Re: Monsoon/mosaic

On 22 Jul 2005 22:59:12 -0700, "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Whitedog wrote:
>> On 22 Jul 2005 11:19:53 -0700, "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> How long have chimps been in this habitat? There's no fossil evidence
>> >> so you'd have to rely on speculation.
>> >
>> >Surely you're not so deluded as to suggest to me that fossil evidence
>> >is the only evidence we have?
>>
>> No it isn't and we all know that.You must bear in mind that any other
>> "evidence" is subjective
>
>No, the evidence I'm talking about is objective. If you think I'm
>wrong on this then give me an example.

Alright, almost any behavioural characteristic you project from chimps
to ancestral chimps/man. You claim that modern war and sports
behaviour, for example, provides proof of coordinated attack behaviour
in hominids. Supposition.
You claim that, and I quote, "modern humans are the most
territorialistic species known to have ever existed", a preposterous
claim based on your apparent observation of modern human behaviour in
a crowded world with political borders. You can have no idea whether
this apparent territorial behaviour would have been representative of
our ancestors to any greater or lesser degree than many other mammals
in similar circumstances; yet you lay this claim to support your
communal defence theories.

There's two for a start, give me some more examples of your behaviour
"proofs" and we'll find a common thread I'm sure.


>> at best and often no more than supposition
>> though. If you can't accept this then you're deluded.
>
>I don't accept it. You haven't really said much of anything.

I've said that supposition isn't proof, you deny this, there's nothing
more to be said on that subject it seems.

>> >> >> 7900 to 11000 individuals is well below the
>> >> >> hominid carrying capacity of africa, the PMRCA for humans is between
>> >> >> the central africa and southwest africa. This places humans in one of
>> >> >> the most stable arboreal tropical environments in the world.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Monsoons
>> >> >> are not a factor in west africa or central africa as they are in east
>> >> >> africa.
>> >> >
>> >> >Right. And hominids fossils are found where? In east Africa. Right?
>> >>
>> >> Jim, have you never looked for fossils? Using your logic I'd have to
>> >> say I have clear evidence that the echinoid fossils I've collected
>> >> were the remains of urchins living in the hills of central England.
>> >
>> >This is a idiotic statement. Nothing I've said would bring you to
>> >believe that I've suggested any such thing.

No, you haven't suggested this but I'll try to help you understand how
your posting comes across.
Your entire collection of hypotheses as posted are based around the
fossil evidence from equatorial east africa. As such, you have pinned
your deduction on these findings and are now I notice fixated upon the
Ethiopian Fauna which you mention in almost every post.
Now you have a geographic fixation point and a climatic reference
point, you appear to be trying to use them as blunt instruments with
which to club everybody else into submission.

>> This is almost exactly what you're saying. You have an idea that
>> something happened in a certain place within a certain timeframe. From
>> that supposition (which is *exactly* what that is, no more, no less)
>> you've looked for some evidence to back it up. Some of the evidence
>> you've found is potentially useful and added to supposition,
>> conjecture (call it what you like, it isn't neccessarily fact) and a
>> bit of hopeful interpretation comprises the sum of your hypothesis.
>
>Do you have a point here, Brent. So far all you've said is equally
>applicable to any and all evolutionary hypotheses.

You did notice that then, good.

>> There's nothing wrong with this, don't misunderstand me, it's the way
>> most of us interpret the world as we see it, it just doesn't mean
>> we're right, correct, have our eye on the ball....
>> Much of human experience and the way we see it could be interpreted in
>> myriad different ways, that's the way our minds work. Another aspect
>> of the mind-wiring we have is that ideas, once fixed are difficult to
>> shake off. This is obviously a selective factor, we need to believe in
>> our judgements, it's something that's served us well in the past, we
>> formulate an idea about a specific set of circumstances and act on it,
>> it's perhaps that "gut feel" we talk of and could be demonstrated to
>> be a survival trait.
>
>I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. However, nothing
>you've said here adds up to an excuse for ignoring standard scientific
>practices.

What, making the "facts" fit the theory you mean? That's what we read
when you rant at everyone else Jim, it's you making statements and
suppositions to back up your theories. You ask for refutation but you
wouldn't listen if they arrived attached to a cruise missile and since
you don't provide facts then they can't be disputed can they?

>> >> Fossils are found where they are because they happened to form in the
>> >> best medium and have chanced to become exposed by erosion, geological
>> >> disturbance, variance of sea levels, quarrying, mining etc.
>> >
>> >No duh.

So the few fossils we've been lucky enough to find and the associated,
scattered and very thin evidence with them was enough, when added to
your wildly speculative behavioural analysis of modern humans, to back
up and fully support your hypothesis?
It's like religion sometimes this subject, and as pointless to argue.

