Intellectual Cowardice: the stepping stone to intellectual dishonesty


rmacfarl wrote:

> > As I explained above, the confusion has to do with your
> > inability to distinguish the terms 'rainforest' and 'trees'.
>
> No no Jim, the confusion has to do with your inability to understand
> the basic requirements necessary to claim credibility as a scientific
> theorist.

So, your saying 'rainforest' and 'trees' are interchangeable concepts?


>
> In other words, you still can't provide a reference to save your
> life...

References are no replacement for having an intellectual
grasp of the subject matter.


> > > > The shift to niche independence, in my estimation, happened
> > > > considerably later with the emergence of homo. It happened
> > > > after they had gained a considerable degree of ecological
> > > > dominance. (The situational factors that enabled them to
> > > > gain ecological dominance are indicated in the communal
> > > > selective aspects of my scenario.)
> > >
> > > And the primary research (references) that you base this claim on are?
> >
> > You don't ask for reference for general conclusions, which
> > is what this is. References are for specific claims of fact.
>
> In other words, you still can't provide a reference to save your
> life...

So should we have rejected Galileo's claim of moons of
jupiter because he could not reference it? Are you
really this dimwitted?

>
> >
> > > > > 2. On what evidence (references) do you base your assumption of "The
> > > > > onset of a climate characterized by seasonal dessication (a distinct
> > > > > and severe dry season)", and "Patchiness of their [the LCAs'] treed
> > > > > habitat"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've provided my support of this in other posts. Why did you
> > > > not read them and respond to them at that time? If you want
> > > > to dispute either of these suppositions then please respond to
> > > > these posts directly. You should have no trouble finding these
> > > > posts in Google groups. (If you need help finding these posts
> > > > let me know. Try going to the advanced search function of Google
> > > > Groups. It's excellent!)
> > >
> > > So from this we may deduce that you cannot cite any primary source
> > > references for your assumption of of "The onset of a climate
> > > characterized by seasonal dessication (a distinct and severe dry
> > > season)",
> >
> > Do you dispute it? References?
>
> In other words, you still can't provide a reference to save your
> life...

Ross, it is obvious to all that the reason you don't dispute
this is because you know it is right (or you at least suspect
it is). Thus your request for a reference plainly reveals
your desperation and your intellectual cowardice. (Who do
you think you're fooling here? Michael Clark?)

>
> >
> > > and "Patchiness of their [the LCAs'] treed habitat"?
> >
> > Do you dispute it? References?
>
> In other words, you still can't provide a reference to save your
> life...
>
> >
> > >
> > > Note: I have checked Google & am unable to identify any citations from
> > > Jim McGinn to primary literature,
> >
> > Check out these two posts. Read the first one
> > carefully and follow the links therein. And look
> > at the references in these posts:
> >
> > The Co-occurrence of Seasonal Dessication and Hominid Evolution
> >
> > Seasonal Variations are Critical to Savanna Mosaic
> >
> > (Note: do a search in Google using these in the subject heading.)
>
> google is not a primary reference.
>
> In other words, you still can't provide a reference to save your
> life...

Your saying it matters? Explain to us why it matters?
(Especially in light of the fact that you don't dispute it.)

>
> >
> > > on any subject, in regard to
> > > Ecolological Gatekeeper Hypothesis, Capital Ape Theory, or anything
> > > else for that matter.
> > >
> > > Ref. http://tinyurl.com/d8puu, http://tinyurl.com/79rgf.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 3. When did this occur,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As I explained previously, about 8 to 10 mya.
> > >
> > > An "interpretation" which doesn't agree with current scientific data,
> > > such as:
> > >
> > > a) Hominids seem to have evolved bipedality while still living in the
> > > forest. You can't cite the scientific articles which present such
> > > evidence (I already did), so I assume you can't either explain or
> > > dispute the evidence.
> >
> > It's interesting that the only factual dispute you have with my
> > hypothesis pivots off your own inability to distinguishes
> > between the 'rainforest' and 'trees'.
>
> Non sequitur. You don't present facts, and you don't have anything that
> qualifies as a hypothesis.

