Re: Savanna nonsense


Jim McGinn wrote:
> mclark wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > So you have your own private definition
> > > > of 'tropical'. It would help communication
> > > > if you made that clear at the start. Please
> > > > set out your definition. Or does it change
> > > > every time you use the word?
> > >
> > > You're the idiot to make climatic assumptions based on location alone.
> >
> > Isn't that sweet? Jimmy and Pauly hard
> > at work nailing down another sweeping
> > anthropological insight. You go guys!
> > How come you're hangin' around SAP these
> > days, Jimmy? Get run out of SBE again?
>
> Hey Mikey,
>
> Question: I base my hypothesis on early hominid lifestyle
> on both fossil and extant evidence. On what do you base
> your hypothesis? Oh, that's right. You don't have a
> hypothesis. So what's the deal here, Mikey? Surely you
> notice that hominids are different than apes? Surely you
> realize that these differences begin to show up in the
> fossil record upwards of 7 million years ago.

What 7million year old fossils are you referring to?

> It seems
> strange that you spend all this time in this NG and the
> only thing definitive that you are willing to say about
> all of this is that it didn't involve an aquatic phase
> and anybody who thinks it did is an idiot. And with this
> I agree. Anybody that looks at the evidence and concludes
> that aquaticism is the solution is an ignoramus. But I
> think this falls under the category of pointing out the
> obvious.
>
> Do you think any contribution of yours to this NG doesn't
> fall under the category of pointing out the obvious?
> Show us.
>
> What kind of conclusion do you think people should draw
> from the fact that yourself, Jason, MacF, Jim Moore, and
> all the rest are unable to dispute even one word of my
> hypothesis?

You don't provide enough to dispute, Jimbo. What 7million year old
fossils are you referencing?

And again, when you claim that hunter-gatherers are a recent phenomena,
what do you presume existed prior?

Honestly, your claim that no one can 'dispute' your hypothesis is
hollow if you don't make this explicit. Trying to put together
something coherant enough to publish would be a start, but honestly,
since you don't really appear to take your own work seriously enough to
make it coherant, I don're take "disputing" it seriously.

> Surely if it was mistaken you'd be able to
> find something. Don't you think?

Why, again, should anyone care when you treat your own ideas so
haphazzardly?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Savanna nonsense
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... What 7 million year old fossil are you referring ... Anybody that looks at the evidence and concludes ... >> You don't provide enough to dispute, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Jasons Dilemma
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... delusional-schmuck, er uh, Jimmy. ... complete enough to dispute in full form or to really bother with at ... but the fractions that squeak through in your various diatribes ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: savanna nonsense (Re: Morphological evidence of marine adaptations in human kidneys
    ... Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> Mario Petrinovich wrote: ... >>> just a little less stupid than an idiot to figure out that there is no God. ... Publishing ideas and research is ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Impeccable
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> not the genius that you claim to be. ... > up my solution to human evolution as evidence that supports this ... It would seem, then, that the best way to dispute my, to use ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Why You May Never Comprehend Human Evolution
    ... > Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> dog whether he thinks your car needs a tune-up. ... inability to dispute it. ... detailed hypothesis that I presented. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading