Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Agriculture began 5 to 8 million years ago
160 views
Skip to first unread message
Claudius Denk
Jul 11, 2012, 12:18:07 PM7/11/12
to
Travsky:
All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
Claudius Denk:
What's your explanation for the selective origins of the
most communally territorialistic, communicative, and
conscious species ever known to exist? Let me guess.
You have early hominids, crude tools in hand, chasing
down Kudu, long-distance, through treeless savanna,
outrunning sabertoothed lions and bear-sized hyena?
All in all, your own hypothetical thinking is so blatantly
stupid that you are embarrassed to even be associated
with it. Moreover, now that that the aquatic ape loons
have, thankfully, abandoned this newsgroup you no
longer have a means to look smart in comparison.
VTSkier:
All you have done is try to redefine existing terms to
support your assertion. No scientific argument, no
thesis, no hypothesis, just an assertion that a task
(pest control) constitutes agriculture. It doesn't. The
task may be valuable to those who do practice
agriculture, but in and of itself, it's not agriculture.
CD:
Any reasonable person will realize that you all are
pretending to have a scientific dispute when all you
have is a semantic dispute. (IOW, your dispute is
trivial.) I refer to the pest control behavior in my
hypothesis (for the earliest years of hominid
evolution) as agriculture because that's what it was.
Agriculture didn't begin 8 to 12 kya. Agriculture
began 5 to 8 mya. Hominids have been agricultural
from day one of hominid evolution. In fact, being
agricultural is "the" defining characteristic from
which all other defining characteristics began to
evolve in the hominid lineage.
Agricultural behavior first emerged and persisted in
the hominid population because it was an effective
way to avoid the the most significant selective factor
in their environment, predatory siege/massacres
during the dry season. More specifically, those
hominid communities that endeavored to stop *cattle*
(and/or any number of other pest species, some very
large and aggressive) from consuming their garden
habitat, during the months preceding the dry season,
avoided impoverishment during the dry season.
Communities that avoided impoverishment during the
dry season avoided the attention of predators during
the dry season. And that's how hominid evolution
proceeded--in its earliest years. Hominid evolutionary
success--hominid survival--in these earliest years of
hominid evolution, had to do with the *geographic*
stealthiness associated with the members of a
community's collective ability to avoid impoverishment
during the dry season. Agriculture made hominids
invisible to predators who, at that time, were primarily
concerned with finding their way to geographic
localities with large numbers of weak, starving prey.
This is the hominid dry-season survival strategy.
This is what distinguished hominids from the other
species. Hominids were able to bring peace and
stability to their garden-like community during the dry
season by managing it and guarding it in the months
that preceded the dry season. The economic stability
and peacefulness that resulted provided a community
the geographic stealth from predation during the dry
season. This stealth being a consequence of the fact
that, during the dry season, predators were primarily
concerned with finding their way to geographic localities
with large numbers of weak, starving prey and tended to
ignore geographic localities that, as was the case with
the peace and stability loving hominid communities,
lacked large numbers of weak, starving prey. Thus
agriculture made hominid communities invisible to
predators during the dry season. Communities that
were better at pest control agriculture, brought more
peace and stability to the garden and, therefore, greater
ability to avoid attention from predators during the dry
season. Those that did not or could not became extinct
as a result of decimation by predators during the dry
season.
As hominid evolution proceeded, hominids evolved
greater intelligence, consciousness, cooperativeness,
and communicativeness as a result of the selective
advantages these attributes provided for their
communities with respect to being better agriculturalists
and, therefore, better able to avoid dry season
impoverishment and its associated and very dramatic
predatory implications.
Jim McGinn (AKA Claudius Denk)
http://www.solvingtornadoes.org
All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
Claudius Denk:
What's your explanation for the selective origins of the
most communally territorialistic, communicative, and
conscious species ever known to exist? Let me guess.
You have early hominids, crude tools in hand, chasing
down Kudu, long-distance, through treeless savanna,
outrunning sabertoothed lions and bear-sized hyena?
All in all, your own hypothetical thinking is so blatantly
stupid that you are embarrassed to even be associated
with it. Moreover, now that that the aquatic ape loons
have, thankfully, abandoned this newsgroup you no
longer have a means to look smart in comparison.
VTSkier:
All you have done is try to redefine existing terms to
support your assertion. No scientific argument, no
thesis, no hypothesis, just an assertion that a task
(pest control) constitutes agriculture. It doesn't. The
task may be valuable to those who do practice
agriculture, but in and of itself, it's not agriculture.
CD:
Any reasonable person will realize that you all are
pretending to have a scientific dispute when all you
have is a semantic dispute. (IOW, your dispute is
trivial.) I refer to the pest control behavior in my
hypothesis (for the earliest years of hominid
evolution) as agriculture because that's what it was.
Agriculture didn't begin 8 to 12 kya. Agriculture
began 5 to 8 mya. Hominids have been agricultural
from day one of hominid evolution. In fact, being
agricultural is "the" defining characteristic from
which all other defining characteristics began to
evolve in the hominid lineage.
Agricultural behavior first emerged and persisted in
the hominid population because it was an effective
way to avoid the the most significant selective factor
in their environment, predatory siege/massacres
during the dry season. More specifically, those
hominid communities that endeavored to stop *cattle*
(and/or any number of other pest species, some very
large and aggressive) from consuming their garden
habitat, during the months preceding the dry season,
avoided impoverishment during the dry season.
Communities that avoided impoverishment during the
dry season avoided the attention of predators during
the dry season. And that's how hominid evolution
proceeded--in its earliest years. Hominid evolutionary
success--hominid survival--in these earliest years of
hominid evolution, had to do with the *geographic*
stealthiness associated with the members of a
community's collective ability to avoid impoverishment
during the dry season. Agriculture made hominids
invisible to predators who, at that time, were primarily
concerned with finding their way to geographic
localities with large numbers of weak, starving prey.
This is the hominid dry-season survival strategy.
This is what distinguished hominids from the other
species. Hominids were able to bring peace and
stability to their garden-like community during the dry
season by managing it and guarding it in the months
that preceded the dry season. The economic stability
and peacefulness that resulted provided a community
the geographic stealth from predation during the dry
season. This stealth being a consequence of the fact
that, during the dry season, predators were primarily
concerned with finding their way to geographic localities
with large numbers of weak, starving prey and tended to
ignore geographic localities that, as was the case with
the peace and stability loving hominid communities,
lacked large numbers of weak, starving prey. Thus
agriculture made hominid communities invisible to
predators during the dry season. Communities that
were better at pest control agriculture, brought more
peace and stability to the garden and, therefore, greater
ability to avoid attention from predators during the dry
season. Those that did not or could not became extinct
as a result of decimation by predators during the dry
season.
As hominid evolution proceeded, hominids evolved
greater intelligence, consciousness, cooperativeness,
and communicativeness as a result of the selective
advantages these attributes provided for their
communities with respect to being better agriculturalists
and, therefore, better able to avoid dry season
impoverishment and its associated and very dramatic
predatory implications.
