A Question Travsky Won't Answer

Claudius Denk

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 11:47:13 AM9/16/12

to

Humans have endurant qualities. (Specifically, hominids have
"slow twitch" muscles, which are less strong but more endurant.)
These endurant qualities are associated with all aspects of our
existence--not just running/walking. Endurant qualities are more
associated with consciousness in general than they are with any
particular activity. Consciousness (awareness) and endurantism
have everything to do with communal territorialism. They have to
do with maintaining a presence on a territorial claim (garden
habitat) to serve as a threat to dissuade inmigrating food
competitor species and so that the call can go out to a larger
community to take action to prevent inmigration of food
competitor species, especially during the dry season. Might
this have involved 'troops" being mobilized over relatively long
distances? Sure. And might this activity in and of itself have
benefited from endurant running? Sure. But does this have
anything whatsoever to do with hominids evading predators
and/or going on excursions into treeless habitat to compete
with dedicated predators? Absolutely not, because if that was
the case we would expect them to maintain their "fast twitch"
musculature so that they could stay competitive.

Answer this question: Do you deny that endurant physical qualities
(slow twitch muscle) and Consciousness are functionally complimentary
in the context of a scenario that indicates communal territorialism as
a survival strategy, like that indicated in my Ecological Gatekeeper
Hypothesis?

If your answer is yes, provide details.

Claudius Denk

unread,

Sep 18, 2012, 6:43:54 PM9/18/12

to

I called it.

walt tonne

unread,

Sep 18, 2012, 9:22:16 PM9/18/12

to

Negroes have a much higher fast twitch muscle fiber percentage.
Exception, Keyans and others who adopted to a high elevation.

RichTravsky

unread,

Sep 21, 2012, 8:45:33 PM9/21/12

to

If that's what you believe, provide details. You simply declaring it does
not make it so. Bear in mind we don't have access to your imagination.

Claudius Denk

unread,

Sep 22, 2012, 1:32:06 PM9/22/12

to

Sour grapes.

JTEM

unread,

Sep 22, 2012, 11:20:50 PM9/22/12

to

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Humans have endurant qualities. (Specifically, hominids have
> "slow twitch" muscles, which are less strong but more endurant.)
> These endurant qualities are associated with all aspects of our
> existence--not just running/walking. Endurant qualities are more
> associated with consciousness in general than they are with any
> particular activity. Consciousness (awareness) and endurantism
> have everything to do with communal territorialism. They have to
> do with maintaining a presence on a territorial claim (garden
> habitat) to serve as a threat to dissuade inmigrating food
> competitor species

Again, the biggest error is in thinking that "Humans" were
ever one thing. For example, Neanderthals do appear to
have been territorial, while other archaic types seem to have
been migratory -- moving with the seasons.

The second biggest error you make is in dealing with
populations. There is a finite number of individuals which
can be supported by any given amount of land.

"Population Density."

Now the "Population Density" for hunter-gatherers was
quite small. Some estimates for the Paleolithic period
place population density as low as one person per
square mile. This, of course, differs with the environment,
what it can support, with the AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
supporting the greatest population density.

Population density could be interpreted as "Genetic
Diversity." The larger the population, the greater
diversity it can support...

Now your "Agriculture" is not actually agriculture. You
propose a maximizing, of sorts, of the naturally available
foods, not the creation of large quantities of food as is
the case in real agriculture. This would result in the
minimum impact on population density, the slowest
growth in population numbers/sizes and the least
amount of evolution.

Then again, facts have yet to sway you so it's not like
they'll have any effect now...

P.S. The AQUATIC environment supported the greatest
population density. Funny how that works out...

Claudius Denk

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:17:40 AM9/23/12

to

The period of time in my scenario is 4 to 7 million years ago, you
fruitcake. It's comical that you think we can extrapolate from
hominids that lived within the last 100 kya at all.

This would result in the
> minimum impact on population density, the slowest
> growth in population numbers/sizes and the least
> amount of evolution.
>
> Then again, facts have yet to sway you so it's not like
> they'll have any effect now...

You're vague minded.

JTEM

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:44:51 AM9/23/12

to

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

> The period of time in my scenario is 4 to 7 million years ago, you
> fruitcake. It's comical that you think we can extrapolate from
> hominids that lived within the last 100 kya at all.

If you bothered to educate yourself on the issue of
population density (or any issue for that matter) you
would see that you are totally out your ass.

The highest population density for Chimps, for
example, is less than 1.4 per square mile. Again,
that is the highest.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee

Now, as i stated, the environment which can support the
greatest population density is the ocean, the AQUATIC
environment.

...which is the one that everyone believes our
ancestors had to be exploiting just to get out of
Africa in the first place... reach Australia...

Claudius Denk

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 10:42:50 AM9/23/12

to

On Sep 22, 10:44 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > The period of time in my scenario is 4 to 7 million years ago, you
> > fruitcake. It's comical that you think we can extrapolate from
> > hominids that lived within the last 100 kya at all.
>
> If you bothered to educate yourself on the issue of
> population density (or any issue for that matter) you
> would see that you are totally out your ass.

Really? How so?

> The highest population density for Chimps, for
> example, is less than 1.4 per square mile. Again,
> that is the highest.

Yeah, so?

> http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee
>
> Now, as i stated, the environment which can support the
> greatest population density is the ocean, the AQUATIC
> environment.