Actually, I've got the only real hypothesis there is.

>
> >
> > >
> > > b) Your supposed date when this behavioural change occurred *predates*,
> > > by several million years, the likely date of the chimp homo LCA, as
> > > measured by abundant biochemical evidence.
> >
> > You know the "likely" date of chimp/homo LCA? What is
> > this date? How is it, supposedly, "likely."

No answer. (Typical anthropologists: it's true because somebody told
me it's true.)

And what
> > in the world ever brought you to the conclusion that the
> > biochemical evidence is "abundant?" You seem to not
> > realize that declarations like this open up a lot of
> > questions about the underlying assumptions of those that
> > make such claims.
>
> The assumptions that are under question are yours, not mine, which
> aren't relevant to this discussion. The only underlying assumption that
> I'm making that's relevant to this discussion is that you're a
> pea-brained windbag. And as usual, you're doing a fine job of proving
> me right.

So, let me get this straight. The reason you can't answer the simplest
question is because of me. Surreal.

>
> >
> > IMO, my claim that hominid emerged in concert with the
> > rest of the ethiopian fauna, at about 8.1 mya (in east
> > Africa) makes more sense than anything based on the
> > simplistic assumptions of their being a genetic clock
> > (which are, themselves, based on progressivism and/or
> > gradualism--two evolutionary concepts that fallen out
> > of favor with evolutionists).
>
> So now "8 to 10 mya" is 8.1 mya in East Africa? Well, surely you can
> provide a primary source reference for such a definitive date as that
> one can you Jim?

I did previously. Do a search on the phrase 'hadley cell'. (Oops,
there I go again, talking over your head.)

>
> > (I suspect I'm talking
> > over your head here, Ross.)
>
> You'd have to be very tall Jim for your arse to be above my head,
> because that's where your hypothesising seems to emanate from...
>
> >
> > > > > and specifically which known fossils
> > > >
> > > > All of them.
> > >
> > > And this is what you describe as "content"?
> >
> > Any hypothesis that isn't consistent with ALL of the
> > evidence isn't worth considering. Purportedly this
> > makes it easier for you to dispute my hypothesis, Ross.
> > If my hypothesis was wrong then we'd expect at least
> > some of it to dispute it's validity.
>
> Typical arse-backward net-loonery.

So you're saying that one gets to pick and choose which piece of
evidence is applicable to their hypothesis. No wonder you don't have a
hypothesis.

>
> If your hypothesis had any content we'd expect it to provide both some
> explicatory power and some falsifiable predictions to demonstrate its
> validity.

You're a complete dumbass. There is no shortage of potential
falsifiable predictions to be gleaned from my hypothesis. This would
be obvious to you if you had any training at all in scientific methods.


>
> Your emanations do neither, and hence do not qualify as a hypothesis.
>
> >
> > > You can't even name a
> > > hominid fossil, let alone explain the behavioural relationships between
> > > ardipithecus ramidus and paranthropus boisei.
> >
> > You failed to point out how any of this is, supposedly,
> > relevant to the validity of my hypothesis. Are you saying
> > that the behavioral distinctions between ardipithecus
> > ramidus and paranthropus boisei can be interpreted as
> > disputing my hypothesis? If so, how? If not then why
> > did you bother to bring it up?
>
> If the "World-Class Evolutionary Theorist" can't work out what's
> important about the relationship between those hominids which actually
> existed, and his "hypothesis" about their behaviour, I don't know what
> I can do to help him.

Like it wasn't obvious that you were only pretending to know what you
were talking about.