Jim McGinn (AKA Claudius Denk)
http://www.solvingtornadoes.org
RichTravsky
Jul 13, 2012, 1:06:23 AM7/13/12
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> Travsky:
> All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
And you agreed.
>
> Travsky:
> All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
> Claudius Denk:
> What's your explanation for the selective origins of the
> most communally territorialistic, communicative, and
> conscious species ever known to exist? Let me guess.
> You have early hominids, crude tools in hand, chasing
> down Kudu, long-distance, through treeless savanna,
http://images.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=savanna&oq=savanna&gs_l=img.3..0l3j0i3j0l6.1445.4490.0.5777.9.8.0.1.1.1.341.1338.2j5j0j1.8.0...0.0...1ac.OT4a-F2hr64&biw=1116&bih=788&sei=-6n_T_fhA6ae2gX1rMj_Aw
> outrunning sabertoothed lions and bear-sized hyena?
http://www.roebuckclasses.com/105/images/physical/biome/savanna.jpg
> All in all, your own hypothetical thinking is so blatantly
> stupid that you are embarrassed to even be associated
> with it. Moreover, now that that the aquatic ape loons
> have, thankfully, abandoned this newsgroup you no
> longer have a means to look smart in comparison.
> VTSkier:
> All you have done is try to redefine existing terms to
> support your assertion. No scientific argument, no
> thesis, no hypothesis, just an assertion that a task
> (pest control) constitutes agriculture. It doesn't. The
> task may be valuable to those who do practice
> agriculture, but in and of itself, it's not agriculture.
>
> CD:
> Any reasonable person will realize that you all are
> pretending to have a scientific dispute when all you
> have is a semantic dispute. (IOW, your dispute is
stuff as one goes along.
> trivial.) I refer to the pest control behavior in my
> hypothesis (for the earliest years of hominid
> evolution) as agriculture because that's what it was.
> Agriculture didn't begin 8 to 12 kya. Agriculture
> began 5 to 8 mya. Hominids have been agricultural
Cultivation of plants, IOW, agriculture, produces genetic changes that can
be detected. For example
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8641.full
Plant domestication, a unique opportunity to identify the genetic basis of adaptation
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/149/1/63.full
Genes and Mutations Underlying Domestication Transitions in Grasses
http://www.maizegenetics.net/domestication-genetics
Genetics of Maize Domestication
Etc
Your turn ->
> from day one of hominid evolution. In fact, being
> agricultural is "the" defining characteristic from
> which all other defining characteristics began to
> evolve in the hominid lineage.
>
> Agricultural behavior first emerged and persisted in
> the hominid population because it was an effective
> way to avoid the the most significant selective factor
> in their environment, predatory siege/massacres
> during the dry season. More specifically, those
Why bother with a few hominids when the plains are teeming with
game?
> hominid communities that endeavored to stop *cattle*
> (and/or any number of other pest species, some very
> large and aggressive) from consuming their garden
> habitat, during the months preceding the dry season,
> avoided impoverishment during the dry season.
flush remaining crap
Claudius Denk
Jul 13, 2012, 2:25:17 AM7/13/12
to
On Jul 12, 10:06 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > Travsky:
> > All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
>
> And you agreed.
>
> > Claudius Denk:
> > What's your explanation for the selective origins of the
> > most communally territorialistic, communicative, and
> > conscious species ever known to exist? Let me guess.
> > You have early hominids, crude tools in hand, chasing
> > down Kudu, long-distance, through treeless savanna,
>
> Treeless? Here we go again.
>
> http://images.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=&tbm=isch&source=hp...
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > Travsky:
> > All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
>
> And you agreed.
>
> > Claudius Denk:
> > What's your explanation for the selective origins of the
> > most communally territorialistic, communicative, and
> > conscious species ever known to exist? Let me guess.
> > You have early hominids, crude tools in hand, chasing
> > down Kudu, long-distance, through treeless savanna,
>
> Treeless? Here we go again.
>
Tom McDonald
Jul 13, 2012, 5:37:39 AM7/13/12
to
vagueness, but hey, learn to laugh along with us. It will help your
blood pressure, and may lead you to a longer, healthier life.
RichTravsky
Jul 17, 2012, 11:17:12 PM7/17/12
to
> > Cultivation of plants, IOW, agriculture, produces genetic changes that can
> > be detected. For example
> >
> > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8641.full
> > Plant domestication, a unique opportunity to identify the genetic basis of adaptation
> >
> > http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/149/1/63.full
> > Genes and Mutations Underlying Domestication Transitions in Grasses
> >
> > http://www.maizegenetics.net/domestication-genetics
> > Genetics of Maize Domestication
> >
> > Etc
> >
> > Your turn ->
> > > from day one of hominid evolution. In fact, being
> > > agricultural is "the" defining characteristic from
> > > which all other defining characteristics began to
> > > evolve in the hominid lineage.
> >
> > > Agricultural behavior first emerged and persisted in
> > > the hominid population because it was an effective
> > > way to avoid the the most significant selective factor
> > > in their environment, predatory siege/massacres
> > > during the dry season. More specifically, those
> >
> > What siege massacres? Well?
> > Why bother with a few hominids when the plains are teeming with
> > game?
> > > hominid communities that endeavored to stop *cattle*
> > > (and/or any number of other pest species, some very
> > > large and aggressive) from consuming their garden
> > > habitat, during the months preceding the dry season,
> > > avoided impoverishment during the dry season.
> >
> > So these predators would instead go for the herbivores. DUH
> >
> > flush remaining crap
>
> Vagueness and stupidity go hand in hand.
posed above...
Claudius Denk
Jul 18, 2012, 4:20:45 AM7/18/12
to
arguments.
Claudius Denk
Jul 20, 2012, 11:52:55 AM7/20/12
to
Agricultural behavior first emerged and persisted in
the hominid population because it was an effective
way to avoid the the most significant selective factor
in their environment, predatory siege/massacres
during the dry season. More specifically, those
the hominid population because it was an effective
way to avoid the the most significant selective factor
in their environment, predatory siege/massacres
during the dry season. More specifically, those
hominid communities that endeavored to stop *cattle*
(and/or any number of other pest species, some very
large and aggressive) from consuming their garden
habitat, during the months preceding the dry season,
avoided impoverishment during the dry season.
(and/or any number of other pest species, some very
large and aggressive) from consuming their garden
habitat, during the months preceding the dry season,
avoided impoverishment during the dry season.
Tom McDonald
Jul 20, 2012, 12:32:50 PM7/20/12
to
Claudius Denk
Jul 20, 2012, 12:54:48 PM7/20/12
to
Tom McDonald
Jul 20, 2012, 3:03:10 PM7/20/12
to
But you do write somewhat interesting fiction. Keep it up!
