the origins
of agriculture!! But since it has, I wonder how you can claim
agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of years? Scientists
generally all agree that it started with us some 10,000 years ago. Are
you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?! And we did
not drive animals out of our environment. Instead, we ate them! We
men were hunters and the women gatherers, a way of life that has
subsided every since agriculture and animal husbandry began.
Claudius Denk
> On 7/31/2011 11:21 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Quotes by Albert Einstein:
>
> > when we created them.”
>
> > “If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let
> > us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would
> > be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped
>
> > “It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems
> > longer .”
>
> > “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”
>
> > “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”
>
> But Einstein was a world-class genius who had an extremely firm
> grounding in the science he was to revolutionize.
>
> You, my dear Denk, are no Einstein. You're closer to that other famous
> person everyone laughed at; you know, the one with the big, floppy shoes
> and big round red nose.
Ha! It's not like you conventional anthro-groupies have anything that
even begins to compete with my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis. The
aspects of conventional theory that aren't vague are ridiculous and
the aspects that aren't ridiculous are vague. Even the aquatic ape
theory is more viable in that it at least recognized that in order to
get such a significant shift (from chimp to hominid) you have to have
some kind of dramatic shift in lifestyle. Moreover, the fact that you
dimwits don't have any cohesive hypothesis from which you can argue
shows that you are embarrassed to even draw attention to the
inadequacy of conventional theory. Science is supposed to be about
cause and effect but all you dimwits have all these effects that just
magically show up in human evolutionary history for no apparent
reason.
Claudius Denk
> Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > Quotes by Albert Einstein:
>
> > “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
> > when we created them.”
>
> > “If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let
> > us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would
> > be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped
> > inside it.”
>
> > “It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems
> > longer .”
>
> > “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”
>
> > “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”
>
> All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
Yep.
> Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> millions of years.
That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
aspect of my scenario that corresponds with this assertion. Your
dispute is semantic. And your dispute is dishonest in that you would
have our audience believe that your dispute is more than semantic.
> Well, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but the obvious
> implication here is that hominids of 4 to 5 million years ago were so
> successful at excluding food competitor species like these fruit
> eating horses from their communally claimed garden habitat that it
> drove horses out into the grasslands where they evolved into grass
> eaters.
It's dishonest (and desperate) to criticize something I've retracted.
RichTravsky
Your attributions got mixed up. Paulie made those claims.
RichTravsky
>
> On Aug 1, 8:51 am, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> >
> > > Quotes by Albert Einstein:
> >
> > > “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
> > > when we created them.”
> >
> > > “If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let
> > > us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would
> > > be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped
> > > inside it.”
> >
> > > “It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems
> > > longer .”
> >
> > > “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”
> >
> > > “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”
> >
> > All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
>
> Yep.
Nope. Remember your fiasco with the horses?
> > Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > millions of years.
>
> That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
You don't have an evidence-based foundation for it.
> aspect of my scenario that corresponds with this assertion. Your
> dispute is semantic. And your dispute is dishonest in that you would
> have our audience believe that your dispute is more than semantic.
>
> > Well, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but the obvious
> > implication here is that hominids of 4 to 5 million years ago were so
> > successful at excluding food competitor species like these fruit
> > eating horses from their communally claimed garden habitat that it
> > drove horses out into the grasslands where they evolved into grass
> > eaters.
>
> It's dishonest (and desperate) to criticize something I've retracted.
Evidently all research is NOT consistent with your "hypothesis"...
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 8:51 am, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > > > Quotes by Albert Einstein:
>
> > > > “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
> > > > when we created them.”
>
> > > > “If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let
> > > > us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would
> > > > be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped
> > > > inside it.”
>
> > > > “It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems
> > > > longer .”
>
> > > > “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”
>
> > > > “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”
>
> > > All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
>
> > Yep.
>
> Nope. Remember your fiasco with the horses?
>
> > > Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > > millions of years.
>
> > That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
>
> You don't have an evidence-based foundation for it.
No hypothesis can make this claim. The best any hypothesis can claim
is what I have for my EGH hypothesis: there is no evidence based
dispute for this hypothesis. There is, more or less, evidence based
disputes with all other hypotheses.
EGH is unique in this respect.
> > aspect of my scenario that corresponds with this assertion. Your
> > dispute is semantic. And your dispute is dishonest in that you would
> > have our audience believe that your dispute is more than semantic.
>
> > > Well, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but the obvious
> > > implication here is that hominids of 4 to 5 million years ago were so
> > > successful at excluding food competitor species like these fruit
> > > eating horses from their communally claimed garden habitat that it
> > > drove horses out into the grasslands where they evolved into grass
> > > eaters.
>
> > It's dishonest (and desperate) to criticize something I've retracted.
>
> Evidently all research is NOT consistent with your "hypothesis"...
Well, you could say that it is not complimentary to my hypothesis,
especially not in the way I thought it was when I first misread it,
but that is a far cry from saying it is inconsistent with my
hypothesis. Sure, it doesn't support my hypothesis but it certainly
doesn 't contradict it either.
RichTravsky
>
> On Aug 7, 8:26 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 1, 8:51 am, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > > > Quotes by Albert Einstein:
> >
> > > > > “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
> > > > > when we created them.”
> >
> > > > > “If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let
> > > > > us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would
> > > > > be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped
> > > > > inside it.”
> >
> > > > > “It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems
> > > > > longer .”
> >
> > > > > “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”
> >
> > > > > “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”
> >
> > > > All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
> >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > Nope. Remember your fiasco with the horses?
> >
> > > > Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > > > millions of years.
> >
> > > That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
> >
> > You don't have an evidence-based foundation for it.
>
> No hypothesis can make this claim. The best any hypothesis can claim
You have: All research is consistent with my hypothesis
> is what I have for my EGH hypothesis: there is no evidence based
> dispute for this hypothesis. There is, more or less, evidence based
> disputes with all other hypotheses.
>
> EGH is unique in this respect.
There is no evidence based support for it.
Claudius Denk
Well, you know. I'm not saying I'm infallible. I haven't found any
research that is inconsistent with my hypothesis. And it doesn't
appear you have either. Right?
> > is what I have for my EGH hypothesis: there is no evidence based
> > dispute for this hypothesis. There is, more or less, evidence based
> > disputes with all other hypotheses.
>
> > EGH is unique in this respect.
>
> There is no evidence based support for it.
Well, I agree that the evidence doesn 't come with tags on it
indicating what theory they support. The evidence is open to
interpretation.
RichTravsky
Yes you are with that line.
> research that is inconsistent with my hypothesis. And it doesn't
> appear you have either. Right?
Nope.
> > > is what I have for my EGH hypothesis: there is no evidence based
> > > dispute for this hypothesis. There is, more or less, evidence based
> > > disputes with all other hypotheses.
> >
> > > EGH is unique in this respect.
> >
> > There is no evidence based support for it.
>
> Well, I agree that the evidence doesn 't come with tags on it
> indicating what theory they support. The evidence is open to
> interpretation.
Expect to see those words quoted back at you.
Claudius Denk
It is what it is.
>
> > research that is inconsistent with my hypothesis. And it doesn't
> > appear you have either. Right?
>
> Nope.
No? What is it? Or is it a secret?
You have nothing, Rich. You have no hypothesis (for the LCA
transition) and you have no dispute with my hypothesis. It is what it
is.
> > > > is what I have for my EGH hypothesis: there is no evidence based
> > > > dispute for this hypothesis. There is, more or less, evidence based
> > > > disputes with all other hypotheses.
>
> > > > EGH is unique in this respect.
>
> > > There is no evidence based support for it.
>
> > Well, I agree that the evidence doesn 't come with tags on it
> > indicating what theory they support. The evidence is open to
> > interpretation.
>
> Expect to see those words quoted back at you.
You have nothing you are willing to stand by. All you have is vague
and or ridiculous standard notions that have long ago been found
wanting.
Put up or shut up.
Claudius Denk
Coincidently, I'm bewildered by people that use double
exclamation marks.
> But since it has, I wonder how you can claim
> agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of years?
I do so because of parsimony. When considered in the context
of all of the evidence this notion that agriculture just appeared
on the scene 10 thousand years ago is pretty absurd.
> Scientists
> generally all agree that it started with us some 10,000 years ago.
I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
what anybody generally believes.
> Are
> you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
thousand years? And then consider that there are other aspects
of agriculture that they (see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
for details) may have practiced long before they took up the more
deliberate practice of planting crops. Among these less deliberate
agricultural practices are guarding garden habitat as a community's
strategy to survive the dry season and it's dramatic predatory
implications. (Again, see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
for details.)
> And we did
> not drive animals out of our environment. Instead, we ate them!
The earliest hominids (tooth analysis proves) were primarily
consumers of fruit and, in the dry seasons, hard, dessicated
fruits and seeds. Keeping food competitor species out of their
claimed garden habitat would have been an essential part of their
larger strategy to survive the dry season. Hominids only came to
consume meat after they became ecological dominant,which
probably didn't happen for 2 to 4 mya *after* the LCA (5 to 6 mya).
IOW, meat eating didn't develop until long after hominids had been
successful at keeping these same species from consuming the
resources in their garden habitat.
Ultimately, what I'm saying here is that everything they teach you in
school about hominids being, originally, a clever, small-banded,
ever-mobile, hunting, scavenging, gathering kind of species that
only recently discovered agriculture and civilization is wrong.
Instead
early hominids were highly situated, extremely communal, and
extremely aggressive about collectively (communally) keeping other
species out of the garden habitat as a strategy to preserve these
vegetable resources so that they could survive the dry season and
it's very real predatory implications.
> We
> men were hunters and the women gatherers, a way of life that has
> subsided every since agriculture and animal husbandry began.
Chimpanzees are hunters/gatherers. And since they tend to reside
in a seasonless rainforest habitat that makes sense. Hominids
reside in hghly seasonal (monsoonish: wet season, dry season)
habitat. Early hominids had no choice but to become communal in
order to survive the dry season. There really is no other way to
look
at it.
This notion that early hominids lived a hunter/gatherer existence
(whatever that exactly means) is little more than a old-wives tale.
It isn't supported by evidence it's supported by hearsay.
> broughhttp://civilization-overview.com
Lee Olsen
There seems to be a lot of things that are bewildering to you, like
evidence for one,
or in your case the lack of.
>
> > But since it has, I wonder how you can claim
> > agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of years?
>
> I do so because of parsimony.
Parsimony is not evidence.
> When considered in the context
> of all of the evidence
You mean evidence that you make up?
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than
50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."
Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."
Jim McGinn: "..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 made all that up, just as you made up gatekeepers.
> this notion that agriculture just appeared
> on the scene 10 thousand years ago is pretty absurd.
Absurd only to people who make up their own evidence.
>
> > Scientists
> > generally all agree that it started with us some 10,000 years ago.
>
> I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> what anybody generally believes.
Evidence is not a belief, it is a fact.
>
> > Are
> > you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>
> No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
> given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
> hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> thousand years?
That's like arguing since hominids got to the moon recently, hominids
have always been going to the moon.
> And then consider that there are other aspects
> of agriculture that they (see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> for details)
Making up aspects is science fiction.
>may have practiced long before they took up the more
> deliberate practice of planting crops. Among these less deliberate
> agricultural practices are guarding garden habitat as a community's
> strategy to survive the dry season and it's dramatic predatory
> implications. (Again, see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> for details.)
Since there were no gates, there weren't any gatekeepers either. Try
to
deal with the hard on-the-ground evidence for a change. The Laetoli
tracks were
made by hominids following animal migration trails. This is of course
consistent with
the new study that confirms grasslands were in existance a lot longer
than previously
thought. There are no gates or gatekeepers in the picture.
>
> > And we did
> > not drive animals out of our environment. Instead, we ate them!
>
> The earliest hominids (tooth analysis proves) were primarily
> consumers of fruit and, in the dry seasons, hard, dessicated
> fruits and seeds.
I think you have been listening to Marc for too long.
"None of the hominids analysed so far ate a diet like that of the
modern
chimpanzee, gorilla, or even orangutan, all of which eat nearly 100%
C3 foods. This is not to say that they did not eat fruits and leaves
-
they most probably did. But they also ate quantities of actual
grasses,
or animals that ate the grasses, or both. Grass itself is difficult
to
process and to extract the nutrients (unless one is well-equipped to
do so, like a cow), so it's difficult to visualise how such a large
''grass"
signature could occur unless the hominids ate some animal foods.
C4 -consuming invertebrate and vertebrate animals were abundant
and easily collected by hominids. Raymond Dart was on the right
track all those years ago, even if his environmental scenario was not
quite right!"
"Pleistocene. δ13C data for the South African
hominids, at all periods, show that they par-
ticipated to a significant extent in the savannah
grassland ecosystem. On average about 25% of
carbon was obtained from C4 sources. This pro-
portion remained consistent through widespread
environmental changes, which saw the landscape
change from a closed wooded environment with
patches of grass, to more open habitats domi-
nated by grasslands after ∼1.8 Ma. These data
suggest that, regardless of the habitat and their
specific diets, hominids were willing to eat C4
resources that are generally ignored by the other
great African apes, chimpanzees and gorillas."
Lee-Thorp et al.
What do Stable Isotopes tell us about
Hominid Dietary and Ecological Niches
in the Pliocene?
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 13: 104–113 (2003)
> Keeping food competitor species out of their
> claimed garden habitat would have been an essential part of their
> larger strategy to survive the dry season.
What garden habitat, the one you made up?
Only if you ignore the published evidence and replace it with made-up
fantasies of your own.
[...]
Claudius Denk
> On Aug 24, 9:10 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> > what anybody generally believes.
>
> Evidence is not a belief, it is a fact.
It is a fact that you have no evidence based dispute with my
hypothesis,
> > > Are
> > > you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>
> > No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
> > given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
> > hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> > thousand years?
>
> That's like arguing since hominids got to the moon recently, hominids
> have always been going to the moon.
Well, except that I don't need to base my arguments on vague
analogies. I have a detailed hypothesis. Deny it if you will, but
you have no dispute with it and you have nothing that even begins to
compete with it. Put up or shut up.
>
> > And then consider that there are other aspects
> > of agriculture that they (see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> > for details)
>
> Making up aspects is science fiction.
>
> >may have practiced long before they took up the more
> > deliberate practice of planting crops. Among these less deliberate
> > agricultural practices are guarding garden habitat as a community's
> > strategy to survive the dry season and it's dramatic predatory
> > implications. (Again, see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> > for details.)
>
> Try to deal with the hard on-the-ground evidence for a change.
> The Laetoli tracks were made by hominids following animal
> migration trails.
You know this how?
> This is of course
> consistent with
> the new study that confirms grasslands were in existance a lot longer
> than previously
> thought.
Yeah, as I've been saying for ten years now.
> > > And we did
> > > not drive animals out of our environment. Instead, we ate them!
>
> > The earliest hominids (tooth analysis proves) were primarily
> > consumers of fruit and, in the dry seasons, hard, dessicated
> > fruits and seeds.
>
> I think you have been listening to Marc for too long.
>
> "None of the hominids analysed so far ate a diet like that of the
> modern
> chimpanzee, gorilla, or even orangutan,
This hardly adds up to an excuse for dismissing fruit, dried fruits,
nuts, seeds (including seed grasses), and vegetables as being their
primary diet.
> all of which eat nearly 100%
> C3 foods. This is not to say that they did not eat fruits and leaves
> -
> they most probably did.
Of course they did.
But they also ate quantities of actual
> grasses,
> or animals that ate the grasses, or both. Grass itself is difficult
> to
> process and to extract the nutrients (unless one is well-equipped to
> do so, like a cow), so it's difficult to visualise how such a large
> ''grass"
> signature could occur unless the hominids ate some animal foods.
But is there a large "grass signature," for the earliest hominids?
> C4 -consuming invertebrate and vertebrate animals were abundant
> and easily collected by hominids.
For the LCA?
Raymond Dart was on the right
> track all those years ago, even if his environmental scenario was not
> quite right!"
Absurd.
>
> "Pleistocene. δ13C data for the South African
> hominids, at all periods, show that they par-
> ticipated to a significant extent in the savannah
> grassland ecosystem. On average about 25% of
> carbon was obtained from C4 sources. This pro-
> portion remained consistent through widespread
> environmental changes, which saw the landscape
> change from a closed wooded environment with
> patches of grass, to more open habitats domi-
> nated by grasslands after ∼1.8 Ma.
Ha, I knew it. As usual desperate Olsen has introduced evidence from
1.8 into a discussion about the LCA (6 to 8 mya).
Olsen exemplifies the desperation of conventional thinking on hominid
origins.
