Re: Impeccable


JAE wrote:

> I am disputing that your 'hypothesis' explains as much as you think it
> does. It is an incomplete statement that assumes aspects of human
> evolution that run counter to actual evidence

Don't you think that in light of the fact that you were unable to
actually present any of this phantom evidence that it makes you look
desperate?

> in places and elsewhere
> seems to assume evidence that is not there.. That you do not recognize
> this and continue to claim that it is impeccable and explains so much
> further puts me in dispute with your opinion of your hypothesis.

So you don't deny that you have no substantive dispute with my
hypothesis. Your dispute is impressionistic, aesthetic, or even
emotional.

> I do not believe that anything will dispell your confidence in your
> hypothesis, Jim.

I'm sure you don't. Afterall who knows better that there is no
evidence that disputes it than one that has tried to find it and
failed.

> But since you don't do anything with it but parade it
> around usenet, I don't give a rat's ass. You are irrelevant and will
> remain that way.
>
> > > that you don't express yourself
> > > clearly and that what you think you've thought through and explained
> > > you have not actually demonstrated sufficiently. I think that at some
> > > level, something in your subconscious knows this and actually trying to
> > > move through legitimate channels to publish will upset the house of
> > > cards construct of "Jim the Genius" that you've got built up in that
> > > head of yours. I think that you're a rather cowardly character if
> > > you're not going to try to publish because you think know what the
> > > reaction will be
> >
> > I do. I've known for quite some time now. It will be exactly as
> > you've
> > demonstrated. It's predicted by the hypothesis itself. Read again the
> > post (in here somewhere) where I discuss the Pandora's Box aspect
> > of this hypothesis (the same concept is mentioned in the Bible
> > [genesis] with respect to not eating the fruit of the tree of
> > knowledge).
>
>
>
>
> > > and I think that you don't have any real confidence in
> > > your ability to communicate, else you'd actively try to convince people
> > > by trying to publish, by refining your prose so it was clear.
> >
> > Yeah, like anybody's going to believe this. Nothing is stopping you
> > from
> > asking for clarification on anything I've presented.
>
> I have asked for clarification. I have asked you to explain how these
> alleged changes are passed throughout populations.

You want me to explain natural selection to you?

> It's a matter of
> population genetics. You whiffed at your answer, seemingly unclear on
> what population genetics actually entails.

Why don't you give us an example? Come come, now. Don't be an evasive
twit. Show us how the techniques of population genetics have any
relevance to the earliest years of hominid evolution. And please be
sure to point out the source of your data.

What's the problem, Jason? Your the one making the claim here. Do
some work for a change, . . . that is after youv'e finished pulling
your foot out of your mouth.


You have provided no
> mathematical model to indicate that the changes you hypothesize can
> happen. Since you were so off the mark and seemingly so clueless, I
> didn't pursue it. Since seemingly nothing makes you think that there
> are disputes, it's not worth my while. I don't think you're an
> idiot--insane perhaps, but not a moron like Crowley--but I also don't
> think you really know nearly as much about genetics as you need to to
> make the claims you're making.
>
> You don't seem to get it. It's not worth my while to bother with you
> for anything other than my amusement. You are irrelevant. You have
> decided to play a game where you simply declare your lofty intelligence
> and leave it at that, backing it only with your own claims but
> steadfastly behaving in a manner much unlike a real genius and much
> like your garden variety nut.
>
> > You have to admit, Jason, it does seem peculiar that your problems
> > with the clarity of my hypothesis emerged after it became clear that
> > you had no evidence based dispute with it.
>
> I don't have to admit that Jim, because it's not true.

It is true, you intellectually dishonest fool.


My problems
> with what you were presenting started a long, long time ago. I see
> nothing peculiar in disputing your claims of genius and your claim that
> you've solved anything. It appears that the peculiar thing is that you
> seem to think that anyone else buys into your claims and that you think
> that you're not irrelevant.

How are your tactics any different than those of Marc or Algis?

Jim

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Impeccable
    ... >>> sociobiology. ... > Typical anthropologists. ... believe it is consistent with all of the evidence. ... That's a dispute. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Conventional Evasiveness
    ... I wonder how many of the 9 specific direct questions that I put to Jim ... Why does is matter if you don't dispute it. ... interpretation of the evidence. ... So do you consider the change from Pan / Australopith LCA to A'pith to ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The Depths of Jims Genius
    ... >>> The answer is that you can't dispute it. ... For those of you playing at home, what we see here is evidence of one ... you may divine as the discussion proceeds that Jim does ... McGinnian technique for fact avoidance. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Savanna nonsense
    ... > Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> fossil record upwards of 7 million years ago. ... Anybody that looks at the evidence and concludes ... > You don't provide enough to dispute, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Thermodynamics, again
    ... that Feinman has supplied. ... In this case I'll choose the side thats got overwhelming evidence on ... control BG. ... raises the status of the dispute. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
Quantcast