Claudius Denk
Jul 20, 2012, 3:05:02 PM7/20/12
to
Tom McDonald
Jul 20, 2012, 3:51:13 PM7/20/12
to
his crap just to garner attention.
I'd suggest that you are the troll. In fact, I insist upon it.
Claudius Denk
Jul 20, 2012, 8:33:02 PM7/20/12
to
Tom McDonald
Jul 20, 2012, 8:50:18 PM7/20/12
to
it. At least you haven't so far.
But you tell a mean story, and you're funny. So your life has not been
in vain.
Claudius Denk
Jul 20, 2012, 9:49:44 PM7/20/12
to
indicating what hypothesis it supports. The evidence doesn't support
*any* hypothesis. The evidence just sits there staring back at you.
If you have a hypothesis that better fits the evidence than does mine
you should present it. In the meantime stop whining.
Tom McDonald
Jul 20, 2012, 10:08:28 PM7/20/12
to
Claudius Denk
Jul 20, 2012, 11:40:55 PM7/20/12
to
explains the evidence better than my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis?
Answer the question you evasive jackass.
RichTravsky
Jul 23, 2012, 11:18:56 PM7/23/12
to
above.
Here's REAL agricultural work using DNA testing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einkorn_wheat
...
Einkorn wheat was one of the earliest cultivated forms of wheat, alongside emmer
wheat (T. dicoccum). Grains of wild einkorn have been found in Epi-Paleolithic
sites of the Fertile Crescent. It was first domesticated approximately 7500 BC
(7050 BC ~ 9000 BP), in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) or B (PPNB) periods.
Evidence from DNA finger-printing suggests einkorn was domesticated near Karaca
Dag( in southeast Turkey, an area in which a number of PPNB farming villages
have been found.
...
RichTravsky
Jul 23, 2012, 11:29:19 PM7/23/12
to
the folowing:
RichTravsky
Jul 23, 2012, 11:40:14 PM7/23/12
to
How about any evidence of this in modern times?
Claudius Denk
Jul 24, 2012, 4:27:06 AM7/24/12
to
doesn't.
It's that simple.
Claudius Denk
Jul 24, 2012, 4:32:14 AM7/24/12
to
> How about any evidence of this in modern times?
AFAICT.
RichTravsky
Jul 29, 2012, 11:26:58 PM7/29/12
to
Now, again: WHAT "predatory siege/massacres"?
> > How about any evidence of this in modern times?
>
> I think that's unlikely. It hasn't happened for 2 million years,
> AFAICT.
RichTravsky
Jul 29, 2012, 11:28:39 PM7/29/12
to
It's that simple.
BTW - you DID notice the DNA evidence cited above has dates of only a few thousand
years ago?
Claudius Denk
Jul 30, 2012, 12:34:13 AM7/30/12
to
RichTravsky
Aug 5, 2012, 11:51:53 PM8/5/12
to
anything?
The DNA evidence DOES fit the hypothesis (nay, fact) that agriculture (and
not the made up definition of the word that you use) is only a few
thousand years old.
The DNA evidence is cold hard *fact*.
Feel free to dispute it, or else stop whining.
Claudius Denk
Aug 6, 2012, 12:04:48 AM8/6/12
to
> The DNA evidence DOES fit the hypothesis (nay, fact) that agriculture (and
> not the made up definition of the word that you use) is only a few
> thousand years old.
effect.
> The DNA evidence is cold hard *fact*.
> Feel free to dispute it, or else stop whining.
RichTravsky
Aug 12, 2012, 9:46:42 PM8/12/12
to
years ago. - You
> > The DNA evidence DOES fit the hypothesis (nay, fact) that agriculture (and
> > not the made up definition of the word that you use) is only a few
> > thousand years old.
>
> If you believe that then you should make a detailed argument to that
> effect.
You should make a detailed argument that your hypothesis is support by
the DNA evidence...
> > The DNA evidence is cold hard *fact*.
>
> Oh, well, by golly, why didn't you say so. That changes everything.
Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
years ago.
> > Feel free to dispute it, or else stop whining.
>
> I wouldn't pretend to compete with your imagination.
Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
years ago.
Claudius Denk
Aug 12, 2012, 11:40:12 PM8/12/12
to
> You should make a detailed argument that your hypothesis is support by
> the DNA evidence...
>
> > > The DNA evidence is cold hard *fact*.
>
> > Oh, well, by golly, why didn't you say so. That changes everything.
>
> As opposed to
>
> Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
> years ago.
>
> > > Feel free to dispute it, or else stop whining.
>
> > I wouldn't pretend to compete with your imagination.
>
> So, you were lying about
>
> Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
> years ago.
RichTravsky
Aug 16, 2012, 11:00:26 PM8/16/12
to
genetic changes that can be verified.
> > You should make a detailed argument that your hypothesis is support by
> > the DNA evidence...
> >
> > > > The DNA evidence is cold hard *fact*.
> >
> > > Oh, well, by golly, why didn't you say so. That changes everything.
> >
> > As opposed to
> >
> > Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
> > years ago.
> >
> > > > Feel free to dispute it, or else stop whining.
> >
> > > I wouldn't pretend to compete with your imagination.
> >
> > So, you were lying about
> >
> > Obviously there is no direct evidence of *any* behavior millions of
> > years ago.
>
> Your skillset seems to not have much to do with getting to a point.
Claudius Denk
Aug 16, 2012, 11:35:51 PM8/16/12
to
> - STILL - that agriculture produces
> genetic changes that can be verified.
genetic changes? You seem to never have a point.
Tom McDonald
Aug 17, 2012, 10:05:32 AM8/17/12
to
suggest agriculture until ca. 10,000 ya. How does that show the origins
of agriculture several million years ago?
Claudius Denk
Aug 17, 2012, 10:28:16 AM8/17/12
to
about 2 mya. Are these changes not genetic? Are they not
significant? Take note of the timing with respect to the emergence of
HE. Maybe you can explain to our audience the intellectual gymnastics
involved with how you are able to ignore this evidence.
Tom McDonald
Aug 17, 2012, 12:53:58 PM8/17/12
to
not until modern agriculture took so much land away from biologically
diverse ecosystems that it resulted in local diminution (and possibly
local extinction) of plants other than the monocrops we selected for.
Perhaps you could produce the evidence for your notional extinction of
any particular biota that can be decisively tied to hominid actions. You
can, of course, do this. Right, Jim?
Right?
Claudius Denk
Aug 17, 2012, 1:05:09 PM8/17/12
to
On Aug 17, 9:53 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 9:28 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The DNA evidence DOES fit the hypothesis (nay, fact) that agriculture (and
> >>>>>>>> not the made up definition of the word that you use) is only a few
> >>>>>>>> thousand years old.
>
> >>>>>>> If you believe that then you should make a detailed argument to that
> >>>>>>> effect.
>
> >>>>>> I have posted cites about DNA evidence and domestication.
>
> >>>>> So? Present your argument. In your own words.