These data
> suggest that, regardless of the habitat and their
> specific diets, hominids were willing to eat C4
> resources that are generally ignored by the other
> great African apes, chimpanzees and gorillas."
None of this is applicable to this discussion, you propagandizing
nitwit.
Lee Olsen
> On Aug 25, 7:32 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 24, 9:10 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> > > what anybody generally believes.
>
> > Evidence is not a belief, it is a fact.
>
> It is a fact that you have no evidence based dispute with my
> hypothesis,
I just destroyed your fantasies, you being in denial is not an
argument.
> > > > Are
> > > > you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>
> > > No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
> > > given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
> > > hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> > > thousand years?
>
> > That's like arguing since hominids got to the moon recently, hominids
> > have always been going to the moon.
>
> Well, except that I don't need to base my arguments on vague
> analogies.
Gatekeepers is not vague? Since when?
> I have a detailed hypothesis. Deny it if you will, but
> you have no dispute with it and you have nothing that even begins to
> compete with it. Put up or shut up.
"You mean evidence that you make up?
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than
50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."
Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."
Jim McGinn: "..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 made all that up, just as you made up gatekeepers."
No comment...only a snip job. Did you think we wouldn't notice?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > And then consider that there are other aspects
> > > of agriculture that they (see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> > > for details)
>
> > Making up aspects is science fiction.
No comment. You are lost.
>
> > >may have practiced long before they took up the more
> > > deliberate practice of planting crops. Among these less deliberate
> > > agricultural practices are guarding garden habitat as a community's
> > > strategy to survive the dry season and it's dramatic predatory
> > > implications. (Again, see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> > > for details.)
>
> > Try to deal with the hard on-the-ground evidence for a change.
> > The Laetoli tracks were made by hominids following animal
> > migration trails.
>
> You know this how?
Read the actual publications. The reason you don't publish in a real
journal is because JHE doesn't accept science fiction, sap does.
>
> > This is of course
> > consistent with
> > the new study that confirms grasslands were in existance a lot longer
> > than previously
> > thought.
>
> Yeah, as I've been saying for ten years now.
Where? Besides, salads aren't found in grasslands.
>
> > > > And we did
> > > > not drive animals out of our environment. Instead, we ate them!
>
> > > The earliest hominids (tooth analysis proves) were primarily
> > > consumers of fruit and, in the dry seasons, hard, dessicated
> > > fruits and seeds.
>
> > I think you have been listening to Marc for too long.
No comment.
>
> > "None of the hominids analysed so far ate a diet like that of the
> > modern
> > chimpanzee, gorilla, or even orangutan,
>
> This hardly adds up to an excuse for dismissing fruit, dried fruits,
> nuts, seeds (including seed grasses), and vegetables as being their
> primary diet.
Of course it does, why do you think we have shorter intestines than
the
other apes? Shorter intestines equals more meat (or C4) less garden
salad.
Pretty basic biology 101.
>
> > all of which eat nearly 100%
> > C3 foods. This is not to say that they did not eat fruits and leaves
> > -
> > they most probably did.
>
> Of course they did.
But not enought to keep their intestines long (as in LCA) a point you
seem to be in denial.
>
> But they also ate quantities of actual
>
> > grasses,
> > or animals that ate the grasses, or both. Grass itself is difficult
> > to
> > process and to extract the nutrients (unless one is well-equipped to
> > do so, like a cow), so it's difficult to visualise how such a large
> > ''grass"
> > signature could occur unless the hominids ate some animal foods.
>
> But is there a large "grass signature," for the earliest hominids?
So just how long did they stay *early*? This all didn't happen
overnight.
At 4 mya Apiths were already on the track to a salad-free diet. We
know this
because they were already changing (as in pelvis and intestine
length).
If they continued in the same direction as the salad-eating chimps, we
would
still be chimps.
Not to hard to understand is it?
>
> > C4 -consuming invertebrate and vertebrate animals were abundant
> > and easily collected by hominids.
>
> For the LCA?
The Turkana Boy is nothing like the LCA. So if his dad was eating
salad
all that time, why did the boy change?
>
> Raymond Dart was on the right
>
> > track all those years ago, even if his environmental scenario was not
> > quite right!"
>
> Absurd.
Now you are calling evidence, the C4 tooth signature evidence,
"Absurd"?
It doesn't match a salad diet so you spin labels instead of counter
evidence, nice.
Tell us, what exactly does a C4 salad look like?
>
>
>
> > "Pleistocene. δ13C data for the South African
> > hominids, at all periods, show that they par-
> > ticipated to a significant extent in the savannah
> > grassland ecosystem. On average about 25% of
> > carbon was obtained from C4 sources. This pro-
> > portion remained consistent through widespread
> > environmental changes, which saw the landscape
> > change from a closed wooded environment with
> > patches of grass, to more open habitats domi-
> > nated by grasslands after ∼1.8 Ma.
>
> Ha, I knew it. As usual desperate Olsen has introduced evidence from
> 1.8 into a discussion about the LCA (6 to 8 mya).
Ah, did you miss something? We aren't the LCA anymore. Evolution takes
time.
No one cares we still aren't in trees anymore either.
>
> Olsen exemplifies the desperation of conventional thinking on hominid
> origins.
Salad eaters climb trees. The Laetoli tracks show that wasn't
happening at 4 mya.
Try to deal with the changes as they were happening. They weren't
confined to a
few yards from trees as you made up.
>
> These data
>
> > suggest that, regardless of the habitat and their
> > specific diets, hominids were willing to eat C4
> > resources that are generally ignored by the other
> > great African apes, chimpanzees and gorillas."
>
> None of this is applicable to this discussion, you propagandizing
> nitwit.
See, name calling is the only argument you have.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lee-Thorp et al.
> > What do Stable Isotopes tell us about
> > Hominid Dietary and Ecological Niches
> > in the Pliocene?
> > International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
> > Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 13: 104–113 (2003)
>
> > > Keeping food competitor species out of their
> > > claimed garden habitat would have been an essential part of their
> > > larger strategy to survive the dry season.
>
> > What garden habitat, the one you made up?
No answer.
So try and answer what the Laetoli tracks were doing outside a garden-
like
habitat? I won't expect an answer soon.
>
> > [...]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Claudius Denk
> On Aug 26, 2:10 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> > > > what anybody generally believes.
>
> > > Evidence is not a belief, it is a fact.
>
> > It is a fact that you have no evidence based dispute with my
> > hypothesis,
>
> I just destroyed your fantasies, you being in denial is not an
> argument.
You did? Where? How?
Keep in mind the rest of us don't have access to your imagination.
>
> > > > > Are
> > > > > you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>
> > > > No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
> > > > given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
> > > > hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> > > > thousand years?
>
> > > That's like arguing since hominids got to the moon recently, hominids
> > > have always been going to the moon.
>
> > Well, except that I don't need to base my arguments on vague
> > analogies.
>
> Gatekeepers is not vague? Since when?
Nope.
>
> > I have a detailed hypothesis. Deny it if you will, but
> > you have no dispute with it and you have nothing that even begins to
> > compete with it. Put up or shut up.
>
> "You mean evidence that you make up?
It's not possible (and, in my case not necessary, to make up evidenc).
> Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
> than
> 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
> of trees."
> Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."
>
> Jim McGinn: "..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 made all that up, just as you made up gatekeepers."
Uh, it's not evidence.
>
> No comment...only a snip job. Did you think we wouldn't notice?
>
>
>
> > > > And then consider that there are other aspects
> > > > of agriculture that they (see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> > > > for details)
>
> > > Making up aspects is science fiction.
>
> No comment. You are lost.
>
>
>
> > > >may have practiced long before they took up the more
> > > > deliberate practice of planting crops. Among these less deliberate
> > > > agricultural practices are guarding garden habitat as a community's
> > > > strategy to survive the dry season and it's dramatic predatory
> > > > implications. (Again, see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> > > > for details.)
>
> > > Try to deal with the hard on-the-ground evidence for a change.
> > > The Laetoli tracks were made by hominids following animal
> > > migration trails.
>
> > You know this how?
>
> Read the actual publications. The reason you don't publish in a real
> journal is because JHE doesn't accept science fiction, sap does.
I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer the question. (It really does
complicate things when the rules of evidence prevent you from
referencing your imagination.)
>
>
>
> > > This is of course
> > > consistent with
> > > the new study that confirms grasslands were in existance a lot longer
> > > than previously
> > > thought.
>
> > Yeah, as I've been saying for ten years now.
>
> Where?
Here in this forum.
> Besides, salads aren't found in grasslands.
>
>
> > > > > And we did
> > > > > not drive animals out of our environment. Instead, we ate them!
>
> > > > The earliest hominids (tooth analysis proves) were primarily
> > > > consumers of fruit and, in the dry seasons, hard, dessicated
> > > > fruits and seeds.
>
> > > I think you have been listening to Marc for too long.
>
> No comment.
>
>
>
> > > "None of the hominids analysed so far ate a diet like that of the
> > > modern
> > > chimpanzee, gorilla, or even orangutan,
>
> > This hardly adds up to an excuse for dismissing fruit, dried fruits,
> > nuts, seeds (including seed grasses), and vegetables as being their
> > primary diet.
>
> Of course it does,
No, it doesn't. And this is especially true for the earlier
hominids. (All of your arguments are for He, not early hominids 4 to
6 mya.)
> why do you think we have shorter intestines than
> the
> other apes? Shorter intestines equals more meat (or C4) less garden
> salad.
> Pretty basic biology 101.
>
>
>
> > > all of which eat nearly 100%
> > > C3 foods. This is not to say that they did not eat fruits and leaves
> > > -
> > > they most probably did.
>
> > Of course they did.
>
> But not enought to keep their intestines long (as in LCA) a point you
> seem to be in denial.
Uh, the fact is there is no evidence that early hominids had long
intestines. You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
imagination out of the equation.
>
>
>
> > But they also ate quantities of actual
>
> > > grasses,
> > > or animals that ate the grasses, or both. Grass itself is difficult
> > > to
> > > process and to extract the nutrients (unless one is well-equipped to
> > > do so, like a cow), so it's difficult to visualise how such a large
> > > ''grass"
> > > signature could occur unless the hominids ate some animal foods.
>
> > But is there a large "grass signature," for the earliest hominids?
>
> So just how long did they stay *early*? This all didn't happen
> overnight.
The answer is, No. There is no large grass signature for early
hominids. You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
imagination out of the equation. You are drawing from evidence at 2
mya and dimwittingly applying it to 6 to 7 mya.
> At 4 mya Apiths were already on the track to a salad-free diet. We
> know this
> because they were already changing (as in pelvis and intestine
> length).
> If they continued in the same direction as the salad-eating chimps, we
> would
> still be chimps.
> Not to hard to understand is it?
Not hard at all. Not very good reasoning either.
Uh, because the topic under discussion is the LCA.
>
>
>
> > Olsen exemplifies the desperation of conventional thinking on hominid
> > origins.
>
> Salad eaters climb trees. The Laetoli tracks show that wasn't
> happening at 4 mya.
> Try to deal with the changes as they were happening. They weren't
> confined to a
> few yards from trees as you made up.
>
>
>
> > These data
>
> > > suggest that, regardless of the habitat and their
> > > specific diets, hominids were willing to eat C4
> > > resources that are generally ignored by the other
> > > great African apes, chimpanzees and gorillas."
>
> > None of this is applicable to this discussion, you propagandizing
> > nitwit.
>
> See, name calling is the only argument you have.
Desperation is your only argument.
The evidence doesn't indicate such.
Lee Olsen
> On Aug 26, 5:06 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 26, 2:10 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> > > > > what anybody generally believes.
>
> > > > Evidence is not a belief, it is a fact.
>
> > > It is a fact that you have no evidence based dispute with my
> > > hypothesis,
>
> > I just destroyed your fantasies, you being in denial is not an
> > argument.
>
> You did? Where? How?
Still in denial today?
>
> Keep in mind the rest of us don't have access to your imagination.
I notice what you can't answer, you ignore. Then come back later
pretending it
never happened.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Are
> > > > > > you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>
> > > > > No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
> > > > > given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
> > > > > hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> > > > > thousand years?
>
> > > > That's like arguing since hominids got to the moon recently, hominids
> > > > have always been going to the moon.
>
> > > Well, except that I don't need to base my arguments on vague
> > > analogies.
>
> > Gatekeepers is not vague? Since when?
>
> Nope.
Do you have a picture of one?
>
>
>
> > > I have a detailed hypothesis. Deny it if you will, but
> > > you have no dispute with it and you have nothing that even begins to
> > > compete with it. Put up or shut up.
>
> > "You mean evidence that you make up?
>
> It's not possible (and, in my case not necessary, to make up evidenc).
More denial.
see:
You mean evidence that you make up?
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than
50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."
Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."
Jim McGinn: "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?"
>
> > Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
> > than
> > 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
> > of trees."
> > Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."
>
> > Jim McGinn: "..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 made all that up, just as you made up gatekeepers."
>
> Uh, it's not evidence.
It's not anything other than what you made up.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > No comment...only a snip job. Did you think we wouldn't notice?
>
> > > > > And then consider that there are other aspects
> > > > > of agriculture that they (see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> > > > > for details)
>
> > > > Making up aspects is science fiction.
>
> > No comment. You are lost.
>
> > > > >may have practiced long before they took up the more
> > > > > deliberate practice of planting crops. Among these less deliberate
> > > > > agricultural practices are guarding garden habitat as a community's
> > > > > strategy to survive the dry season and it's dramatic predatory
> > > > > implications. (Again, see my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis
> > > > > for details.)
>
> > > > Try to deal with the hard on-the-ground evidence for a change.
> > > > The Laetoli tracks were made by hominids following animal
> > > > migration trails.
>
> > > You know this how?
>
> > Read the actual publications. The reason you don't publish in a real
> > journal is because JHE doesn't accept science fiction, sap does.
>
> I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer the question. (It really does
> complicate things when the rules of evidence prevent you from
> referencing your imagination.)
Your inadequacies are hardly an argument.
>
>
>
> > > > This is of course
> > > > consistent with
> > > > the new study that confirms grasslands were in existance a lot longer
> > > > than previously
> > > > thought.
>
> > > Yeah, as I've been saying for ten years now.
>
> > Where?
>
> Here in this forum.
I think you are confused. I've cited Dennel on the matter, you, as
uasual, cite yourself.
Yes there is, just because you don't know it, doesn't mean the
evidence doesn't exist.
> You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
> imagination out of the equation.
Are you talking to yourself?
Jim McGinn: "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > But they also ate quantities of actual
>
> > > > grasses,
> > > > or animals that ate the grasses, or both. Grass itself is difficult
> > > > to
> > > > process and to extract the nutrients (unless one is well-equipped to
> > > > do so, like a cow), so it's difficult to visualise how such a large
> > > > ''grass"
> > > > signature could occur unless the hominids ate some animal foods.
>
> > > But is there a large "grass signature," for the earliest hominids?
>
> > So just how long did they stay *early*? This all didn't happen
> > overnight.
>
> The answer is, No. There is no large grass signature for early
> hominids. You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
> imagination out of the equation. You are drawing from evidence at 2
> mya and dimwittingly applying it to 6 to 7 mya.
>
> > At 4 mya Apiths were already on the track to a salad-free diet. We
> > know this
> > because they were already changing (as in pelvis and intestine
> > length).
> > If they continued in the same direction as the salad-eating chimps, we
> > would
> > still be chimps.
> > Not to hard to understand is it?
>
> Not hard at all. Not very good reasoning either.
You can do better?
Jim McGinn: "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?"
[...] the rest isn't worth a reply....
Lee Olsen
> Ha, I knew it. As usual desperate Olsen has introduced evidence from
> 1.8 into a discussion about the LCA (6 to 8 mya).
I see, but you on the otherhand find it OK when it happens to suit
your own fantasies:
Jim McGinn: "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?"
2.5 mya is OK in your mind but 1.8 isn't? (where's Clark, this is a
keeper)
Tom McDonald
and bows and arrows are *much* later. Time seems somewhat, erm, plastic
when Jim wants to make a point.
Claudius Denk
> On Aug 26, 8:57 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > Well, except that I don't need to base my arguments on vague
> > > > analogies.
>
> > > Gatekeepers is not vague? Since when?
>
> > Nope.
>
> Do you have a picture of one?
My hypothesis is very specific and detailed.
>
>
>
> > > > I have a detailed hypothesis. Deny it if you will, but
> > > > you have no dispute with it and you have nothing that even begins to
> > > > compete with it. Put up or shut up.
>
> > > "You mean evidence that you make up?
>
> > It's not possible (and, in my case not necessary, to make up evidenc).
>
> More denial.