>> >> Luckily there are are a few sites in Africa yielding fossils, can you
>> >> begin to imagine how much fossil evidence will never be found? How
>> >> much is buried beneath creeping desert dunes, how much has been
>> >> destroyed by countless processes from erosion to subduction, how much
>> >> evidence is currently under the sea?
>> >
>> >C'mon Brent. I refuse to believe that anybody could
>> >be so stupid.

>> That's a welcome change of heart, well done for that. Perhaps that's
>> not what you meant there though? Did you mean that you disagree with
>> my observation?

>
>>
>> > Moreover you are completely avoiding
>> >the real issue. Are you or are you not saying that
>> >hominids could have emerged--starting from chimps--in
>> >habitat that was perfect for chimps? (note: this is
>> >not a retorical question, dimwit, I expect an answer.)
>>
>> No, I'm not saying that the current observable habitat chimps inhabit
>> is perfect for hominids OR chimps.
>
>As I expected, you didn't answer my question.

Let's clarify what you're asking first.
Chimps are found in rainforest, gallery forest, woodlands, swamp
forests and grasslands in (mostly) west and central Africa. Which of
these is the perfect chimp habitat in your expert opinion?
Or, to put it another way, which particular mix or overlap of those
habitats is the correct one I should pick when attempting to answer
your question? Oh I forget to ask at which period of climatic change
you'd like me to use as a reference point, cooler and drier, hotter
and wetter?


>The supposition, that Phil put forth, that hominid could have emerged
>in chimp habitat is pure idiocy. One need not be an expert in
>evolution for this to be obvious.
>
>
>> You know as well as I do that
>> particular habitat is as temporary as any other. There is no stasis in
>> nature and you know that full well too.
>
>This is why people that haven't studied evolutionary theory should
>steer clear of human evolution. No Brent, in actuality exactly the
>opposite is the case. When environmental conditions are stable (which
>is 99.9 percent of the time) stasis rules. Contrary to popular
>opinion, evolution happens in leaps and bounds and very rarely. (By
>the way, This is old news.)

Environmental stability in geological timescales is a laughable
concept. Sorry if it doesn't fit your theories Jim, but hey, time's a
great healer too, you'll get over it.

>> Don't pretend that a half
>> snapshot (that's what you know from your reading) of a current habitat
>> compared with an incomplete fossil record (that's what we all have)
>> will suddenly support your ideas, however well researched you may
>> believe them to be.
>
>They already support my ideas. I'm not looking for support of my
>ideas. I'm looking for refutation. So far I have not found it. Nor
>has anybody, including yourself. There is no other hypothesis of equal
>detail that can make the same claim. (And you know it.)

Anyone could come up with an irrefutable hypothesis regarding the
origins of HS, I'll knock one up for you later after a few beers,
it'll probably have aliens, spaceships and granite monoliths (with
apologies to A C Clark) and you wouldn't be able to disprove it.

>>
>> >Are you really that deluded about the nature of
>> >evolution?
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.
>
>>
>> >For your information, species don't change
>> >unless there is a ecological based reason. The process
>> >is generally referred to as adaptation.
>>
>> Yes, this is the part of over simplified explanations that will start
>> the alarm bells ringing for me. Stasis, if we are following a
>> Darwinian train of thought, isn't the parent of anything and we all
>> know it.
>
>I think you need to spell it out for us what it is we supposedly all
>know?

That stasis (I choose to believe that it doesn't exist in nature, you
may differ as you wish) has no part to play in evolutionary theory.
There are good reasons why species diversity is higher in the relative
stability of a rainforest environment than in your beloved monsoon
regions too though, you'll have your theory why this is so I'm sure.


>Brent, true or false? You have no fact based dispute with my
>hypothesis or any aspect thereof. Be honest.

True, I cannot dispute your suppositions, who could?

--
.--~~,__
:-....,-------`~~'._.'
`-,,, ,_ ;'~U'
_,-' ,'`-__; '--.
(_/'~~ ''''(;

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cameron & Groves latest book positive about AAH
    ... > I thought McGinns capital ape theory has some merit before he ... > derived from fish, not out of desire but out of neccesity. ... > attraction of a habitat and other variations of the habitat. ... > certain specific form of evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over ... including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through ... treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What exactly is the nature of your dispute?
    ... This is a science forum, ... telling us that there is other evidence ... savanna habitat. ... 400 tracks total from all the animals? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Twins and Noahs Ark
    ... that Dana hasn't seen the supposed evidence, ... requests to provide the evidence. ... anyone else who is interested) see the stupid video, ... video that I'm afraid to disclose is supposition, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What exactly is the nature of your dispute?
    ... savanna habitat. ... Saying there's no evidence of garden habitat back then would be like ... 400 tracks total from all the animals? ... safety of trees" is absolute nonsense. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)