>
> >>>> LOL "So?" Poor Dimmie, doesn't understand
>
> >>> I've never laid claim to being a mind reader.
>
> >>>> - STILL - that agriculture produces
> >>>> genetic changes that can be verified.
>
> >>> Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that agriculture produces
> >>> genetic changes? You seem to never have a point.
>
> >> A relevant point might be that we don't see the genetic changes that
> >> suggest agriculture until ca. 10,000 ya. How does that show the origins
> >> of agriculture several million years ago?
>
> > We see extinction of a whole biota associated with garden habitat
> > about 2 mya. Are these changes not genetic? Are they not
> > significant? Take note of the timing with respect to the emergence of
> > HE. Maybe you can explain to our audience the intellectual gymnastics
> > involved with how you are able to ignore this evidence.
>
> Silly Jim. Agriculture doesn't cause the extinction of biota,
If you truly believe that then you should make a detailed argument to
> On 8/17/2012 9:28 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The DNA evidence DOES fit the hypothesis (nay, fact) that agriculture (and
> >>>>>>>> not the made up definition of the word that you use) is only a few
> >>>>>>>> thousand years old.
>
> >>>>>>> If you believe that then you should make a detailed argument to that
> >>>>>>> effect.
>
> >>>>>> I have posted cites about DNA evidence and domestication.
>
> >>>>> So? Present your argument. In your own words.
>
> >>>> LOL "So?" Poor Dimmie, doesn't understand
>
> >>> I've never laid claim to being a mind reader.
>
> >>>> - STILL - that agriculture produces
> >>>> genetic changes that can be verified.
>
> >>> Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that agriculture produces
> >>> genetic changes? You seem to never have a point.
>
> >> A relevant point might be that we don't see the genetic changes that
> >> suggest agriculture until ca. 10,000 ya. How does that show the origins
> >> of agriculture several million years ago?
>
> > We see extinction of a whole biota associated with garden habitat
> > about 2 mya. Are these changes not genetic? Are they not
> > significant? Take note of the timing with respect to the emergence of
> > HE. Maybe you can explain to our audience the intellectual gymnastics
> > involved with how you are able to ignore this evidence.
>
> Silly Jim. Agriculture doesn't cause the extinction of biota,
that effect.
> at least
> not until modern agriculture took so much land away from biologically
> diverse ecosystems that it resulted in local diminution (and possibly
> local extinction) of plants other than the monocrops we selected for.
> Perhaps you could produce the evidence for your notional extinction of
> any particular biota that can be decisively tied to hominid actions. You
> can, of course, do this. Right, Jim?
>
> Right?
friend.
RichTravsky
Aug 19, 2012, 10:58:12 PM8/19/12
to
years ago ->
RichTravsky
Aug 19, 2012, 11:36:12 PM8/19/12
to
RichTravsky
Aug 19, 2012, 11:42:49 PM8/19/12
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Aug 17, 7:05 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/16/2012 10:35 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 16, 8:00 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> The DNA evidence DOES fit the hypothesis (nay, fact) that agriculture (and
> > >>>>>> not the made up definition of the word that you use) is only a few
> > >>>>>> thousand years old.
> >
> > >>>>> If you believe that then you should make a detailed argument to that
> > >>>>> effect.
> >
> > >>>> I have posted cites about DNA evidence and domestication.
> >
> > >>> So? Present your argument. In your own words.
> >
> > >> LOL "So?" Poor Dimmie, doesn't understand
> >
> > > I've never laid claim to being a mind reader.
> >
> > >> - STILL - that agriculture produces
> > >> genetic changes that can be verified.
> >
> > > Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that agriculture produces
> > > genetic changes? You seem to never have a point.
> >
> > A relevant point might be that we don't see the genetic changes that
> > suggest agriculture until ca. 10,000 ya. How does that show the origins
> > of agriculture several million years ago?
>
> We see extinction of a whole biota associated with garden habitat
What biota was that?
>
> On Aug 17, 7:05 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/16/2012 10:35 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 16, 8:00 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> The DNA evidence DOES fit the hypothesis (nay, fact) that agriculture (and
> > >>>>>> not the made up definition of the word that you use) is only a few
> > >>>>>> thousand years old.
> >
> > >>>>> If you believe that then you should make a detailed argument to that
> > >>>>> effect.
> >
> > >>>> I have posted cites about DNA evidence and domestication.
> >
> > >>> So? Present your argument. In your own words.
> >
> > >> LOL "So?" Poor Dimmie, doesn't understand
> >
> > > I've never laid claim to being a mind reader.
> >
> > >> - STILL - that agriculture produces
> > >> genetic changes that can be verified.
> >
> > > Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that agriculture produces
> > > genetic changes? You seem to never have a point.
> >
> > A relevant point might be that we don't see the genetic changes that
> > suggest agriculture until ca. 10,000 ya. How does that show the origins
> > of agriculture several million years ago?
>
> We see extinction of a whole biota associated with garden habitat
> about 2 mya. Are these changes not genetic? Are they not
Claudius Denk
Aug 20, 2012, 2:06:14 AM8/20/12
to
We see extinction of a whole biota associated with garden habitat
about 2 mya. Are these changes not genetic? Are they not
Claudius Denk
Aug 20, 2012, 2:08:53 AM8/20/12
to
On Aug 19, 8:42 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Aug 17, 7:05 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/16/2012 10:35 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 16, 8:00 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>> The DNA evidence DOES fit the hypothesis (nay, fact) that agriculture (and
> > > >>>>>> not the made up definition of the word that you use) is only a few
> > > >>>>>> thousand years old.
>
> > > >>>>> If you believe that then you should make a detailed argument to that
> > > >>>>> effect.
>
> > > >>>> I have posted cites about DNA evidence and domestication.
>
> > > >>> So? Present your argument. In your own words.
>
> > > >> LOL "So?" Poor Dimmie, doesn't understand
>
> > > > I've never laid claim to being a mind reader.
>
> > > >> - STILL - that agriculture produces
> > > >> genetic changes that can be verified.
>
> > > > Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that agriculture produces
> > > > genetic changes? You seem to never have a point.
>
> > > A relevant point might be that we don't see the genetic changes that
> > > suggest agriculture until ca. 10,000 ya. How does that show the origins
> > > of agriculture several million years ago?
>
> > We see extinction of a whole biota associated with garden habitat
>
> What biota was that?
Look it up.
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Aug 17, 7:05 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/16/2012 10:35 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 16, 8:00 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>> The DNA evidence DOES fit the hypothesis (nay, fact) that agriculture (and
> > > >>>>>> not the made up definition of the word that you use) is only a few
> > > >>>>>> thousand years old.
>
> > > >>>>> If you believe that then you should make a detailed argument to that
> > > >>>>> effect.
>
> > > >>>> I have posted cites about DNA evidence and domestication.
>
> > > >>> So? Present your argument. In your own words.
>
> > > >> LOL "So?" Poor Dimmie, doesn't understand
>
> > > > I've never laid claim to being a mind reader.