You've presented no challenge (as usual).
> > > You made all that up, just as you made up gatekeepers."
>
> > Uh, it's not evidence.
>
> It's not anything other than what you made up.
Hypothetical thinking is an interepretation of evidence, but it's not
evidence, dumbass.
> > I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer the question. (It really does
> > complicate things when the rules of evidence prevent you from
> > referencing your imagination.)
>
> Your inadequacies are hardly an argument.
Scientific amateurs always confuse their beliefs for facts.
> > > > > This is of course
> > > > > consistent with
> > > > > the new study that confirms grasslands were in existance a lot longer
> > > > > than previously
> > > > > thought.
>
> > > > Yeah, as I've been saying for ten years now.
>
> > > Where?
>
> > Here in this forum.
>
> I think you are confused. I've cited Dennel on the matter, you, as
> uasual, cite yourself.
Uh, yeah, so? Or are you so dimwitted to suggest that since you cited
Dennel that this somehow magically eliminates the fact that I have
always associated the earliest hominids with well-watered treed
habitat?
There's more to science that quoting others.
> > > > This hardly adds up to an excuse for dismissing fruit, dried fruits,
> > > > nuts, seeds (including seed grasses), and vegetables as being their
> > > > primary diet.
>
> > > Of course it does,
>
> > No, it doesn't. And this is especially true for the earlier
> > hominids. (All of your arguments are for He, not early hominids 4 to
> > 6 mya.)
Address the issue you dishonest, evasive twit.
> > Uh, the fact is there is no evidence that early hominids had long
> > intestines.
>
> Yes there is, just because you don't know it, doesn't mean the
> evidence doesn't exist.
No there is not. Once again you can't distinguish between 1.8 mya and
4 to 7 mya. Pay attention you freekiin dimwit.
> > The answer is, No. There is no large grass signature for early
> > hominids. You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
> > imagination out of the equation. You are drawing from evidence at 2
> > mya and dimwittingly applying it to 6 to 7 mya.
I repeat: There is no large grass signature for early
hominids. You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
imagination out of the equation. You are drawing from evidence at 2
mya and dimwittingly applying it to 4 to 7 mya.
Olsen, you're such an obvious muddle-headed amateur. You will never
recover from the simpleminded notion of early hominids being small-
bad, ever-mobile, hunters/gatetherer/scavengers/hunters. Your model
does't jibe with reality. Stop whining and start dealing with the
facts in an intellectually honest manner.
Claudius Denk
You are quibbling about the difference betweeen 2.5 and 1.8? Who
cares. The point is that the timeline under discussion here goes back
to the LCA at 4 to 7 mya. if you want to discuss something from a
different point in time then start a new thread, you dishonest twerp.
Claudius Denk
I wasn't discussing 2.5 mya you freeking idiot.
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > > millions of years.
>
> > That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
>
> You don't have an evidence-based foundation for it.
Well, I suppose, in the sense that the evidence doesn 't come with
tags on it indicating what hypothesis is best. But this is true for
all hypothetical thinking, right?
>
> > aspect of my scenario that corresponds with this assertion. Your
> > dispute is semantic. And your dispute is dishonest in that you would
> > have our audience believe that your dispute is more than semantic.
>
> > > Well, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but the obvious
> > > implication here is that hominids of 4 to 5 million years ago were so
> > > successful at excluding food competitor species like these fruit
> > > eating horses from their communally claimed garden habitat that it
> > > drove horses out into the grasslands where they evolved into grass
> > > eaters.
>
> > It's dishonest (and desperate) to criticize something I've retracted.
>
> Evidently all research is NOT consistent with your "hypothesis"...
Oh brother. Your desperation is showing. This evidence does not
contradict any part of my hypothesis. I now realize it doesn't
support it. But that is different from what you are desperately
asserting.
Tom McDonald
When you get such basic facts so desperately wrong, you begin to look
like the freaking idiot. Or were you misquoted above?
You have been cavalier with the facts before; you need to tighten that up.
Claudius Denk
> On 8/27/2011 2:35 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 11:03 am, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> On 8/27/2011 12:22 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 26, 2:10 am, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Ha, I knew it. As usual desperate Olsen has introduced evidence from
> >>>> 1.8 into a discussion about the LCA (6 to 8 mya).
>
> >>> I see, but you on the otherhand find it OK when it happens to suit
> >>> your own fantasies:
> >>> Jim McGinn: "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
> >>> and
> >>> arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
> >>> mya?"
>
> >>> 2.5 mya is OK in your mind but 1.8 isn't? (where's Clark, this is a
> >>> keeper)
>
> >> And even then, while stone tools start showing up ca. 2.5 mya, spears
> >> and bows and arrows are *much* later. Time seems somewhat, erm, plastic
> >> when Jim wants to make a point.
>
> > I wasn't discussing 2.5 mya you freeking idiot.
>
> When you get such basic facts so desperately wrong,
Desperately wrong? Your desperation is showing.
You dimwits are so inept that the only argument you can muster
involves diverting attention from the subject I originated in this
thread. Whether or not stone tools show up at 1.8 or 2.5 is
irrelevant to a discussion that preceeds 4 mya. Start you own thread
> you begin to look
> like the freaking idiot. Or were you misquoted above?
>
> You have been cavalier with the facts before; you need to tighten that up.
You are not a scientist. You are a believer. A defender of the
faith. You have the same simpleminded, fact concealing, approach that
we see in global warming advocates and UFO believers.
Lee Olsen
> On Aug 27, 10:16 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 26, 8:57 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > Well, except that I don't need to base my arguments on vague
> > > > > analogies.
>
> > > > Gatekeepers is not vague? Since when?
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > Do you have a picture of one?
>
> My hypothesis is very specific and detailed.
You don't have a hypothesis, you have writing on bathroom walls.
>
>
>
> > > > > I have a detailed hypothesis. Deny it if you will, but
> > > > > you have no dispute with it and you have nothing that even begins to
> > > > > compete with it. Put up or shut up.
>
> > > > "You mean evidence that you make up?
>
> > > It's not possible (and, in my case not necessary, to make up evidenc).
>
> > More denial.
>
> You've presented no challenge (as usual).
Talk from you is cheap.
>
> > > > You made all that up, just as you made up gatekeepers."
>
> > > Uh, it's not evidence.
>
> > It's not anything other than what you made up.
>
> Hypothetical thinking is an interepretation of evidence, but it's not
> evidence, dumbass.
IOW, you made everything up. Science fiction at its worst. Throw in
some
name-calling and its the best you can do.
>
> > > I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer the question. (It really does
> > > complicate things when the rules of evidence prevent you from
> > > referencing your imagination.)
>
> > Your inadequacies are hardly an argument.
>
> Scientific amateurs always confuse their beliefs for facts.
So, the tracks at Laetoli become beliefs and imaginary gatekeepers are
facts in your
demented world?
>
> > > > > > This is of course
> > > > > > consistent with
> > > > > > the new study that confirms grasslands were in existance a lot longer
> > > > > > than previously
> > > > > > thought.
>
> > > > > Yeah, as I've been saying for ten years now.
>
> > > > Where?
>
> > > Here in this forum.
>
> > I think you are confused. I've cited Dennel on the matter, you, as
> > uasual, cite yourself.
>
> Uh, yeah, so? Or are you so dimwitted to suggest that since you cited
> Dennel that this somehow magically eliminates the fact that I have
> always associated the earliest hominids with well-watered treed
> habitat?
How do you think cheetahs got to China, hopping from well-watered
trees?
>
> There's more to science that quoting others.
There's more to science than watching a couple hours of NOVA.
>
> > > > > This hardly adds up to an excuse for dismissing fruit, dried fruits,
> > > > > nuts, seeds (including seed grasses), and vegetables as being their
> > > > > primary diet.
>
> > > > Of course it does,
>
> > > No, it doesn't. And this is especially true for the earlier
> > > hominids. (All of your arguments are for He, not early hominids 4 to
> > > 6 mya.)
>
> Address the issue you dishonest, evasive twit.
What issue, the 2.5 mya bows and arrows?
>
> > > Uh, the fact is there is no evidence that early hominids had long
> > > intestines.
>
> > Yes there is, just because you don't know it, doesn't mean the
> > evidence doesn't exist.
>
> No there is not.
Shows how little you know.
> Once again you can't distinguish between 1.8 mya and
> 4 to 7 mya. Pay attention you freekiin dimwit.
Once again, you can't destinquish between 2.5 mya and 4 to 7 mya.
More name-calling too. You must be getting very frustrated in not
being able to
produce a gate or a gatekeeper.
>
> > > The answer is, No. There is no large grass signature for early
> > > hominids. You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
> > > imagination out of the equation. You are drawing from evidence at 2
> > > mya and dimwittingly applying it to 6 to 7 mya.
>
> I repeat: There is no large grass signature for early
> hominids.
"No large"? Who said that? All that needs to be shown is a larger
signature than
the salad eaters.
> You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
> imagination out of the equation. You are drawing from evidence at 2
> mya and dimwittingly applying it to 4 to 7 mya.
Says the person who claims 2.5 mya was the advent of bows and arrows.
>
> Olsen, you're such an obvious muddle-headed amateur.
Says the bathroom-wall writer.
> You will never
> recover from the simpleminded notion of early hominids being small-
> bad, ever-mobile, hunters/gatetherer/scavengers/hunters. Your model
> does't jibe with reality. Stop whining and start dealing with the
> facts in an intellectually honest manner.
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, let's see your data again on just
how you arrived at this:
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than 50 or
maybe a 100 yards from the safety of trees."
There were no lions at 4 to 7 mya to hide in trees from and you accuse
me of not knowing
the difference between He and Lucy?
Claudius Denk
> On Aug 27, 12:31 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> So, the tracks at Laetoli become beliefs and imaginary
> gatekeepers are facts in your demented world?
You are so defenseless you instantly resort to strawbaiting and
mischaracterization.
> > > > > > > This is of course
> > > > > > > consistent with
> > > > > > > the new study that confirms grasslands were in existance a lot longer
> > > > > > > than previously
> > > > > > > thought.
>
> > > > > > Yeah, as I've been saying for ten years now.
>
> > > > > Where?
>
> > > > Here in this forum.
>
> > > I think you are confused. I've cited Dennel on the matter, you, as
> > > uasual, cite yourself.
>
> > Uh, yeah, so? Or are you so dimwitted to suggest that since you cited
> > Dennel that this somehow magically eliminates the fact that I have
> > always associated the earliest hominids with well-watered treed
> > habitat?
>
> How do you think cheetahs got to China, hopping from well-watered
> trees?
Answer the question, you evasive twit.
> > Address the issue you dishonest, evasive twit.
>
> What issue, the 2.5 mya bows and arrows?
Start your own thread if that is what you want to discuss this, and
take your propagandizing tactics and abject intellectual desperation
with you.
> > > > Uh, the fact is there is no evidence that early hominids had long
> > > > intestines.
>
> > > Yes there is, just because you don't know it, doesn't mean the
> > > evidence doesn't exist.
>
> > No there is not.
>
> Shows how little you know.
I feel so humbled.
>
> > Once again you can't distinguish between 1.8 mya and
> > 4 to 7 mya. Pay attention you freekiin dimwit.
>
> Once again, you can't destinquish between 2.5 mya and 4 to 7 mya.
> More name-calling too. You must be getting very frustrated in not
> being able to
> produce a gate or a gatekeeper.
What are you talking about you desperate twerp? Go away, Lee. You're
just a troll.
> > > > The answer is, No. There is no large grass signature for early
> > > > hominids. You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
> > > > imagination out of the equation. You are drawing from evidence at 2
> > > > mya and dimwittingly applying it to 6 to 7 mya.
>
> > I repeat: There is no large grass signature for early
> > hominids.
>
> "No large"? Who said that? All that needs to be shown is a larger
> signature than
> the salad eaters.
Uh, Let me get this straight. You're saying that any evidence of
grass is, "All that needs to be shown," to reasonably dismiss my
contention (specifically in regards to earliest hominids, 4 to 7 mya)
that their primary diet would be fruit, dried fruits, nuts, seeds
(including seed grasses), and vegetables as being their primary
diet?
How, exactly, are you so sure of this? Provide details.
Remember, the rest of us don't have direct access to your imagination.
Claudius Denk
You need to make more of a concerted effort to not confuse your
imagination with the actual evidence. Seriously.
Tom McDonald
You must have a guilty conscience. You replied to my post twice.
Or was that just more of your accustomed carelessness?
Claudius Denk
>
> - Show quoted text -
You science groupies are so irritating.
Tom McDonald
You wannabes are just amusing.
Claudius Denk
You're so wide-eyed gullible.
Lee Olsen
> On Aug 27, 3:34 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 27, 12:31 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > So, the tracks at Laetoli become beliefs and imaginary
> > gatekeepers are facts in your demented world?
>
> You are so defenseless you instantly resort to strawbaiting and
> mischaracterization.
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than
50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."
Still no data, only trash talk. The world is waiting for your
answer.....
Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."
There were no lions @ ca. 4 mya, so don't you think it's a
little nonsensical to bring lions into this conversation? There
weren't any
gatekeepers, gates, or garden-like plots @ 7-4 mya either. You made
it
all up.
Jim McGinn: "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?"
Nuff said.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > This is of course
> > > > > > > > consistent with
> > > > > > > > the new study that confirms grasslands were in existance a lot longer
> > > > > > > > than previously
> > > > > > > > thought.
>
> > > > > > > Yeah, as I've been saying for ten years now.
>
> > > > > > Where?
>
> > > > > Here in this forum.
>
> > > > I think you are confused. I've cited Dennel on the matter, you, as
> > > > uasual, cite yourself.
>
> > > Uh, yeah, so? Or are you so dimwitted to suggest that since you cited
> > > Dennel that this somehow magically eliminates the fact that I have
> > > always associated the earliest hominids with well-watered treed
> > > habitat?
>
> > How do you think cheetahs got to China, hopping from well-watered
> > trees?
>
> Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Yes, answer the question: where are the data tables and evidence for
this 50
to 100 yards from trees statement? Nothing worse than a self-
proclaimed
world-class evolutionary theorist falsifying data.
>
> > > Address the issue you dishonest, evasive twit.
>
> > What issue, the 2.5 mya bows and arrows?
>
> Start your own thread if that is what you want to discuss this, and
> take your propagandizing tactics and abject intellectual desperation
> with you.
You are the forum moderator here like you are a world-class theorist.
>
> > > > > Uh, the fact is there is no evidence that early hominids had long
> > > > > intestines.
>
> > > > Yes there is, just because you don't know it, doesn't mean the
> > > > evidence doesn't exist.
>
> > > No there is not.
>
> > Shows how little you know.
>
> I feel so humbled.
Do you need any help learning how to use forum search box?
>
>
>
> > > Once again you can't distinguish between 1.8 mya and
> > > 4 to 7 mya. Pay attention you freekiin dimwit.
>
> > Once again, you can't destinquish between 2.5 mya and 4 to 7 mya.
> > More name-calling too. You must be getting very frustrated in not
> > being able to
> > produce a gate or a gatekeeper.
>
> What are you talking about you desperate twerp? Go away, Lee. You're
> just a troll.
You brought bows and arrows into the mix @ 2.5 mya, then you claim
the
conversation is about 4 to 7 mya. How hypocritical.
>
> > > > > The answer is, No. There is no large grass signature for early
> > > > > hominids. You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
> > > > > imagination out of the equation. You are drawing from evidence at 2
> > > > > mya and dimwittingly applying it to 6 to 7 mya.
>
> > > I repeat: There is no large grass signature for early
> > > hominids.
>
> > "No large"? Who said that? All that needs to be shown is a larger
> > signature than
> > the salad eaters.
>
> Uh, Let me get this straight. You're saying that any evidence of
> grass is, "All that needs to be shown,".....
....that there was a difference between salad eaters and those eating
C4.
>to reasonably dismiss my
> contention
"contention"? Don't flatter yourself, your fantasies are not
reasonable.
>(specifically in regards to earliest hominids, 4 to 7 mya)
> that their primary diet would be fruit, dried fruits, nuts, seeds
> (including seed grasses), and vegetables as being their primary
> diet?
"primary"? Quote me directly liar. It is the difference in diet
between
the salad eaters and the A'piths that are at issue, not what is
primary.
Try learning to read what was actually said, not what you think was
said.
Other than a few acacia trees, your garden-like plot seems to be
missing at Laetoli 4 mya.
Further more, why in the world would someone need a garden-like plot
when
all of the above mentioned is free for the taking without such plots,
even if they were
eating only such items. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?
>
> How, exactly, are you so sure of this? Provide details.
>
> Remember, the rest of us don't have direct access to your imagination.
