Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths


JAE wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > 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.
>
> A curious request from someone who has, to the best of my knowledge,
> never cited a single source in support of his views. There's a wealth
> of data surrounding hunter-gatherer studies.

For early hominids?

I would suggest beginning
> with 'Hunter-gatherer foraging strategies: Ethnographic and
> archeological analyses (Prehistoric archeology and ecology)' editted by
> Winterhalder and Smith and the many references within.

Be specific.

>
> > > You've made the claim that
> > > agriculture is ocnsiderably older than what is more generally accepted.
> >
> > Yes, in a sense.
>
> And with no qualification at all, you've also not supported this claim
> with anything other than your assertion.

And you're not disputing it with anything other than your assertion.

Considering that there's no
> archaeological record of domesticates prior to about 10kybp at which
> point domesticated crops and animals do appear and are easily
> identifiable,, considering that the degree of molecular variation in
> domesticates similarly supports recent development, it's upon you, the
> guy making the abberant claim, to provide support for your abberation.
> You've yet to do so.

Wouldn't your claim to the contrary also be considered abberant,
according to your definition, in that you just admitted it is based on
lack of evidence.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Again, you've blown up my irony-o-meter, you putz. You don't appear to
> ever reference evidence specifically, but "The Domestication and
> Exploitation of Plants and Animals" is again a good starting point,
> similarly with many references to primary studies on the subject. I
> suggest you familiarize yourself with such work rather than speaking
> out of your sphincter like you appear prone to doing.

I'm willing to address any specific complaint you have regardless of
what orifice you employ to convey it.

>
> > > 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.
>
> "Definitional things" seem to be a major problem of yours. You've got
> this notion that you use without defintion that you claim supports
> something that you may or may not have included in a hypothesis that
> isn't really a hypothesis but some idea assembled in a number of your
> postings over the course of many years. It's not my job to address
> specifically where you've been a majestic failure, Jim. It's your job
> as a proponent of the idea to make yourself clear. You seem unwilling
> and/or unable to do so. Consequently, you're merely an irrelevant
> nutcase on usenet who can be marginally fun to tease because you become
> unglued so easily.

You can't say I didn't offer.

>
>
> > > 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 do not believe you to know what the hell you're actually talking
> about Jim, but you've been ranting for years about drift not existing
> and your arguments are weaker than the 49er's passing offense this
> year. Drift is a cause of molecular evolution. This can be
> demonstrated mathematically and empirically. You appear to redefine
> "cause" shortly after anyone mentions this to you. Since you don't
> appear to be able to use terminology in ways that other people do, you
> have no ability to communicate. This, again, is your own loss unless
> you're actually happy to remain irrelevant. Apparently, you're happy
> about your irrelevance because you actively pursue this status with
> your behavior.

You can't get better at evolutionary theory unless you are willing to
address it's issues directly and honestly.

>
>
> > > 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 did. The dispute still stands.

See my statement above.

>
> > > 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.
>
> For starters, It's rare or nonexistant that you actually DO reference
> literature and when you do, it's not primary literature, but web pages.
> Perhaps you feel it appropriate to redefine "primary" much like you
> have redefined other things in uniquely McGinnian ways, but for those
> of us who, unlike you, are not insane, it's not helpful. I don't have
> to provide evidence to dispute what you've supported only with your
> assertion, Jim. Your assertion alone doesn't warrant any dispute at
> all. It can merely be ignored because it's not relevant that a usenet
> nutcase so clearly off his meds like you makes a claim.

It seems to me that all your arguments add up to one big excuse for
vagueness.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Your general 'findings' here don't interest me.

That's unfortunate.

Specific explanations
> on how your poorly detailed 'group selection' somehow better explains
> the change in populations that is organic evolution does interest me,
> but you don't appear equipped to address it. You're not addressing it
> here certainly. Again, I dispute that you've in any way addressed how
> individuals in agroup who do not possess whatever genetic differences
> favor whatever changes you see occurring would not similarly benefit
> such that their older genes wer not similarly reproduced. It does not
> appear that you're using a definition of evolution that is in line with
> that definition used by other peoples. Your inability to use common
> definitions hinders you, Jim.

Common definitions tend to be vague. All in all it seems to me that
your argument here has more to do with an emotional attachment to
vagueness than it does anything I'm saying. This is not something that
I can help you with, sorry.

>
> > > 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.
>
> And here you redefine "dispute." If you would simply not redefine
> terms that have meaning to a larger group, perhaps you would not find
> this to be a general complaint and realize that there are specific
> issues that you've failed to address. Of course, to do this you'd have
> to return to heavier medication and I suspect that years of being
> undermedicated have left you unable to tell the difference between when
> you are making sense (mostly never) and when you aren't.
>
> > > 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.)
>
> It's not unfortunate for me. It's unfortunate for you UNLESS you want
> to be an irrelevant kook who lives to be ridiculed as a madman. This is
> what many regard you as, Jim, and your ideas have exactly zero
> penetrance into real science as a consequence of your behavior and
> tactics.

Well, then, it does seem we are at an impasse then doesn't it.

Jim

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Beyond the Savanna Mentality
    ... >>> No, Jim, I could and did dispute your claim. ... discovering the situational factors of early hominid evolution. ... I'm the one with a hypothesis that you cannot dispute. ... > population genetics change, you have not demonstrated that your ...
    (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: Crowleys Galapagosian Fantasmagorical Notion
    ...  Do you dispute my assertion that A'piths were heavily ... competitor species' -- except other ... idiotic notion that has nothing to do with biological evolution. ... Paul is immune to evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Beyond the Savanna Mentality
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> No, Jim, I could and did dispute your claim. ... That is the definition of organic evolution that biologists today use. ... >> exceptionally difficult to reconcile with group selection models). ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)