>
> > > >> - STILL - that agriculture produces
> > > >> genetic changes that can be verified.
>
> > > > Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that agriculture produces
> > > > genetic changes? You seem to never have a point.
>
> > > A relevant point might be that we don't see the genetic changes that
> > > suggest agriculture until ca. 10,000 ya. How does that show the origins
> > > of agriculture several million years ago?
>
> > We see extinction of a whole biota associated with garden habitat
>
> What biota was that?
> > about 2 mya. Are these changes not genetic? Are they not
>
> No, they are not.
> Why would they?
It's not my responsibility to explain your delusions.
> > significant? Take note of the timing with respect to the emergence of
> > HE. Maybe you can explain to our audience the intellectual gymnastics
> > involved with how you are able to ignore this evidence.
Claudius Denk
Aug 20, 2012, 2:05:24 AM8/20/12
to
On Aug 17, 7:05 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
changes about 2 mya (that's 2 million years ago). I've argued that a
whole biota (in east Africa) associated with garden habitat
disappeared at this time. Thus, the genetic changes at 2 mya are
huge. The genetic change at 10 kya is minor in comparison.
Claudius Denk
Aug 20, 2012, 1:51:18 AM8/20/12
to
RichTravsky
Aug 26, 2012, 11:09:23 PM8/26/12
to
RichTravsky
Aug 26, 2012, 11:11:39 PM8/26/12
to
don't want to discuss anything?
> > > about 2 mya. Are these changes not genetic? Are they not
> >
> > No, they are not.
>
> Uh, yes they are, you freekin fruitcake. It isn't debatable.
> > Why would they?
>
> It's not my responsibility to explain your delusions.
> > > significant? Take note of the timing with respect to the emergence of
> > > HE. Maybe you can explain to our audience the intellectual gymnastics
> > > involved with how you are able to ignore this evidence.
>
> Well?
RichTravsky
Aug 26, 2012, 11:12:49 PM8/26/12
to
Claudius Denk
Aug 26, 2012, 11:45:57 PM8/26/12
to
hypothesis. Right?
RichTravsky
Sep 4, 2012, 11:44:21 PM9/4/12
to
RichTravsky
Sep 4, 2012, 11:44:41 PM9/4/12
to
Claudius Denk
Sep 5, 2012, 2:09:46 AM9/5/12
to
dispute with my hypothesis.
Claudius Denk
Sep 5, 2012, 2:10:09 AM9/5/12
to
RichTravsky
Sep 9, 2012, 11:41:52 PM9/9/12
to
RichTravsky
Sep 9, 2012, 11:43:00 PM9/9/12
to
years ago?
Good question since you have not posted any to date...
But we can hope ->
Claudius Denk
Sep 10, 2012, 9:55:57 AM9/10/12
to
Gatekeeper Hypothesis.
Claudius Denk
Sep 10, 2012, 9:59:10 AM9/10/12
to
is based on superstition and political correctness.
RichTravsky
Sep 16, 2012, 12:55:20 AM9/16/12
to
dispute alien abduction.
Now, list some cites of research that DOES supports your "hypothesis" ->
RichTravsky
Sep 16, 2012, 12:56:23 AM9/16/12
to
Claudius Denk
Sep 16, 2012, 11:59:16 AM9/16/12
to
All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
Claudius Denk:
What's your explanation for the selective origins of the
most communally territorialistic, communicative, and
conscious species ever known to exist? Let me guess.
You have early hominids, crude tools in hand, chasing
down Kudu, long-distance, through treeless savanna,
outrunning sabertoothed lions and bear-sized hyena?
All in all, your own hypothetical thinking is so blatantly
stupid that you are embarrassed to even be associated
with it. Moreover, now that that the aquatic ape loons
have, thankfully, abandoned this newsgroup you no
longer have a means to look smart in comparison.
Claudius Denk
Sep 16, 2012, 12:01:31 PM9/16/12
to
RichTravsky
Sep 21, 2012, 8:38:50 PM9/21/12
to
> > > I knew you wouldn't be able to answer this questions. Your approach
> > > is based on superstition and political correctness.
> >
> > Then you should have no trouble showing this from 5 to 8 million
> > years ago - unless it is based on superstition and political correctness ->
> Travsky:
> All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
>
> Claudius Denk:
> What's your explanation for the selective origins of the
> most communally territorialistic, communicative, and
> conscious species ever known to exist? Let me guess.
recovery.
> You have early hominids, crude tools in hand, chasing
> down Kudu, long-distance, through treeless savanna,
> outrunning sabertoothed lions and bear-sized hyena?
From the "thermoregulation in homo" thread on Sep 9:
> > > > > > > > Do you ahve something other than a tv show in support?
> >
> > > > > > > > > How do YOU think it works? Why don't lion
> > > > > > > > > prides steadily expand in size and numbers
> > > > > > > > > in view of the apparently endless surplus of
> > > > > > > > > readily available food?
> >
> > > > > > > > They did, before human hunting pressure.
> >
> > > > > > > > How come those poor lions don't totally starve and go
extinct?
> >
> > > > > > > No answer.
> All in all, your own hypothetical thinking is so blatantly
> stupid that you are embarrassed to even be associated
> with it. Moreover, now that that the aquatic ape loons
> have, thankfully, abandoned this newsgroup you no
> longer have a means to look smart in comparison.
heh heh
RichTravsky
Sep 21, 2012, 8:39:38 PM9/21/12
to
Bear in mind none of us have a link to your imagination.
Claudius Denk
Sep 22, 2012, 1:38:54 PM9/22/12
to
Address these details directly or kindly go away.
RichTravsky
Sep 29, 2012, 1:07:46 AM9/29/12
to
> > > > > > > Why would you assume this?
> >
> > > > > > Why would I assume you would have no trouble showing this from 5 to 8 million
> > > > > > years ago?
> >
> > > > > > Good question since you have not posted any to date...
> >
> > > > > > But we can hope ->
> > > > > I knew you wouldn't be able to answer this questions. Your approach
> > > > > is based on superstition and political correctness.
> >
> > > > Then you should have no trouble showing this from 5 to 8 million
> > > > years ago - unless it is based on superstition and political correctness ->
> >
> > > We see extinction of a whole biota associated with garden habitat
> >
> > Proof ->
> > Bear in mind none of us have a link to your imagination.
> >
> > > > > > > > about 2 mya. Are these changes not genetic? Are they not
> > > > > > > > significant? Take note of the timing with respect to the emergence
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > HE. Maybe you can explain to our audience the intellectual
> > > > > > > > gymnastics
> > > > > > > > involved with how you are able to ignore this evidence.
>
> I brought up a lot of details in the first post on this thread.
> Address these details directly or kindly go away.
Claudius Denk
Sep 29, 2012, 1:28:33 AM9/29/12
to
RichTravsky
Oct 7, 2012, 1:54:00 AM10/7/12
to
> > > > > > > I knew you wouldn't be able to answer this questions. Your approach
> > > > > > > is based on superstition and political correctness.