So where are the tables and evidence for 50 to 100 yards from trees?
Claudius Denk
Read upthread. You are so dingy you can't follow the argument.
> It is the difference in diet
> between
> the salad eaters and the A'piths that are at issue,
Really? Why? Keep in mind the rest of us don't have access to your
imagination.
> not what is primary.
> Try learning to read what was actually said, not what you think was
> said.
Me? You're the one that can't follow the argument. Frikkin pay
attention you dimwit.
> Other than a few acacia trees, your garden-like plot seems to be
> missing at Laetoli 4 mya.
Really? How did you determine this? Please show us.
> Further more, why in the world would someone need a garden-like plot
> when
> all of the above mentioned is free for the taking without such plots,
> even if they were
> eating only such items. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?
Your speculation about things being, "free for taking," is pretty
comical. As I explained, guarding garden habitat was their strategy
to survive the dry season.
It's even more comical that you are so dimwitted to think that Occam's
razor is applicable here. Go ahead. Explain it to us.
> > How, exactly, are you so sure of this? Provide details.
No response.
> > Remember, the rest of us don't have direct access to your imagination.
>
>
Claudius Denk
Tom, when was the last time you presented an argument based on
evidence and reason? Why do you come to a discussion forum if you
have no intention to discuss anything?
Tom McDonald
Why do you? When was the last time you even considered what someone else
wrote? The horse debacle? Why do *you* post here?
Lee Olsen
> On Aug 28, 6:27 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 4:51 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 27, 3:34 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 27, 12:31 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > So, the tracks at Laetoli become beliefs and imaginary
> > > > gatekeepers are facts in your demented world?
>
> > > You are so defenseless you instantly resort to strawbaiting and
> > > mischaracterization.
>
> > Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
> > than
> > 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
> > of trees."
>
> > Still no data, only trash talk. The world is waiting for your
> > answer.....
Still no data and there never will be, you made it up.
>
> > Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."
Typical nonsense. The only think that surpasses your illiteracy is
your ego.
>
> > There were no lions @ ca. 4 mya, so don't you think it's a
> > little nonsensical to bring lions into this conversation? There
> > weren't any
> > gatekeepers, gates, or garden-like plots @ 7-4 mya either. You made
> > it
> > all up.
No comment, I wonder why?
I guess the answer is yes.
So you can quote half a sentence. How childish.
>
> > It is the difference in diet
> > between
> > the salad eaters and the A'piths that are at issue,
>
> Really? Why? Keep in mind the rest of us don't have access to your
> imagination.
What you really mean is you can't quite comprehend what is being said.
>
> > not what is primary.
> > Try learning to read what was actually said, not what you think was
> > said.
>
> Me? You're the one that can't follow the argument. Frikkin pay
> attention you dimwit.
Morre lip service and no data. Still trying to avoid answering as to
how you
determined 50 to 100 yards?
>
> > Other than a few acacia trees, your garden-like plot seems to be
> > missing at Laetoli 4 mya.
>
> Really? How did you determine this? Please show us.
So, you really don't know how to use the forum search box, how many
times
does something have to be repeated before you catch on?
>
> > Further more, why in the world would someone need a garden-like plot
> > when
> > all of the above mentioned is free for the taking without such plots,
> > even if they were
> > eating only such items. Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?
>
> Your speculation about things being, "free for taking," is pretty
> comical. As I explained, guarding garden habitat was their strategy
> to survive the dry season.
Ah, did they have irrigation projects too? Garden habitats don't grow
well during
the dry season, or didn't you know that?
>
> It's even more comical that you are so dimwitted to think that Occam's
> razor is applicable here. Go ahead. Explain it to us.
I just did. Did you miss it or maybe you just can't read?
>
> > > How, exactly, are you so sure of this? Provide details.
>
> No response.
You mean no response that you would understand.
>
>
>
> > > Remember, the rest of us don't have direct access to your imagination.
Definition: Imagination--- 50 to 100 yards from trees.
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
RichTravsky
> On Aug 21, 10:01 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Clodius Denk wrote:
> > > On Aug 14, 7:05 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 1, 8:51 am, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Quotes by Albert Einstein:
> > > > > > > > > “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
> > > > > > > > > when we created them.”
> >
> > > > > > > > > “If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let
> > > > > > > > > us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would
> > > > > > > > > be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped
> > > > > > > > > inside it.”
> >
> > > > > > > > > “It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems
> > > > > > > > > longer .”
> >
> > > > > > > > > “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”
> >
> > > > > > > > > “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”
> >
> > > > > > > > All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
> >
> >
> > > > > > Nope. Remember your fiasco with the horses?
> >
> > > > > > > > Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > > > > > > > millions of years.
> >
> > > > > > > That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
> >
> > > > > > You don't have an evidence-based foundation for it.
> >
> >
> > > > You have: All research is consistent with my hypothesis
> >
> > > Well, you know. I'm not saying I'm infallible. I haven't found any
> >
> > Yes you are with that line.
>
> It is what it is.
A pure nonsense response. You just affirmed you
really believe "All research is consistent with my hypothesis" despite
not being able to prove it.
> > > research that is inconsistent with my hypothesis. And it doesn't
> > > appear you have either. Right?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> No? What is it? Or is it a secret?
>
> You have nothing, Rich. You have no hypothesis (for the LCA
> transition) and you have no dispute with my hypothesis. It is what it
> is.
You have NOTHING, Dim Jim McGinn. Nothing. Your hypothesis is hand waving
and unsupported by any evidence.
> > > > > is what I have for my EGH hypothesis: there is no evidence based
> > > > > dispute for this hypothesis. There is, more or less, evidence based
> > > > > disputes with all other hypotheses.
> >
> > > > > EGH is unique in this respect.
> >
> > > > There is no evidence based support for it.
> >
> > > Well, I agree that the evidence doesn 't come with tags on it
> > > indicating what theory they support. The evidence is open to
> > > interpretation.
> >
> > Expect to see those words quoted back at you.
>
> You have nothing you are willing to stand by. All you have is vague
> and or ridiculous standard notions that have long ago been found
> wanting.
>
> Put up or shut up.
Odd, you've been asked repeatedly for the evidence for your gate thing,
not to mention agriculture millions of years ago...
You first.
RichTravsky
>
> On Aug 4, 1:02 pm, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
> <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 11:51 am, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of years?
>
> I do so because of parsimony. When considered in the context
> of all of the evidence this notion that agriculture just appeared
> on the scene 10 thousand years ago is pretty absurd.
Is it parsimonious to claim the existence of agriculture millions
of years ago without ANY evidence?
> > Scientists
> > generally all agree that it started with us some 10,000 years ago.
>
> I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> what anybody generally believes.
So, the lack of evidence for agriculture millions of years ago
would limit your thinking? How about, oh, let's say, electronics
millions of years ago?
> > Are
> > you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>
> No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
> given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
> hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> thousand years? And then consider that there are other aspects
No. It's quite logical and evidence based. Domestication of plants
and animals leaves genetic traces. There are none to support
what you claim.
RichTravsky
>
> On Aug 27, 10:16 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 26, 8:57 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Well, except that I don't need to base my arguments on vague
> > > > > analogies.
> >
> > > > Gatekeepers is not vague? Since when?
> >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > Do you have a picture of one?
>
> My hypothesis is very specific and detailed.
Lie. Post a link to your hypotheosis and supporting evidence ->
> > > > You made all that up, just as you made up gatekeepers."
> >
> > > Uh, it's not evidence.
> >
> > It's not anything other than what you made up.
>
> Hypothetical thinking is an interepretation of evidence, but it's not
> evidence, dumbass.
What evidence do you use to support your claim of agriculture millions
of years ago ->
Be specific and detailed.
> > > I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer the question. (It really does
> > > complicate things when the rules of evidence prevent you from
> > > referencing your imagination.)
> >
> > Your inadequacies are hardly an argument.
>
> Scientific amateurs always confuse their beliefs for facts.
You are an amateur, and not even a scientific one.
RichTravsky
>
> On Aug 7, 8:26 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > > > millions of years.
> >
> > > That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
> >
> > You don't have an evidence-based foundation for it.
>
> Well, I suppose, in the sense that the evidence doesn 't come with
> tags on it indicating what hypothesis is best. But this is true for
> all hypothetical thinking, right?
Hypothetical thinking is evidence based. Where is YOUR evidence?
> > > aspect of my scenario that corresponds with this assertion. Your
> > > dispute is semantic. And your dispute is dishonest in that you would
> > > have our audience believe that your dispute is more than semantic.
> >
> > > > Well, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but the obvious
> > > > implication here is that hominids of 4 to 5 million years ago were so
> > > > successful at excluding food competitor species like these fruit
> > > > eating horses from their communally claimed garden habitat that it
> > > > drove horses out into the grasslands where they evolved into grass
> > > > eaters.
> >
> > > It's dishonest (and desperate) to criticize something I've retracted.
> >
> > Evidently all research is NOT consistent with your "hypothesis"...
>
> Oh brother. Your desperation is showing. This evidence does not
> contradict any part of my hypothesis. I now realize it doesn't
> support it. But that is different from what you are desperately
> asserting.
but you retracted this part of your claim. So you're lying abotu one of
these...
RichTravsky
I suppose it's understandable that a reliance on research and facts
would irritate you.
Claudius Denk
> On Aug 28, 8:27 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > So, the tracks at Laetoli become beliefs and imaginary
> > > > > gatekeepers are facts in your demented world?
>
> > > > You are so defenseless you instantly resort to strawbaiting and
> > > > mischaracterization.
>
> > > Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
> > > than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety of trees."
>
> > > Still no data, only trash talk. The world is waiting for your
> > > answer.....
>
> Still no data and there never will be, you made it up.
What's comical is how obvious is your desperation. Maybe you can be
so kind to explain to us how the evidence at Laetoli is applicable to
a scenario that preceded it by millions of years? If nothing else,
your response should be good for a few laughs.
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 1:02 pm, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
> > <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 1, 11:51 am, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > > But since it has, I wonder how you can claim
> > > agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of years?
>
> > I do so because of parsimony. When considered in the context
> > of all of the evidence this notion that agriculture just appeared
> > on the scene 10 thousand years ago is pretty absurd.
>
> Is it parsimonious to claim the existence of agriculture millions
> of years ago without ANY evidence?
It's dishonest of you not to point out that in my hypothesis guarding
garden habitat is considered agriculture. If you weren't a
propagandist you wouldn't need to employ these tactics.
> > > Scientists generally all agree that it started with us
> > > some 10,000 years ago.
>
> > I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> > what anybody generally believes.
>
> So, the lack of evidence for agriculture millions of years ago
> would limit your thinking?
Well, considering that the form of agriculture being discussed here
literally involves rocks and sticks directed agains inmigrating
species what evidence would we expect to find?
> How about, oh, let's say, electronics
> millions of years ago?
Make an effort to remain objective. Think about what you're saying
before you hit the send button.
>
> > > Are
> > > you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>
> > No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
> > given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
> > hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> > thousand years? And then consider that there are other aspects
>
> No. It's quite logical and evidence based. Domestication of plants
> and animals leaves genetic traces. There are none to support
> what you claim.
That's an absurd assertion. There's no way you (or anybody) could
possibly know this.
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 8:26 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > > Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > > > > millions of years.
>
> > > > That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
>
> > > You don't have an evidence-based foundation for it.
>
> > Well, I suppose, in the sense that the evidence doesn 't come with
> > tags on it indicating what hypothesis is best. But this is true for
> > all hypothetical thinking, right?
>
> Hypothetical thinking is evidence based. Where is YOUR evidence?
We all use the same evidence, dimwit. I have a hypothesis with which
you have no evidence based dispute. You don't have anything.
> > > > aspect of my scenario that corresponds with this assertion. Your
> > > > dispute is semantic. And your dispute is dishonest in that you would
> > > > have our audience believe that your dispute is more than semantic.
>
> > > > > Well, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but the obvious
> > > > > implication here is that hominids of 4 to 5 million years ago were so
> > > > > successful at excluding food competitor species like these fruit
> > > > > eating horses from their communally claimed garden habitat that it
> > > > > drove horses out into the grasslands where they evolved into grass
> > > > > eaters.
>
> > > > It's dishonest (and desperate) to criticize something I've retracted.
>
> > > Evidently all research is NOT consistent with your "hypothesis"...
>
> > Oh brother. Your desperation is showing. This evidence does not
> > contradict any part of my hypothesis. I now realize it doesn't
> > support it. But that is different from what you are desperately
> > asserting.
>
> but you retracted this part of your claim. So you're lying abotu one of
> these...
Piss of troll.
Claudius Denk
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > On Aug 27, 10:16 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 26, 8:57 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Well, except that I don't need to base my arguments on vague
> > > > > > analogies.
>
> > > > > Gatekeepers is not vague? Since when?
>
> > > > Nope.
>
> > > Do you have a picture of one?
>
> > My hypothesis is very specific and detailed.
>
> Lie. Post a link to your hypotheosis and supporting evidence ->
use a search engine
>
> > > > > You made all that up, just as you made up gatekeepers."
>
> > > > Uh, it's not evidence.
>
> > > It's not anything other than what you made up.
>
> > Hypothetical thinking is an interepretation of evidence, but it's not
> > evidence, dumbass.
>
> What evidence do you use to support your claim of agriculture millions
> of years ago
The fact that you can't dispute it is my evidence.
->
>
> Be specific and detailed.
>
> > > > I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer the question. (It really does
> > > > complicate things when the rules of evidence prevent you from
> > > > referencing your imagination.)
>
> > > Your inadequacies are hardly an argument.
>
> > Scientific amateurs always confuse their beliefs for facts.
>
> You are an amateur, and not even a scientific one.
No, you really are an amateur. You're another science groupie that
never actually studied science, or anything, intensively. Your whole
approach is propagandistic and not scientific. I bet you also believe
in global warming. Am I right?
Claudius Denk
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > It is what it is.
>
> A pure nonsense response. You just affirmed you
> really believe "All research is consistent with my hypothesis" despite
> not being able to prove it.
Maybe your inability to dispute it should give you pause.
> > > > research that is inconsistent with my hypothesis. And it doesn't
> > > > appear you have either. Right?
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > No? What is it? Or is it a secret?
>
> > You have nothing, Rich. You have no hypothesis (for the LCA
> > transition) and you have no dispute with my hypothesis. It is what it
> > is.
>
> You have NOTHING, Dim Jim McGinn. Nothing. Your hypothesis is hand waving
> and unsupported by any evidence.
No, YOU have nothing. And I actually do have a hypothesis that you
can't dispute.
Sometimes you just have to deal with reality.
> > > > > > is what I have for my EGH hypothesis: there is no evidence based
> > > > > > dispute for this hypothesis. There is, more or less, evidence based
> > > > > > disputes with all other hypotheses.
>
> > > > > > EGH is unique in this respect.
>
> > > > > There is no evidence based support for it.
>
> > > > Well, I agree that the evidence doesn 't come with tags on it
> > > > indicating what theory they support. The evidence is open to
> > > > interpretation.
>
> > > Expect to see those words quoted back at you.
>
> > You have nothing you are willing to stand by. All you have is vague
> > and or ridiculous standard notions that have long ago been found
> > wanting.
>
> > Put up or shut up.
>
> Odd, you've been asked repeatedly for the evidence for your gate thing,
> not to mention agriculture millions of years ago...
>
> You first.
All you can muster is semantic arguments based on dogmatic
interpretation of my hypothesis. IOW, you don't have an honest
dispute with the content of my thinking.
Tom McDonald
> On Aug 28, 8:35 pm, RichTravsky<traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 1:02 pm, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
>>> <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 1, 11:51 am, RichTravsky<traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
>>
>>>> But since it has, I wonder how you can claim
>>>> agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of years?
>>
>>> I do so because of parsimony. When considered in the context
>>> of all of the evidence this notion that agriculture just appeared
>>> on the scene 10 thousand years ago is pretty absurd.
>>
>> Is it parsimonious to claim the existence of agriculture millions
>> of years ago without ANY evidence?
>
> It's dishonest of you not to point out that in my hypothesis guarding
> garden habitat is considered agriculture.
You consider it agriculture because you define it that way. No one else
agrees with you. IOW, we must assume your conclusion because we don't
have access to your mind.
> If you weren't a
> propagandist you wouldn't need to employ these tactics.
The propagandistic tactic of using terminology in a way that
communicates to other humans? That tactic?
>>>> Scientists generally all agree that it started with us
>>>> some 10,000 years ago.
>>
>>> I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
>>> what anybody generally believes.
>>
>> So, the lack of evidence for agriculture millions of years ago
>> would limit your thinking?
