Agricultural imperative and the earliest hominids

[Claudius Denk]

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

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> 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.

Amongst the staggering array of problems with your
ideas would be...

1) They are not observed in nature.

Gorillas don't do this, chimps don't do this -- there
is no natural model, no basis.

2) The behavior requires advancement well beyond
anything seen before modern humans.

Our ancestors would have to evolve to the point where
they could not only chase away predators and
competing herbaviors (this gets us all the way to
Chimps, which are roughly 98% of the way to modern
humans), but they would have to be able to foresee
the future.

Now you could argue simple reactions here -- maybe
instinct rather than cognitive advancement, but again
there is no natural precursor -- no model what so ever
-- no basis.

3) This does not describe our early ancestors. This
does not describe the people who left Africa and
populated Eurasian and Australia. This does not
describe the later dispersal the DNA freaks claim
to see. It doesn't describe anyone ancestral to us.

In short, you have not a single shred of evidence.
All you're trying to do is invent a behavior pattern
-- a "Lifestyle" -- to fit an environment known to
exist for some populations, and not necessary any
evolutionarily significant populations.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 12, 4:02 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Amongst the staggering array of problems with your
> ideas would be...
>
> 1)  They are not observed in nature.

Pest control agriculture is observed in nature--in ourselves.

> Gorillas don't do this, chimps don't do this -- there
> is no natural model, no basis.

Humans do it.

> 2)  The behavior requires advancement well beyond
> anything seen before modern humans.

Rock throwing, stick wielding territorialism? How is this advanced?

> Our ancestors would have to evolve to the point where
> they could not only chase away predators and
> competing herbaviors (this gets us all the way to
> Chimps, which are roughly 98% of the way to modern
> humans), but they would have to be able to foresee
> the future.

Why? Be specific.

> Now you could argue simple reactions here -- maybe
> instinct  rather than cognitive advancement, but again
> there is no natural precursor -- no model what so ever
> -- no basis.

Be specific. Vagueness is the hallmark of dimwittedness.

> 3)  This does not describe our early ancestors.  This
> does not describe the people who left Africa and
> populated Eurasian and Australia.  This does not
> describe the later dispersal the DNA freaks claim
> to see. It doesn't describe anyone ancestral to us.

You are starting to sound like an idiot. Keep in mind our audience
doesn't have access to your imagination. Tell us how you know what
you claim to know.

> In short, you have not a single shred of evidence.

Uh, I have the same amount of evidence that you have, dumbass. The
difference is that I have a hypothesis that explains the evidence, you
have vagueness and self-righteousness, neither of which is useful for
determining scientific veracity.

> All you're trying to do is invent a behavior pattern
> -- a "Lifestyle" -- to fit an environment known to
> exist for some populations, and not necessary any
> evolutionarily significant populations.

And you have no alternative whatsoever, do you? (Don't leave this
question unanswered, you evasive jackass.)

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Our ancestors would have to evolve to the point where
> > they could not only chase away predators and
> > competing herbaviors (this gets us all the way to
> > Chimps, which are roughly 98% of the way to modern
> > humans), but they would have to be able to foresee
> > the future.
>
> Why?  Be specific.

You want to know why they would have to be able to
foresee the future in order to know that lean times
would be coming?

I think if you examined things you will find that your
question answers itself.

Seriously, asking stupid questions and overusing the
word "Vague" is no substitute for an argument. Please
try harder.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 12, 6:14 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > Our ancestors would have to evolve to the point where
> > > they could not only chase away predators and
> > > competing herbaviors (this gets us all the way to
> > > Chimps, which are roughly 98% of the way to modern
> > > humans), but they would have to be able to foresee
> > > the future.
>
> > Why?  Be specific.
>
> You want to know why they would have to be able to
> foresee the future in order to know that lean times
> would be coming?

No. I want to know why you think they would have to know lean times
are coming in order to perform the behaviors (communal territorialism)
associated with my hypothesis. Be specific and explicit in your
response.

> I think if you examined things you will find that your
> question answers itself.

I kind of agree. Specifically, if you examine the behavior of extant
chimps (who do practice collective territorialism) the question does
answer itself.

> Seriously, asking stupid questions and overusing the
> word "Vague" is no substitute for an argument.  Please
> try harder.

Tell us your hypothesis on the earliest years of hominid evolution or
go away.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > You want to know why they would have to be able to
> > foresee the future in order to know that lean times
> > would be coming?
>
> No.  I want to know why you think they would have to know lean times
> are coming in order to perform the behaviors (communal territorialism)
> associated with my hypothesis.  Be specific and explicit in your
> response.

There's no reason for the behavior. It doesn't
exist anywhere in nature. It is not observed in
Gorillas or Chimps -- not in any primate. None
of our ancestors appear to have engaged in
any such behavior -- it certainly doesn't describe
any known population that left Africa. There
is no precursor, no basis for it. None. There
isn't a half way decent excuse for entertaining
the notion.

You, for example, claim that the behavior can
be observed in modern humans. What you don't
claim is that there is so much as a shred of
evidence for this behavior in Neanderthal,
erectus or any of our immediate predecessors.
So you're arguing that the behavior cropped up
millions of years ago only to vanish for millions
of years before finally appear again but for
totally different reasons.

See, modern humans can foresee the future.
We can predict the coming and goings of
the seasons. We can foresee lean times
ahead. We can even grasp that, no matter
how abundant the plants are this year, there
will be years in the future (even if the distant
future) were disease, insects or drought will
bring scarcity.

None of this could be true for your "Garden
habitat." They weren't us. They had tiny
brains, they weren't capable of symbolic
thought, they were intellectually behind Chimps.
So, they couldn't do it for any of the reasons
modern humans do it. You're arguing coincidence.

....which brings us full circle.

There is no reason to consider the idea. None.
Nobody requires an argument against it -- you've
got everything backward. That's not how science
works -- there is nothing to so much as hint that
your theory is plausible.

No evidence what so ever.

Personally, I don't believe it's even evolutionarily
significant -- not the population that lived in the
environment you describe.

> > I think if you examined things you will find that your
> > question answers itself.
>
> I kind of agree.  Specifically, if you examine the behavior of extant
> chimps (who do practice collective territorialism) the question does
> answer itself.

Territorialism is far different than what you're claiming.

Your theory didn't concern one population of out
ancestors fighting with another, as we observe in
Chimps, nor was it driving away predators as we
see in Chimps. Your theory was that they drove
away cattle and other "Pest" species in order to
protect the "Garden."

We don't see this in Chimps.

> Tell us your hypothesis on the earliest years of hominid evolution or
> go away.

Earliest years? No.

The engine of human evolution is the glaciers,
coupled with "Aquatic Ape." The glaciers grew,
sea levels dropped and populations living off the
ocean (exploiting the aquatic environment) could
spread across the globe. The glaciers shrunk,
the oceans rose and those same populations
were driven away from the oceans and inland.

You can think of nature breathing in and out... in
& out...

The oceans supplied brain food. Spears make
sense in an aquatic environment -- maybe first
for digging shell fish, then spearing fish. Even
rock tools make sense in an aquatic environment
(opening shell fish). Also: The coast can support
a far greater population density than inland. This
explain the dispersal of our species, not some
lame, "Hey, everyone, let's all leave Africa and
walk to Australia and maybe China!"

More food and bigger populations opens you to
a snowballing. You can support a larger population
which means there's more people breeding which
means you grow even more... so on and so on...
you have to spread, and that's even if you don't
exhaust a stretch of beach or suffer some kind
of natural calamity (like a Red Tide).

It all makes perfect sense and matches the
evidence.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 12, 11:28 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > You want to know why they would have to be able to
> > > foresee the future in order to know that lean times
> > > would be coming?
>
> > No.  I want to know why you think they would have to know lean times
> > are coming in order to perform the behaviors (communal territorialism)
> > associated with my hypothesis.  Be specific and explicit in your
> > response.
>
> There's no reason for the behavior.

What behavior? Did I not ask you to be specific, you nitwit.

> It doesn't
> exist anywhere in nature.

It does exist in nature, as I explained.