> >
> > > > > > Then you should have no trouble showing this from 5 to 8 million
> > > > > > years ago - unless it is based on superstition and political correctness ->
> >
> > > > > We see extinction of a whole biota associated with garden habitat
> >
> > > > Proof ->
> >
> > Waiting.
> > > > Bear in mind none of us have a link to your imagination.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > about 2 mya. Are these changes not genetic? Are they not
> > > > > > > > > > significant? Take note of the timing with respect to the emergence
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > HE. Maybe you can explain to our audience the intellectual
> > > > > > > > > > gymnastics
> > > > > > > > > > involved with how you are able to ignore this evidence.
> >
> > > I brought up a lot of details in the first post on this thread.
> > > Address these details directly or kindly go away.
> >
> > You did not bring up "a lot of details". Quit lying or kindly go away.
>
> Well, it'd be easy enough to go up there and look, wouldn't it.
Claudius Denk
Oct 7, 2012, 4:22:34 PM10/7/12
to
assumed that agriculture began only several thousand years ago that
therefore it's true. That's basically your whole argument, isn't it?
JTEM
Oct 8, 2012, 12:53:33 AM10/8/12
to
Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Basically your silly argument is that since scientists have always
> assumed that agriculture began only several thousand years ago that
> therefore it's true. That's basically your whole argument, isn't it?
You're not talking about agriculture. The word "Agriculture"
> Basically your silly argument is that since scientists have always
> assumed that agriculture began only several thousand years ago that
> therefore it's true. That's basically your whole argument, isn't it?
is defined, it has a meaning, and nowhere in that meaning is
there any room for what you're describing.
Claudius Denk
Oct 8, 2012, 1:48:21 AM10/8/12
to
Claudius Denk
Oct 8, 2012, 2:08:46 AM10/8/12
to
JTEM
Oct 8, 2012, 3:16:15 PM10/8/12
to
Lee/etc, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Pest control is not part of agriculture?
Using your, um, your "Logic" here, logistics is
> Pest control is not part of agriculture?
part of warfare, so anywhere we see logistics
we're seeing war.
Feast your eyes on combat:
http://thenewlogistics.ups.com/
Claudius Denk
Oct 8, 2012, 4:29:44 PM10/8/12
to
"Agriculture" is defined, it has a meaning, and nowhere in that
meaning is there any room for what you're describing.
meaning is there any room for what you're describing.
Pest control is not part of agriculture?
Why don't you make a retraction.
BTW, pest control is exclusive to agriculture. Logistics is not
exclusive to war. See the difference?
Whatever the case, your only dispute with my scenario is semantic.
Tom McDonald
Oct 8, 2012, 4:45:34 PM10/8/12
to
eliminating insect, rodent, and other small pests that cause illness to
humans. It is also used to remove unwanted larger animals from dangerous
proximity to humans (e.g. alligators in Florida). Nothing to do with
agriculture, and everything to do with public health.
See the similarity?
> Whatever the case, your only dispute with my scenario is semantic.
>
references for your assertions.
And, when you do give numbers (as with the recent 'hominids per square
mile' fiasco), you can't be bothered to follow up with the evidence that
your 'garden habitat' was productive enough to support the number of
hominids your 'scenario' requires.
Nothing to do with semantics, and everything to do with you being a
fuzzy thinker.
Claudius Denk
Oct 8, 2012, 6:31:49 PM10/8/12
to
On Oct 8, 1:46 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 3:29 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>> Pest control is not part of agriculture?
>
> >> Using your, um, your "Logic" here, logistics is
> >> part of warfare, so anywhere we see logistics
> >> we're seeing war.
>
> >> Feast your eyes on combat:
>
> >>http://thenewlogistics.ups.com/
>
> > I see you sidestepped my questions. You stated, "The word
> > "Agriculture" is defined, it has a meaning, and nowhere in that
> > meaning is there any room for what you're describing.
>
> > Pest control is not part of agriculture?
>
> > Why don't you make a retraction.
>
> > BTW, pest control is exclusive to agriculture. Logistics is not
> > exclusive to war. See the difference?
>
> No, pest control is not exclusive to agriculture. It also has a place in
> eliminating insect, rodent, and other small pests that cause illness to
> humans. It is also used to remove unwanted larger animals from dangerous
> proximity to humans (e.g. alligators in Florida). Nothing to do with
> agriculture, and everything to do with public health.
>
> See the similarity?
Why don't you two nitpickers take this argument to a forum that deal
> On 10/8/2012 3:29 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>> Pest control is not part of agriculture?
>
> >> Using your, um, your "Logic" here, logistics is
> >> part of warfare, so anywhere we see logistics
> >> we're seeing war.
>
> >> Feast your eyes on combat:
>
> >>http://thenewlogistics.ups.com/
>
> > I see you sidestepped my questions. You stated, "The word
> > "Agriculture" is defined, it has a meaning, and nowhere in that
> > meaning is there any room for what you're describing.
>
> > Pest control is not part of agriculture?
>
> > Why don't you make a retraction.
>
> > BTW, pest control is exclusive to agriculture. Logistics is not
> > exclusive to war. See the difference?
>
> No, pest control is not exclusive to agriculture. It also has a place in
> eliminating insect, rodent, and other small pests that cause illness to
> humans. It is also used to remove unwanted larger animals from dangerous
> proximity to humans (e.g. alligators in Florida). Nothing to do with
> agriculture, and everything to do with public health.
>
> See the similarity?
with semantics.
> > Whatever the case, your only dispute with my scenario is semantic.
>
> Your 'scenario' is pure waffle. You steadfastly refuse to provide
> references for your assertions.
> And, when you do give numbers (as with the recent 'hominids per square
> mile' fiasco), you can't be bothered to follow up with the evidence that
> your 'garden habitat' was productive enough to support the number of
> hominids your 'scenario' requires.
> Nothing to do with semantics, and everything to do with you being a
> fuzzy thinker.
Tom McDonald
Oct 8, 2012, 7:49:20 PM10/8/12
to
On 10/8/2012 5:31 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:46 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 3:29 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>>>>> Pest control is not part of agriculture?
>>
>>>> Using your, um, your "Logic" here, logistics is
>>>> part of warfare, so anywhere we see logistics
>>>> we're seeing war.
>>
>>>> Feast your eyes on combat:
>>
>>>> http://thenewlogistics.ups.com/
>>
>>> I see you sidestepped my questions. You stated, "The word
>>> "Agriculture" is defined, it has a meaning, and nowhere in that
>>> meaning is there any room for what you're describing.
>>
>>> Pest control is not part of agriculture?
>>
>>> Why don't you make a retraction.
>>
>>> BTW, pest control is exclusive to agriculture. Logistics is not
>>> exclusive to war. See the difference?