>
> Well, considering that the form of agriculture being discussed here
> literally involves rocks and sticks directed agains inmigrating
> species what evidence would we expect to find?
So you admit that you have no evidence to support your claim. Good.
>> How about, oh, let's say, electronics
>> millions of years ago?
>
> Make an effort to remain objective. Think about what you're saying
> before you hit the send button.
>
>>
>>>> Are
>>>> you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>>
>>> No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
>>> given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
>>> hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
>>> thousand years? And then consider that there are other aspects
>>
>> No. It's quite logical and evidence based. Domestication of plants
>> and animals leaves genetic traces. There are none to support
>> what you claim.
>
> That's an absurd assertion. There's no way you (or anybody) could
> possibly know this.
What's absurd? That agriculture leaves genetic traces? It does. Everyone
who has really studied this knows that fact.
Or are you saying that it's absurd that there is no genetic evidence for
agriculture at the time depth you claim? That is also not absurd--there
is none. If there is, please trot it out. It's your claim, remember?
Claudius Denk
> On 8/28/2011 11:04 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 8:35 pm, RichTravsky<traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> >> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 4, 1:02 pm, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
> >>> <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 1, 11:51 am, RichTravsky<traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> >>>> But since it has, I wonder how you can claim
> >>>> agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of years?
>
> >>> I do so because of parsimony. When considered in the context
> >>> of all of the evidence this notion that agriculture just appeared
> >>> on the scene 10 thousand years ago is pretty absurd.
>
> >> Is it parsimonious to claim the existence of agriculture millions
> >> of years ago without ANY evidence?
>
> > It's dishonest of you not to point out that in my hypothesis guarding
> > garden habitat is considered agriculture.
>
> You consider it agriculture because you define it that way.
Right, as I explained.
> No one else agrees with you.
And such a dispute is semantic.
> IOW, we must assume your conclusion because we don't
> have access to your mind.
You have access to my explanation for use of the word agriculture.
You pinheads get confused too easily. Try to think clearly about the
details of my hypotrhesis. Don't get hung up on a word. Remember,
we're talking about events that happened millions of years ago. Try
real hard.
>
> > If you weren't a
> > propagandist you wouldn't need to employ these tactics.
>
> The propagandistic tactic of using terminology in a way that
> communicates to other humans? That tactic?
>
> >>>> Scientists generally all agree that it started with us
> >>>> some 10,000 years ago.
>
> >>> I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> >>> what anybody generally believes.
>
> >> So, the lack of evidence for agriculture millions of years ago
> >> would limit your thinking?
>
> > Well, considering that the form of agriculture being discussed here
> > literally involves rocks and sticks directed agains inmigrating
> > species what evidence would we expect to find?
>
> So you admit that you have no evidence to support your claim. Good.
Stone projectiles aren't evidence?
> >> How about, oh, let's say, electronics
> >> millions of years ago?
>
> > Make an effort to remain objective. Think about what you're saying
> > before you hit the send button.
>
> >>>> Are
> >>>> you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>
> >>> No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
> >>> given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
> >>> hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> >>> thousand years? And then consider that there are other aspects
>
> >> No. It's quite logical and evidence based. Domestication of plants
> >> and animals leaves genetic traces. There are none to support
> >> what you claim.
>
> > That's an absurd assertion. There's no way you (or anybody) could
> > possibly know this.
>
> What's absurd? That agriculture leaves genetic traces?
No dimwit, read what I wrote.
It does. Everyone
> who has really studied this knows that fact.
>
> Or are you saying that it's absurd that there is no genetic evidence for
> agriculture at the time depth you claim? That is also not absurd--there
> is none. If there is, please trot it out. It's your claim, remember?
My message hasn't changed. Stone artifacts are the evidence.
Tom McDonald
You wish to do so, but talking assumes rational use of terminology. You
make a claim, using a definition no one else uses, and then get pissy
when that's pointed out. Why not develop your own terminology? You're
the great genius--should be a piece of cake.
>>
>>> If you weren't a
>>> propagandist you wouldn't need to employ these tactics.
>>
>> The propagandistic tactic of using terminology in a way that
>> communicates to other humans? That tactic?
>>
>>>>>> Scientists generally all agree that it started with us
>>>>>> some 10,000 years ago.
>>
>>>>> I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
>>>>> what anybody generally believes.
>>
>>>> So, the lack of evidence for agriculture millions of years ago
>>>> would limit your thinking?
>>
>>> Well, considering that the form of agriculture being discussed here
>>> literally involves rocks and sticks directed agains inmigrating
>>> species what evidence would we expect to find?
>>
>> So you admit that you have no evidence to support your claim. Good.
>
> Stone projectiles aren't evidence?
We don't see stone projectiles in the archaeological record until far,
far later than your laughable 'agriculture'. Do try to keep up.
In fact, stone projectile points are a very recent development. For most
of the Stone Age, there were no projectile weapons in evidence. Axes,
while an argument has been made that they might have been thrown, aren't
generally considered projectiles. And the earlier pebble tools certainly
weren't used that way.
>>>> How about, oh, let's say, electronics
>>>> millions of years ago?
>>
>>> Make an effort to remain objective. Think about what you're saying
>>> before you hit the send button.
>>
>>>>>> Are
>>>>>> you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>>
>>>>> No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
>>>>> given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
>>>>> hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
>>>>> thousand years? And then consider that there are other aspects
>>
>>>> No. It's quite logical and evidence based. Domestication of plants
>>>> and animals leaves genetic traces. There are none to support
>>>> what you claim.
>>
>>> That's an absurd assertion. There's no way you (or anybody) could
>>> possibly know this.
>>
>> What's absurd? That agriculture leaves genetic traces?
>
> No dimwit, read what I wrote.
>
> It does. Everyone
>> who has really studied this knows that fact.
>>
>> Or are you saying that it's absurd that there is no genetic evidence for
>> agriculture at the time depth you claim? That is also not absurd--there
>> is none. If there is, please trot it out. It's your claim, remember?
>
> My message hasn't changed. Stone artifacts are the evidence.
>
>
They don't exist from the time period you need them to exist. If they
caused us to become human, then why don't we see them before we were
Homo? Or at least A. ghari?
I'll tell you why. Because your hypothesis is bullshit question-begging
handwaving. You got nothing, but the contents of your imagination. And,
as you have told us ad nauseum, we ain't got access to that. (Nor, to be
fair, would we want to.)
Claudius Denk
Why are you so hung up on my decision to define agriculture as I
have. Tell us the nature of your dispute and move on with it.
but talking assumes rational use of terminology. You
> make a claim, using a definition no one else uses, and then get pissy
> when that's pointed out. Why not develop your own terminology? You're
> the great genius--should be a piece of cake.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> If you weren't a
> >>> propagandist you wouldn't need to employ these tactics.
>
> >> The propagandistic tactic of using terminology in a way that
> >> communicates to other humans? That tactic?
>
> >>>>>> Scientists generally all agree that it started with us
> >>>>>> some 10,000 years ago.
>
> >>>>> I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> >>>>> what anybody generally believes.
>
> >>>> So, the lack of evidence for agriculture millions of years ago
> >>>> would limit your thinking?
>
> >>> Well, considering that the form of agriculture being discussed here
> >>> literally involves rocks and sticks directed agains inmigrating
> >>> species what evidence would we expect to find?
>
> >> So you admit that you have no evidence to support your claim. Good.
>
> > Stone projectiles aren't evidence?
>
> We don't see stone projectiles in the archaeological record until far,
> far later than your laughable 'agriculture'. Do try to keep up.
We all use the same evidence.
>
> In fact, stone projectile points are a very recent development. For most
> of the Stone Age, there were no projectile weapons in evidence. Axes,
> while an argument has been made that they might have been thrown, aren't
> generally considered projectiles. And the earlier pebble tools certainly
> weren't used that way.
What are you going on about now?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> How about, oh, let's say, electronics
> >>>> millions of years ago?
>
> >>> Make an effort to remain objective. Think about what you're saying
> >>> before you hit the send button.
>
> >>>>>> Are
> >>>>>> you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
>
> >>>>> No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
> >>>>> given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
> >>>>> hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> >>>>> thousand years? And then consider that there are other aspects
>
> >>>> No. It's quite logical and evidence based. Domestication of plants
> >>>> and animals leaves genetic traces. There are none to support
> >>>> what you claim.
>
> >>> That's an absurd assertion. There's no way you (or anybody) could
> >>> possibly know this.
>
> >> What's absurd? That agriculture leaves genetic traces?
>
> > No dimwit, read what I wrote.
>
> > It does. Everyone
> >> who has really studied this knows that fact.
>
> >> Or are you saying that it's absurd that there is no genetic evidence for
> >> agriculture at the time depth you claim? That is also not absurd--there
> >> is none. If there is, please trot it out. It's your claim, remember?
>
> > My message hasn't changed. Stone artifacts are the evidence.
>
> They don't exist from the time period you need them to exist.
Yes, but my scenario explains the orgins of the behavior. You cannot
make the same claim. (You have nothing.)
> If they
> caused us to become human, then why don't we see them before we were
> Homo? Or at least A. ghari?
You lost me.
Lee Olsen
> On Aug 28, 2:51 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 8:27 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > > So, the tracks at Laetoli become beliefs and imaginary
> > > > > > gatekeepers are facts in your demented world?
>
> > > > > You are so defenseless you instantly resort to strawbaiting and
> > > > > mischaracterization.
>
> > > > Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
> > > > than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety of trees."
>
> > > > Still no data, only trash talk. The world is waiting for your
> > > > answer.....
>
> > Still no data and there never will be, you made it up.
>
> What's comical is how obvious is your desperation.
Not only are you intellectually dishonest, but illiterate as well.
McGinn (upthread): "The point is that the timeline under discussion
here goes back
to the LCA at 4 to 7 mya."
> Maybe you can be
> so kind to explain to us how the evidence at Laetoli is applicable to
> a scenario that preceded it by millions of years? If nothing else,
> your response should be good for a few laughs.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1128971/australopith
"australopith (or australopithecine) is used informally to refer not
only to
members of the genus Australopithecus but also to other humanlike
primates that lived in Africa between 6 and 1.2 mya."
"millions of years?" Your addition is as demented as your laughter.
But thanks for the keeper....and keep trying.
[...]
Lee Olsen
> On Aug 27, 10:22 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 26, 2:10 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ha, I knew it. As usual desperate Olsen has introduced evidence from
> > > 1.8 into a discussion about the LCA (6 to 8 mya).
>
> > I see, but you on the otherhand find it OK when it happens to suit
> > your own fantasies:
> > and
> > arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
> > mya?"
>
> > keeper)
>
> cares. The point is that the timeline under discussion here goes back
> to the LCA at 4 to 7 mya. if you want to discuss something from a
> different point in time then start a new thread, you dishonest twerp.
Jim McGinn: " So Paul, now that you've, finally, come to accept the
fact that early
hominids--both A'pith and HE--resided in treed habitat"
Tom McDonald
Done in another post.
> but talking assumes rational use of terminology. You
>> make a claim, using a definition no one else uses, and then get pissy
>> when that's pointed out. Why not develop your own terminology? You're
>> the great genius--should be a piece of cake.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> If you weren't a
>>>>> propagandist you wouldn't need to employ these tactics.
>>
>>>> The propagandistic tactic of using terminology in a way that
>>>> communicates to other humans? That tactic?
>>
>>>>>>>> Scientists generally all agree that it started with us
>>>>>>>> some 10,000 years ago.
>>
>>>>>>> I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
>>>>>>> what anybody generally believes.
>>
>>>>>> So, the lack of evidence for agriculture millions of years ago
>>>>>> would limit your thinking?
>>
>>>>> Well, considering that the form of agriculture being discussed here
>>>>> literally involves rocks and sticks directed agains inmigrating
>>>>> species what evidence would we expect to find?
>>
>>>> So you admit that you have no evidence to support your claim. Good.
>>
>>> Stone projectiles aren't evidence?
>>
>> We don't see stone projectiles in the archaeological record until far,
>> far later than your laughable 'agriculture'. Do try to keep up.
>
> We all use the same evidence.
Apparently not. You seem to see things that aren't there--like
agriculture and projectiles long before either is evidenced in the
archaeological record.
>>
>> In fact, stone projectile points are a very recent development. For most
>> of the Stone Age, there were no projectile weapons in evidence. Axes,
>> while an argument has been made that they might have been thrown, aren't
>> generally considered projectiles. And the earlier pebble tools certainly
>> weren't used that way.
>
> What are you going on about now?
What don't you understand? You were invoking stone projectiles in the
archaeological record. I was discussing what is actually in that record.
It doesn't come close to supporting you. Are you really ignorant about
the archaeological evidence for stone projectiles?
So stone artifacts four or five million years later explain a behavior
that you imagine happened in that earlier era?
Again, you bend language to the breaking point.
>> If they
>> caused us to become human, then why don't we see them before we were
>> Homo? Or at least A. ghari?
>
> You lost me.
Apparently. Think about it.
>>
>> I'll tell you why. Because your hypothesis is bullshit question-begging
>> handwaving. You got nothing, but the contents of your imagination. And,
>> as you have told us ad nauseum, we ain't got access to that. (Nor, to be
>> fair, would we want to.)
>
I stand behind this characterization of your work.
Claudius Denk
Tell us the nature of your dispute and move on with it. If you put
forth a hypothesis you will have license to use words in any manner
you want.
Do you concede that pest control behavior is agricultural? Do you
concede that the behavior indicated in my hypothesis is pest control.
If so then what is the nature of your dispute?
> > but talking assumes rational use of terminology. You
> >> make a claim, using a definition no one else uses, and then get pissy
> >> when that's pointed out. Why not develop your own terminology? You're
> >> the great genius--should be a piece of cake.
>
> >>>>> If you weren't a
> >>>>> propagandist you wouldn't need to employ these tactics.
>
> >>>> The propagandistic tactic of using terminology in a way that
> >>>> communicates to other humans? That tactic?
>
> >>>>>>>> Scientists generally all agree that it started with us
> >>>>>>>> some 10,000 years ago.
>
> >>>>>>> I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> >>>>>>> what anybody generally believes.
>
> >>>>>> So, the lack of evidence for agriculture millions of years ago
> >>>>>> would limit your thinking?
>
> >>>>> Well, considering that the form of agriculture being discussed here
> >>>>> literally involves rocks and sticks directed agains inmigrating
> >>>>> species what evidence would we expect to find?
>
> >>>> So you admit that you have no evidence to support your claim. Good.
>
> >>> Stone projectiles aren't evidence?
>
> >> We don't see stone projectiles in the archaeological record until far,
> >> far later than your laughable 'agriculture'. Do try to keep up.
>
> > We all use the same evidence.
>
> Apparently not. You seem to see things that aren't there
How do you know that they weren't there? Do you have a crystal ball
to the past? If you have an evidence based argument to substantiate
your claim why not just present it and let the chips fall where they
may.
> --like
> agriculture and projectiles long before either is evidenced in the
> archaeological record.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> >> In fact, stone projectile points are a very recent development. For most
> >> of the Stone Age, there were no projectile weapons in evidence. Axes,
> >> while an argument has been made that they might have been thrown, aren't
> >> generally considered projectiles. And the earlier pebble tools certainly
> >> weren't used that way.
>
> > What are you going on about now?
>
> What don't you understand? You were invoking stone projectiles in the
> archaeological record. I was discussing what is actually in that record.
> It doesn't come close to supporting you. Are you really ignorant about
> the archaeological evidence for stone projectiles?
Uh, we're talking about something purported to have happened millions
of years ago. Obviously there is no absolute proof either way. Why
don't you endeavor to stop pointing out the obvious. Now run along.
Indirectly, yes, by way of showing the origins of the associated
behavior (rock throwing, communal territorialism). Do you concede
that you have nothing that disputes these aspects of my scenario?
>
> Again, you bend language to the breaking point.
So did Einstein. Science is complex, deal with it.
>
> >> If they
> >> caused us to become human, then why don't we see them before we were
> >> Homo? Or at least A. ghari?
>
> > You lost me.
>
> Apparently. Think about it.
>
>
>
> >> I'll tell you why. Because your hypothesis is bullshit question-begging
> >> handwaving. You got nothing, but the contents of your imagination. And,
> >> as you have told us ad nauseum, we ain't got access to that. (Nor, to be
> >> fair, would we want to.)
>
> I stand behind this characterization of your work.- Hide quoted text -
Lee Olsen
> On Aug 27, 10:16 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 26, 8:57 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > Well, except that I don't need to base my arguments on vague
> > > > > analogies.
>
> > > > Gatekeepers is not vague? Since when?
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > Do you have a picture of one?
