John Hawks on H.naledi

[jillery]

The following is a link to a one-hour video of the latest
PBS-Wisconsin lecture from John Hawks about H.naledi and the Rising
Star cavern:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>

Recorded around Feb 12 aka Darwin Day, posted April 11.

Those who dare to click on the video will be rewarded with a virtual
tour of the Rising Star Caverns, and other delights.


--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> The following is a link to a one-hour video of the latest

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/QtL8o_GnhrY/m/3TE1_mavBQAJ

"Yesterday's news, tomorrow!

Check out my comments. You want to "Disagree" but being one of those
morons who seems to be constantly chewing even when his mouth is
empty, you could always just act out instead.... make up stupid shit to
pretend to "argue" against...

you do that a lot.

But if you had an ounce of intellect and a semblance of course you
would have reacted already... like a month ago.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716003746293923841

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 May 2023 07:32:01 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> The following is a link to a one-hour video of the latest
>

>><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
>>
>>Recorded around Feb 12 aka Darwin Day, posted April 11.

>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/QtL8o_GnhrY/m/3TE1_mavBQAJ
>"Yesterday's news, tomorrow!

How thoughtful of you to cite yet another one of your legendary
self-parodies.

[marc verhaegen]

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>

:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:50:10 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
>
> :-D

This reminds me of a yearly feature in Esquire magazine, which often
included a picture of some well known figure in hot water,
with the caption, "Why is this man laughing?"

> Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
> it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Still the same old article by an ardent fan of yours, that you keep linking without checking whether it is relevant.
There is no mention of naledi in it, never mind any argument as to which genus it is in.


On another talk.origins thread, I wrote to a newcomer the following about
you and your sidekick, JTEM:

__________________________________________

Actually, they come up with some good points from time to time
about the possibility that our remote ancestors dined heavily on shellfish.

What makes Marc a crank is that he attaches all kinds of excess baggage
to the "aquatic ape" hypothesis instead of keeping the various sub-hypotheses
clearly separated, and writing as objectively as possible about the strengths
and weaknesses of each.

JTEM is more selective about the parts he writes seriously about,
but he hardly ever tries to write seriously about them. It's not surprising
that you've missed out on those rare occasions, but I can document
one or two if you are interested.

I am patient enough to separate the wheat from the chaff;
hardly anyone else does, because the ratio is so small.

-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/tQLq34JrAAAJ
Re: The Silurian hypothesis:
Apr 26, 2023, 10:05:32 PM


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
>
>:-D
>Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
>it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:

Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape. To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens
species.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> How thoughtful of you

You're a pussy. And I knew this. You're a narcissist, full blast.
You're grasping onto any excuse to pretend you're educated
and intelligent. You're not here to learn new things. You're
not here to gain new insights, fresh perspectives. You're not
interested in testing ideas in debate. You're a personality
disorder trying to fool itself into believing you are something
else.

In real science, which you will never grasp, things START
with publication. That's when the debate begins, the scrutiny
begins and the SCIENCE begins. John Hawks might not
appreciate this. It might even piss him off. But he knows it.
And you don't.

Actually, John Hawks is accustomed to people groveling at
his feet. And he might even have earned that honor. But right
now he's using his authority in ways that are not the most
principled.

He may very well have no choice but to say anything he's
ordered to say about Naledi. I suspect that he lacks freedom.
After all, it's not his country and the people who do own it
won't let him dig in it if he pisses them off. But Darwin was
a fraud and the gospels of Darwin today is a continued fraud.
We don't honor men for damaging science, for setting back
science. And quite frankly if Darwin fell off that ship and
drowned the world would have been a better place. Smarter
men with a vastly better grasp of reality were already there,
already in place, and without that idiot Darwin to uphold one
of the more deserving men would have gotten the honor.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716268653482524672

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> >it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:

> Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.

He just said that.

> To assign naledi to
> Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens
> species.

You mean "Consistency." I can see why that would be so upsetting. To you.

So if you called one species something like, oh, I dunno, Australopithecus
sediba, next thing you know someone else might try to to call Naledi
Australopithecus naledi.

Fascinating.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716286146131394560

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Still the same old article

They asked me to tell you: In science, not usenet trolldom but science, the
longer a published article stands without refutation the better. it's the
opposite of a bad thing.

You honestly are divorced from what you pretend to be.

You want to try and insult, like your sad attempt here, not understand.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716268653482524672

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:09 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
> >
> >:-D
> >Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
> >it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:

> Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.

100 Quatloos says that John Hawks did NOT call it an ape in the video.

I would not be betting like this if I had watched the video. I seldom watch
videos close to an hour long. I could read through a transcript in less than
ten minutes, but there is no sign of there being one.
[Clicking on "Show transcript" took me to a captionless and mostly black screen,
with two skulls that were obviously not of hominids.]

I would watch it if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recent
breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi, but you seemed to think that
the beauty of the cavern was all it was worthwhile to tell us about the contents of the video.

Moreover, after JTEM gave you an opening to display your scientific understanding
of the video, you made it clear that you weren't interested.


Now, you try to strut your scientific stuff with the following comment:

> To assign naledi to
> Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.

Where is the support for this sweeping claim? Did you conclude it from something in the video?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 3 mei 2023 om 18:50:10 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

...

> > Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
> > it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
> > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> Still the same old article by an ardent fan of yours, that you keep linking without checking whether it is relevant.
> There is no mention of naledi in it, never mind any argument as to which genus it is in.

Sorry, here's the correct link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317336008_Not_Homo_but_Pan_or_Australopithecus_naledi

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:00:09 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Still the same old article

You deleted the url for it because it ruins your spiel below. Here it is again.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> They asked me to tell you: In science, not usenet trolldom but science, the
> longer a published article stands without refutation the better.

Unless it is ignored, like popular science articles like the one I re-linked above.
You don't get grants from refuting popular science articles by fans
in which the only references are a few papers of your idol.

You also don't get grants from refuting under-supported articles by well-known cranks,
and that describes all published articles by Marc that he has been telling us to google.
Most of them are "published" in obscure places; for instance, his replacement
for the page I re-linked up there has ZERO citations and only appears in ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317336008_Not_Homo_but_Pan_or_Australopithecus_naledi

> it's the opposite of a bad thing.
>
> You honestly are divorced from what you pretend to be.

You don't even to pretend to know what makes for good grant proposals.
I do, having had several successful ones.

You have to be able to point to articles that lean heavily on your research.
Marc is so devoid of these, that his big fan named a bunch of people
who support SOME of his smorgasbord of hypotheses without telling
which of the smorgasbord they endorsed, or anything else about them.

>
> You want to try and insult, like your sad attempt here, not understand.

Liar.

Try being honest for a change, and leave in information about
what the hell you are actually talking about -- a SINGLE pathetic
pop science article.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS You are doing Marc no favors with this kind of shabby performance.
If you had kept your mouth shut about Marc, jillery might not have had to share
the hot seat with you, and if Marc had kept his mouth shut, jillery
would not have to share it with anyone.

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> You deleted the url for it because it ruins your spiel below. Here it is again.
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

I didn't and couldn't delete the URL from your post.

I'm not the sock puppet. I have a genuine history here on usenet. In the "Bad
old days" bandwidth was scarce. You trimmed. You quoted what you were
responding to and nothing else.

In other words: No, you can't read minds.

> > They asked me to tell you: In science, not usenet trolldom but science, the
> > longer a published article stands without refutation the better.

> Unless it is ignored

No. You ignore most everything. Nobody cares, least of all the entirety of
science.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716286146131394560

[peter2...@gmail.com]

This is not a serious research article. You need to learn how to write a paper that will pass peer-review
in a respected science journal.

Can you show me any papers of yours that met that standard?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> This is not a serious research article.

Who cares? The collective, posting as Harpsmoon, is asking if anyone
ever looked at Neanderthal & Denisovan DNA even as he insists that
he's not asking that AND it's all irrelevant. The collective could not knpw
"serious research" if it humped it's leg.

And this is about ideas. It's a discussion group. No matter what handle
you post under, you think it's a race to see who can post a URL.

Honey, that SPARKS a discussion. It doesn't end one.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716346368172654592/what-is-your-favorite-tv-show-and-why

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> >it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
>
>> Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
>
>He just said that.

He who? You don't say. John Hawks did not say "Australopithecus
naledi".

>> To assign naledi to
>> Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens
>> species.
>
>You mean "Consistency." I can see why that would be so upsetting. To you.
>
>So if you called one species something like, oh, I dunno, Australopithecus
>sediba, next thing you know someone else might try to to call Naledi
>Australopithecus naledi.
>
>Fascinating.

Apparently fascinating things confuse you.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:51:23 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>

>>How thoughtful of you to cite yet another one of your legendary
>>self-parodies.
>

>You're a pussy.


How thoughtful of you to post yet more willful stupidity.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:09?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
>> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
>> >
>> >:-D
>> >Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
>> >it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
>
>> Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
>
>100 Quatloos says that John Hawks did NOT call it an ape in the video.

You lose.

>I would not be betting like this if I had watched the video. I seldom watch
>videos close to an hour long. I could read through a transcript in less than
>ten minutes, but there is no sign of there being one.
>[Clicking on "Show transcript" took me to a captionless and mostly black screen,
>with two skulls that were obviously not of hominids.]

I have zero problem reading the transcript. Not sure what your
problem is.

>I would watch it if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recent
>breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,

The following is such an indication:

"John Hawks, Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
UW-Madison, gives an update on Homo naledi research in South Africa,
and outlines recent discoveries from around the world showing the
behavioral complexity of ancient human relatives."

