Not conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- From: "rmacfarl" <rmacfarl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Nov 2005 16:53:31 -0800
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> spiznet wrote:
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > > Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > > > > The 'crazy' idea, I remind, is merely this: that our ancestors might
> > > > > have moved through water (waded, swam and dived) more than the
> > > > > ancestors of the chimpanzees since the LCA and that some selection
> > > > > resulted from it. Crazy, isn't it? What a crackpot idea!!
> > > >
> > > > I doubt if anyone disputes any part
> > > > of that 'idea'. I certainly don't.
> > >
> > > Do you doubt it? Really? I honestly think the majority here *do*
> > > dispute it - all of it.
> > >
> > > If they don't dispute it, why don't they have the honesty you have and
> > > just say so?
> > >
> > > > So, PLEASE declare victory.
> > > >
> > > > And then shut up.
> > >
> > > If Jason, Su et al conceded that, yes, our lineage might well be
> > > adapted to moving through water more than our ape cousins then I would
> > > be extremely happy to shut up about it.
>
> >
> > Come on guys, give us all a break:
> >
> > < > Jason
> >
> > < > Su
> >
> > < > Jois
> >
> > < > RMacF
> >
> > < /> Paul
> >
> > < /> Spiznet
> >
> > OK, here is Algis, swearing on a stack of water-logged copies of
> > Descent of Woman that he will "shut up" about his take on the aquatic
> > aper religion if we merely confess that humans are a "little more
> > adapted to water movement" than chimpies!!!
> >
> > How can we resist!! No more endless whining!! sneer sneer
>
> So can I take that as a concession from you Spiznet?
>
> Here's the question again:
>
> Q: Do you concede that the idea that moving (wading, swimming, diving)
> through water has acted as an agency of selection in the human lineage
> more than the lineage of chimpanzees since the LCA is a plausible one?
>
> A: Yes or no.
Do I "concede" that the idea is plausible? Yes. Have I done so before?
Yes. Does that mean I'm conceding to "a mild form of the AAH"? Not the
way I see it. Is that what you are presenting as an idea? No. Do I
think that even if I did make an unqualified yes to your question
above, that that would really make you go away and stop trying to
wheedle us further into your squishy-toed cult? Oh, I so wish I could
believe that, but the answer is no. Could I hope that you would read
the first four sentences of this paragraph again, and then read my sig
line below and understand it? No, I realistically envisage no prospect
that you will...
Ross Macfarlane
I have said it before, and I will say it again: the best argument I've
yet seen for why the AAH must be wrong is the quality of the arguments
made by those who believe it is right.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Not conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- From: Algis Kuliukas
- Re: Not conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- References:
- Finally conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- From: Algis Kuliukas
- Finally conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- Prev by Date: Re: Eating insects, not meat...
- Next by Date: Re: Eating insects, not meat...
- Previous by thread: Finally conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- Next by thread: Re: Not conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