>
> My hypothesis is very specific and detailed.
You don't have a hypothesis. What you have is a vivid imagination for
making up just-so stories.
>
>
>
> > > > > I have a detailed hypothesis. Deny it if you will, but
> > > > > you have no dispute with it and you have nothing that even begins to
> > > > > compete with it. Put up or shut up.
>
> > > > "You mean evidence that you make up?
>
> > > It's not possible (and, in my case not necessary, to make up evidenc).
>
> > More denial.
>
> You've presented no challenge (as usual).
Who can challenge your imagination?
>
> > > > You made all that up, just as you made up gatekeepers."
>
> > > Uh, it's not evidence.
>
> > It's not anything other than what you made up.
>
> Hypothetical thinking is an interepretation of evidence, but it's not
> evidence, dumbass.
You are confused as usual. Making up just-so stories about gatekeepers
is
nothing more than deceit. Especially when you make up trash like 50 to
100
yards from trees BS.
>
> > > I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer the question. (It really does
> > > complicate things when the rules of evidence prevent you from
> > > referencing your imagination.)
>
> > Your inadequacies are hardly an argument.
>
> Scientific amateurs always confuse their beliefs for facts.
So what is an amateur like you doing on a science forum?
>
> > > > > > This is of course
> > > > > > consistent with
> > > > > > the new study that confirms grasslands were in existance a lot longer
> > > > > > than previously
> > > > > > thought.
>
> > > > > Yeah, as I've been saying for ten years now.
>
> > > > Where?
>
> > > Here in this forum.
>
> > I think you are confused. I've cited Dennel on the matter, you, as
> > uasual, cite yourself.
>
> Uh, yeah, so? Or are you so dimwitted to suggest that since you cited
> Dennel that this somehow magically eliminates the fact that I have
> always associated the earliest hominids with well-watered treed
> habitat?
So, name calling is all you can muster up for a citation? I figured as
much
from an amateur like you.
>
> There's more to science that quoting others.
Not citing others who actually did the research is dishonest.
>
> > > > > This hardly adds up to an excuse for dismissing fruit, dried fruits,
> > > > > nuts, seeds (including seed grasses), and vegetables as being their
> > > > > primary diet.
>
> > > > Of course it does,
>
> > > No, it doesn't. And this is especially true for the earlier
> > > hominids. (All of your arguments are for He, not early hominids 4 to
> > > 6 mya.)
>
> Address the issue you dishonest, evasive twit.
>
I just did. So besides making up evidence, you can't read either.
> > > Uh, the fact is there is no evidence that early hominids had long
> > > intestines.
>
> > Yes there is, just because you don't know it, doesn't mean the
> > evidence doesn't exist.
>
> No there is not.
Yes there is. Your complete ignorance is not an argument.
> Once again you can't distinguish between 1.8 mya and
> 4 to 7 mya. Pay attention you freekiin dimwit.
I'm really surprised that a self proclaimed world-class evolutionary
theorist
like you is having so much trouble with the simplest of facts.
>
> > > The answer is, No. There is no large grass signature for early
> > > hominids. You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
> > > imagination out of the equation. You are drawing from evidence at 2
> > > mya and dimwittingly applying it to 6 to 7 mya.
>
> I repeat: There is no large grass signature for early
> hominids.
"Large" ? Quote Lee-Thorpe directly. Your dishonesty is getting to be
quite
boring.
> You need to start dealing with facts and leave your
> imagination out of the equation.
I cited the facts, your inability to grasp them is your problem, not
mine.
> You are drawing from evidence at 2
> mya and dimwittingly applying it to 4 to 7 mya.
A'piths are hominids that are in the record from 6 mya to 1.5 mya.
I'm again surprised that even after I cited and gave a URL you still
don't know this.
>
> Olsen, you're such an obvious muddle-headed amateur.
Says who? The guy who claims this forum is about science, yet refuses
to
give the source for 50 to 100 yards from trees?
> You will never
> recover from the simpleminded notion of early hominids being small-
> bad, ever-mobile, hunters/gatetherer/scavengers/hunters.
The reason you skip direct quotes about what I said is because it
would expose
your made-up fantasies, just like you made up 50 to 100 yards from
trees.
The fact is, you are just a plain dishonest person.
> Your model
> does't jibe with reality. Stop whining and start dealing with the
> facts in an intellectually honest manner.
My model? What model is that? I thought you said you can't read
minds?
One day you can and the next day you can't. It's just another example
of your
intellectual dishonesty I'm afraid.
Another classic example of you dishonesty: you quote a few semantic
quips from Einstein.
Then you tell the forum readers
this is a science list that is not about semantics. FYI, unlike
yourself, Einstein puplished
his work in peer-reviewed journals WITH REFERENCES that you refuse to
do when
challenged to do so. There is a good reason why your posts are data
free, citation free,
and content free....the facts would mess up your imaginary
gatekeeper's credibility.
Claudius Denk
> My model? What model is that?
Typical anthro groupy. You have no model. You have no thoughts of
your own. Yet you are always so sure you are right.
Lee Olsen
> On Aug 29, 4:57 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My model? What model is that?
>
> Typical anthro groupy. You have no model.
So, you admit you lied about "Your model"
McGinn:
> Your model
> does't jibe with reality.
> You have no thoughts of
> your own.
Right, I have no thoughts on a specific distance A'piths ventured away
from trees,
like say 50 to 100 yards.
> Yet you are always so sure you are right.
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than 50 or maybe
a 100 yards from the safety of trees."
I work from the on-the-ground evidence, so if there is none,
speculating on distances leaves
me a little short on data to a form robust hypothesis. Of course I
could counter with: no, they ventured
500 to 1000 yards from trees....prove me wrong. So from then on it's
he said, she said, how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin? What would that prove?
Lee Olsen
> You, my dear Denk, are no Einstein. You're closer to that other famous
> person everyone laughed at; you know, the one with the big, floppy shoes
> and big round red nose.
The big round nose grew about 6 inches with this one.
Watch this, a masterpiece from Gerrit. Catches McGinn redhanded trying
to
bluff his way through with his usual BS:
Message-ID: <61sit351iin96hpqm...@4ax.com>
Gerrit:
>> Your scenario is just a variation on dramatist Robert Ardey's 1961
>> "African Genesis".
McGinn:
> Ardey vague notions never added up to much.
Gerrit:
It's nice to see you copy my typo (it's Ardrey). Another source you
haven't read?
At least Ardrey went to South Africa to do research.
And more recently:
Message-ID: <dd8209c2-3f82-4a0e-
a646-584...@t30g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
McGinn:
"I have read Brain, but apparently you haven't in that
you are unable to quote anything from him that makes
your point."
Olsen:
"You are bluffing. You haven't read Brain or else you could quote him
directly."
Claudius Denk
> On Jul 31, 1:12 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > You, my dear Denk, are no Einstein. You're closer to that other famous
> > person everyone laughed at; you know, the one with the big, floppy shoes
> > and big round red nose.
>
> The big round nose grew about 6 inches with this one.
>
> Watch this, a masterpiece from Gerrit. Catches
> McGinn redhanded trying to bluff his way through
> with his usual BS:
>
> Message-ID: <61sit351iin96hpqm...@4ax.com>
>
> Gerrit:
>
> >> Your scenario is just a variation on dramatist Robert Ardey's 1961
> >> "African Genesis".
>
> McGinn:
>
> > Ardey vague notions never added up to much.
>
> Gerrit:
> It's nice to see you copy my typo (it's Ardrey). Another source you
> haven't read?
> At least Ardrey went to South Africa to do research.
>
> And more recently:
> Message-ID: <dd8209c2-3f82-4a0e-
> McGinn:
> "I have read Brain, but apparently you haven't in that
> you are unable to quote anything from him that makes
> your point."
>
> Olsen:
> "You are bluffing. You haven't read Brain or else you could quote him
> directly."
You caught me red handed. I'm embarassed beyond repair. Witj this
post my whole world view has come crashing down before me. I hope you
can understand the overwhelming shock of devastation that has befallen
me. Oh woe is me.
Claudius Denk
> On Aug 29, 5:31 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 29, 4:57 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My model? What model is that?
>
> > Typical anthro groupy. You have no model.
>
> So, you admit you lied about "Your model"
. . . there's no reason to continue the charade. You're right. It's
all a fib. I was just bored one afternoon and made it up while
puffing a dubie.
I feel better already. It's aboput time I came clean on this.
>
> McGinn:
>
> > Your model
> > does't jibe with reality.
> > You have no thoughts of
> > your own.
>
> Right, I have no thoughts on a specific distance A'piths ventured away
> from trees,
> like say 50 to 100 yards.
>
> > Yet you are always so sure you are right.
>
> Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
> than 50 or maybe
> a 100 yards from the safety of trees."
>
> I work from the on-the-ground evidence,
"on-the-ground evidence?" C'mon Olsen. Spit it out. I'm sure you're
just pissing all over yourself waiting for me to ask: what the freek
is "on-the-ground" evidence.
> so if there is none,
Uh, so, it's like "on-the-ground" evidence is like a get-out-of-jail-
free card in monopoly?
> speculating on distances leaves
> me a little short on data to a form robust hypothesis. Of course I
> could counter with: no, they ventured
> 500 to 1000 yards from trees....prove me wrong
And I don't deny that in terms of the actual numbers you mighth be
more right than am I. It's mostly important that we are on the same
page with respect to mutually recognizing that early hominids (2 mya
to 7 mya) would have no good reason to be in treeless savanna, miles
away from treed habitat.
Isn't in great to be in agreement?
> So from then on it's
> he said, she said, how many
> angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Outside my area of expertise. How about 42 maybe?
> What would that prove?
It would prove that any 43rd angel would be paranoid for good reason.
Lee Olsen
> On Sep 2, 8:01 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 31, 1:12 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > You, my dear Denk, are no Einstein. You're closer to that other famous
> > > person everyone laughed at; you know, the one with the big, floppy shoes
> > > and big round red nose.
>
> > The big round nose grew about 6 inches with this one.
>
> > Watch this, a masterpiece from Gerrit. Catches
> > McGinn redhanded trying to bluff his way through
> > with his usual BS:
>
>
> > Gerrit:
>
> > >> Your scenario is just a variation on dramatist Robert Ardey's 1961
> > >> "African Genesis".
>
> > McGinn:
>
> > > Ardey vague notions never added up to much.
>
> > Gerrit:
> > It's nice to see you copy my typo (it's Ardrey). Another source you
> > haven't read?
> > At least Ardrey went to South Africa to do research.
>
> > And more recently:
> > Message-ID: <dd8209c2-3f82-4a0e-
> > a646-58485737d...@t30g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
> > McGinn:
> > "I have read Brain, but apparently you haven't in that
> > you are unable to quote anything from him that makes
> > your point."
>
> > Olsen:
> > "You are bluffing. You haven't read Brain or else you could quote him
> > directly."
>
> You caught me red handed. I'm embarassed beyond repair. Witj this
> post my whole world view has come crashing down before me. I hope you
> can understand the overwhelming shock of devastation that has befallen
> me. Oh woe is me.
Well, getting caught hasn't slowed you down before, I doubt if it will
this time.
What else do you have for us that is shiny?
Lee Olsen
<nothing worth commenting on>
I'll bet your fans with love this one, a blast from the past:
Message-ID: <eUqoe.1572685$8l.983574@pd7tw1no>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:34:34 GMT
> C'mon you big phoney, answer the question.
> Jim
"Remember thousands of a'piths defending city
sized blocs of forests from hyraxes to elephants?
No? After Norm Sides had a high old time trashing
that stuff I can see why you would want to forget
about it. Denying you ever came up with this howler
is not the most elegant or honest climbdown but a
climbdown all the same.
A further word of advice.....stop throwing your
meds into the flower pot when Nursey isn't looking...
a more equitable temperament might actually
gain you a corresponding partner who's willing
to give your 'hypothesis' a test drive. As for me
yanking your chain from time to time is some
cheap, greasy fun......Weak of me, I know,
but what the hell what's the point of having a
village idiot if you can't throw rocks at him now
and again." Rick Wagler
Claudius Denk
> On Sep 2, 9:00 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <nothing worth commenting on>
>
> I'll bet your fans with love this one, a blast from the past:
> Message-ID: <eUqoe.1572685$8l.983574@pd7tw1no>
> Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:34:34 GMT
>
> > C'mon you big phoney, answer the question.
> > Jim
>
> "Remember thousands of a'piths defending city
> sized blocs of forests from hyraxes to elephants?
Of course I remember. How nice of you to bring it up.
> No? After Norm Sides had a high old time trashing
> that stuff I can see why you would want to forget
> about it. Denying you ever came up with this howler
> is not the most elegant or honest climbdown but a
> climbdown all the same.
Why would I deny it. I mean, it's not like you have any kind of
evidence-based dispute with that suppositional description. Right?
> A further word of advice.....stop throwing your
> meds into the flower pot when Nursey isn't looking...
> a more equitable temperament might actually
> gain you a corresponding partner who's willing
> to give your 'hypothesis' a test drive. As for me
> yanking your chain from time to time is some
> cheap, greasy fun......Weak of me, I know,
> but what the hell what's the point of having a
> village idiot if you can't throw rocks at him now
> and again." Rick Wagler
I always find it so amusing when science groupies quote each other.
Lee Olsen
> On Sep 2, 9:28 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 2, 9:00 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > <nothing worth commenting on>
>
> > I'll bet your fans with love this one, a blast from the past:
> > Message-ID: <eUqoe.1572685$8l.983574@pd7tw1no>
> > Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:34:34 GMT
>
> > > C'mon you big phoney, answer the question.
> > > Jim
>
> > "Remember thousands of a'piths defending city
> > sized blocs of forests from hyraxes to elephants?
>
> Of course I remember. How nice of you to bring it up.
>
> > No? After Norm Sides had a high old time trashing
> > that stuff I can see why you would want to forget
> > about it. Denying you ever came up with this howler
> > is not the most elegant or honest climbdown but a
> > climbdown all the same.
>
> Why would I deny it.
So, you admit your just-so story is a "howler'?
> I mean, it's not like you have any kind of
> evidence-based dispute with that suppositional description. Right?
How can one deny the existance of science fiction? Prove that A'piths
were not
brought here by aliens from outer space.
>
> > A further word of advice.....stop throwing your
> > meds into the flower pot when Nursey isn't looking...
> > a more equitable temperament might actually
> > gain you a corresponding partner who's willing
> > to give your 'hypothesis' a test drive. As for me
> > yanking your chain from time to time is some
> > cheap, greasy fun......Weak of me, I know,
> > but what the hell what's the point of having a
> > village idiot if you can't throw rocks at him now
> > and again." Rick Wagler
>
> I always find it so amusing when science groupies quote each other.
I'm not an attorney, but as I understand it, calling someone a
"village idiot"
is only slander if it is not true.
Lee Olsen
> On Aug 28, 8:37 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > What evidence do you use to support your claim of agriculture millions
> > of years ago
>
> The fact that you can't dispute it is my evidence.
"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also
laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagen
Jim McGinn: "My hypothesis is still completely unrefuted."
Marc Verhaegen: "still no argument against"
Rick Wagler: "You can't prove a negative so its
no use asking."
RT
> On Aug 28, 8:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > On Aug 4, 1:02 pm, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
> > > <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 1, 11:51 am, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > > But since it has, I wonder how you can claim
> > > > agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of years?
> >
> > > I do so because of parsimony. When considered in the context
> > > of all of the evidence this notion that agriculture just appeared
> > > on the scene 10 thousand years ago is pretty absurd.
> >
> > Is it parsimonious to claim the existence of agriculture millions
> > of years ago without ANY evidence?
>
> It's dishonest of you not to point out that in my hypothesis guarding
> garden habitat is considered agriculture. If you weren't a
> propagandist you wouldn't need to employ these tactics.
You made up your own definition of agriculture. Now answer the question:
Is it parsimonious to claim the existence of agriculture millions
of years ago without ANY evidence?
> > > > Scientists generally all agree that it started with us
> > > > some 10,000 years ago.
> >
> > > I learned a long time ago not to allow my thinking be limited by
> > > what anybody generally believes.
> >
> > So, the lack of evidence for agriculture millions of years ago
> > would limit your thinking?
>
> Well, considering that the form of agriculture being discussed here
> literally involves rocks and sticks directed agains inmigrating
> species what evidence would we expect to find?
Discussed without evidence.
> > How about, oh, let's say, electronics
> > millions of years ago?
>
> Make an effort to remain objective. Think about what you're saying
> before you hit the send button.
Make an effort to remain objective. What evidence is there for agriculture
millions of years ago?
> > > > Are
> > > > you aware of some animal other than us who planted crops?!