You lose again.

>but you seemed to think that
>the beauty of the cavern was all it was worthwhile to tell us about the contents of the video.

And you seem to think your willful stupidity is something worth
bragging about.

>Moreover, after JTEM gave you an opening to display your scientific understanding
>of the video, you made it clear that you weren't interested.

Apparently you allude to where JTEM showed it had no more interest in
knowing what its talking about than you do.

>Now, you try to strut your scientific stuff with the following comment:
>
>> To assign naledi to
>> Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.
>
>Where is the support for this sweeping claim? Did you conclude it from something in the video?

Where is the support for JTEM's claim? Did you conclude it was right
from something in the video? Of course you didn't, because you chose
not to watch the video.

Where is the support for YOUR claim, that my claim is "sweeping"? Did
you conclude it because you have no idea what you're talking about? I
bet 100 Quatloos the answer to that last question is "yes".

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 12:45:10 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:09?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
> >> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
> >> >
> >> >:-D
> >> >Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
> >> >it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
> >
> >> Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
> >
> >100 Quatloos says that John Hawks did NOT call it an ape in the video.

> You lose.

Not quite. He said that today we understand that we are among the great apes.
That's as close as he gets to saying Homo naledi is an ape.

What's the perennial tradition about bets with ambiguous outcome, as far as winning,
losing, or drawing is concerned?

> >I would not be betting like this if I had watched the video. I seldom watch
> >videos close to an hour long. I could read through a transcript in less than
> >ten minutes, but there is no sign of there being one.
> >[Clicking on "Show transcript" took me to a captionless and mostly black screen,
> >with two skulls that were obviously not of hominids.]

> I have zero problem reading the transcript. Not sure what your
> problem is.

Apparently they had a glitch when I tried to look yesterday. It works now.

That's how I was able to assess your answer, "You lose."
He said it at 29:58 into the video, so it was a good thing I had access to the transcript.

> >I would watch it if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recent
> >breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,

> The following is such an indication:
>
> "John Hawks, Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
> UW-Madison, gives an update on Homo naledi research in South Africa,
> and outlines recent discoveries from around the world showing the
> behavioral complexity of ancient human relatives."
>
> You lose again.

Wrong: the "recent discoveries..." do not specifically mention Homo naledi.
And, since naledi is less than 350,000 years in the past, the range of complexity
is most likely to show up in much older hominid relatives, outside Homo,
or even within Homo [especially Homo habilis].

If you have a BETTER indication, I'll be very interested.

> >but you seemed to think that
> >the beauty of the cavern was all it was worthwhile to tell us about the contents of the video.

> And you seem to think [my] willful stupidity is something worth
> bragging about.

Fixed it to make it closer to the truth. You seem to have no idea
what is scientifically relevant, and therefore of interest, to talk.origins
participants who care primarily about issues for which t.o. was set up.

I wouldn't use the word "bragging" for noticing such deficiencies
in your posting, but YMMV.

> >Moreover, after JTEM gave you an opening to display your scientific understanding
> >of the video, you made it clear that you weren't interested.

> Apparently you allude to where JTEM showed it had no more interest in
> knowing what its talking about than you do.

"than you do" should be replaced with "than jillery thinks the present crop of talk.origins regulars does."
Otherwise, you flunk English comprehension where my overall message is concerned.

> >Now, you try to strut your scientific stuff with the following comment:
> >
> >> To assign naledi to
> >> Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.
> >
> >Where is the support for this sweeping claim? Did you conclude it from something in the video?

You really bombed English comprehension with your response.

> Where is the support for JTEM's claim? Did you conclude it was right
> from something in the video?

I didn't conclude anything about JTEM's claim, because it wasn't clear
from a quick reading how it was supposed to relate to the t.o. post he linked:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/QtL8o_GnhrY/m/3TE1_mavBQAJ

> Of course you didn't, because you chose
> not to watch the video.

The post JTEM linked did not link the same video that you linked,
and yes, I chose not to watch THAT video, but for other reasons.

>
> Where is the support for YOUR claim, that my claim is "sweeping"?

My knowledge of the variety of species under Homo. I see no mandatory
"package deal" in deciding whether e.g. Homo floresiensis [1]
should be should be ejected from Homo just because Homo naledi is.

[1] "Flores man," nicknamed "Hobbit."
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
and compare the dates, anatomy, artifacts, etc. with those of Homo naledi.

> Did you conclude it because you have no idea what you're talking about? I
> bet 100 Quatloos the answer to that last question is "yes".

You lost.

Moreover, you've ducked my question of where you got the idea for your sweeping claim.
And so I conclude you got it from the top of your sophomoric head.

But you could show me wrong by...

hey, you know your oft-used formula better than I do.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

It's a bit more nuanced.
On a lark, I looked at the transcript and the term "apes" didn't appear.
In a deeper dive, I looked at how Hawks uses the term "apes".
He has a rather idiosyncratic view.

He agrees that modern phylogenetic systematics is good and proper.
He is opposed to paraphyletic schemes. But respective to the term
"apes", he considers it colloquial English and so not bound to rigorous
scientific meaning. Further, he asserts that modern humans are not apes.

This leaves open the question of how he would categorize various
human ancestors. In fact, it presses the problem with his non-scientific
notion of what "apes" means. I think it presses him into an undefined
category as there isn't any strong usage legacy of the term "apes"
respective to ancestral forms that the vast majority of people are
unfamiliar with.

The fact that he abandons science as a guide to meaning leaves him
with no anchor point. If he does happen to favor one choice or the
other, it will be a rather ungrounded opinion.

That said, I note that the question could run back to more than the
term "ape" but instead "bipedal ape". Some terms are best understood
as a combination of works and not in their dissected parts. If Hawks
would dispute the applicability of "bipedal ape" I would have to laugh
at what would be a hang-up on his part over the term ape.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Holy shit, Peter! I ignore JTEM myself.

[JTEM is my hero]

Waste product, jillery wrote:

> He who?

I'm not playing. See your therapist, work on your over the top
Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

>John Hawks did not say "Australopithecus naledi".

The issue you were misrepresenting was "Ape." The good
Doctor describes Naledi as an ape.

You're lost in your own conversation after a single reply.

> >So if you called one species something like, oh, I dunno, Australopithecus
> >sediba, next thing you know someone else might try to to call Naledi
> >Australopithecus naledi.
> >
> >Fascinating.

> Apparently fascinating things confuse you.

Ironically, you're the one confused and enraged by this.

So now you can't even follow your own conversation WITHIN the very
reply you are currently typing...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716345593177489408

[JTEM is my hero]

Lee Olsen, jillery wrote:

> How

There's no secret to chewing gum and walking at the same
time. You're just not equipped for it.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716345593177489408

[marc verhaegen]

Op vrijdag 5 mei 2023 om 04:50:12 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

...

> >John Hawks did not say "Australopithecus naledi".

> The issue you were misrepresenting was "Ape." The good
> Doctor describes Naledi as an ape.

:-)
Of course: all apes had BP ancestors, google "aquarboreal".
AFAICS, there's nothing exclusively human in naledi:
google "naledi verhaegen" or so.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317336008_Not_Homo_but_Pan_or_Australopithecus_naledi

Discoverers of the naledi fossils (Gauteng, SA, first described 2015) assume:
naledi
(1) belonged to the genus Homo,
(2) buried their dead in caves, :-DDD
(3) were tool makers,
(4) ran over African plains. :-DDD

Comparative anatomy shows these assumptions to be wrong,
it suggests: naledi
(1) belonged to the genus Pan or Australopithecus, not Homo,
(2) fossilized in a natural way,
(3) were no better tool makers than extant chimps are,
(4) spent an important part of their day wading bipedally in forest swamps or wetlands, in search for wetland foods, e.g. waterlilies or other AHV, possibly containing snail shells, like bonobos & lowland gorillas still do, but more frequently.

[jillery]

On Thu, 4 May 2023 17:39:37 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Your comment above is factually incorrect.
**********************************
@29:55
Today, we understand that we are among the great apes.
**********************************

More to the point, PeeWee Peter's comment is factually incorrect. Not
sure how he can claim what I quoted above doesn't indicate exactly
what he claims to seek. There's nothing nuaunced about being
factually incorrect.

>In a deeper dive, I looked at how Hawks uses the term "apes".
>He has a rather idiosyncratic view.
>
>He agrees that modern phylogenetic systematics is good and proper.
>He is opposed to paraphyletic schemes. But respective to the term
>"apes", he considers it colloquial English and so not bound to rigorous
>scientific meaning. Further, he asserts that modern humans are not apes.
>
>This leaves open the question of how he would categorize various
>human ancestors. In fact, it presses the problem with his non-scientific
>notion of what "apes" means. I think it presses him into an undefined
>category as there isn't any strong usage legacy of the term "apes"
>respective to ancestral forms that the vast majority of people are
>unfamiliar with.
>
>The fact that he abandons science as a guide to meaning leaves him
>with no anchor point. If he does happen to favor one choice or the
>other, it will be a rather ungrounded opinion.
>
>That said, I note that the question could run back to more than the
>term "ape" but instead "bipedal ape". Some terms are best understood
>as a combination of works and not in their dissected parts. If Hawks
>would dispute the applicability of "bipedal ape" I would have to laugh
>at what would be a hang-up on his part over the term ape.

What is "nuanced" here is that "ape" has multiple meanings, as do most
words. I have used it to distinguish some animals in the zoos from
humans. I have also used it to distinguish some humans from other
humans. I have also referred to tomatoes as "fruit" and as
"vegetable". These aren't scientific meanings, but they remain valid.

So whether "humans are apes" depends on the specific context. The
cited video documents John Hawks saying humans are one of several
great apes.

I found a link to an article from Jerry Coyne, where he criticizes
Jonathan Marks for claiming humans aren't apes.

<https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2015/11/02/wrongheaded-anthropologist-claims-that-humans-arent-apes/>

In the comments, someone named John Harshman says John Hawks says
humans are not apes. However, the links which should document who
said what are broken. In any case, Harshmans says Hawks made a very
different argument than Marks did. It's possible Hawks changed his
mind in the intervening years.

For completeness, it's annoying when some people play word games where
they make objections based on different meanings than what is meant in
context. Some people claim humans aren't apes in the sense these two
populations have no common ancestor aka that humans are specially
created, and that's a very different argument.

[John Harshman]

Here's an unbroken link:

https://johnhawks.net/weblog/some-say-humans-are-apes-but-i-disagree/

Perhaps he's changed his opinions in the last decade.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Apologies for my error. I used a youtube feature to create a transcript
of the video and then did a text search of the transcript with no results
for "ape". Their "create transcript" feature apparently does not create
a complete transcript. My folly for assuming otherwise.

Nevertheless, Hawks is an odd fish. "we are among the great apes"
is oddly distinct to him from saying "we are apes". You have every
right to find that beyond weird.

I read ahead and note that Harshman has provided a link to the
self-same article I read ahead of my post.
[edit: here's the link to make this easier to process]
https://johnhawks.net/weblog/some-say-humans-are-apes-but-i-disagree/

This is all an arcane sidebar, as you also note. The factual, scientific
placement of the species being discussed is not legitimately
controversial. Hawks's peculiar preferences for the usage of the
term apes is likely best understood as a personal quirk. Leveraging
that quirkiness to sew confusion is dishonest.

I don't believe my post can be honestly understood to be pushing
that confusion. I think it should be clear that I was simply expanding
on the idiosyncratic preferences of Hawks respective to the term
"apes" and how it tends to spread confusion. Put me in the camp
that says humans are apes, and fish for that matter.

> More to the point, PeeWee Peter's comment is factually incorrect. Not
> sure how he can claim what I quoted above doesn't indicate exactly
> what he claims to seek. There's nothing nuaunced about being
> factually incorrect.

When Peter comes back and notes that there is a distinction between
Hawks saying that "we are among the great apes" and saying "we are
apes", this is me agreeing with him. The evidence is in the link John
posted. That this turns on a weird and confused standard for using
the term apes is true. It sadly plays into the obnoxious and racist
themes that are an undercurrent of this thread. Those need to be
rejected. I reject them. I think you are doing that. On that I agree with
you.

I think when you read the link John has provided, it will shed some light on
why Hawks says what he does, even if it won't convince many that he is
helping anything by taking the stance he does. He isn't.

> For completeness, it's annoying when some people play word games where
> they make objections based on different meanings than what is meant in
> context. Some people claim humans aren't apes in the sense these two
> populations have no common ancestor aka that humans are specially
> created, and that's a very different argument.

Yes. And beyond the malicious use of the word games, there's a game of
sewing confusion. My intent was neither of those, but to point out where
the roots of the sewn confusion come from. Perhaps I wasn't explicit
enough about that purpose but I expect most understood my point.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:40:12 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 12:45:10 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >I would watch [the video linked in the OP]

> > >if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recent
> > >breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,

> > The following is such an indication:
> >
> > "John Hawks, Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
> > UW-Madison, gives an update on Homo naledi research in South Africa,
> > and outlines recent discoveries from around the world showing the
> > behavioral complexity of ancient human relatives."
> >
> > You lose again.

The above was a lapse of logic on jillery's part, as I explained in my direct reply.


But on to your comments below, Daggett, in your first post to this thread.

> In a deeper dive, I looked at how Hawks uses the term "apes".
> He has a rather idiosyncratic view.

I take it you are referring to the eleven year old article John linked for us:

https://johnhawks.net/weblog/some-say-humans-are-apes-but-i-disagree/

I remember it well: I used it way back then to convince jillery [and someone
else who disappeared shortly thereafter] that it is perfectly legitimate to
say humans aren't apes, but merely descended from some [long extinct] apes.

>
> He agrees that modern phylogenetic systematics is good and proper.

He certainly uses it all through his article, and makes the important
point that "ape" does not figure in it. He could have made his
point even stronger by giving the example of the Barbary ape,
a tailless cercopithecoid far removed from anthropoid apes.

> He is opposed to paraphyletic schemes.

Yes, he doesn't want to rock the boat of the dominant clade-based taxonomy.

But he is quite upbeat about them being used in everyday life.

> But respective to the term
> "apes", he considers it colloquial English and so not bound to rigorous
> scientific meaning. Further, he asserts that modern humans are not apes.

Because the term causes confusion, in two ways that I mentioned above.

> This leaves open the question of how he would categorize various
> human ancestors.

The dominant taxonomy does not recognize ancestor-descendant
relationships, so this is a non-starter for him. You cannot categorize
a direct ancestor without creating a paraphyletic group.

> In fact, it presses the problem with his non-scientific
> notion of what "apes" means.

There IS no "scientific" notion of them in the clade-based taxonomy.

> I think it presses him into an undefined
> category as there isn't any strong usage legacy of the term "apes"
> respective to ancestral forms that the vast majority of people are
> unfamiliar with.

They can be educated about Australopithecus, etc. if necessary. But this
is beside the point, as I've been saying in various ways.

>
> The fact that he abandons science as a guide to meaning leaves him
> with no anchor point.

He isn't abandoning science in any pejorative sense of the word.

Did you know that if we applied the dominant taxonomic concept of "more closely
related" to human relationships, we would be saying that Mitochondrial Eve
is more closely related to all living humans than she was to her own mother
or siblings [if any]?

That's because Eve belonged to a clade of which she was the LCA,
and which excluded all her contemporaries except her children.
That clade ultimately came to include ourselves.

[I've been talking today about Mitochondrial Eve on another thread where
we are both involved: "Re: The IDiocy that never existed"]

> If he does happen to favor one choice or the
> other, it will be a rather ungrounded opinion.

You might as well drop this non-issue.

> That said, I note that the question could run back to more than the
> term "ape" but instead "bipedal ape". Some terms are best understood
> as a combination of works and not in their dissected parts. If Hawks
> would dispute the applicability of "bipedal ape" I would have to laugh
> at what would be a hang-up on his part over the term ape.

Bipedal apes aren't a clade either. They include us and the hylobatids
(gibbons and the siamang) but not the orangutan, gorilla, chimp, or bonobo.
It's a good thing apes are colloquially defined as "tailless monkeys" rather
than "tailless primates," otherwise the indri [a lemur] would qualify as a "bipedal ape".


You didn't have anything to say about the rest of jillery's post, so I snipped it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/5/23 1:03 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>
> Yes. And beyond the malicious use of the word games, there's a game of
> sewing confusion.

Sewing confusion, presumably, refers to ragamuffins weaving a
fabrication out of a patchwork of threadbare yarns?

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 9:55:13 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/5/23 1:03 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >
> > Yes. And beyond the malicious use of the word games, there's a game of
> > sewing confusion.
.
> Sewing confusion, presumably, refers to ragamuffins weaving a
> fabrication out of a patchwork of threadbare yarns?

.
As opposed to pointed needling.

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 May 2023 13:03:42 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have no problems searching entire transcripts. Perhaps you use a
different web browser. I use Chrome. It also helps to pause the
video, as the transcripts track the video.

>Nevertheless, Hawks is an odd fish. "we are among the great apes"
>is oddly distinct to him from saying "we are apes". You have every
>right to find that beyond weird.

That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, at least in
this context. To say we are among the great apes implies we are
apes.

>I read ahead and note that Harshman has provided a link to the
>self-same article I read ahead of my post.
>[edit: here's the link to make this easier to process]
>https://johnhawks.net/weblog/some-say-humans-are-apes-but-i-disagree/

I recall reading that blog back when Hawks first published it. My
understanding is Hawks makes a semantic distinction somewhat different
from mine below, his being more rigid in the meanings he thinks are
applicable.

>This is all an arcane sidebar, as you also note. The factual, scientific
>placement of the species being discussed is not legitimately
>controversial. Hawks's peculiar preferences for the usage of the
>term apes is likely best understood as a personal quirk. Leveraging
>that quirkiness to sew confusion is dishonest.

My impression is Hawks has changed his mind on this point since then.
He presented a pedantic semantic argument, which almost inevitably
sows confusion, whether or not that was his intent.

>I don't believe my post can be honestly understood to be pushing
>that confusion. I think it should be clear that I was simply expanding
>on the idiosyncratic preferences of Hawks respective to the term
>"apes" and how it tends to spread confusion. Put me in the camp
>that says humans are apes, and fish for that matter.

When the working meaning of "ape" and "fish" describe evolutionary
relationships, I join you in that camp. All descendants necessarily
remain in the same evolutionary groups as their ancestors.

OTOH when their working meanings distinguish among *extant*
populations, I join that camp. It's useful to make such distinctions
in real life, however arbitrary they are in other contexts.

Confusions almost inevitably arise when using the latter meanings to
describe relationships among *extinct* populations. The further back
in time populations existed, the more necessary scientific terms
become. It all depends on context.

>> More to the point, PeeWee Peter's comment is factually incorrect. Not
>> sure how he can claim what I quoted above doesn't indicate exactly
>> what he claims to seek. There's nothing nuaunced about being
>> factually incorrect.
>
>When Peter comes back and notes that there is a distinction between
>Hawks saying that "we are among the great apes" and saying "we are
>apes", this is me agreeing with him. The evidence is in the link John
>posted. That this turns on a weird and confused standard for using
>the term apes is true. It sadly plays into the obnoxious and racist
>themes that are an undercurrent of this thread. Those need to be
>rejected. I reject them. I think you are doing that. On that I agree with
>you.

You misunderstand what you think you're agreeing about. PeeWee
Peter's specific criticism had nothing to do with what Hawks said in
the video. Instead, it was a pointless and factually incorrect
criticism of my OP, claiming that he had no indication the cited video
mentions recent breakthroughs in our knowledge of naledi. He did and
it does. He unambiguously lost.

I read the blog Harshman cited when it was first published, and again
after Harshman cited it. My understanding of it as I described and
describe it remains intact.

>> For completeness, it's annoying when some people play word games where
>> they make objections based on different meanings than what is meant in
>> context. Some people claim humans aren't apes in the sense these two
>> populations have no common ancestor aka that humans are specially
>> created, and that's a very different argument.
>
>Yes. And beyond the malicious use of the word games, there's a game of
>sewing confusion. My intent was neither of those, but to point out where
>the roots of the sewn confusion come from. Perhaps I wasn't explicit
>enough about that purpose but I expect most understood my point.

Nowhere did I say or imply that you, Lawyer Daggett, were sowing
confusion. I understand your point just fine. I am not surprised you
don't understand my point or PeeWee Peter's.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for focus>

>PS You are doing Marc no favors with this kind of shabby performance.
>If you had kept your mouth shut about Marc, jillery might not have had to share
>the hot seat with you, and if Marc had kept his mouth shut, jillery
>would not have to share it with anyone.

Only in your wet dreams.

[jillery]

(1) This distinction requires expertise your posts don't demonstrate.

(2) The presence of an isolated child's skull, in a hole high up in a
cave wall is not "naturally" fossilized.

(3) Last time I checked, extant chimps don't make fire, or even take
advantage of fire when they encounter it.

(4) Cite. To the best of my knowledge, nobody who knows what they're
talking about has made such claims.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> I have no problems searching entire transcripts.

You can't keep track of your own half of a conversation!

...or your pathetic, "You first," often stated AFTER I did
exactly that!

And all the irrelevant, seemingly random "Cites" which
you never read much less understood..

Of course this is why you need to invent sock puppet to
spar with.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716364343858561024

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> (2) The presence of an isolated child's skull, in a hole high up in a
> cave wall is not "naturally" fossilized.

The caverns have existed for millions of years, and are known to
have been explored since the 1960s.

You're leaping from "They buried their dead" to "They decapitated
their children then deposited their heads within holes high up in
walls."

Of course, even after pointing this out you're not going to "Get it."

> (3) Last time I checked, extant chimps don't make fire, or even take
> advantage of fire when they encounter it.

This is the fire that nobody noticed for six years, unless you consider
the fact that the original discoveries were made two years earlier so
it was actually eight years...

So now they lugged their dead, plus kindling, plus antelope through
these tight openings, because they enjoyed breathing smoke...

> To the best of my knowledge

That is a MASSIVE disclaimer. I can't claim to be surprised though.
You're not interested in discussing ideas, as you once again testify,
and instead cherry pick your high priests to obey.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716364343858561024

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 May 2023 22:32:58 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:

<context restored>

>>>Discoverers of the naledi fossils (Gauteng, SA, first described 2015) assume:
>>>naledi
>>>(1) belonged to the genus Homo,
>>>(2) buried their dead in caves, :-DDD
>>>(3) were tool makers,
>>>(4) ran over African plains. :-DDD
>>>
>>>Comparative anatomy shows these assumptions to be wrong,
>>>it suggests: naledi
>>>(1) belonged to the genus Pan or Australopithecus, not Homo,
>>>(2) fossilized in a natural way,
>>>(3) were no better tool makers than extant chimps are,
>>>(4) spent an important part of their day wading bipedally in forest swamps or wetlands, in search for wetland foods, e.g. waterlilies or other AHV, possibly containing snail shells, like bonobos & lowland gorillas still do, but more frequently.
>>
>>
>>(1) This distinction requires expertise your posts don't demonstrate.
>>

>> (2) The presence of an isolated child's skull, in a hole high up in a
>> cave wall is not "naturally" fossilized.
>
>The caverns have existed for millions of years, and are known to
>have been explored since the 1960s.
>
>You're leaping from "They buried their dead" to "They decapitated
>their children then deposited their heads within holes high up in
>walls."

Either way qualifies as not "naturally" fossilized.

>Of course, even after pointing this out you're not going to "Get it."

You don't say what I don't "get". Quelle surprise.

>> (3) Last time I checked, extant chimps don't make fire, or even take
>> advantage of fire when they encounter it.
>
>This is the fire that nobody noticed for six years, unless you consider
>the fact that the original discoveries were made two years earlier so
>it was actually eight years...

So what? naledi used fire, chimps don't. That's superior tool use.

>So now they lugged their dead, plus kindling, plus antelope through
>these tight openings, because they enjoyed breathing smoke...
>

>>(4) Cite. To the best of my knowledge, nobody who knows what they're
>>talking about has made such claims.
>

>That is a MASSIVE disclaimer. I can't claim to be surprised though.
>You're not interested in discussing ideas, as you once again testify,
>and instead cherry pick your high priests to obey.

Sez the willfully stupid troll who has no idea what it's talking about
and is proud of it.

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 May 2023 22:23:41 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> I have no problems searching entire transcripts.
>
>You can't keep track of your own half of a conversation!
>
> ...or your pathetic, "You first," often stated AFTER I did
>exactly that!

You have NEVER done "exactly that". Your posts show you don't know
what "exactly that" is, nevermind how to do it.

>And all the irrelevant, seemingly random "Cites" which
>you never read much less understood..
>
>Of course this is why you need to invent sock puppet to
>spar with.

That you ape his PeeWee Peterisms might be why he likes you so much.

[JTEM is my hero]

Not named jillery but a raging narcissist wrote:

> My beloved JTEM truthed:

> >The caverns have existed for millions of years, and are known to
> >have been explored since the 1960s.

Hmm. No reaction to THAT...

> >You're leaping from "They buried their dead" to "They decapitated
> >their children then deposited their heads within holes high up in
> >walls."

> Either way qualifies as not "naturally" fossilized.

No. Wrong. The skull in question is an anomaly. It's a piece that
doesn't fit. Remember when you used to watch Sesame Street,
like last week:

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Biblical Archaeologists also heavily rely on anomalies in order
to preserve their narrative. Hmm. Are there any other fake
sciences you'd like to be accurately compared to? Maybe the
dogmatic, authority driven Intelligent Design advocates... "Well
by minister told me this in church so it must be right!"

> >Of course, even after pointing this out you're not going to "Get it."

> You don't say what I don't "get".

Lol! You are such a loser, thinking that could fool anyone but
yourself posting under one of your sock puppets...

> >This is the fire that nobody noticed for six years, unless you consider
> >the fact that the original discoveries were made two years earlier so
> >it was actually eight years...

> So what?

Lol!





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716003746293923841

[JTEM is my hero]

Raging narcissist, jillery splattered:
[troll droppings]

> I envyJTEM. He's awesome and he said:
> >You can't keep track of your own half of a conversation!

Which is true. Look. Usenet is no substitute for genuine
treatment. Go get some.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716003746293923841

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 May 2023 20:57:32 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Not named jillery but a raging narcissist wrote:
>
>> My beloved JTEM truthed:
>
>> >The caverns have existed for millions of years, and are known to
>> >have been explored since the 1960s.
>
>Hmm. No reaction to THAT...

What reaction did you expect? You don't even try to explain why you
think THAT is worth mentioning.

>> >You're leaping from "They buried their dead" to "They decapitated
>> >their children then deposited their heads within holes high up in
>> >walls."
>
>> Either way qualifies as not "naturally" fossilized.
>
>No. Wrong. The skull in question is an anomaly. It's a piece that
>doesn't fit. Remember when you used to watch Sesame Street,
>like last week:

Anything not "naturally" fossilized would be considered an anomaly.

>One of these things is not like the others,
>One of these things just doesn't belong,
>Can you tell which thing is not like the others
>By the time I finish my song?
>
>Biblical Archaeologists also heavily rely on anomalies in order
>to preserve their narrative. Hmm. Are there any other fake
>sciences you'd like to be accurately compared to? Maybe the
>dogmatic, authority driven Intelligent Design advocates... "Well
>by minister told me this in church so it must be right!"

Archaeologists don't rely on fossils.

>> >Of course, even after pointing this out you're not going to "Get it."
>
>> You don't say what I don't "get".
>
>Lol! You are such a loser, thinking that could fool anyone but
>yourself posting under one of your sock puppets...

And you STILL don't say. Quelle surprise.

>> >This is the fire that nobody noticed for six years, unless you consider
>> >the fact that the original discoveries were made two years earlier so
>> >it was actually eight years...
>
>> So what?
>

>Lol! ...


... is NOT a coherent reaction.