>
> >
> > > > > would you
> > > > > cite as being the Last Common Ancestor in question?
> > > >
> > > > We probably will never actually see a fossil of the LCA.
> > >
> > > Then how is it that you can claim such a depth of expertise about its
> > > lifestyle and behaviour?
> >
> > I only claim to have a hypothesis that is more rationally
> > consistent with what is known about the way animals evolve
> > to arrive at the animal we actually are.
>
> ... A claim for which there is now 7 years of evidence to the contrary.
>
> >
> > > > > In identifying the above fossil as the LCA, which
> > > > > scientific references, particularly those of a taphonomic
> > > > > nature, did you refer to?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stop playing games, Ross. You know perfectly well that
> > > > we don't have an LCA fossil.
> > >
> > > Then how is it that you can claim such a depth of expertise about its
> > > lifestyle and behaviour?
> >
> > I only claim to have a hypothesis that is more rationally
> > consistent with what is known about the way animals evolve
> > to arrive at the animal we actually are.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > > > The significant thing here is that you have no dispute
> > > > with my interpretation of the evidence. Nor can you
> > > > dispute my claim that my interpretation better explains
> > > > the evidence than any other hypothesis.
> > >
> > > I note that after 2 years you still can't refer to any references for
> > > the claims that you have made, and continue to attempt to distract the
> > > reader from the lack of substance or "content" in your own work by
> > > asking me to provide references to claims I haven't made.
> >
> > Maybe if you did some research you'd realize the
> > dimwittedness of your inability to distinguish
> > 'rainforest' and 'trees'.
>
> In other words, you still can't provide a reference to save your
> life...
>
> >
> > > Ref. message news:18fa6145.0302080131.2f9fe3fa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > > > > 4. Define the phrase "Communal territorialism"
> >
> > > > See below.
> >
> > > > > , and explain how it is materially different from the
> > > > > territorial behaviour of chimpanzees, baboons or other
> > > > > relevant mammals.
> > > >
> > > > Good question. The answer is that the territorialism in my
> > > > scenario is more human. Let me explain. If you were to be
> > > > drafted into the Australian army to fight a war you'd find
> > > > yourself fighting alongside many who you did not know up until
> > > > then. You might even find yourself, for example, fighting
> > > > alongside somebody from a different country. The same kind of
> > > > thing is indicated in my hypothesis. As I've explained, the
> > > > members of the communities in my hypothesis do not necessarily
> > > > like each other or even know each other, or not necessarily
> > > > very well. Each troop or band (extended family unit) has
> > > > property in the context of an extensive community site. (See
> > > > Note below). For the most part these bands got along, or at
> > > > least were able to put up with each other. And, as explained
> > > > in my scenario, these intercompeting/intercooperativ­e bands
> > > > fought alongside each other to achieve communal territorialistic
> > > > ends. So, this is your answer. Hominids have the ability or
> > > > instinct to recognize their neighbors or compatriots as sharing
> > > > common interests that can be achieved through communal
> > > > territorialsm. (The selective rational for the emergence of
> > > > these adaptations is indicated in my hypothesis in its
> > > > entirety.) Chimpanzees, baboons or other relevant mammals
> > > > don't have this behavior/ability/instinct.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And the primary research (references) that you base this claim on are?
> >
> > Since you don't dispute any of it it doesn't matter.
>
> In other words, you still can't provide a reference to save your life.
>
> Equally as importantly, you still don't understand why this is
> important...

It doesn't.

