Re: Updated AAH Definition

From: Michael Clark (biteme_at_spammer.com)
Date: 11/15/04 

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:00:43 -0600

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0411150043.630b7a13@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Clark" <biteme@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:<ntydnWzyMaw_dArcRVnysg@skypoint.com>...
>> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
>
>> > How, tell me, does the AAH threaten the 'hard won collection of
>> > knowledge'? It adds to it, you great wally. Why do you seek to draw an
>> > arbitrary line in the sand and say 'thus far and no further - we know
>> > all the answers now'?
>>
>> It is a major subtraction, doofus. It isn't science as it isn't
>> testable and its' proponents don't seem to be able to muster
>> a viable hypothesis ~to begin the process~ of discovery.
>
> Of course it's testable.
> It predicts that human ancestors lived in water-side habitats more
> than Pan/Gorilla ancestors. Test that.

"You" test it, moron. Show me how you go about establishing
that they did, indeed, live there *more* than P/G ancestors. Go
ahead, don't just wave your goddamned arms. Go ahead, big
talker, ***t e s t i t*** Lay it all out, right here. I'm waiting..

> It predicts that humans swim better than apes. Test that.

Humans swim better than apes because we're bipedal, highly
adaptive generalists. We also ride bicycles better than apes.
Open your eyes.

> It predicts that having less body hair makes you a better swimmer
> through drag reduction. Test that.

Thoroughly hashed in this NG --many times. Laughed at
until the tears rolled. Perhaps you weren't here for the
dissection?

> It predicts that having more sc fat increases buoyancy and therefore
> makes you less likely to drown. Test that.

Here you are making your baseless assertions, yet again. Fat is
an energy store for the 5,497th time. I know wet apes would
like it to be a life preserver. It aint.

> Name me one example of how the the orthodox paradigm (whatever that
> is) is testable.

Gee, Algis, this isn't about somebody elses' hypothesis, this is
about yours. Remember? You don't know how other scientists
have tested their stuff? Is that because you just don't know what
you're talking about? Did you every take a theory class or a
historical survey of the science? No? Jesus, does it show or what.

>> Add insult to injury, no single one of its supporters seem capable
>> of assembling a rational argument and then *defending* it --
>> as you *constantly* do in this NG. Where are your rebuttals
>> to any of the arguments leveled at your presentation here?
>> ---------------------------------
>> Where are they, Algis?
>> ---------------------------------
>
> What are you talking about? Oh I get it. This is the latest ploy to
> pretend that it's all been dismissed before, right? Like Jim Moore's
> site's a magnus opus and like Jason Eshleman and NAS both destroyed my
> arguments. The next great invention is that... I've never defended any
> of my arguments from the s0-called 'rebuttals'.

That's right. http://tinyurl.com/6d5yy There is the thread, anybody
can read it, and nobody can come to the conclusion that you either
understood or responded intelligently to anything written there.
You simply don't listen and, from all appearances, can't process
anything that lies outside of your obsession. This isn't science,
this is tomfoolery.

> I've answered them all - easily. I've done it again and again. I'll do
> so again if you like - which ones did you have in mind?

You've answered NONE of it --again and again and again.

>> And don't point to those lighter-than-air, rhetoric-filled
>> retorts about waist-deep water etc. They have been seen
>> (and laughed at) before.
>
> Exactly. You're just myth-making. I've answered all these points many
> times but you always pretend that I haven't. If you've convinced
> yourself that the current paradigm (whatever that is) is absolutely
> right and needs no further ammendments, what's the point trying to
> convince you?

You have answered nothing --and continue, as you do
in this very post, to answer nothing. That's what you are,
Algis, n o t h i n g.

> Algis Kuliukas 

-- 
Yada, yada, yada.
Quantcast