> It is not observed in
> Gorillas or Chimps -- not in any primate. None
> of our ancestors appear to have engaged in
> any such behavior -- it certainly doesn't describe
> any known population that left Africa. There
> is no precursor, no basis for it.  None.  There
> isn't a half way decent excuse for entertaining
> the notion.

Be specific, you idiot. Territorialism isn't part of nature? Rock
throwing? Stick wielding?

> You, for example, claim that the behavior can
> be observed in modern humans.  What you don't
> claim is that there is so much as a shred of
> evidence for this behavior in Neanderthal,
> erectus or any of our immediate predecessors.
> So you're arguing that the behavior cropped up
> millions of years ago only to vanish for millions
> of years before finally appear again but for
> totally different reasons.

Are you some kind of mental retard? Seriously. Are you saying you
know the behavior of Neanderthal and homo? Show us how you know
this. If nothing else your response should be good for a few laughs.

> See, modern humans can foresee the future.

All animals predict the future, in one respect or another, dumbass.

> We can predict the coming and goings of
> the seasons.  We can foresee lean times
> ahead.

Brilliant. Now tell us how we evolved these abilities.

> We can even grasp that, no matter
> how abundant the plants are this year, there
> will be years in the future (even if the distant
> future) were disease, insects or drought will
> bring scarcity.
>
> None of this could be true for your "Garden
> habitat."

Obviously, thus the reason I never indicated such in the context of my
scenario.

Do you have an alternative to my hypothesis? No?

> They weren't us.  They had tiny
> brains, they weren't capable of symbolic
> thought, they were intellectually behind Chimps.
> So, they couldn't do it for any of the reasons
> modern humans do it.  You're arguing coincidence.

You are arguing off on a tangent. Stop repeating yourself. Switch to
decaf. Get a grip.

>     ....which brings us full circle.
>
> There is no reason to consider the idea.  None.
> Nobody requires an argument against it -- you've
> got everything backward.  That's not how science
> works -- there is nothing to so much as hint that
> your theory is plausible.
>
> No evidence what so ever.

Tell us your hypothesis or go away.

> Personally, I don't believe it's even evolutionarily
> significant -- not the population that lived in the
> environment you describe.

What does this even mean?

> > > I think if you examined things you will find that your
> > > question answers itself.
>
> > I kind of agree.  Specifically, if you examine the behavior of extant
> > chimps (who do practice collective territorialism) the question does
> > answer itself.
>
> Territorialism is far different than what you're claiming.

No, really it's not.

> Your theory didn't concern one population of out
> ancestors fighting with another, as we observe in
> Chimps, nor was it driving away predators as we
> see in Chimps.  Your theory was that they drove
> away cattle and other "Pest" species in order to
> protect the "Garden."

Correct. And, yes, we do see this behavior in chimps.

> We don't see this in Chimps.

You are wrong. Chimps are highly territorial. (Especially savanna
chimps.) Look it up.

> > Tell us your hypothesis on the earliest years of hominid evolution or
> > go away.
>
> Earliest years? No.

Then how do you explain the selective origins of hominid/human
attributes and behaviors? Pixie dust?

> The engine of human evolution is the glaciers,
> coupled with "Aquatic Ape."  The glaciers grew,
> sea levels dropped and populations living off the
> ocean (exploiting the aquatic environment) could
> spread across the globe.  The glaciers shrunk,
> the oceans rose and those same populations
> were driven away from the oceans and inland.

Your explanation is childish. Explain to us how this brought about
language, culture, intelligence. And how is it that these glaciers
only had an effect on our ancestors? Why don't horses talk? Bears?
Birds? etc.

> You can think of nature breathing in and out... in
> & out...

Put the bag over your head, and squeeze.

> The oceans supplied brain food.  Spears make
> sense in an aquatic environment -- maybe first
> for digging shell fish, then spearing fish.  Even
> rock tools make sense in an aquatic environment
> (opening shell fish).  Also:  The coast can support
> a far greater population density than inland.  This
> explain the dispersal of our species, not some
> lame, "Hey, everyone, let's all leave Africa and
> walk to Australia and maybe China!"

Typical aquatic ape nonsense. We're all supposed to pretend not to
notice that there are a lot of other species that live near water that
don't have any of the traits that so distinguish humans from any other
species. Science that depends on ignoring evidence isn't good
science.

> More food and bigger populations opens you to
> a snowballing.  You can support a larger population
> which means there's more people breeding which
> means you grow even more... so on and so on...
> you have to spread, and that's even if you don't
> exhaust a stretch of beach or suffer some kind
> of natural calamity (like a Red Tide).
>
> It all makes perfect sense and matches the
> evidence.

People that think they know it all make it difficult for those of us
who do.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> What behavior?  Did I not ask you to be specific, you nitwit.

Followed by...

> It does exist in nature, as I explained.

What does? The behavior you need explained to you?

Seriously, are you retarded? You make a lot of demands
for things which you already have (like in the above), and
you claim to be rooted in science yet clearly haven't
the faintest grasp on what that means.

HINT: Nobody needs a reason for refusing to entertain
a completely unsupportable assertion.

> Be specific, you idiot.  Territorialism isn't part of nature?  Rock
> throwing?  Stick wielding?

Again, rudely demanding something you already have...

> > You, for example, claim that the behavior can
> > be observed in modern humans.  What you don't
> > claim is that there is so much as a shred of
> > evidence for this behavior in Neanderthal,
> > erectus or any of our immediate predecessors.
> > So you're arguing that the behavior cropped up
> > millions of years ago only to vanish for millions
> > of years before finally appear again but for
> > totally different reasons.
>
> Are you some kind of mental retard?  Seriously.  Are you saying you
> know the behavior of Neanderthal and homo?

Evidently your reading comprehension is every bit
as poor as your understanding of human evolution...

> > See, modern humans can foresee the future.
>
> All animals predict the future,

No. None of them do except for humans. The rest
are simply acting on instinct and/or learned
behavior (little more than training).

> > We can predict the coming and goings of
> > the seasons.  We can foresee lean times
> > ahead.
>
> Brilliant.  Now tell us how we evolved these abilities.

We didn't have to. They came automatically with
our bigger brains and thinking skills. All of this
could be easily inferred from my answer to your
later question...

> > There is no reason to consider the idea.  None.
> > Nobody requires an argument against it -- you've
> > got everything backward.  That's not how science
> > works -- there is nothing to so much as hint that
> > your theory is plausible.
>
> > No evidence what so ever.

> Tell us your hypothesis or go away.

I already answered your question as much as I am
willing. You're incapable of a serious discussion so
I'm not interested in further details.

> > Your theory didn't concern one population of out
> > ancestors fighting with another, as we observe in
> > Chimps, nor was it driving away predators as we
> > see in Chimps.  Your theory was that they drove
> > away cattle and other "Pest" species in order to
> > protect the "Garden."
>
> Correct.  And, yes, we do see this behavior in chimps.

No we don't.

> > We don't see this in Chimps.
>
> You are wrong.  Chimps are highly territorial. (Especially savanna
> chimps.) Look it up.

I don't need to. I've done readings on the subject in the
past and there isn't a word on this. Again, "Territorial"
in the sense that they view other chimps as rivals is one
thing, or even chasing away predators, but attacking
herbaviors is another matter entirely...

> > The engine of human evolution is the glaciers,
> > coupled with "Aquatic Ape."  The glaciers grew,
> > sea levels dropped and populations living off the
> > ocean (exploiting the aquatic environment) could
> > spread across the globe.  The glaciers shrunk,
> > the oceans rose and those same populations
> > were driven away from the oceans and inland.

> Your explanation is childish.

If "Childish" means that it makes sense and fits
all the available evidence, that's true.

> Explain to us how this brought about
> language, culture, intelligence.

You've got it all backwards. The aquatic environment
meant plenty of protein loaded with healthy fats and
brain-building Omega-3s. It was the fuel for the brain
fire.

> And how is it that these glaciers
> only had an effect on our ancestors?

Who said they did?

Elephants split into three main groups at
roughly the same point that humans split
from Chimps (perhaps even later). Mammoths
made it all the way from Africa to North
America!

...and that's just one bleeding obvious
example.

> Why don't horses talk?  Bears?
> Birds?  etc.

Why should they? Why is the question relevant?

> > The oceans supplied brain food.  Spears make
> > sense in an aquatic environment -- maybe first
> > for digging shell fish, then spearing fish.  Even
> > rock tools make sense in an aquatic environment
> > (opening shell fish).  Also:  The coast can support
> > a far greater population density than inland.  This
> > explain the dispersal of our species, not some
> > lame, "Hey, everyone, let's all leave Africa and
> > walk to Australia and maybe China!"
>
> Typical aquatic ape nonsense.

No, actually, pretty much all of this is accepted fact,
even by the most ardent "Out of Africa" moron. Yes,
even the "Migration" nimrods accept all of these
facts. Contrary to what your diseased mind is telling
you, NOBODY believes our ancestors brought a
Savanna with them. They believe they were living
off of the oceans that they were following... and
most even accept the fact that this is why they were
following the oceans in the first place.

It's just mental cases like you that have problems
with reality...

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 13, 12:49 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Be specific, you idiot.  Territorialism isn't part of nature?  Rock
> > throwing?  Stick wielding?
>
> Again, rudely demanding something you already have...

When it comes to specifics you suddenly don't want to play anymore.

> > > You, for example, claim that the behavior can
> > > be observed in modern humans.  What you don't
> > > claim is that there is so much as a shred of
> > > evidence for this behavior in Neanderthal,
> > > erectus or any of our immediate predecessors.
> > > So you're arguing that the behavior cropped up
> > > millions of years ago only to vanish for millions
> > > of years before finally appear again but for
> > > totally different reasons.
>
> > Are you some kind of mental retard?  Seriously.  Are you saying you
> > know the behavior of Neanderthal and homo?
>
> Evidently your reading comprehension is every bit
> as poor as your understanding of human evolution...

Answer my question you evasive jackass: Are you saying you know the
behavior of Neanderthal and homo? Explain to us how you know whatever
it is you think you know.

> > > See, modern humans can foresee the future.
>
> > All animals predict the future,
>
> No.

Yes. All animals predict the future in one way or another.

> None of them do except for humans.  The rest
> are simply acting on instinct and/or learned
> behavior (little more than training).

Instinct is a prediction of the future. All animals predict the
future in one way or another.

Your thinking is too vague to be of much consequence. Find another
hobby. Science isn't your thing.

> > > We can predict the coming and goings of
> > > the seasons.  We can foresee lean times
> > > ahead.
>
> > Brilliant.  Now tell us how we evolved these abilities.
>
> We didn't have to.

Yet we did. And you haven't any explanation.

> They came automatically with
> our bigger brains and thinking skills. All of this
> could be easily inferred from my answer to your
> later question...

So, let me get this straight. Intelligence evolved from
intelligence. Is that your explanation?

> > > There is no reason to consider the idea.  None.
> > > Nobody requires an argument against it -- you've
> > > got everything backward.  That's not how science
> > > works -- there is nothing to so much as hint that
> > > your theory is plausible.
>
> > > No evidence what so ever.
> > Tell us your hypothesis or go away.
>
> I already answered your question as much as I am
> willing.

You've nothing but a silly aquatic ape theory.

> You're incapable of a serious discussion so
> I'm not interested in further details.

Science requires details and specifics. Sorry to burst your little
bubble.

> > > Your theory didn't concern one population of out
> > > ancestors fighting with another, as we observe in
> > > Chimps, nor was it driving away predators as we
> > > see in Chimps.  Your theory was that they drove
> > > away cattle and other "Pest" species in order to
> > > protect the "Garden."
>
> > Correct.  And, yes, we do see this behavior in chimps.
>
> No we don't.

We do. Look it up.

> > > We don't see this in Chimps.
>
> > You are wrong.  Chimps are highly territorial. (Especially savanna
> > chimps.) Look it up.
>
> I don't need to.  I've done readings on the subject in the
> past and there isn't a word on this.  Again, "Territorial"
> in the sense that they view other chimps as rivals is one
> thing, or even chasing away predators, but attacking
> herbaviors is another matter entirely...

Is it? Tell us why you believe this. In the dry season all species
battle with other species for access to resources and water.

> > > The engine of human evolution is the glaciers,
> > > coupled with "Aquatic Ape."  The glaciers grew,
> > > sea levels dropped and populations living off the
> > > ocean (exploiting the aquatic environment) could
> > > spread across the globe.  The glaciers shrunk,
> > > the oceans rose and those same populations
> > > were driven away from the oceans and inland.
> > Your explanation is childish.
>
> If "Childish" means that it makes sense and fits
> all the available evidence, that's true.

This response is childish, also.

> > Explain to us how this brought about
> > language, culture, intelligence.
>
> You've got it all backwards.

How so. Were these attributes and behaviors bestowed upon us by a
higher power? Space aliens?

> The aquatic environment
> meant plenty of protein loaded with healthy fats and
> brain-building Omega-3s.  It was the fuel for the brain
> fire.

Seals eat a lot of fish. They don't have big brains, language,
culture, consciousness. And there are hundreds of other species that
eat fish yet their brains are no more developed than non fish eating
species. This Omega 3 stuff is a load of crapola.

> > And how is it that these glaciers
> > only had an effect on our ancestors?
>
> Who said they did?

You did.

> Elephants split into three main groups at
> roughly the same point that humans split
> from Chimps (perhaps even later). Mammoths
> made it all the way from Africa to North
> America!
>
>       ...and that's just one bleeding obvious
> example.

Of what? Your inability to stick to the subject? I thought we were
discussing human origins.

> > Why don't horses talk?  Bears?
> > Birds?  etc.
>
> Why should they?  Why is the question relevant?

Explain how the glaciers didn't effect them in the same way you claim
the glaciers effected hominids.

> > > The oceans supplied brain food.  Spears make
> > > sense in an aquatic environment -- maybe first
> > > for digging shell fish, then spearing fish.  Even
> > > rock tools make sense in an aquatic environment
> > > (opening shell fish).  Also:  The coast can support
> > > a far greater population density than inland.  This
> > > explain the dispersal of our species, not some
> > > lame, "Hey, everyone, let's all leave Africa and
> > > walk to Australia and maybe China!"
>
> > Typical aquatic ape nonsense.
>
> No, actually, pretty much all of this is accepted fact,
> even by the most ardent "Out of Africa" moron. Yes,
> even the "Migration" nimrods accept all of these
> facts.  Contrary to what your diseased mind is telling
> you, NOBODY believes our ancestors brought a
> Savanna with them.  They believe they were living
> off of the oceans that they were following... and
> most even accept the fact that this is why they were
> following the oceans in the first place.
>
> It's just mental cases like you that have problems
> with reality...

So, being near water and glaciers caused humans to start reasoning and
talking. Is that your theory?

[Tom McDonald]

On 9/13/2012 3:39 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Sep 13, 12:49 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> Be specific, you idiot. Territorialism isn't part of nature? Rock
>>> throwing? Stick wielding?
>>
>> Again, rudely demanding something you already have...
>
> When it comes to specifics you suddenly don't want to play anymore.
>
>>>> You, for example, claim that the behavior can
>>>> be observed in modern humans. What you don't
>>>> claim is that there is so much as a shred of
>>>> evidence for this behavior in Neanderthal,
>>>> erectus or any of our immediate predecessors.
>>>> So you're arguing that the behavior cropped up
>>>> millions of years ago only to vanish for millions
>>>> of years before finally appear again but for
>>>> totally different reasons.
>>
>>> Are you some kind of mental retard? Seriously. Are you saying you
>>> know the behavior of Neanderthal and homo?
>>
>> Evidently your reading comprehension is every bit
>> as poor as your understanding of human evolution...
>
> Answer my question you evasive jackass: Are you saying you know the
> behavior of Neanderthal and homo?

Neandertal is Homo. Jeez, Jim, you are a sloppy thinker.

<snip>

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Explain how the glaciers didn't effect them in the same way you claim
> the glaciers effected hominids.

Now here's an example of a dumb question...

In a court trial, say, for a murder charge: You don't
have to prove who did it. A defendant isn't burdened
with "Who did it." They're only burden is to convince
a judge and jury that they did not do it.