>
> >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > (Note: The number of troops or bands within a community was,
> > > > IMO, largely determined by the size of the community site. In
> > > > especially large sites there might be upwards of 100 troops.
> > > > And the areal extent of a community site may have often been
> > > > upwards of 100 square miles. Who knows.)
> > >
> > > Not you, one suspects.
> >
> > > > > 5. Define the phrase "group selection".
> > > >
> > > > Natural selection at the group level.
> > > >
> > > > > a. In particular, explain how its dynamics are consistent with
> > > > > "Selfish Gene" theory (a la Richard Dawkins).
> > > >
> > > > You would first have to explain how selfish gene theory
> > > > (actually calling it a "theory" is a misnomer) is consistent
> > > > with reality. This has never been done. In fact it's plainly
> > > > demonstrable that whether or not genes really are "selfish"
> > > > pivots off what one means with the word selfish. In the
> > > > absolute sense of what it means to be selfish, genes, clearly
> > > > and indisputably, are NOT selfish. For example, at this very
> > > > moment there are genes within cells on your body that are
> > > > directing the death of the cells in which they are contained
> > > > (fingernails for example). As a result, the genes within these
> > > > cells will soon be reduced to inert matter. Is this selfish?
> > > > In the absolute sense of what it means to be selfish the answer
> > > > is, clearly, no.
> > > >
> > > > Dawkins, to his credit, never presented selfish gene "theory"
> > > > as a formal proof. Selfish gene "theory" is little more than
> > > > a clever analogy meant to provide a conceptual focus for his
> > > > explanation of natural selection to an audience that generally
> > > > believes in creationism.
> > > >
> > > > One must never forget that Dawkin's audience is the common man,
> > > > not scholars.
> > > >
> > > > > b. Alternatively, explain why Selfish Gene Theory does not apply to
> > > > > humans,
> > > >
> > > > It is applicable to all species, including humans, AFAICS.
> > > >
> > > > > why it did not apply to the LCA,
> > > >
> > > > It did.
> > > >
> > > > > and when it stopped applying.
> > > >
> > > > It didn't.
> > > >
> > > > The problem here is that you, mistakenly IMO, see selfish
> > > > gene as a theory and I, rightly, see it as nothing but
> > > > a literary device.
> > > >
> > > > For more on my opinion of selfish gene do the following:
> > > > 1) Go to Google Groups: http://groups.google.com
> > > > 2) Cut the following and paste it into the search box:
> > > > mcginn "selfish gene" group:sci.bio.evolution
> > > > 3) Click on the "google search" button.
> > > > (Note: I've included one of these posts at the end of
> > > > this post.)
> > >
> > > Your comments on Selfish Gene theory display a complete absence of
> > > knowledge or understanding of what the theory says, or what its
> > > implications are.
> >
> > It's not a theory. It's a literary device. Moreover,
> > genes are not selfish in an absolute sense. If they were
> > then they could only produce exact copies of themselves
> > and evolution would come to a dead stop. (You'd do better
> > to read Dawkin's book, The Blind Watchmaker. Therein he's
> > more appreciative of a scientific understanding of NS and
> > much less dogmatic. [Keep in mind, Dawkins is a zoologist
> > and a popular writer. He's not a theorists and doesn't
> > pretend to be--at least not always.])
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cnzpc
>
> Biography
> Studied at Oxford University and graduated in 1962
> Remained at Oxford to work for his doctorate with ethologist Niko
> Tinbergen
> Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California at
> Berkeley 1967-1969
> Lecturer in Zoology at Oxford University and a Fellow of New College
> from 1970
> Published his first book, The Selfish Gene in 1976
> Holder of the newly endowed Charles Simonyi Chair of Public
> Understanding of Science 1995
> Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997

You are enamoured with titles. I am not. They too often are employed
as an excuse for not thinking at all.

>
> >
> > > Ref. The Selfish Gene: Second Edition by Richard Dawkins, Oxford
> > > University Press 1989, ISBN: 0192860925
> >
> > This is an irrelevant reference. You made no specific claims
> > of fact.
>
> It's more than you've ever provided.
>
> Your comments on Selfish Gene theory still display a complete absence
> of knowledge or understanding of what the theory says, or what its
> implications are.

It's not a theory, you moron.

>
> >
> > > > > 6. Explain and justify the following statements: "HUMAN
> > > > > evolution is a group selective process.
> > > >
> > > > This is explained in the entirety of my hypothesis.
> > > >
> > > > > From the perspective of comparative biology, this
> > > > > couldn't be more obvious. Anybody that tells you
> > > > > differently is whacked.
> > > >
> > > > You're not disputing it. As such, I'll let the arguments
> > > > I made previously stand on their own.
> > > >
> > > > > You can safely dismiss *any*
> > > > > scenarios that don't explicate a group selective process."
> > > >
> > > > Let's face the facts Ross, you can't present any selective
> > > > scenario that explains the rather obvious social adaptations
> > > > that are evident in humans. Be honest with yourself.
> > >
> > > So from this we may deduce that you cannot cite any primary source
> > > references for your assumption that "HUMAN evolution is a group
> > > selective process"?
> >
> > Nor can I sight any primary source references for the
> > sky being blue.
>
> This says more about your quality as a researcher than it does about
> the process of science.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
>
> > Ross, it's obvious that humans are
> > group selected.
>
> In other words, you still can't provide a reference to save your life.
>
> Jim, it's obvious that you are (figuratively speaking) a pea-brained
> windbag...

Do you ever take a position on anything, Ross? Are you such an
intellectual coward that all you can do is refer to some abstract
notion of "primary research?"

>
>
> >
> > > > > 7. Your post gives a definition of "the mentality of 3 to 5 year
> > > > > olds", which the "earliest hominids" were said to
> > > > > have. What evidence can you cite that this was a valid reconstruction
> > > > > of their behaviour? Specifically:
> > > >
> > > > Observation of extant chimps.
> > > >
> > > > > a. How did you reconstruct the behaviour of the earliest hominids?
> > > > > Please cite references as appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > Mostly from reading Goodall's work on extant chimps.
> > >
> > > Ref. http://tinyurl.com/bagjz
> > > Your search - "Goodall's work on extant chimps" - did not match any
> > > documents.
> >
> > Irelevant since you don't dispute anything I've said.
>
> The fact that I do or don't try to dispute anything you say is not the
> issue here.

It is as far as I'm concerned.

The issue is whether or not you have anything to say which
> I or anyone else need bother to dispute. The answer to this question is
> a resoundingly unequivocal no.
>
> To be specific:
>
> - You have no idea how the early hominids behaved. You don't dispute
> this.

This is both not specific and plainly false.


> - There is thence nothing that you've said which requires being
> disputed.
> - My motivation in this discussion is not to dispute what you say, but
> to show that you have nothing to say.
> - You are saying nothing to give me or anyone else cause to believe
> otherwise.
>
> >
> > > > > b. What analyses of 3 to 5 year old human behaviour did you reference
> > > > > to draw the above analogy?
> > > >
> > > > Any and all.
> > >
> > > Ref. http://tinyurl.com/alke9
> > > Results 1 - 10 of about 11,400,000 for "Any and all". (0.24 seconds)
> > > >
> > > > > 8. How do you reconcile your conclusion that "life experience
> > > > > was mostly unnecessary" for early hominids, with the observation
> > > > > that extant hominid and pongid apes exhibit long
> > > > > "childhoods" in which they require considerable learning
> > > > > and parental support?
> > > >
> > > > Well, I think you're missing the context of this statement.
> > > > So, I will allow you to reread the relevant section and restate
> > > > the question if you are still perplexed on this point.
> > >
> > > Ok, I've reread it.
> > >
> > > <news:ac6a5059.0301311400.36c4d793@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>...
> > > "
> > > Instincts, incredible strength, and habitat that
> > > was, most times of the year, fairly lush was all
> > > they needed. Life experience was mostly unnecessary.
> > > "
> > >
> > > How do you reconcile this statement with the observation that extant
> > > hominid and pongid apes exhibit long "childhoods" in which they require
> > > considerable learning and parental support?
> >
> > I would say that the term, "long," is too vague for the
> > point you're trying to make. Give me some numbers and
> > then we'll see if your point represents any kind of
> > dispute with my hypothesis.
>
> "Orangutans give birth only once every eight or nine years. The young
> remain close to their mothers until the age of six or seven. This
> prolonged dependency is one of the reasons that orangutan
> rehabilitation is so difficult--like human children, young apes need to
> be taught nearly everything."
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1170/is_n1_v27/ai_18974870

And you're point is . . . ?

>
> "In eastern Africa, chimpanzees utilize stems to extract termites from
> their mounds. They also use crumpled leaves as sponges and leafy
> branches as umbrellas, in addition to building nests each night. During
> the extended dependency period of their infants--approximately seven to
> eight years--the young learn from their mothers to use tools, which
> foods to avoid, and other behaviors such as how to build a nest and to
> avoid danger from other animals, including humans."
> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/6859/chimpfacts.html
>
> "Gorilla babies develop physical skills about twice as fast as human
> babies... Juveniles are weaned at about 2 1/2 years and begin building
> their own nests for sleeping."
> http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/gorilla/birth-&-care.htm
>
> Now in my opinion the above references, provided you don't view them as
> open to dispute, would quite satisfactorily put paid to any claim that
> "Life experience was mostly unnecessary" for forest-dwelling great
> apes. Aside from humans and a few other large mammals, 6 to 8 years is
> an uncommonly long childhood in the world of mammals.