>>
>> No, pest control is not exclusive to agriculture. It also has a place in
>> eliminating insect, rodent, and other small pests that cause illness to
>> humans. It is also used to remove unwanted larger animals from dangerous
>> proximity to humans (e.g. alligators in Florida). Nothing to do with
>> agriculture, and everything to do with public health.
>>
>> See the similarity?
>
> Why don't you two nitpickers take this argument to a forum that deal
> with semantics.
Why don't you take your 'hypothesis' to a forum that deals with fantasy?
> On Oct 8, 1:46 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 3:29 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>>>>> Pest control is not part of agriculture?
>>
>>>> Using your, um, your "Logic" here, logistics is
>>>> part of warfare, so anywhere we see logistics
>>>> we're seeing war.
>>
>>>> Feast your eyes on combat:
>>
>>>> http://thenewlogistics.ups.com/
>>
>>> I see you sidestepped my questions. You stated, "The word
>>> "Agriculture" is defined, it has a meaning, and nowhere in that
>>> meaning is there any room for what you're describing.
>>
>>> Pest control is not part of agriculture?
>>
>>> Why don't you make a retraction.
>>
>>> BTW, pest control is exclusive to agriculture. Logistics is not
>>> exclusive to war. See the difference?
>>
>> No, pest control is not exclusive to agriculture. It also has a place in
>> eliminating insect, rodent, and other small pests that cause illness to
>> humans. It is also used to remove unwanted larger animals from dangerous
>> proximity to humans (e.g. alligators in Florida). Nothing to do with
>> agriculture, and everything to do with public health.
>>
>> See the similarity?
>
> Why don't you two nitpickers take this argument to a forum that deal
> with semantics.
I see you can make sweeping assertions that are flat wrong, and not
adjust your thinking when shown to be wrong. That's not scientific.
Maybe science isn't your thing.
>>> Whatever the case, your only dispute with my scenario is semantic.
>>
>> Your 'scenario' is pure waffle. You steadfastly refuse to provide
>> references for your assertions.
>
> That's because the assertions are my assertions.
it's up to you to show how it fits reality.
>> And, when you do give numbers (as with the recent 'hominids per square
>> mile' fiasco), you can't be bothered to follow up with the evidence that
>> your 'garden habitat' was productive enough to support the number of
>> hominids your 'scenario' requires.
>
> Uh, that's because this is science and not creative writing.
piece of creative writing. If you would just tether it to facts...
but look who I'm talking to.
>> Nothing to do with semantics, and everything to do with you being a
>> fuzzy thinker.
>
> You get more ridiculous with every post.
>
Claudius Denk
Oct 9, 2012, 12:48:55 PM10/9/12
to
the fact you have no argument whatsoever.
Tom McDonald
Oct 9, 2012, 1:31:40 PM10/9/12
to
>> I see you can make sweeping assertions that are flat wrong, and not
>> adjust your thinking when shown to be wrong. That's not scientific.
>>
>> Maybe science isn't your thing.
>>>>> Whatever the case, your only dispute with my scenario is semantic.
>>
>>>> Your 'scenario' is pure waffle. You steadfastly refuse to provide
>>>> references for your assertions.
>>
>>> That's because the assertions are my assertions.
>>
>> As I said, fantasy. If you want your 'hypothesis' to be anything more,
>> it's up to you to show how it fits reality.
>>>> And, when you do give numbers (as with the recent 'hominids per square
>>>> mile' fiasco), you can't be bothered to follow up with the evidence that
>>>> your 'garden habitat' was productive enough to support the number of
>>>> hominids your 'scenario' requires.
>>
>>> Uh, that's because this is science and not creative writing.
>>
>> Exactly. You have nothing but a fairly boring, unsubstantiated, fantasy
>> piece of creative writing. If you would just tether it to facts...
>>
>> but look who I'm talking to.
>>>> Nothing to do with semantics, and everything to do with you being a
>>>> fuzzy thinker.
>>
>>> You get more ridiculous with every post.
>>
>> Now *that's* comedy!
> It cracks me up how your pinheads are so sure you are right despite
> the fact you have no argument whatsoever.
>
fact that you have never supported your 'scenario', as witnessed by your
total, flaccid, inability to respond to my points.
What a total maroon!
Claudius Denk
Oct 9, 2012, 1:48:18 PM10/9/12
to
demonstrate your desperation.
Tom McDonald
Oct 9, 2012, 2:09:36 PM10/9/12
to
Also, perhaps while you're working on that thorny problem, you could
explain how our "desperation" is demonstrated. You can do that, can't you?
BTW, I notice that you are desperate to avoid responding to my previous
post. Why is that, Jim? Can't do it? Or are you too busy evading your
responsibility to support your assertions with facts?
Or both? Likely, I think.
Claudius Denk
Oct 9, 2012, 2:19:51 PM10/9/12
to
> Also, perhaps while you're working on that thorny problem, you could
> explain how our "desperation" is demonstrated. You can do that, can't you?
>
> BTW, I notice that you are desperate to avoid responding to my previous
> post.
Tom McDonald
Oct 9, 2012, 3:10:21 PM10/9/12
to
Claudius Denk
Oct 10, 2012, 12:10:51 AM10/10/12
to
a path this conversation would take if you
had a hypothesis. It would allow you to
appear (intellectually) honest and forthright.
But then people would expect details.
Kinda sucks.
Kinda sucks.
JTEM
Oct 14, 2012, 5:39:54 AM10/14/12
to
I didn't side step your question at all. I could have
merely pointed out the fact that it was dumb -- and
it was an incredibly stupid question -- but I instead
explained, by way of example, WHY is was stupid.
merely pointed out the fact that it was dumb -- and
it was an incredibly stupid question -- but I instead
explained, by way of example, WHY is was stupid.
RichTravsky
Oct 14, 2012, 10:41:28 PM10/14/12
to
RichTravsky
Oct 14, 2012, 11:36:03 PM10/14/12
to
And you have - what? Nothing.
Claudius Denk
Oct 16, 2012, 2:09:22 AM10/16/12
to
Claudius Denk
Oct 19, 2012, 9:11:39 AM10/19/12
to
> > Basically your silly argument is that since scientists have always
> > assumed that agriculture began only several thousand years ago that
> > therefore it's true. That's basically your whole argument, isn't it?
>
> That's what the evidence shows.
>
> And you have - what? Nothing.
All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
Claudius Denk:
What's your explanation for the selective origins of the
most communally territorialistic, communicative, and
conscious species ever known to exist? Let me guess.
You have early hominids, crude tools in hand, chasing
down Kudu, long-distance, through treeless savanna,
outrunning sabertoothed lions and bear-sized hyena?
All in all, your own hypothetical thinking is so blatantly
stupid that you are embarrassed to even be associated
with it. Moreover, now that that the aquatic ape loons
have, thankfully, abandoned this newsgroup you no
longer have a means to look smart in comparison.
