Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths

JAE wrote:

> Since your 'hypothesis' isn't in any state such that it can be
> critically reviewed because you've steadfastly refused to organize
> whatever thoughts you have, what's left is to dispute some of the
> claims you've made. You've made the claim that a hunter-gatherer
> lifestyle is something new.

Yes. Or, at best it is so vague as to be meaningless (untestable
against the evidence).

> I dispute this because abundant
> archaeological evidence suggests otherwise.

I would have thought it obvious to you by now that I'm not the kind of
person to take anybody's word on something like this. If you are aware
of such evidence then you should refer to it specifically.

> You've made the claim that
> agriculture is ocnsiderably older than what is more generally accepted.

Yes, in a sense.

> I dispute this because there's abundant evidence from archaeological
> and genetic evidence suggesting that your position is false.

If you are aware of such evidence then you should refer to it
specifically.

> I dispute
> that you've made a defintion of 'communal territorialism' that has
> meaning to anyone other than yourself.

Well, if it's just a definitional thing that seems like a minor issue.
Maybe if you were to address it specifically I could see if there was
some alternate way of defining/describing it that will make more sense
to you.

> I dispute your errant claims
> that genetic drift is false as there's abundant empirical and
> theoretical data indicating that it is a mechanism of evolutionary
> change.

Generally disputes about genetic drift don't pivot off discrepancies
about data. Instead they tend to pivot off discrepancies in how to
correctly characterize causal processes in evolutionary theory.

> I dispute your claim that we essentially evolved from chimps,
> their lineage remaining virtually unmodified from whatever date
> speciation began.

See a thread entitled, "Eight," on this NG.

> I dispute that you've done more than wildly
> speculate that hominid speciation occurred at 8.1mya as you've not even
> been able to provide primary reference to paleo-climatological data.

The references I provided seemed rather primary to me. If you are
aware of evidence that disputes it specifically then you should feel
free to present it here in this NG.

> I dispute that you've demonstrated that a group selection model better
> explains the biological changes in hominid lineages and dispute that
> you've in any way addressed how individuals in a group who do not
> possess whatever genetic differences favor whatever changes you see
> occurring would not similarly benefit such that their older genes were
> not similarly reproduced.

I find that most of the time when people 'dispute' group selection it's
not because they have any specific dispute it's because they are
confused about it. I've also found that it is very difficult to help
people with their 'disputes' of group selection because they
themselves, it seems, are often unable to effectively describe why they
dispute it.

> I will continue to dispute these things until you make some real
> strives to clear these things up, but as to date, you've not done so.

I think this is because your disputes seem less like disputes to me and
more like general complaints. And I find general complaints to be just
about impossible to address since, very often, they pivot off some
obscure discrepancy in the complaintants understanding of how to
characterize evolutionary cause and effect.

> You've not even tried to organize these into anything coherant and seem
> content to leave your half-baked, unsubstantiated assertions as a
> hodgepodge of your posts over several years rather than actually making
> any attempt at all at putting them into a form accessible to anyone
> other than the mentally ill.

It's unfortunate you feel this way. Evolutionary theory is a
deceptively difficult topic. (Many people, mistakenly IMO, think it is
simple.)

I hope this helps,

Regards,

Jim McGinn
World's Greatest Evolutionary Theorist

.

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)
Loading