How does this relate to the point that started you on this little
adventure.

>
> >
> > > [For those of you playing at home, this is a common McGinnian trick.
> > > When he can't understand a question, he asks the questioner to reread
> > > his, <ahem>, works and rephrase the question, hoping it will appear as
> > > though it is them, not him, who are short on understanding...]
> >
> > [For those of you playing at home, this is a common
> > anthro-nerds trick. They ask questions using vague
> > terminology hoping nobody notices that their point
> > would disappear of they were to be specific.]
>
> [And this is another typical McGinnianist rhetorical tool: to accuse
> others of using vague and non-specific or out-of-context terminology,
> which are his stock in trade. However those of you playing at home have
> no doubt become bored at this point & are sensibly scrolling past the
> discussion by now.]

Note that he didn't try to specify.

>
> >
> > > > > 9. "From a locomotory standpoint bipedalism was a compromise.
> > > > > The shift to a more communal and stationary lifestyle de-emphasised
> > > > > locomotion."
> > > >
> > > > > What evidence did you rely on to conclude that this lifestyle shift
> > > > > had taken place?
> > > >
> > > > Well, all the evidence I've seen supports this supposition
> > > > and/or fails to dispute it. Don't you agree? If you disagree
> > > > then please be specific about what evidence you think disputes
> > > > this contention.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So from this we may deduce that you cannot cite any primary source
> > > references for your assumption that a "shift to a more communal and
> > > stationary lifestyle" took place?
> >
> > Correct. This assumption/conclusion is mine and--contrary
> > to allusion Jason made recently--mine alone. Can you
> > dispute it? (I know you can't.
>
> Since your claim has nothing of substance to to back it up, it follows
> that I need find nothing of substance to dispute it.

So you're saying that bipedalism provided a locomotory advantage?

>
> You're a legend in your own mind Jim. Literally. Why would anyone care
> about anything you had to say?

I have to admit. Your dispute of my thinking is so obviously inept
that nobody would take much from the fact that you're unable to dispute
anything I say.

>
> >
> > > > > 10. Justify your assertion that "Bipedalism is, primarily, a
> > > > > throwing adaptation
> > > >
> > > > My whole hypothesis serves as this justification. Can you dispute it?
> > >
> > > So from this we may deduce that you cannot cite any primary source
> > > references for your assumption that "Bipedalism is, primarily, a
> > > throwing adaptation"?
> >
> > Correct. This assumption/conclusion is mine and mine
> > alone. Can you dispute it?
>
> I can certainly dispute the claim that the assumption/conclusion is
> yours and yours alone. See for example this:
>
> www.hopkinsmedicine.org/fae/CBR2003JHE.pdf
>
> It includes a 4-page bibliography, which oddly enough didn't cite
> anyone named McGinn.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ajjbv
>
> Gee Jim, you really don't seem to be that original a thinker in many
> ways.

My hypothesis indicates the actual lifestyle that involved this
behavior and explains why and how it first emerged. Nobody else has
done this.

>
> >
> > > > > 11. "If they did evolve along the lines that I describe, we'd expect
> > > > > those that were most successful to be capable of maintaining larger
> > > > > and larger pieces of territory. And this, IMO, would predict a trend
> > > > > of throwing longer distances in that this would be the most efficient
> > > > > way to keep potential trespassing species at bay."
> > > >
> > > > > Given that all comparable primates' territories are far larger than
> > > > > the distance that the longest distance any human, or by implication,
> > > > > hominid LCA, could throw, how can you justify reaching the conclusion
> > > > > that a better throwing arm would imply the ability to maintain a
> > > > > larger territory.
> > > >
> > > > I think you're misreading me. I never suggested a direct
> > > > coorelation between throwing distance and size of territory.
> > > > So I can't answer your question. My point was only that
> > > > throwing longer distances would be associated with the ability
> > > > to maintain (prevent inmigration of other species into) larger
> > > > patches of treed territory, the selective benefits of which
> > > > are obviated in my hypothesis.
> > >
> > > So you agree that a better throwing arm would not, of itself, imply the
> > > ability to maintain a larger territory?
> >
> > It would be part of it, possibly an important part.
> >
> > > And by the way, what primary source references were you relying on to
> > > deduce that the LCA had a better throwing arm?
> >
> > None at all. I came to this indisputable conclusion
> > all by myself. Should I even bother to ask if you
> > can dispute it? We all know you can't.
>
> On the contrary Jim.
>
> The known pre-human fossil hominids (you know, all of those ones that
> you rely on to develop your hypothesis) do not support your contention.
> The Lucy skeleton, for example, does not appear to have any
> specialisations which would support the contention that her forebears
> could throw better than chimpanzees.
>
> "Throwing ability in fossil hominids."
> H. Dunsworth1, J.H. Challis2. 1Dept. of Anthropology, 2Biomechanics
> Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University.
>
> "... Results show that early hominids could not throw far, but could
> throw accurately and fast with the help of a relatively large release
> window. On the other hand, modern humans can throw much further, faster
> and more accurately, but have a narrow window of release..."

Who do you think you're fooling. This statement, which involves
comparison to Apith to humans, does not support your claim above, which
involves comparison of Apith to chimp.

It's seems you are advancing from intellectual cowardice to
intellectual dishonesty.

> http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/dbman/db.cgi?db=schedule2004&uid=default&view_records=1&ID=*&nh=7
>
>
> >
> > > > > 12. "Previous to 10mya there was little or no migration but
> > > > > there has been a lot since then."
> > > >
> > > > > Please cite references to support this assertion.
> > > >
> > > > See the post included in my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis that
> > > > was written by a paleontologist named Yousuf Khan. Can you
> > > > dispute Yousuf's assertion?
> > >
> > > Which primary source references was Yousuf Khan relying on for his
> > > assertions that "about 10mln years ago the Earth entered climatic
> > > roller-coaster", or that "the very fact that the Earth became a colder
> > > and more inhospitable place to live, led to the creation of man", or
> > > that "If the Earth were still warm and wet, then we'd just have big,
> > > dumb, lumbering creatures who would just eat easy-to-find plants all
> > > day long"?
> >
> > I don't know. But why does it matter if you are
> > not disputing any of it.
>
> It matters because you cite it as a primary source of evidence for your
> hypothesis. It matters because it demonstrates that your
> "hypothesising" is a load of piss and wind that it is not worth the
> paper it has never yet been nor never will be published on.

So, let me get this straight, you're saying that my hypothesis is
invalidated because I cited something which you don't/can't dispute.
I'm going to have to scratch my head and think about this one for a
bit.