VTSkier:
All you have done is try to redefine existing terms to
support your assertion. No scientific argument, no
thesis, no hypothesis, just an assertion that a task
(pest control) constitutes agriculture. It doesn't. The
task may be valuable to those who do practice
agriculture, but in and of itself, it's not agriculture.
CD:
Any reasonable person will realize that you all are
pretending to have a scientific dispute when all you
have is a semantic dispute. (IOW, your dispute is
trivial.) I refer to the pest control behavior in my
hypothesis (for the earliest years of hominid
evolution) as agriculture because that's what it was.
Agriculture didn't begin 8 to 12 kya. Agriculture
began 5 to 8 mya. Hominids have been agricultural
from day one of hominid evolution. In fact, being
agricultural is "the" defining characteristic from
which all other defining characteristics began to
evolve in the hominid lineage.
Agricultural behavior first emerged and persisted in
the hominid population because it was an effective
way to avoid the the most significant selective factor
in their environment, predatory siege/massacres
during the dry season. More specifically, those
hominid communities that endeavored to stop *cattle*
(and/or any number of other pest species, some very
large and aggressive) from consuming their garden
habitat, during the months preceding the dry season,
avoided impoverishment during the dry season.
Communities that avoided impoverishment during the
dry season avoided the attention of predators during
the dry season. And that's how hominid evolution
proceeded--in its earliest years. Hominid evolutionary
success--hominid survival--in these earliest years of
hominid evolution, had to do with the *geographic*
stealthiness associated with the members of a
community's collective ability to avoid impoverishment
during the dry season. Agriculture made hominids
invisible to predators who, at that time, were primarily
concerned with finding their way to geographic
localities with large numbers of weak, starving prey.
This is the hominid dry-season survival strategy.
This is what distinguished hominids from the other
species. Hominids were able to bring peace and
stability to their garden-like community during the dry
season by managing it and guarding it in the months
that preceded the dry season. The economic stability
and peacefulness that resulted provided a community
the geographic stealth from predation during the dry
season. This stealth being a consequence of the fact
that, during the dry season, predators were primarily
concerned with finding their way to geographic localities
with large numbers of weak, starving prey and tended to
ignore geographic localities that, as was the case with
the peace and stability loving hominid communities,
lacked large numbers of weak, starving prey. Thus
agriculture made hominid communities invisible to
predators during the dry season. Communities that
were better at pest control agriculture, brought more
peace and stability to the garden and, therefore, greater
ability to avoid attention from predators during the dry
season. Those that did not or could not became extinct
as a result of decimation by predators during the dry
season.
As hominid evolution proceeded, hominids evolved
greater intelligence, consciousness, cooperativeness,
and communicativeness as a result of the selective
advantages these attributes provided for their
communities with respect to being better agriculturalists
and, therefore, better able to avoid dry season
impoverishment and its associated and very dramatic
predatory implications.
Jim McGinn (AKA Claudius Denk)
http://www.solvingtornadoes.org
Claudius Denk
Oct 19, 2012, 1:16:33 PM10/19/12
to
RichTravsky
Oct 21, 2012, 9:47:16 PM10/21/12
to
RichTravsky
Oct 21, 2012, 9:48:31 PM10/21/12
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> Travsky:
> All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
>
> Claudius Denk:
> What's your explanation for the selective origins of the
> most communally territorialistic, communicative, and
> conscious species ever known to exist? Let me guess.
> You have early hominids, crude tools in hand, chasing
> down Kudu, long-distance, through treeless savanna,
> outrunning sabertoothed lions and bear-sized hyena?
> All in all, your own hypothetical thinking is so blatantly
> stupid that you are embarrassed to even be associated
> with it. Moreover, now that that the aquatic ape loons
> have, thankfully, abandoned this newsgroup you no
> longer have a means to look smart in comparison.
>
> VTSkier:
> All you have done is try to redefine existing terms to
> support your assertion. No scientific argument, no
> thesis, no hypothesis, just an assertion that a task
> (pest control) constitutes agriculture. It doesn't. The
> task may be valuable to those who do practice
> agriculture, but in and of itself, it's not agriculture.
>
> CD:
DJM: still no evidence and still making up his own definitions for things
>
> Travsky:
> All you did was take territorial defense and twist it around.
>
> Claudius Denk:
> What's your explanation for the selective origins of the
> most communally territorialistic, communicative, and
> conscious species ever known to exist? Let me guess.
> You have early hominids, crude tools in hand, chasing
> down Kudu, long-distance, through treeless savanna,
> outrunning sabertoothed lions and bear-sized hyena?
> All in all, your own hypothetical thinking is so blatantly
> stupid that you are embarrassed to even be associated
> with it. Moreover, now that that the aquatic ape loons
> have, thankfully, abandoned this newsgroup you no
> longer have a means to look smart in comparison.
>
> VTSkier:
> All you have done is try to redefine existing terms to
> support your assertion. No scientific argument, no
> thesis, no hypothesis, just an assertion that a task
> (pest control) constitutes agriculture. It doesn't. The
> task may be valuable to those who do practice
> agriculture, but in and of itself, it's not agriculture.
>
> CD:
like agriculture.
Claudius Denk
Oct 22, 2012, 1:55:50 PM10/22/12
to
Claudius Denk
Oct 23, 2012, 1:22:31 PM10/23/12
to
JTEM
Oct 23, 2012, 11:52:12 PM10/23/12
to
Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > DJM: still no evidence and still making up his own definitions for things
> > > like agriculture.
>
> Vagueness and misdirection are the only tactics you losers got left.
Please stop feeding the trolls.
> > > like agriculture.
>
> Vagueness and misdirection are the only tactics you losers got left.
RichTravsky
Oct 28, 2012, 11:43:20 PM10/28/12
to
RichTravsky
Oct 28, 2012, 11:44:13 PM10/28/12
to
Claudius Denk
Oct 29, 2012, 1:40:48 PM10/29/12
to
RichTravsky
Nov 4, 2012, 11:25:43 PM11/4/12
to
"there is no data to confirm or deny any of it"
Claudius Denk
Nov 5, 2012, 1:33:20 PM11/5/12
to
Tom McDonald
Nov 5, 2012, 1:49:37 PM11/5/12
to
I did provide a scenario in which those who ventured far from their
group's home range might need to expand on existing communication
abilities to relate things that wouldn't be common knowledge to their
stay-at-home cohorts. You didn't give that much, if any, credit; while
demanding full credit for your own speculations.
Huh.
Claudius Denk
Nov 5, 2012, 7:27:45 PM11/5/12
to
into this subject.
Tom McDonald
Nov 5, 2012, 7:32:20 PM11/5/12
to
take some extra words to explain things that weren't common knowledge to
everyone in a given group. So, not a long time thinking, but a fair bit
of understanding that you don't seem to have been able to come up with.
Claudius Denk
Nov 8, 2012, 12:25:01 AM11/8/12
to
that something as complex as human language would emerge to serve such
a mundane purpose.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages