Re: Not conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- From: "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Nov 2005 00:37:35 -0800
rmacfarl wrote:
> 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.
(line 1)
Good. That's good enough for me. All I need now is a few more and I'm
out of here!
> Have I done so before? Yes.
(line 2)
Yes you have. That's why I think you are one of the more open minded
people here, Ross.
> Does that mean I'm conceding to "a mild form of the AAH"? Not the
> way I see it.
(line 3)
Fair enough. I don't expect anyone to be 'converted'. I just want a
recognition that, as phrased there, it's a plausible proposition,
that's all.
> Is that what you are presenting as an idea? No.
(line 4)
Well, actually, yes it is.
> 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.
Oh dear. And we were doing so well. Why did you have to throw that in,
Ross? See, this is my problem with you guys. You just have to add a
little ad hominem in there, don't you? Just in case your peers thought
you might be getting soft on the dreaded "AAR", right? Just can't be
thought of as being in any way 'wet', can we?
Look. Here it is in black and white: I promise to never comment again
on anything related to the AAH on this newsgroup until my PhD thesis
has passed (which may, of course, be never!) as long as a few of you
guys can bring yourself to admit all I have been arguing for (in the
form of words above) is plausible, how about that?
Come on, chaps, it's got to be worth it, hasn't it?
If you're sick of seeing my posts, imagine how sick I am of having to
keep writing them.
> 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...
I'm happy with the first three lines. I disagree with the fourth and
the fifth is just a slur. I do understand your sig, Ross. I almost
agree with the point you're making with it. I agree that many of the
pro-AAH arguments are poor and always have been. But... well, never
mind.
So, anyway, you're response is good enough for me. Two (or is it three,
Spiznet?) down, five (can I please include my favourite opponent here
Michael Clark, why did you exclude him Spiznet?) to go.
Algis Kuliukas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Not conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- From: rmacfarl
- Re: Not conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- References:
- Finally conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- From: Algis Kuliukas
- Not conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- From: rmacfarl
- Finally conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- Prev by Date: Re: The Goldilocks AAT Theory Re: Gorrillas use tools, too
- Next by Date: Re: Finally conceding on a mild form of the AAH
- Previous by thread: Not 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
|