>
> >
> > > Further, how would he, or you, reconcile the latter statement with the
> > > contradictory observation that aside from humans, the most intelligent
> > > terrestrial mammals live in warm, wet equatorial rainforests surrounded
> > > by easy-to-find plants?
> >
> > If you could first convince me on the accuracy (and
> > magnitude) of your data you'd then have to do a better
> > job of convincing me of its relevance. As it exists
> > presently, your statements are too vague to represent
> > a serious challenge to my hypothesis IMO. But I
> > encourage you to strive on.
>
> [For those of you playing at home, the above is Jim-code for "I didn't
> understand a word you said Ross..."]
>
> >
> > > > > 13. "The patchiness of the remaining forested habitat which
> > > > > divided our ancestors up into "communities" between which gene flow
> > > > > (interbreeding) was greatly reduced..."
> > > >
> > > > > How do you reconcile this statement with the apparently contradictory
> > > > > assumption that the successful communities among the LCAs were able to
> > > > > expand their territories, and would then by implication tend to
> > > > > overlap those groups which you now assert they have become
> > > > > geographically isolated from?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think these assumptions (conclusions) are contradictory.
> > > > Note the distinction between communities in general and
> > > > "successful communities." Then, if you still think you see a
> > > > contradiction, rephrase the question accordingly.
> > >
> > > [For those of you playing at home, ibid...]
> > >
> > > Sigh...] The above quote suggests that the patchy forests restricted
> > > the ranges of "our ancestors", so that there was no gene flow between
> > > them & fertility barriers developed. However, you state elsewhere that:
> > >
> > > "If they did evolve along the lines that I describe, we'd expect those
> > > that were most successful to be capable of maintaining larger and
> > > larger pieces of territory."
> > >
> > > So the successful ones had larger territories. By implication, their
> > > territories expand, at the expense of their neighbours'. But in order
> > > to evolve fertility barriers, they have to be geographically isolated.
> > >
> > > This, Jim, is what's known as an inconsistency - a sub group of the
> > > logical fallacies known as non sequiturs. Look it up:
> > > http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
> >
> > You're taking general statements and trying to turn
> > them into absolutes so that you can construct a strawman
> > which you can then pretend to knock down. This approach
> > is boring.
>
> Any manner of discourse with you is boring Jim.
>
> >
> > > > > 14. "So, the selective realities of our ancestors shifted from
> > > > > those of the chimpanzee lifestyle-focussed only on being
> > > > > successful individuals and members of successful breeding groups
> > > > > (bands, extended family units)--to those of the A'pith
> > > > > lifestyle--focussed on being successful individuals and members of
> > > > > successful breeding groups AND on being members of communities that
> > > > > successfully effect the preservation of resources at their community
> > > > > sites in the face of the onslaught of multi-species inmigration to
> > > > > their community sites."
> > > >
> > > > > Please provide supporting data to show that australopithecines in fact
> > > > > did become members of these communities.
> > > >
> > > > Show me data that indicates that they didn't become members of
> > > > these communities. (If you do find any such data I will withdraw my
> > > > claims and send you a check for $10 thousand american dollars.)
> > >
> > > No Jim, that's not how it works. If you want to be taken seriously, you
> > > have to demonstrate that your "theories" are soundly based. My posted
> > > questions were intended to demonstrate that you are unable to do that,
> > > and your answers clearly demonstrate that I was right.
> >
> > Your delusional. You were unable to dispute anything
> > I stated. I'm not saying this prove me right. But
> > the best any hypothesis on HE can ever expect to do
> > is what you've displayed here, complete failure to
> > dispute it.
> >
> > > We first played this game in 1999, and then again 2 years ago when I
> > > posted those same 14 questions and you've just replied with your same
> > > 14 answers from that time. Which served to prove nothing other than
> > > that you have nothing more to contribute now than you did then, or than
> > > you did in 1998 when your lunacy first appeared on SAP.
> >
> > Mostly it demonstrates that despite the fact you had
> > all this time to find evidence that disputes my claim
> > you are unable to do anything but make the empty-headed
> > claim that I can't find evidence that proves the
> > validity of my hypothesis. This is an idiot approach
> > since we know for a fact that no hypothesis can
> > possibly achieve this end. The best we can ever hope
> > for is a hypothesis that fails all attempts to dispute
> > it--as does my hypothesis.
> >
> > >
> > > I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
> > >
> > > Jim, the null hypothesis here is that the professional paleontologists
> > > are the experts, and you're the idiot. The reverse is what you claim
> > > and the reverse is what you have to prove.
> >
> > And in so doing you demonstrate your ignorance of
> > standard scientific methods.
>
> Almost. Let me parse those 2 paragraphs into a sequitur argument:
>
> Jim, the null hypothesis here is that the professional paleontologists
> are the experts, and you're the idiot. The reverse is what you claim
> and the reverse is what you have to prove. And in not so doing you
> demonstrate your ignorance of standard scientific methods.

You're so deluded that you can't even distinguish a process that
eminates from authority from a process that eminates from evidence.

Ross, I don't know where your talents lie, but let me assure you they
do not lie with science.

Jim

.