> >
> > > No. And hominids have been around for millions of years. And
> > > given this realization, doesn't it seem kind of silly to suggest that
> > > hominids have only been practicing agriculture for a mere 10
> > > thousand years? And then consider that there are other aspects
> >
> > No. It's quite logical and evidence based. Domestication of plants
> > and animals leaves genetic traces. There are none to support
> > what you claim.
>
> That's an absurd assertion. There's no way you (or anybody) could
> possibly know this.
Yes there is. DNA. Genetics. Etc. How do you think dog domestication is
investigated?
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/13701.full
Detecting multiple origins of domesticated crops
Published online before print September 10, 2008,
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0807439105
PNAS September 16, 2008 vol. 105 no. 37 13701-13702
http://www.genetics.org/content/154/4/1785.full
Genetics, Vol. 154, 1785-1791, April 2000
The Origin of the Domestic Pig: Independent Domestication and
Subsequent Introgression
Lots more online if you're interested in dispeling your ignorance.
RichTravsky
> On Aug 28, 8:39 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > On Aug 7, 8:26 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > > > Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > > > > > millions of years.
> >
> > > > > That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
> >
> > > > You don't have an evidence-based foundation for it.
> >
> > > Well, I suppose, in the sense that the evidence doesn 't come with
> > > tags on it indicating what hypothesis is best. But this is true for
> > > all hypothetical thinking, right?
> >
> > Hypothetical thinking is evidence based. Where is YOUR evidence?
>
> We all use the same evidence, dimwit. I have a hypothesis with which
> you have no evidence based dispute. You don't have anything.
WHAT is YOUR evidence? Please post a couple of cites you're using as
evidence.
> > > > > aspect of my scenario that corresponds with this assertion. Your
> > > > > dispute is semantic. And your dispute is dishonest in that you would
> > > > > have our audience believe that your dispute is more than semantic.
> >
> > > > > > Well, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but the obvious
> > > > > > implication here is that hominids of 4 to 5 million years ago were so
> > > > > > successful at excluding food competitor species like these fruit
> > > > > > eating horses from their communally claimed garden habitat that it
> > > > > > drove horses out into the grasslands where they evolved into grass
> > > > > > eaters.
> >
> > > > > It's dishonest (and desperate) to criticize something I've retracted.
> >
> > > > Evidently all research is NOT consistent with your "hypothesis"...
> >
> > > Oh brother. Your desperation is showing. This evidence does not
> > > contradict any part of my hypothesis. I now realize it doesn't
> > > support it. But that is different from what you are desperately
> > > asserting.
> >
> > but you retracted this part of your claim. So you're lying abotu one of
> > these...
>
> Piss of troll.
You don't like being caught in contradictions, do you?
RichTravsky
> On Aug 28, 8:37 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > On Aug 27, 10:16 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 26, 8:57 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Well, except that I don't need to base my arguments on vague
> > > > > > > analogies.
> >
> > > > > > Gatekeepers is not vague? Since when?
> >
> > > > > Nope.
> >
> > > > Do you have a picture of one?
> >
> > > My hypothesis is very specific and detailed.
> >
> > Lie. Post a link to your hypotheosis and supporting evidence ->
>
> use a search engine
Noted - you can't do it.
Because you have no hypothesis.
> > > > > > You made all that up, just as you made up gatekeepers."
> >
> > > > > Uh, it's not evidence.
> >
> > > > It's not anything other than what you made up.
> >
> > > Hypothetical thinking is an interepretation of evidence, but it's not
> > > evidence, dumbass.
> >
> > What evidence do you use to support your claim of agriculture millions
> > of years ago
>
> The fact that you can't dispute it is my evidence.
You have not posted your hypothesis, nor can you piost any evidence for it.
The fact that you can't support it is proof is my evidence you're lying.
> ->
> >
> > Be specific and detailed.
> >
> > > > > I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer the question. (It really does
> > > > > complicate things when the rules of evidence prevent you from
> > > > > referencing your imagination.)
> >
> > > > Your inadequacies are hardly an argument.
> >
> > > Scientific amateurs always confuse their beliefs for facts.
> >
> > You are an amateur, and not even a scientific one.
>
> No, you really are an amateur. You're another science groupie that
> never actually studied science, or anything, intensively. Your whole
Degrees in chemistry, co sci, minors in math, anthro (including master's
work, tho I had to leave to work), and psych.
You?
RichTravsky
>
> On Aug 28, 8:31 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > > It is what it is.
> >
> > A pure nonsense response. You just affirmed you
> > really believe "All research is consistent with my hypothesis" despite
> > not being able to prove it.
>
> Maybe your inability to dispute it should give you pause.
Maybe your inability to support it should give you pause.
> > > > > research that is inconsistent with my hypothesis. And it doesn't
> > > > > appear you have either. Right?
> >
> > > > Nope.
> >
> > > No? What is it? Or is it a secret?
> >
> > > You have nothing, Rich. You have no hypothesis (for the LCA
> > > transition) and you have no dispute with my hypothesis. It is what it
> > > is.
> >
> > You have NOTHING, Dim Jim McGinn. Nothing. Your hypothesis is hand waving
> > and unsupported by any evidence.
>
> No, YOU have nothing. And I actually do have a hypothesis that you
> can't dispute.
>
> Sometimes you just have to deal with reality.
The reality is you have no hypothesis. Otherwise you would not be scared to
post it and support.
> > > > > > > is what I have for my EGH hypothesis: there is no evidence based
> > > > > > > dispute for this hypothesis. There is, more or less, evidence based
> > > > > > > disputes with all other hypotheses.
> >
> > > > > > > EGH is unique in this respect.
> >
> > > > > > There is no evidence based support for it.
> >
> > > > > Well, I agree that the evidence doesn 't come with tags on it
> > > > > indicating what theory they support. The evidence is open to
> > > > > interpretation.
> >
> > > > Expect to see those words quoted back at you.
> >
> > > You have nothing you are willing to stand by. All you have is vague
> > > and or ridiculous standard notions that have long ago been found
> > > wanting.
> >
> > > Put up or shut up.
> >
> > Odd, you've been asked repeatedly for the evidence for your gate thing,
> > not to mention agriculture millions of years ago...
> >
> > You first.
>
> All you can muster is semantic arguments based on dogmatic
> interpretation of my hypothesis. IOW, you don't have an honest
> dispute with the content of my thinking.
Why not post your detailed hypothesis and let us see?
PUOSU
RichTravsky
>
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > On 8/27/2011 6:56 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > On Aug 27, 12:59 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > >> On 8/27/2011 2:35 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> On Aug 27, 11:03 am, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 8/27/2011 12:22 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>> On Aug 26, 2:10 am, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>>> Ha, I knew it. As usual desperate Olsen has introduced evidence from
> > > >>>>>> 1.8 into a discussion about the LCA (6 to 8 mya).
> > >
> > > >>>>> I see, but you on the otherhand find it OK when it happens to suit
> > > >>>>> your own fantasies:
> > > >>>>> Jim McGinn: "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>> arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
> > > >>>>> mya?"
> > >
> > > >>>>> 2.5 mya is OK in your mind but 1.8 isn't? (where's Clark, this is a
> > > >>>>> keeper)
> > >
> > > >>>> and bows and arrows are *much* later. Time seems somewhat, erm, plastic
> > > >>>> when Jim wants to make a point.
> > >
> > > >>> I wasn't discussing 2.5 mya you freeking idiot.
> > >
> > > >> When you get such basic facts so desperately wrong, you begin to look
> > > >> like the freaking idiot. Or were you misquoted above?
> > >
> > > >> You have been cavalier with the facts before; you need to tighten that up.
> > >
> > > > You need to make more of a concerted effort to not confuse your
> > > > imagination with the actual evidence. Seriously.
> > >
> > > You must have a guilty conscience. You replied to my post twice.
> > >
> > > Or was that just more of your accustomed carelessness?- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
>
> I suppose it's understandable that a reliance on research and facts
> would irritate you.
No answer
RichTravsky
No evidence for it.
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 8:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > On Aug 4, 1:02 pm, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
> > > > <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 1, 11:51 am, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > > > > But since it has, I wonder how you can claim
> > > > > agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of years?
>
> > > > I do so because of parsimony. When considered in the context
> > > > of all of the evidence this notion that agriculture just appeared
> > > > on the scene 10 thousand years ago is pretty absurd.
>
> > > Is it parsimonious to claim the existence of agriculture millions
> > > of years ago without ANY evidence?
>
> > It's dishonest of you not to point out that in my hypothesis guarding
> > garden habitat is considered agriculture. If you weren't a
> > propagandist you wouldn't need to employ these tactics.
>
> You made up your own definition of agriculture. Now answer the question:
>
> Is it parsimonious to claim the existence of agriculture millions
> of years ago without ANY evidence?
We do have evidence. Admit you have no dispute with my interpretation
of the evidence.
Okay, now support the claim that there is no evidence to support my
claim. Go ahead. Answer the question you evasive twit.
> How do you think dog domestication is
> investigated?
Relevance?
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/13701.full
> Detecting multiple origins of domesticated crops
> Published online before print September 10, 2008,
> doi: 10.1073/pnas.0807439105
> PNAS September 16, 2008 vol. 105 no. 37 13701-13702
>
> http://www.genetics.org/content/154/4/1785.full
> Genetics, Vol. 154, 1785-1791, April 2000
> The Origin of the Domestic Pig: Independent Domestication and
> Subsequent Introgression
>
> Lots more online if you're interested in dispeling your ignorance.
Relevance?
Claudius Denk
I have posted it, as you know full well. Anybody can find it by doing
a search on the phrase ecological gatekeeper hypothesis.
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 8:39 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > On Aug 7, 8:26 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > > > > Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > > > > > > millions of years.
>
> > > > > > That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
>
> > > > > You don't have an evidence-based foundation for it.
>
> > > > Well, I suppose, in the sense that the evidence doesn 't come with
> > > > tags on it indicating what hypothesis is best. But this is true for
> > > > all hypothetical thinking, right?
>
> > > Hypothetical thinking is evidence based. Where is YOUR evidence?
>
> > We all use the same evidence, dimwit. I have a hypothesis with which
> > you have no evidence based dispute. You don't have anything.
>
> WHAT is YOUR evidence?
The evidence is a matter of public record, you evasive twit.
Please post a couple of cites you're using as
> evidence.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > aspect of my scenario that corresponds with this assertion. Your
> > > > > > dispute is semantic. And your dispute is dishonest in that you would
> > > > > > have our audience believe that your dispute is more than semantic.
>
> > > > > > > Well, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but the obvious
> > > > > > > implication here is that hominids of 4 to 5 million years ago were so
> > > > > > > successful at excluding food competitor species like these fruit
> > > > > > > eating horses from their communally claimed garden habitat that it
> > > > > > > drove horses out into the grasslands where they evolved into grass
> > > > > > > eaters.
>
> > > > > > It's dishonest (and desperate) to criticize something I've retracted.
>
> > > > > Evidently all research is NOT consistent with your "hypothesis"...
>
> > > > Oh brother. Your desperation is showing. This evidence does not
> > > > contradict any part of my hypothesis. I now realize it doesn't
> > > > support it. But that is different from what you are desperately
> > > > asserting.
>
> > > but you retracted this part of your claim. So you're lying abotu one of
> > > these...
>
> > Piss of troll.
>
> You don't like being caught in contradictions, do you?
All you have are vague, wishy-washy, politically correct notions that
don't add up to anything.
Claudius Denk
It's appears to not be necessary to support it. You have no
alternative and you have no evidence-based dispute with my
hypothesis.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ->
>
> > > Be specific and detailed.
>
> > > > > > I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer the question. (It really does
> > > > > > complicate things when the rules of evidence prevent you from
> > > > > > referencing your imagination.)
>
> > > > > Your inadequacies are hardly an argument.
>
> > > > Scientific amateurs always confuse their beliefs for facts.
>
> > > You are an amateur, and not even a scientific one.
>
> > No, you really are an amateur. You're another science groupie that
> > never actually studied science, or anything, intensively. Your whole
>
> Degrees in chemistry, co sci, minors in math, anthro (including master's
> work, tho I had to leave to work), and psych.
Yet, despite all this training you are unable to formulate a
hypothesis for the transition from ape to hominid. Right?
Lee Olsen
You don't have a hypothesis, what you have is fabricated evidence..
Go ahead, prove me wrong, publish your hypothesis in a peer-review
journal
if you know so much about scholarship. Don't come back with some lame
excuse that
you have already published it on sap, which takes exactly the same
talent and proof as
publishing on a bathroom wall.
Lee Olsen
> On Sep 4, 8:24 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > On Aug 28, 8:39 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 7, 8:26 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > > > > > Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > > > > > > > millions of years.
>
> > > > > > > That's right. And you don't have an evidence-based dispute with the
>
> > > > > > You don't have an evidence-based foundation for it.
>
> > > > > Well, I suppose, in the sense that the evidence doesn 't come with
> > > > > tags on it indicating what hypothesis is best. But this is true for
> > > > > all hypothetical thinking, right?
>
> > > > Hypothetical thinking is evidence based. Where is YOUR evidence?
>
> > > We all use the same evidence, dimwit. I have a hypothesis with which
> > > you have no evidence based dispute. You don't have anything.
>
> > WHAT is YOUR evidence?
>
> The evidence is a matter of public record, you evasive twit.
Yeah, I've seen it, pretty lame I'd say.
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."
Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."
Jim McGinn: "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow
and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?"
>
> Please post a couple of cites you're using as
>
>
>
>
>
> > evidence.
>
> > > > > > > aspect of my scenario that corresponds with this assertion. Your
> > > > > > > dispute is semantic. And your dispute is dishonest in that you would
> > > > > > > have our audience believe that your dispute is more than semantic.
>
> > > > > > > > Well, I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but the obvious
> > > > > > > > implication here is that hominids of 4 to 5 million years ago were so
> > > > > > > > successful at excluding food competitor species like these fruit
> > > > > > > > eating horses from their communally claimed garden habitat that it
> > > > > > > > drove horses out into the grasslands where they evolved into grass
> > > > > > > > eaters.
>
> > > > > > > It's dishonest (and desperate) to criticize something I've retracted.
>
> > > > > > Evidently all research is NOT consistent with your "hypothesis"...
>
> > > > > Oh brother. Your desperation is showing. This evidence does not
> > > > > contradict any part of my hypothesis. I now realize it doesn't
> > > > > support it. But that is different from what you are desperately
> > > > > asserting.
>
> > > > but you retracted this part of your claim. So you're lying abotu one of
> > > > these...
>
> > > Piss of troll.
>
> > You don't like being caught in contradictions, do you?
>
> All you have are vague, wishy-washy, politically correct notions that
> don't add up to anything.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lee Olsen
> On Sep 4, 8:22 pm, RT <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > On Aug 28, 8:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 4, 1:02 pm, "brough,civilization-overview dot com"
> > > > > <charlesbrou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 1, 11:51 am, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Clod Is Dense Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> > > > > > But since it has, I wonder how you can claim
> > > > > > agriculture goes back hundreds of thousands of years?
>
> > > > > I do so because of parsimony. When considered in the context
> > > > > of all of the evidence this notion that agriculture just appeared
> > > > > on the scene 10 thousand years ago is pretty absurd.
>
> > > > Is it parsimonious to claim the existence of agriculture millions
> > > > of years ago without ANY evidence?
>
> > > It's dishonest of you not to point out that in my hypothesis guarding
> > > garden habitat is considered agriculture. If you weren't a
> > > propagandist you wouldn't need to employ these tactics.
>
> > You made up your own definition of agriculture. Now answer the question:
>
> > Is it parsimonious to claim the existence of agriculture millions
> > of years ago without ANY evidence?
>
> We do have evidence. Admit you have no dispute with my interpretation
> of the evidence.
We? You mean the made-up claptrap you call evidence?
Name calling again? Can't think of anything intellegent to say?
"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also
laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagen
Jim McGinn: "My hypothesis is still completely unrefuted."
Marc Verhaegen: "still no argument against"
Rick Wagler: "You can't prove a negative so its
no use asking."
>
> > How do you think dog domestication is
> > investigated?
>
> Relevance?
>
>
>
> >http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/13701.full
> > Detecting multiple origins of domesticated crops
> > Published online before print September 10, 2008,
> > doi: 10.1073/pnas.0807439105
> > PNAS September 16, 2008 vol. 105 no. 37 13701-13702
>
> >http://www.genetics.org/content/154/4/1785.full
> > Genetics, Vol. 154, 1785-1791, April 2000
> > The Origin of the Domestic Pig: Independent Domestication and
> > Subsequent Introgression
>
> > Lots more online if you're interested in dispeling your ignorance.
>
> Relevance?- Hide quoted text -
Lee Olsen
Yes you did, and the URL to it no longer works. All that is left is
some vague-addendum nonsense and a lot of links to a hundered
different threads scattered about various forums. But good move, if I
had rubbish like that floating around I'd try to hide it best I could
also.
> Anybody can find it by doing
> a search on the phrase ecological gatekeeper hypothesis.- Hide quoted text -
www.crosswinds.net/sacramento/~jimmcginn/postulates
What's the matter, the little cost not worth keeping that drivel
online?
Sacramento eh? Do you happen to know anything about girls baseball?
Claudius Denk
Well, no, I actually do have a hypothesis. You, actually, do not.
what you have is fabricated evidence..
>
> Go ahead, prove me wrong, publish your hypothesis in a peer-review
> journal
> if you know so much about scholarship. Don't come back with some lame
> excuse that
> you have already published it on sap, which takes exactly the same
> talent and proof as
> publishing on a bathroom wall.
Content is what matters. Where it was published or what color of ink
was used is irrelevant.
Tom McDonald
> On Sep 5, 4:11 pm, Lee Olsen<paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Go ahead, prove me wrong, publish your hypothesis in a peer-review
>> journal
>> if you know so much about scholarship. Don't come back with some lame
>> excuse that
>> you have already published it on sap, which takes exactly the same
>> talent and proof as
>> publishing on a bathroom wall.
>
> Content is what matters. Where it was published or what color of ink
> was used is irrelevant.
Availability and support of that content also matter. Yours isn't
readily available, nor is it clear on what support it stands (if it does).
That's on you.
Claudius Denk
Anybody with a computer linked to the internet can find my
hypothesis.
I think the early origins of the shoulder girdle, which may have
coincided the shift to habitual bipedalism, might support my
hypothesis with respect to throwing being such an important--
essential--aspect of my hypothesis.
Lee Olsen
No you don't. One has to be able to test a hypothesis.
So, what did you say the test was for this?
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."
>
> what you have is fabricated evidence..
Huh?
>
>
> > Go ahead, prove me wrong, publish your hypothesis in a peer-review
> > journal
> > if you know so much about scholarship. Don't come back with some lame
> > excuse that
> > you have already published it on sap, which takes exactly the same
> > talent and proof as
> > publishing on a bathroom wall.
>
> Content is what matters.
"Lions" What was the test for lions running those gatekeepers up a
tree 7 mya?
Is it a secret?
> Where it was published or what color of ink
> was used is irrelevant.
An obvious cop-out to cover up for the fact you don't have the talent
to publish in a peer-reviewed journal.
Tom McDonald
> On Sep 5, 7:38 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 9/5/2011 9:18 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 4:11 pm, Lee Olsen<paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Go ahead, prove me wrong, publish your hypothesis in a peer-review
>>>> journal
>>>> if you know so much about scholarship. Don't come back with some lame
>>>> excuse that
>>>> you have already published it on sap, which takes exactly the same
>>>> talent and proof as
>>>> publishing on a bathroom wall.
>>
>>> Content is what matters. Where it was published or what color of ink
>>> was used is irrelevant.
>>
>> Availability and support of that content also matter. Yours isn't
>> readily available, nor is it clear on what support it stands (if it does).
>>
>> That's on you.
>
> Anybody with a computer linked to the internet can find my
> hypothesis.
Right. And that's how Einstein and Johansson published, too.
> I think the early origins of the shoulder girdle, which may have
> coincided the shift to habitual bipedalism, might support my
> hypothesis with respect to throwing being such an important--
> essential--aspect of my hypothesis.
>
What exactly are the adaptations of our ancestors' shoulder girdle that
allowed them to throw rocks and sticks with sufficient accuracy and
power to drive off food competitors? Or are you really ignorant about
this, too?
Claudius Denk
What is this, a quiz? Do you know the answer or are you just talking
out your . . .
> Or are you really ignorant about
> this, too?
So what if I'm ignorant about that. Tell us your special secret.
Tom McDonald
You really don't know what adaptations one would look for in the fossil
record to see whether our ancestors (or their cousins) were becoming
capable of more accurate and powerful throwing? And your whole
'hypothesis' rests on throwing competence?
Wow, was I ever right when I noted you're like the guy who wants credit
for coming up with an idea without ever doing the hard work of fleshing
it out.
Look, Jim, all we have from the sweep of time you're talking about is
fossils and, at the very end of the period, some artifacts. If you
aren't 100% up to date on all the paleoanthropological, anatomical,
geological and geophysical work that bears on your 'hypothesis', all
you've got is a masturbatory fantasy. And that's it.
But really, that's all you've shown so far. What a waste of skin you are.
Claudius Denk
I know what I've read. Which is a lot IMO. What's your question?
> And your whole
> 'hypothesis' rests on throwing competence?
My hypothesis rests on a lot of things. Yes, throwing is one of them.
> Wow, was I ever right when I noted you're like the guy who wants credit
> for coming up with an idea without ever doing the hard work of fleshing
> it out.
This is the easy part.
> Look, Jim, all we have from the sweep of time you're talking about is
> fossils and, at the very end of the period, some artifacts. If you
> aren't 100% up to date on all the paleoanthropological, anatomical,
> geological and geophysical work that bears on your 'hypothesis', all
> you've got is a masturbatory fantasy. And that's it.
>
> But really, that's all you've shown so far. What a waste of skin you are.
You seem bitter.
Tom McDonald
When did it happen, and where can I read what you read that led you to
that conclusion.
>> And your whole
>> 'hypothesis' rests on throwing competence?
>
> My hypothesis rests on a lot of things. Yes, throwing is one of them.
>
>> Wow, was I ever right when I noted you're like the guy who wants credit
>> for coming up with an idea without ever doing the hard work of fleshing
>> it out.
>
> This is the easy part.
Fleshing it out? If it's so easy, then you should have no trouble
telling us some of your references.
>> Look, Jim, all we have from the sweep of time you're talking about is
>> fossils and, at the very end of the period, some artifacts. If you
>> aren't 100% up to date on all the paleoanthropological, anatomical,
>> geological and geophysical work that bears on your 'hypothesis', all
>> you've got is a masturbatory fantasy. And that's it.
>>
>> But really, that's all you've shown so far. What a waste of skin you are.
>
> You seem bitter.
Not at all. But you seem desperate.
Claudius Denk
> On 9/6/2011 3:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >> You really don't know what adaptations one would look for in the fossil
> >> record to see whether our ancestors (or their cousins) were becoming
> >> capable of more accurate and powerful throwing?
>
> > I know what I've read. Which is a lot IMO. What's your question?
>
> When did it happen,
> and where can I read what you read that led you to
> that conclusion.
of brought all the pieces of the puzzle together for me is fan
behavior at sporting events, especially with respect to the mob
oriented aspect of it.
>
> >> And your whole
> >> 'hypothesis' rests on throwing competence?
>
> > My hypothesis rests on a lot of things. Yes, throwing is one of them.
>
> >> Wow, was I ever right when I noted you're like the guy who wants credit
> >> for coming up with an idea without ever doing the hard work of fleshing
> >> it out.
>
> > This is the easy part.
>
> Fleshing it out? If it's so easy, then you should have no trouble
> telling us some of your references.
that you are insinuating that I am plagiarizing.
Lee Olsen
> On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > On 9/6/2011 3:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > >> You really don't know what adaptations one would look for in the fossil
> > >> record to see whether our ancestors (or their cousins) were becoming
> > >> capable of more accurate and powerful throwing?
>
> > > I know what I've read. Which is a lot IMO. What's your question?
>
> > When did it happen,
>
> I dunno, 5 to 8 mya.
Prove it. And don't forget the references.
>
> > and where can I read what you read that led you to
> > that conclusion.
>
> Well, it wasn't any one thing. But I'll tell you one thing that kind
> of brought all the pieces of the puzzle together for me is fan
> behavior at sporting events, especially with respect to the mob
> oriented aspect of it.
Since there weren't any mob sporting events "5 to 8 mya" you are
simply making up scenarios that you can't test.
>
>
>
> > >> And your whole
> > >> 'hypothesis' rests on throwing competence?
>
> > > My hypothesis rests on a lot of things. Yes, throwing is one of them.
>
> > >> Wow, was I ever right when I noted you're like the guy who wants credit
> > >> for coming up with an idea without ever doing the hard work of fleshing
> > >> it out.
>
> > > This is the easy part.
>
> > Fleshing it out? If it's so easy, then you should have no trouble
> > telling us some of your references.
>
> I have never witheld references.
Try to make an exception in this case, where did you get this one?
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety
of trees."
> Maybe you're too naive to realize
> that you are insinuating that I am plagiarizing?
Not only that, but you lie about what you've actually read. C. K.
Brain ring any bells? No? How about Robert Ardrey?
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> Look, Jim, all we have from the sweep of time you're talking about is
> > >> fossils and, at the very end of the period, some artifacts. If you
> > >> aren't 100% up to date on all the paleoanthropological, anatomical,
> > >> geological and geophysical work that bears on your 'hypothesis', all
> > >> you've got is a masturbatory fantasy. And that's it.
>
> > >> But really, that's all you've shown so far. What a waste of skin you are.
>
> > > You seem bitter.
>
> > Not at all. But you seem desperate.- Hide quoted text -
Tom McDonald
> On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 9/6/2011 3:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>>>> You really don't know what adaptations one would look for in the fossil
>>>> record to see whether our ancestors (or their cousins) were becoming
>>>> capable of more accurate and powerful throwing?
>>
>>> I know what I've read. Which is a lot IMO. What's your question?
>>
>> When did it happen,
>
> I dunno, 5 to 8 mya.
What makes you think that? Evidence we can look up, please, not the
content of your imagination.
>
>> and where can I read what you read that led you to
>> that conclusion.
>
> Well, it wasn't any one thing. But I'll tell you one thing that kind
> of brought all the pieces of the puzzle together for me is fan
> behavior at sporting events, especially with respect to the mob
> oriented aspect of it.
So what do you have that supports your conclusions. Keep in mind that we
do not have access to your imagination.
>
>>
>>>> And your whole
>>>> 'hypothesis' rests on throwing competence?
>>
>>> My hypothesis rests on a lot of things. Yes, throwing is one of them.
>>
>>>> Wow, was I ever right when I noted you're like the guy who wants credit
>>>> for coming up with an idea without ever doing the hard work of fleshing
>>>> it out.
>>
>>> This is the easy part.
>>
>> Fleshing it out? If it's so easy, then you should have no trouble
>> telling us some of your references.
>
> I have never witheld references. Maybe you're too naive to realize
> that you are insinuating that I am plagiarizing.
What references have you given that weren't either provided first by
others, or were soon found to be worthless for your 'hypothesis'?
<snip>
Claudius Denk
> On 9/6/2011 10:53 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/6/2011 3:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> >>>> You really don't know what adaptations one would look for in the fossil
> >>>> record to see whether our ancestors (or their cousins) were becoming
> >>>> capable of more accurate and powerful throwing?
>
> >>> I know what I've read. Which is a lot IMO. What's your question?
>
> >> When did it happen,
>
> > I dunno, 5 to 8 mya.
>
> What makes you think that? Evidence we can look up, please, not the
> content of your imagination.
>
>
>
> >> and where can I read what you read that led you to
> >> that conclusion.
>
> > Well, it wasn't any one thing. But I'll tell you one thing that kind
> > of brought all the pieces of the puzzle together for me is fan
> > behavior at sporting events, especially with respect to the mob
> > oriented aspect of it.
>
> So what do you have that supports your conclusions.
Didn't I just answer this question?
> Keep in mind that we
> do not have access to your imagination.
What is the nature of your dispute. Are you saying that I have to
establish that mob-oriented, fan-based behavior exists? IMO this is
not necessary in that this behavior is plainly observable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> And your whole
> >>>> 'hypothesis' rests on throwing competence?
>
> >>> My hypothesis rests on a lot of things. Yes, throwing is one of them.
>
> >>>> Wow, was I ever right when I noted you're like the guy who wants credit
> >>>> for coming up with an idea without ever doing the hard work of fleshing
> >>>> it out.
>
> >>> This is the easy part.
>
> >> Fleshing it out? If it's so easy, then you should have no trouble
> >> telling us some of your references.
>
> > I have never witheld references. Maybe you're too naive to realize
> > that you are insinuating that I am plagiarizing.
>
> What references have you given that weren't either provided first by
> others, or were soon found to be worthless for your 'hypothesis'?
None.
You ask dumb questions. You have no hypothesis of your own and your
thinking is so muddled by political trivialities that you will never
make any progress in this discipline.
Tom McDonald
> On Sep 7, 7:01 am, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 9/6/2011 10:53 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/6/2011 3:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>>>>> You really don't know what adaptations one would look for in the fossil
>>>>>> record to see whether our ancestors (or their cousins) were becoming
>>>>>> capable of more accurate and powerful throwing?
>>
>>>>> I know what I've read. Which is a lot IMO. What's your question?
>>
>>>> When did it happen,
>>
>>> I dunno, 5 to 8 mya.
>>
>> What makes you think that? Evidence we can look up, please, not the
>> content of your imagination.
No answer, Jim?
>>>> and where can I read what you read that led you to
>>>> that conclusion.
>>
>>> Well, it wasn't any one thing. But I'll tell you one thing that kind
>>> of brought all the pieces of the puzzle together for me is fan
>>> behavior at sporting events, especially with respect to the mob
>>> oriented aspect of it.
>>
>> So what do you have that supports your conclusions.
>
> Didn't I just answer this question?
That's it? Some paleontological evidence might have been useful, don't
you think?
>> Keep in mind that we
>> do not have access to your imagination.
>
> What is the nature of your dispute. Are you saying that I have to
> establish that mob-oriented, fan-based behavior exists? IMO this is
> not necessary in that this behavior is plainly observable.
Put that behavior back 5-8 mya. Then you can talk.
>>>>>> And your whole
>>>>>> 'hypothesis' rests on throwing competence?
>>
>>>>> My hypothesis rests on a lot of things. Yes, throwing is one of them.
>>
>>>>>> Wow, was I ever right when I noted you're like the guy who wants credit
>>>>>> for coming up with an idea without ever doing the hard work of fleshing
>>>>>> it out.
>>
>>>>> This is the easy part.
>>
>>>> Fleshing it out? If it's so easy, then you should have no trouble
>>>> telling us some of your references.
>>
>>> I have never witheld references. Maybe you're too naive to realize
>>> that you are insinuating that I am plagiarizing.
>>
>> What references have you given that weren't either provided first by
>> others, or were soon found to be worthless for your 'hypothesis'?
>
> None.
Finally.
>
> You ask dumb questions.
Your inability to answer doesn't make my questions 'dumb'.
> You have no hypothesis of your own and your
> thinking is so muddled by political trivialities that you will never
> make any progress in this discipline.
>
Same to you, Jim.
Claudius Denk
Obviously paleontological evidence is limited. But extant evidence is
not limited. Sports fan behavior is plainly observable in our species
and conspicuously absent in any other species.
>
> >> Keep in mind that we
> >> do not have access to your imagination.
>
> > What is the nature of your dispute. Are you saying that I have to
> > establish that mob-oriented, fan-based behavior exists? IMO this is
> > not necessary in that this behavior is plainly observable.
>
> Put that behavior back 5-8 mya. Then you can talk.
You need to come to grips with the following:
1) You have no fossil evidence that my scenario didn't happen the way
I suggest.
2) You have no explanation of your own for the observed (extant)
behavior.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> And your whole
> >>>>>> 'hypothesis' rests on throwing competence?
>
> >>>>> My hypothesis rests on a lot of things. Yes, throwing is one of them.
>
> >>>>>> Wow, was I ever right when I noted you're like the guy who wants credit
> >>>>>> for coming up with an idea without ever doing the hard work of fleshing
> >>>>>> it out.
>
> >>>>> This is the easy part.
>
> >>>> Fleshing it out? If it's so easy, then you should have no trouble
> >>>> telling us some of your references.
>
> >>> I have never witheld references. Maybe you're too naive to realize
> >>> that you are insinuating that I am plagiarizing.
>
> >> What references have you given that weren't either provided first by
> >> others, or were soon found to be worthless for your 'hypothesis'?
>
> > None.
>
> Finally.
I've never claimed otherwise.
> > You ask dumb questions.
>
> Your inability to answer doesn't make my questions 'dumb'.
On this we agree.
>
> > You have no hypothesis of your own and your
> > thinking is so muddled by political trivialities that you will never
> > make any progress in this discipline.
>
> Same to you, Jim.
Sour grapes.