"Well, if you didn't do it then who did? Tell us that or
we'll execute you by lethal injection."

It doesn't work that way. And it doesn't work that
way in science.

I don't have to map out goat evolution in order to
explain human evolution. It's not necessary.
Nobody is so burdened.

[Claudius Denk]

Do you agree with JTEM that glaciers caused human evolution?

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 13, 9:41 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Explain how the glaciers didn't effect them in the same way you claim
> > the glaciers effected hominids.
>
> Now here's an example of a dumb question...

I agree. The notion that human evolution is caused by glaciers is
plainly absurd, isn't it?

> In a court trial, say, for a murder charge:  You don't
> have to prove who did it.  A defendant isn't burdened
> with "Who did it." They're only burden is to convince
> a judge and jury that they did not do it.

Perjury is a felony.

> "Well, if you didn't do it then who did?  Tell us that or
> we'll execute you by lethal injection."
>
> It doesn't work that way.  And it doesn't work that
> way in science.

Considering your track record, it's more than a bit comical that you
would pretend to lecture me (or anybody) on the way science works.

> I don't have to map out goat evolution in order to
> explain human evolution.  It's not necessary.
> Nobody is so burdened.

You made some absurd statements up-thread. I suggest you make some
retractions.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I agree.  The notion that human evolution is caused by glaciers is
> plainly absurd, isn't it?

No. All the evidence points to it. It's what allowed our
earliest ancestors to spread out of Africa, and what
isolated them from each other, fueling evolution.

Populations must be isolated -- physically or some other
way -- in order to pursue their own unique evolutionary
path. Otherwise, in the case of human evolution, there
would have been greater pressure on European populations
to stay genetically adapted to sub Saharan Africa than
to adapt to the unique conditions of Europe.

This is pretty basic stuff, not to mention obvious...

> > In a court trial, say, for a murder charge:  You don't
> > have to prove who did it.  A defendant isn't burdened
> > with "Who did it." They're only burden is to convince
> > a judge and jury that they did not do it.
>
> Perjury is a felony.

Great. That has nothing what so ever to do with what
I was illustrating, but great...

> > It doesn't work that way.  And it doesn't work that
> > way in science.
>
> Considering your track record, it's more than a bit comical that you
> would pretend to lecture me (or anybody) on the way science works.

You need to buy a dictionary and look up "Non Sequitur"
and then "Irony."

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 14, 12:14 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I agree.  The notion that human evolution is caused by glaciers is
> > plainly absurd, isn't it?
>
> No.  All the evidence points to it.

Ha! Show us one piece of evidence that links human evolution to
glaciers, you vague-minded nitwit.

> It's what allowed our
> earliest ancestors to spread out of Africa, and what
> isolated them from each other, fueling evolution.

What in the world are you talking about?

> Populations must be isolated -- physically or some other
> way -- in order to pursue their own unique evolutionary
> path. Otherwise, in the case of human evolution, there
> would have been greater pressure on European populations
> to stay genetically adapted to sub Saharan Africa than
> to adapt to the unique conditions of Europe.

One of the surest signs you are dealing with a whackjob is that if you
ask them one question they answer a different question altogether.

> This is pretty basic stuff, not to mention obvious...

Vague writing is the hallmark of a vague mind. Why don't you tell us
how your hypothesis explains the early origins of bipedalism in the
hominid lineage. If you can't even do that then what good is it.

> > > In a court trial, say, for a murder charge:  You don't
> > > have to prove who did it.  A defendant isn't burdened
> > > with "Who did it." They're only burden is to convince
> > > a judge and jury that they did not do it.
>
> > Perjury is a felony.
>
> Great.  That has nothing what so ever to do with what
> I was illustrating, but great...

You got nothing.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Ha! Show us one piece of evidence that links human evolution to
> glaciers,

"Out of Africa" is entirely based on it. The glaciers
grew, sea level dropped and vast treks of land
opened up, land that was the highway over which
our ancestors used to spread across the globe.

If you're unaware of this then you're either intellectually
incapable of grasping the evidence, or woefully
ignorant. Either way I do not care to discuss it in
further detail with you as that would prove unproductive.

If you have the cognitive skills I suggest you start with
what I just gave you: Coastal migration. That should
be enough to get you going.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 14, 3:15 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Ha! Show us one piece of evidence that links human evolution to
> > glaciers,
>
> "Out of Africa" is entirely based on it.

OOA, has to do with travel/migration, you idiot.

[Tom McDonald]

Yup. And what were the factors that drove the travel/migration?

Hint: there were several, some connected to ice ages.

[JTEM]

So true, though I don't agree that there even had to be
a migration, not in the strictest sense. Sex is all that
was necessary.

Well, okay, sure there had to be people on the coast,
and those people would have had to move along as
resources were depleted along one stretch of beach.
But, is that what people think of?

Current estimates place 60% of the human race in
Africa. Most of the DNA was African, period. No
matter how much opportunity to the European,
Asian and Australian populations had to evolve in
isolation (take on unique traits), once genes
started flowing again it was mostly African genes.

I believe this explains the apparent "African"
populations in, say, Europe as well or better than
anything else... especially "Replacement."

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> When it comes to specifics you suddenly don't want to play anymore.

Priceless! Expect to see this quoted back at you.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
> What behavior? Did I not ask you to be specific, you nitwit.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
> Be specific. Vagueness is the hallmark of dimwittedness.

[RichTravsky]

Tom McDonald wrote:
>

> >
> > Answer my question you evasive jackass: Are you saying you know the
> > behavior of Neanderthal and homo?
>
> Neandertal is Homo. Jeez, Jim, you are a sloppy thinker.
>
> <snip>

Extra credit question for Dimmie: were neandertals hominids? heh heh

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>

>
> Ha! Show us one piece of evidence that links human evolution to
> glaciers, you vague-minded nitwit.

Clod is Dense asks evidence... oh, the irony

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 15, 12:31 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/15/2012 2:13 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:> On Sep 14, 3:15 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> Ha! Show us one piece of evidence that links human evolution to
> >>> glaciers,
>
> >> "Out of Africa" is entirely based on it.
>
> > OOA, has to do with travel/migration, you idiot.
>
> Yup.

Which is, obviously, off topic. Why don't you pinheads start a new
thread?

[Claudius Denk]

Little wolf, you need to stop huffing and puffing and hurry up and
blow my house down.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Which is, obviously, off topic.  Why don't you pinheads start a new
> thread?

Ironically, I pay this sock puppet of yours more
respect than anyone else ever has, acknowledging
that the environment you describe did exist, and
if your dating/timeline is wrong there's certainly no
reason to suspect as much now. Maybe in the
future, but it looks pretty solid -- within the ballpark.

My issues are your wild leaps and your hysterical
responses to others. Now, saying that...

#1. I did start a new thread, before you even said
anything. Way to go there with your observational
skills...

#2. It's actually relevant to the topic. I said that I
don't even believe that the populations/environment
which your "Theories" concentrate on are evolutionarily
significant. I further went on to point to the aquatic
environment, the one everyone and their mother insist
had to be exploited going back AT A MINIMUM about
2 million years ago.

This is, after all, how (why) our ancestors left Africa
in the first place: Living off the sea.

So right there we have an environment/behavior
unique amongst apes (exploiting the sea), and one
that just happens to provide oodles of brain-building
nutrients. This, it seems, it what drove us away from
the apes and on to the path which led to us.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 16, 12:02 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Which is, obviously, off topic.  Why don't you pinheads start a new
> > thread?
>
> Ironically, I pay this sock puppet of yours more
> respect than anyone else ever has, acknowledging
> that the environment you describe did exist, and
> if your dating/timeline is wrong there's certainly no
> reason to suspect as much now.  Maybe in the
> future, but it looks pretty solid -- within the ballpark.

This is incomprehensible.

> My issues are your wild leaps and your hysterical
> responses to others. Now, saying that...

IOW, you have nothing specific.

> #1.  I did start a new thread, before you even said
> anything.  Way to go there with your observational
> skills...
>
> #2.  It's actually relevant to the topic.  I said that I
> don't even believe that the populations/environment
> which your "Theories" concentrate on are evolutionarily
> significant. I further went on to point to the aquatic
> environment, the one everyone and their mother insist
> had to be exploited going back AT A MINIMUM about
> 2 million years ago.

You don't have a hypothesis. You have a habitat.

> This is, after all, how (why) our ancestors left Africa
> in the first place:  Living off the sea.

Incidental.

> So right there we have an environment/behavior
> unique amongst apes (exploiting the sea), and one
> that just happens to provide oodles of brain-building
> nutrients.  This, it seems, it what drove us away from
> the apes and on to the path which led to us.

Why don't seals have big brains?

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> This is incomprehensible.

Most things are, for you.

[Claudius Denk]

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Why don't seals have big brains?

Why should they?

[Claudius Denk]

Do you deny that these are your words, quoted from upthread?

JTEM:

"So right there we have an environment/behavior
unique amongst apes (exploiting the sea), and one
that just happens to provide oodles of brain-building
nutrients."

Seal eat seafood. Why don't they have large brains?

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > Why don't seals have big brains?
>
> > Why should they?

> Do you deny that these are your words, quoted from upthread?
>
> JTEM:
> "So right there we have an environment/behavior
> unique amongst apes (exploiting the sea), and one
> that just happens to provide oodles of brain-building
> nutrients."

So I'm drawing lines, demonstrating a distinction
between the human line and the Gorilla/Chimp lines.

Again, what on earth does this have to do with Seals?

> Seal eat seafood.  Why don't they have large brains?

Again, why should they? What relevance are you
imagining?

Answer the question. Stop being vague.

[Claudius Denk]

Oh, I get it. You are saying that the phrase: "oodles of brain-
building nutrients," doesn't mean what everybody on this NG is going
to assume it means. Is that your position, Jethro?

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Oh, I get it.  You are saying that the phrase: "oodles of brain-
> building nutrients," doesn't mean what everybody on this NG is going
> to assume it means.  Is that your position, Jethro?

it means that you're quote mining. You're pulling
something out of context and pretending that it
applies just as well to seals as it does to primates.

What's more, you don't even have the intellectual
integrity to try and defend your claim.

We here are trying to make sense of human
evolution, what set our early ancestors apart from
the gorilla and the Chimp line. If you honestly feel
that what applies to primates, to apes, must also
apply to seals then stop being vague and make
your best case. If not, get off your tangent already.

Own up. Be a man and own up to your mistake.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 18, 10:54 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Oh, I get it.  You are saying that the phrase: "oodles of brain-
> > building nutrients," doesn't mean what everybody on this NG is going
> > to assume it means.  Is that your position, Jethro?
>
> it means that you're quote mining.  You're pulling
> something out of context and pretending that it
> applies just as well to seals as it does to primates.

If you are not going to explain your assertion you should make a
retraction. Afterall, the assertion that eating sea food causes brain
growth only in primates and not other mammals is an assertion that
calls out for an explanation.

> What's more, you don't even have the intellectual
> integrity to try and defend your claim.

It's you that is making the claim here.

> We here are trying to make sense of human
> evolution, what set our early ancestors apart from
> the gorilla and the Chimp line.  If you honestly feel
> that what applies to primates, to apes, must also
> apply to seals then stop being vague and make
> your best case.  If not, get off your tangent already.

Tell is why, IYO, it would not be equally applicable to seals.

> Own up.  Be a man and own up to your mistake.

You got nothing but vagueness and wishful nonsense.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > it means that you're quote mining.  You're pulling
> > something out of context and pretending that it
> > applies just as well to seals as it does to primates.
>
> If you are not going to explain your assertion

It's your assertion. you seem to think there is a
connection here, that Apes are seals and vice
verse, so you support your claim.

Quite frankly, I see no relevance what so ever, which
is why I never introduced such a dumb idea.

> It's you that is making the claim here.

No, I have yet to make any claims about seals,
and quite frankly I am not aware of any relevance
what so ever to the topic of human evolution. As
you are the one insisting that it's an issue, it's
up to you to stop cowering behind vagueness
and explain what you think the issue is.

Own up. Pretend you're an adult.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 20, 11:12 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > it means that you're quote mining.  You're pulling
> > > something out of context and pretending that it
> > > applies just as well to seals as it does to primates.
>
> > If you are not going to explain your assertion
>
> It's your assertion.

We were discussing your assertion about seafood being brainfood. You
AAT whackjobs like to pretend they didn't say what they said. You
said it. You defend it.

> you seem to think there is a
> connection here, that Apes are seals and vice
> verse, so you support your claim.

Here's the thing, you evasive jackass. The phrase, "seeafood is
brainfood," is nonsense.

> Quite frankly, I see no relevance what so ever, which
> is why I never introduced such a dumb idea.

Would you like to make a retraction?

> > It's you that is making the claim here.
>
> No,

Yes.

> I have yet to make any claims about seals,

Anybody can go upthread and see exactly what you said, dumbass.

> and quite frankly I am not aware of any relevance
> what so ever to the topic of human evolution. As
> you are the one insisting that it's an issue, it's
> up to you to stop cowering behind vagueness
> and explain what you think the issue is.

There never was an issue. Keep trying.

> Own up.  Pretend you're an adult.

Why don't you go play with Olsen, or something.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> We were discussing your assertion about seafood
> being brainfood.

That's not an assertion, that's medical fact.

Tell me, did that oh so scholarly mind of your even
think of something as complex as Googling
"Seafood" and "Brain Food," or are you really that
pathetic?

But, I suppose I should inform you that the real issue
under discussion was human evolution, and in
particular what separated our line from that of
Gorillas and Chimps. The fact that seafood is
brain food was raised to demonstrate how well the
model fits.

So, again, pretend that you're up to the intellectual
level of a mildly autistic teen and Google it, for
crying out loud!

> > you seem to think there is a
> > connection here, that Apes are seals and vice
> > verse, so you support your claim.
>
> Here's the thing, you evasive jackass.  The phrase, "seeafood is
> brainfood," is nonsense.

No, it's fact. I am not the least bit surprised that
you can't tell the difference, not after reading some
of your ideas...

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 21, 12:07 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > We were discussing your assertion about seafood
> > being brainfood.
>
> That's not an assertion, that's medical fact.

It was made up by AAT theorists.

> Tell me, did that oh so scholarly mind of your even
> think of something as complex as Googling
> "Seafood" and "Brain Food," or are you really that
> pathetic?
>
> But, I suppose I should inform you that the real issue
> under discussion was human evolution, and in
> particular what separated our line from that of
> Gorillas and Chimps.  The fact that seafood is
> brain food was raised to demonstrate how well the
> model fits.

Model? Where?

> So, again, pretend that you're up to the intellectual
> level of a mildly autistic teen and Google it, for
> crying out loud!
>
> > > you seem to think there is a
> > > connection here, that Apes are seals and vice
> > > verse, so you support your claim.
>
> > Here's the thing, you evasive jackass.  The phrase, "seeafood is
> > brainfood," is nonsense.
>
> No, it's fact.  I am not the least bit surprised that
> you can't tell the difference, not after reading some
> of your ideas...

It's nonsense, and so are you.

[RichTravsky]

What house? That's just like the evidence for your "hype-othesis" -
nonexistent.

[RichTravsky]

Ooops, no answer, no extra credit.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > We were discussing your assertion about seafood
> > > being brainfood.
>
> > That's not an assertion, that's medical fact.
>
> It was made up by AAT theorists.

Oh, I'm sorry: I was speaking of the Earth. I understand
that things might work differently on your planet, but
nobody here on Earth (outside a mental institution)
denies that seafood is brain food.

Again, Google it. Find a child to show you how.

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 22, 12:02 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > We were discussing your assertion about seafood
> > > > being brainfood.
>
> > > That's not an assertion, that's medical fact.
>
> > It was made up by AAT theorists.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry:  I was speaking of the Earth.  I understand
> that things might work differently on your planet, but
> nobody here on Earth (outside a mental institution)
> denies that seafood is brain food.

At one time on this planet almost everybody believed that the earth
was the center of the universe. If you asked them why they believed
it the response would be, "because everybody knows/believes it."

> Again, Google it.  Find a child to show you how.

The scientific fact is that there is nothing special about the
proteins associated with brains. All food is brain food. Pretending
otherwise isn't going to change that.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Again, Google it.  Find a child to show you how.

> The scientific fact is that there is nothing special about the
> proteins associated with brains.  All food is brain food.  Pretending
> otherwise isn't going to change that.

Again, Google it.

Stop talking out your ass, stop stalling, being vague
and just plain acting like a jackass. Google it:

"Seafood" "Brain food"

[Claudius Denk]

Do you believe everything you see on Google?

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Again, Google it.
>

> > Stop talking out your ass, stop stalling, being vague
> > and just plain acting like a jackass.  Google it:
>
> > "Seafood"  "Brain food"

> Do you believe everything you see on Google?

Google is a search engine, you idiot. It's not a
"Source." You're Googling for information, for
sources of information --- articles, studies, that
sort of thing.

There's very little that you can find elsewhere that
you can't find on Google, if you get someone to
help you.

[Lee Olsen]

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Sep 23, 10:16 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
[nothing of value]

http://tinyurl.com/my2yd
Sock puppet
1: A fake personality, usually a 'friend' or 'sister,'
created by a drama queen/king for the sake of
defending him/herself against others in an online forum.

[JTEM]

"Bolide Forcing."

Or, remember this gem: "Lip
service."

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen wrote:
> [---insane---]

Let's pretend for one moment that
you aren't a demented freak, and
that you can tell two completely
different I.P. Addresses apart,
and that you don't cherry pick quotes
and misrepresent them out of context,
having never understood them in the
first place.

Tell us, what could that possible
change?

You're still a goddamn idiot. You
still have absolutely ZERO reading
comprehension. You still make the
stupidest arguments, and can't grasp
why they are so stupid.

Nothing changes. You're still an
under medicated spazz who thinks he
knows something about paleontology.

You don't. And I'm being kind here;
you don't.

In truth, you're a fucking idiot. You
can't tell the difference between fact
and opinion -- nor fact and fantasy for
that matter. You're simply a fucking
idiot.

And, yeah, that does make me laugh...

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 25, 5:48 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bolide Forcing."

Still refusing to tell us were "Beringer" is, eh?
Why don't you ask one of your puppets to post it?

http://tinyurl.com/4v2ed4s
Like I said, go on: Jump!

New York.S 135.60 Coercion in the second degree.
A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he
compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the
latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to
abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right
to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the
demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:
1. Cause physical injury to a person; or
2. Cause damage to property; or
3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or
4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to
be instituted against him; or
5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true
or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt
or ridicule

[JTEM]

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen wrote:

[---Insane rant---]

We both know that you suffer from
a severe personality disorder, that
you post under numerous names,
numerous personalities.

This is a fact. We both know it.

Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
you keep posting were mine (and they
are not), that couldn't change a thing.
You're still a mentally disturbed troll.
You still suffer from a severe
personality disorder, you still post
under a number of identities, a number
of different personalities.

...every last one of them a goddamn
idiot. I mean, you couldn't even figure
out this much on your own!

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 26, 9:29 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a fact.  We both know it.

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

http://tinyurl.com/2bclbfy
JTEM 12 Dec 2007 04:18 GMT
"I've also posted many, many, many other "fake" articles in
other groups, which few people didn't recognize as parody.
Yes, even when posted under a different name people had
no problems seeing that they were parodies."

[RichTravsky]

Ah, come on Dimmie - take a guess!

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 22, 12:02 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > We were discussing your assertion about seafood
> > > > being brainfood.
>
> > > That's not an assertion, that's medical fact.
>
> > It was made up by AAT theorists.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry:  I was speaking of the Earth.  I understand
> that things might work differently on your planet, but
> nobody here on Earth (outside a mental institution)
> denies that seafood is brain food.

Observation: In India there are cultures that have been vegetarian (no
meat or fish) for generation after generation. They are not lacking
in brain size or brain capacity.

Conclusion: All food is brain food.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Observation: In India there are cultures that have been vegetarian (no
> meat or fish) for generation after generation.  They are not lacking
> in brain size or brain capacity.

They are also moderns -- post evolution. You're looking
at the result and claiming it is the beginnings.

That's dumb.

We know what moderns are, what we moderns are
capable of. What we're debating is how we got this
way, and everybody accepts that humans arrived in
India via the coast -- sustained by the sea.

[JTEM]

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen wrote:
[---Insane rant---]

We both know that you suffer from
a severe personality disorder, that
you post under numerous names,
numerous personalities.

This is a fact. We both know it.

[Lee Olsen]

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

On Oct 8, 12:11 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
> you keep posting were mine (and they
> are not)

Wonder why no one believes you?

Confession 1

JTEM 12 Dec 2007 04:18 GMT
"I've also posted many, many, many other "fake" articles in
other groups, which few people didn't recognize as parody.
Yes, even when posted under a different name people had
no problems seeing that they were parodies."

Confession 2
From: Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
>I need only crank the organ and the monkey will dance!

Mar 24, 5:23 pm
Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Cranking your organ is the only job you ever had.

JTEM replies with this classic:
On Mar 25, 5:03 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you a sick fuck because you sexualize everything
> I say, or do you sexualize everything I say because
> you're a sick fuck?

"I"? You are so stupid you forgot which pseud you were using.

[C. Jackson Rogers]

Jtem is right. You are a smelly spazz.

On Oct 11, 3:20 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
>  Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
>  Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
> Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
> In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

> On Oct 11, 1:14 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyhow, even if those I.P. addresses
> > you keep posting were mine (and they
> > are not
>

> Nothing like a confession to give credibility to your claims.
>
> Confession 1

> JTEM  12 Dec 2007 04:18 GMT
> "I've also posted many, many, many other "fake" articles in
> other groups, which few people didn't recognize as parody.
> Yes, even when posted under a different name people had
> no problems seeing that they were parodies."
>

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 11, 4:51 pm, "C. Jackson Rogers" <autographo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"This is never going to end until the spazz gets medicated"

So when do you think you will be able to get him into recovery?

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

JTEM 12 Dec 2007 04:18 GMT
"I've also posted many, many, many other "fake" articles in
other groups, which few people didn't recognize as parody.
Yes, even when posted under a different name people had
no problems seeing that they were parodies."

Multiple IPs, multiple emails, multiple-personality disorder.
Get some help, sicko.

[JTEM]

Nothing has changed, you sick fuck. You
can keep on claiming that people who
aren't me are posting under I.P. Addresses
which aren't mine, but you;re always going
to be stupid, you're always going to be
mentally and emotionally disturbed.

And that's funny.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 14, 2:31 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing has changed

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sock%20puppet
sock puppet

1: A fake personality, usually a 'friend' or 'sister,' created by a
drama queen/king for the sake of defending him/herself against others
in an online forum.

2: Someone who might be an actual person but behaves like the above,
defending someone who really deserves no defense.

[RichTravsky]

chicken. cluck cluck cluck!

[Claudius Denk]

Do you two geniuses think that our audience won' t just go upthread?

[JTEM]

Thinking he was supporting his "Persistence
Hunting" religion, Lee/Lloyd/etc posted
the following link as "proof" that man can
out-run a horse.

....what the story actually states is, speaking
of the human runner:

: He was able to take advantage of rules saying the
: horse must make two 40-minute food and water
: breaks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/1804830.stm

Man, that Lee/etc is a idiot..

[Lee Olsen]

http://tinyurl.com/32ryet
"In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
African groups
have traditionally practiced “persistence hunting,” chasing antelopes
or other
game in the midday heat, often for hours, until the animals overheat
and collapse."

(that's correct, no 40 minute water- breaks for these unfortunate
animals)

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1206/1206_samplings.html
December 2006–January 2007
"Running Man Couch potatoes may disagree, but people are fairly well
built to run in the heat.
We sweat more per unit of body surface area than any other animal, and
our upright posture
exposes less body surface to the sun than would walking on all fours,
and more surface to the
cooling wind. On the hunt, those traits give people a distinct
advantage over most quarry.
In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and African
groups have
traditionally practiced “persistence hunting,” chasing antelopes or
other game in the midday heat,
often for hours, until the animals overheat and collapse.
During the past twenty years, Louis Liebenberg, an animal tracker and
the owner of CyberTracker
Software in Cape Town, South Africa, has observed the only
persistence hunters still left, the
!Xo and /Gwi bushmen of the central Kalahari in Botswana. He reports
a success rate as high
as 80 percent—and a meat yield that beats hunting with bow and arrow,
club, or spear. Only
hunting with dogs proved superior.

[Claudius Denk]

On Oct 18, 1:35 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/32ryet
> "In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
> African groups
>  have traditionally practiced “persistence hunting,” chasing antelopes
> or other
> game in the midday heat, often for hours, until the animals overheat
> and collapse."
>
> (that's correct, no 40 minute water- breaks for these unfortunate
> animals)
>

> http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistor...

> December 2006–January 2007
> "Running Man Couch potatoes may disagree, but people are fairly well
> built to run in the heat.
> We sweat more per unit of body surface area than any other animal, and
> our upright posture
> exposes less body surface to the sun than would walking on all fours,
> and more surface to the
>  cooling wind. On the hunt, those traits give people a distinct
> advantage over most quarry.
> In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and African
> groups have
>  traditionally practiced “persistence hunting,” chasing antelopes or
> other game in the midday heat,
>  often for hours, until the animals overheat and collapse.
> During the past twenty years, Louis Liebenberg, an animal tracker and
> the owner of CyberTracker
>  Software in Cape Town, South Africa, has observed the only
> persistence hunters still left, the
>  !Xo and /Gwi bushmen of the central Kalahari in Botswana. He reports
> a success rate as high
>  as 80 percent—and a meat yield that beats hunting with bow and arrow,
> club, or spear. Only
>  hunting with dogs proved superior.

Go upthread

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 18, 8:51 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thinking

You have never done any thinking in your life.

Here are the running facts:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/abs/nature03052.html
Endurance running and the evolution of Homo
Dennis M. Bramble
& Daniel E. Lieberman

"Striding bipedalism is a key derived behaviour of hominids that
possibly originated soon after the divergence of the chimpanzee and
human lineages. Although bipedal gaits include walking and running,
running is generally considered to have played no major role in human
evolution because humans, like apes, are poor sprinters compared to
most quadrupeds. Here we assess how well humans perform at sustained
long-distance running, and review the physiological and anatomical
bases of endurance running capabilities in humans and other mammals.
Judged by several criteria, humans perform remarkably well at
endurance running, thanks to a diverse array of features, many of
which leave traces in the skeleton. The fossil evidence of these
features suggests that endurance running is a derived capability of
the genus Homo, originating about 2 million years ago, and may have
been instrumental in the evolution of the human body form."

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 19, 12:56 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thinking
no horse finished without a rider.

Yes, on or off a horse, humans are fast.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-490028831040819475#
"Recording of one of the earliest forms of human hunting, still
practiced today amongst the Kalahari Bushmen."

[Claudius Denk]

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]

You mean like on Sept 13 when Tom embarassed you?


On 9/13/2012 3:39 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:

> On Sep 13, 12:49 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

>>> Be specific, you idiot. Territorialism isn't part of nature? Rock
>>> throwing? Stick wielding?
>>
>> Again, rudely demanding something you already have...
>
> When it comes to specifics you suddenly don't want to play anymore.
>
>>>> You, for example, claim that the behavior can
>>>> be observed in modern humans. What you don't
>>>> claim is that there is so much as a shred of
>>>> evidence for this behavior in Neanderthal,
>>>> erectus or any of our immediate predecessors.
>>>> So you're arguing that the behavior cropped up
>>>> millions of years ago only to vanish for millions
>>>> of years before finally appear again but for
>>>> totally different reasons.
>>
>>> Are you some kind of mental retard? Seriously. Are you saying you

>>> know the behavior of Neanderthal and homo?
>>

>> Evidently your reading comprehension is every bit
>> as poor as your understanding of human evolution...

[Claudius Denk]

Your desperation is showing.

[Claudius Denk]

Vagueness is not an argument.

[JTEM]

Read this. Just read this. I can't believe this
is an actual quote, as it is EXACTLY the same
argument that idiot creationists put forward, and
it reveals a profound misunderstanding of
evolution...

: “For a long time, everyone assumed that homo
: erectus evolved from homo habilis [1.44 million
: to 2.3 million years], but later it appeared that
: homo erectus and homo habilis lived side by
: side in Africa for hundreds of thousands of years,
: so one cannot evolve into another and both
: survive,” Ferring said. “That raises the question
: where homo erectus came from.”

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/63662

[Lee Olsen]

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

On Oct 26, 4:04 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Read this

[RichTravsky]

You don't want us to point out you don't know neanderthals are under
homo?

Are you making up definitions again?

[RichTravsky]

Hmmm. Is this vague:

"there is no data to confirm or deny any of it"

[Claudius Denk]

My hypothesis is consistent with all of the evidence. Surely you
don't expect me to cite all of the evidence? Do you?

[JTEM]

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 29, 11:41 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And that's funny

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

Yeah, you got caught.

[Claudius Denk]

[JTEM]

Check this out. The Lee/Rich/Steve/Larry/etc
psycho dishonestly cherry picks the following:

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And you can't read:http://www.scseagrant.org/Content/?cid=139
> "The problem with the boat-migration model, says David Meltzer,
> an anthropologist at Southern Methodist University, is that
> boats do not exist in the archaeological record that far back.
> “We lack any evidence of boats until the mid-Holocene times
> (5,000 to 6,000 years ago)

But a little further down WITHIN THE EXACT SAME CITE
we find this contradiction:

: Maritime people did have boats off the North American
: West Coast at least 13,000 years ago—or about the
: same time as Clovis people arrived. Archaeologists
: have excavated shell middens dated to 12,000 to
: 13,000 years old in the Channel Islands off California,
: which could have only been reached by boat from the
: mainland. The oldest human bones—a woman’s—
: found in North America, excavated in the Channel
: Islands, are about 13,000 years old

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 30, 3:34 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Check this out.
> Sick fuck

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

wrote:

>
> : Maritime people did have boats off the North American
> : West Coast at least 13,000 years ago

> : Archaeologists

> : have excavated shell middens dated to 12,000 to
> : 13,000 years old in the Channel Islands off California,
> : which could have only been reached by boat from the
> : mainland.

Too bad some idiots still think shell middens are boats and people
can't swim.
http://sanjuancapistrano.patch.com/articles/teen-sets-record-in-swim-from-channel-islands-to-mainland
"Fiona Goh, 13, swims more than 12 miles in about 10 hours. She's the
youngest to complete a swim from one of the Channel Islands."

Not to mention the islands were only about a third the distance from
the mainland at the end of the Pleistocene as they are today.

http://tinyurl.com/8nrkvbl

[Claudius Denk]

On Sep 12, 11:28 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > > You want to know why they would have to be able to
> > > foresee the future in order to know that lean times
> > > would be coming?
> > No. I want to know why you think they would have to know lean times
> > are coming in order to perform the behaviors (communal territorialism)
> > associated with my hypothesis. Be specific and explicit in your
> > response.
> There's no reason for the behavior.

The reason was surviving the dry season. What is your explanation for
how they survived the dry season that emerged suddenly at some point
about 6 to 8 mya?

> It doesn't
> exist anywhere in nature.

It does exist in nature, as I explained.

> It is not observed in
> Gorillas or Chimps -- not in any primate. None
> of our ancestors appear to have engaged in
> any such behavior -- it certainly doesn't describe
> any known population that left Africa. There
> is no precursor, no basis for it. None. There
> isn't a half way decent excuse for entertaining
> the notion.

Be specific, you idiot. Territorialism isn't part of nature? Rock
throwing? Stick wielding?

> You, for example, claim that the behavior can
> be observed in modern humans. What you don't
> claim is that there is so much as a shred of
> evidence for this behavior in Neanderthal,
> erectus or any of our immediate predecessors.
> So you're arguing that the behavior cropped up
> millions of years ago only to vanish for millions
> of years before finally appear again but for
> totally different reasons.

Are you some kind of mental retard? Seriously. Are you saying you

know the behavior of Neanderthal and homo? Show us how you know
this. If nothing else your response should be good for a few laughs.

> See, modern humans can foresee the future.

All animals predict the future, in one respect or another, dumbass.

> We can predict the coming and goings of
> the seasons. We can foresee lean times
> ahead.

Brilliant. Now tell us how we evolved these abilities.

> We can even grasp that, no matter
> how abundant the plants are this year, there
> will be years in the future (even if the distant
> future) were disease, insects or drought will
> bring scarcity.
> None of this could be true for your "Garden
> habitat."

Obviously, thus the reason I never indicated such in the context of
my
scenario.

Do you have an alternative to my hypothesis? No?
> They weren't us. They had tiny
> brains, they weren't capable of symbolic
> thought, they were intellectually behind Chimps.
> So, they couldn't do it for any of the reasons
> modern humans do it. You're arguing coincidence.

You are arguing off on a tangent. Stop repeating yourself. Switch
to
decaf. Get a grip.

> ....which brings us full circle.
> There is no reason to consider the idea. None.
> Nobody requires an argument against it -- you've
> got everything backward. That's not how science
> works -- there is nothing to so much as hint that
> your theory is plausible.
> No evidence what so ever.

Tell us your hypothesis or go away.

> Personally, I don't believe it's even evolutionarily
> significant -- not the population that lived in the
> environment you describe.

What does this even mean?

> > > I think if you examined things you will find that your
> > > question answers itself.
> > I kind of agree. Specifically, if you examine the behavior of extant
> > chimps (who do practice collective territorialism) the question does
> > answer itself.
> Territorialism is far different than what you're claiming.

No, really it's not.

> Your theory didn't concern one population of out
> ancestors fighting with another, as we observe in
> Chimps, nor was it driving away predators as we
> see in Chimps. Your theory was that they drove
> away cattle and other "Pest" species in order to
> protect the "Garden."

Correct. And, yes, we do see this behavior in chimps.

> We don't see this in Chimps.

You are wrong. Chimps are highly territorial. (Especially savanna
chimps.) Look it up.

> > Tell us your hypothesis on the earliest years of hominid evolution or
> > go away.
> Earliest years? No.

Then how do you explain the selective origins of hominid/human
attributes and behaviors? Pixie dust?

> The engine of human evolution is the glaciers,
> coupled with "Aquatic Ape." The glaciers grew,
> sea levels dropped and populations living off the
> ocean (exploiting the aquatic environment) could
> spread across the globe. The glaciers shrunk,
> the oceans rose and those same populations
> were driven away from the oceans and inland.

Your explanation is childish. Explain to us how this brought about
language, culture, intelligence. And how is it that these glaciers
only had an effect on our ancestors? Why don't horses talk? Bears?
Birds? etc.

> You can think of nature breathing in and out... in
> & out...

Put the bag over your head, and squeeze. '

> The oceans supplied brain food. Spears make
> sense in an aquatic environment -- maybe first
> for digging shell fish, then spearing fish. Even
> rock tools make sense in an aquatic environment
> (opening shell fish). Also: The coast can support
> a far greater population density than inland. This
> explain the dispersal of our species, not some
> lame, "Hey, everyone, let's all leave Africa and
> walk to Australia and maybe China!"

Typical aquatic ape nonsense. We're all supposed to pretend not to
notice that there are a lot of other species that live near water
that
don't have any of the traits that so distinguish humans from any
other
species. Science that depends on ignoring evidence isn't good
science.

> More food and bigger populations opens you to
> a snowballing. You can support a larger population
> which means there's more people breeding which
> means you grow even more... so on and so on...
> you have to spread, and that's even if you don't
> exhaust a stretch of beach or suffer some kind
> of natural calamity (like a Red Tide).
> It all makes perfect sense and matches the
> evidence.

People that think they know it all make it difficult for those of us
who do.

[RichTravsky]

How about two or three science papers ->

It's what REAL scientists, not science groupies, do.

[RichTravsky]

[RichTravsky]

[Claudius Denk]

You're saying that real scientists avoid presenting a hypothesis?
Tell us more about what real scientists do.

[Claudius Denk]

Answer the question you evasive jackass.

[Tom McDonald]

No one is asking you to cite all of the evidence. We'd just like you to
provide a few scientific papers that support you. It's what real
scientists do. You, not so much.

[Claudius Denk]

Real scientist develop detailed hypotheses and attempt to dispute/
refute them with the evidence. It's comical for you to suggest that
real scientists employ plagiarism as a scientific method.

[Tom McDonald]

On 11/5/2012 2:44 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Nov 5, 10:41 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/5/2012 12:17 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 12:48 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

>>>> My hypothesis is consistent with all of the evidence. Surely you
>>>> don't expect me to cite all of the evidence? Do you?
>>
>>> Answer the question you evasive jackass.
>>
>> No one is asking you to cite all of the evidence. We'd just like you to
>> provide a few scientific papers that support you. It's what real
>> scientists do. You, not so much.
>
> Real scientist develop detailed hypotheses and attempt to dispute/
> refute them with the evidence. It's comical for you to suggest that
> real scientists employ plagiarism as a scientific method.
>

Not plagiarism, but demonstration that one is conversant with the
relevant previous work that supports or challenges the hypothesis one is
advancing.

One of the seminal papers in modern evolutionary biology, Gould and
Eldredge's "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution
reconsidered" (Paleobiology, Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring, 1977, The
Paleontological Society), which was presenting an at the time somewhat
novel hypothesis of how evolutionary biology worked, has three full
pages of citations to the literature.

That's standard scientific practice. Pick any scientific paper,
including (maybe especially) one that is advancing a new hypothesis, and
you'll find the same thing: fairly comprehensive references to the
existing literature bearing on the hypothesis.

That you don't know this, or don't seem to know this, suggests to me
that you are not conversant with how science is actually done and
communicated. Either that, or you have some reason to hide the fact that
you haven't done the hard work to become conversant with the literature,
or that what you found in your lit search didn't support you.

Either way, what is comical is your attempt to evade your responsibility
to provide the scientific literature upon which you are depending for
your 'hypothesis'.

[Tom McDonald]

http://www.nileseldredge.com/pdf_files/Punctuated_Equilibria_Gould_Eldredge_1977.pdf

[Tom McDonald]

Here's the original presentation of their hypothesis of punctuated
equilibrium. It is a chapter in a book, so it does not have the
references at the end of the paper. However, it is chock-a-block with
citations within the text. Read and learn:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

[Claudius Denk]

> >http://www.nileseldredge.com/pdf_files/Punctuated_Equilibria_Gould_El...

>
> Here's the original presentation of their hypothesis of punctuated
> equilibrium. It is a chapter in a book, so it does not have the
> references at the end of the paper. However, it is chock-a-block with
> citations within the text. Read and learn:
>
>  http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

Let me know if there is anything about this you want me to explain to
you.

[Tom McDonald]

Tell you what. I pretty much get the idea of punk eek, and the arguments
Gould and Eldredge made for it.

Perhaps you could explain to me why those real scientists provided
copious citations, while you provide few or none; and none when requested.

Maybe science isn't your thing.

[Claudius Denk]

The really significant thing about punk eek are the exceptions to the
rule. These being hominids and all domesticated species. (Hint: I
discussed these exceptions explicitly over ten years ago in SAP.)

I doubt you understand punk eek. You barely understand evolutionary
theory. If you did/do understand punk eek then hominid evolution--and
it's complete lack of stasis--stands out like a sore thumb. It (it
being evidence of hominid evolution in the fossil record) is the
clearest evidence we have that hominid evolution is categorically
distinct from that of other species. (This is way over your head,
Tom.)

> Perhaps you could explain to me why those real scientists provided
> copious citations, while you provide few or none; and none when requested.

The citations didn't make their argument, you idiot.

[Tom McDonald]

Dunning-Kruger strikes again. Poor sod.

>> Perhaps you could explain to me why those real scientists provided
>> copious citations, while you provide few or none; and none when requested.
>
> The citations didn't make their argument, you idiot.

Yes. Yes, they did. Without them, all they would have had would have
been speculation and air-castle building. You really don't get how
science is done, do you?

[Claudius Denk]

No. No they didn't. Citations refer to OTHER PEOPLES thinking, you
retard.