Aquatic? I suppose that's not any more absurd than long distance
running. I notice that you don't criticize the long distance running
hypothesis and they don't criticize your aquatic ape nonsense. I
think that is because neither of you is committed to long distance
running or aquaticism as much as you are committed to vagueness.

JTEM

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:26:12 PM9/23/12

to

On Sep 23, 10:42 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 10:44 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > The period of time in my scenario is 4 to 7 million years ago, you
> > > fruitcake. It's comical that you think we can extrapolate from
> > > hominids that lived within the last 100 kya at all.
>
> > If you bothered to educate yourself on the issue of
> > population density (or any issue for that matter) you
> > would see that you are totally out your ass.
>
> Really? How so?
>
> > The highest population density for Chimps, for
> > example, is less than 1.4 per square mile. Again,
> > that is the highest.
>
> Yeah, so?
>
> >http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee
>
> > Now, as i stated, the environment which can support the
> > greatest population density is the ocean, the AQUATIC
> > environment.
>
> Aquatic? I suppose that's not any more absurd than long distance
> running.

I'll explain it, but unless you take your meds and revert
to your original or "base" personality, there seems little
hope...

Our early ancestors didn't carry a Savanna with them,
and neither did they invent a portable version of your
ridicules "garden habitat." So, the only way they left
Africa, the only way they followed the coast -- "Coastal
Migration" -- is if they were living off the coast.

This is what the "Out of Africa/Replacement" crowd
believes. In fact, it's what everyone believes --
replacement adherents or not: We had ancestors
living off the coast.

(NOTE: And we had these ancestors since before
H. erectus, apparently:
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/63662 )

It's not so much speculation as it is a necessity. They
couldn't fly, they couldn't drive and they couldn't
bring other environments with them, so they had to be
living off the coast.

Now, return to your insanity....

Claudius Denk

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 2:20:13 PM9/23/12

to

It's blatantly absurd to suggest they couldn't have taken an inland
route. Keep in mind they were not specialized for aquatic hunting/
gathering and they couldn't drink salt water. This means that long
stretches of seaside routes were impassable desert to them.

I try to avoid discussions that involve bigfoot, space aliens, and
aquatic apes. It's pseudoscience.

>
> This is what the "Out of Africa/Replacement" crowd
> believes. In fact, it's what everyone believes --
> replacement adherents or not: We had ancestors
> living off the coast.

I would never argue the validity of a position based on other people's
beliefs.

JTEM

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 3:04:46 PM9/23/12

to

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

> It's blatantly absurd to suggest they couldn't have taken an inland
> route.

What our ancestors could or could not do is
irrelevant. The fact is that there is no evidence
for such a land route.

Oh. I forgot. You don't know what evidence is, do you?

My bad.

Tom McDonald

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:00:49 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 2:04 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> It's blatantly absurd to suggest they couldn't have taken an inland
>> route.
>
> What our ancestors could or could not do is
> irrelevant. The fact is that there is no evidence
> for such a land route.

Well, there *is* Dmanisi.

JTEM

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:25:32 PM9/23/12

to

Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > What our ancestors could or could not do is
> > irrelevant. The fact is that there is no evidence
> > for such a land route.
>
> Well, there *is* Dmanisi.

Again, you imbecile, that's not a "Route," that's
a final destination. It's not even in Africa.

And, again, you're reading "Coastal Migration"
and thinking that it says "They never left the
ocean. in fact, we all live on a beach right now."

It's stupid. it's really, Really, REALLY stupid.... all
the more so since I already explained this to you,
but your mental illness won't allow you to see the
actual words.

HINT: If habilis spread out using the coastal
route, and this find you speak of evolved later,
that means nobody is claiming that this
species/sub species left Africa OR ANYWHERE
ELSE FOR THAT MATTER!

Duh.

Lee Olsen

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 2:45:18 PM10/8/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

"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, 7:27 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We both know that

http://tinyurl.com/39hlw25
"Ooooh, lookee here! Turns out JTEM has been accusing anyone and
everyone, for years now, of being sock puppets. What is it with JTEM
and sock puppets? Does JTEM harbour a sock-puppet fetish? Is he in an
illicit relationship with a muppet? Perhaps he was caught cheating on
Mrs Piggy, in bed with Lamb Chop. Clearly, his interest has nothing to
do with the Internet usage of the word, no matter how much he might
claim otherwise. He makes the accusations wildly, without any
rationale behind them, so clearly he does not actually believe the
Internet usage even applies.

So, given that he can only be thinking of physical sock puppets, we
can see JTEM is a very, very sick person indeed."

JTEM

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 1:02:38 AM10/14/12

to

Lee Olsen

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 7:59:50 PM10/14/12

to

"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 13, 10:02 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We both know

unread,

Oct 29, 2012, 12:11:54 AM10/29/12

to

unread,

unread,

Dec 31, 2012, 1:56:15 AM12/31/12

to

Claudius Denk

unread,

Dec 31, 2012, 12:38:42 PM12/31/12

to

On Dec 30, 10:56 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > You simply declaring it does
> > > not make it so.
>
> > Admit you have no dispute, you evasive jackass.
>
> First, post your evidence for this claim you evasive twit, or go away.

Your inability to dispute it is my evidence.

unread,

Jan 14, 2013, 2:37:08 AM1/14/13

to

Do you have an alternative hypothesis you'd like to present?

RichTravsky

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 1:53:32 AM1/21/13

to

Do you have any evidence you'd like to present?