Re: linear build
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 May 2005 22:01:39 -0700
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1117170113.649636.198470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > As stupid as AAT surely is it is stupider still to suggest that hominid
> > adaptations happened as a result of no shift in habitat/behavior at
> > all.
>
> Agreed. Incredibly, the standard view is
> that for the first few million years hominids
> lead a life indistinguishable from that of
> their 'chimp' ancestors:
No I don't think they assume that. I think their heads are still
filled with images of chimps using tools to hunt and gather. And they
still envision this in the context of relatively small, constantly
mobile groups. Accordingly, the members of these groups that were more
proficient employing these tools ate better and, possibly, engendered
more access to breeding opportunity. Thus the more rational and more
clever apes passed on their genes and the dumber apes went extinct.
This is what they believe. It's idiocy. But there isn't much you can
do to change their thinking because they are completely shielded by
their ignorance: invariably they all believe that the underlying
rational for these dimwitted notions were proven by Darwin, which
couldn't be further from the truth. (By the way, Paul, this is pretty
much what you believe also.)
they exploited
> the identical same food in exactly the
> same way; they slept in trees (in the dark
> hours: 12 out of the 24) in exactly the same
> way; they spent about the same number
> of daylight hours in trees as chimps;
> their behaviour on the ground was almost
> exactly the same as chimps; they coped
> with predators in exactly the same way, and,
> above all, the mother/infant relationships
> were exactly the same as chimps. (In fact,
> this last item is not considered, and
> therefore never articulated -- since the
> species is invariably thought to consist
> only of adult males -- but nevertheless,
> it is still necessarily a basic part of the
> theory.)
You don't get it Paul. You are not much different than all the rest of
them. You need to think more in terms of selection. The behaviors you
mention here are only significant to the degree they can be tied to a
selective scenario. And not only do we not see you doing that but it
is evident that you don't even know where to start.
Paul, you need to stop deluding yourself into believing that you are an
expert on evolutionary theory. Take it from somebody who is, you're
not.
> > So we can hardly blame them for trying since conventional
> > theorists have all but admitted that they are completely stumped.
>
> Nearly all the non-conventional theorists
> (including the self-proclaimed greatest
> of all time) follow the same 'thinking'.
Don't be silly, Paul. There is little similarity between my theory and
conventional vagueness.
> And they rarely imagine that they are
> stumped, but they are -- just as badly.
Like I indicated above, their collective ignorance shields them from
the realization that the vague scenario that I outlined above is way
off target.
If you don't understand evolutionary biology you haven't a chance to
figure out human evolution.
Jim
.
- References:
- linear build
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: linear build
- From: Paul Crowley
- linear build
- Prev by Date: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Next by Date: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Previous by thread: Re: linear build
- Next by thread: OT Culture
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
