Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths


JAE wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Why don't you try reading and find out.

So despite the fact that you are unable to dispute any aspect of my
hypothesis I'm supposed to take your word for it that somewhere in this
book there's information that will refute my hypothesis. Yeah, right.
Like I haven't heard that toothless assertion a hundred times on this
NG.

> I realize that actually doing
> some research in the primary literature is against your general
> tendencies, but it might make you into less of a joke. For a world
> class evolutionary theorist, you're really something of a bumbling
> ignorant dunce.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Hmmm. You're never EVER specific yet you demand that I summarize a
> book that takes several hundred pages to summarize a field?!

If it requires you to summarize a field in order to make a point maybe
you should consider the possibility that you really don't have a point.

> No, Jim.
> Why don't you actually read something. As it stands, you're nothing
> but a joke. Not a particularly funny one, but a joke nonetheless.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> That, Jim, is false. There's a wealth of published research on
> domestication. It's not my assertion.

Once again, despite the fact that you are unable to dispute any aspect
of my hypothesis I'm supposed to take your word for it that somewhere
in this unspecified "wealth of published research on domestication,"
there is information that will dispute my hypothesis. I don't know
what to tell you, Jason. You gotta admit that it does seem funny that
you are unable to reference anything specific. Dontcha think?

> > > 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.
>
> There's evidence for a sudden appearance in the archaeological record.
> There's a deep and rich archaeological record before that indicates
> very different subsistance patterns. There's molecular evidence in
> support of the archaeological interpretation. This isn't based on a
> lack of evidence, Jim, but abundant evidence that many humans lived for
> a long, long time without agriculture and domesticates. It's your
> claim that this is somehow not true that lacks evidence, Jim.

But you are unwilling to discuss any of it specifically. Right?

>
> > > > > 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.
>
> The specific complaint is that you're denying evidence of recent
> domestication of plants and animals when there's solid evidence that
> it's recent. Since you don't appear to be familiar with the literature
> and don't actually appear to familiar with ANY literature in the field
> or related fields, I don't feel in any way compelled to be more
> specific.

And I'm not interested in a conversation limited to the vague
terminology of the current anthropological paradigm, so I guess we will
have to agree to disagree.

> You haven't addressed any complaint specific or otherwise in
> the past. Why should I believe you're somehow different now? Did you
> start taking those pills the doc gave you?
>
> [snip]
>
> > You can't get better at evolutionary theory unless you are willing to
> > address it's issues directly and honestly.
>
> Fuckin' A, Jim. These irony-o-meters don't grow on trees. If you're
> going to continue to say such moronically stupid things, I really will
> have to send you the repair bill next time.
>
> [snip]
>
> > It seems to me that all your arguments add up to one big excuse for
> > vagueness.
>
> And since you're crazy and don't make any sense yourself, your opinion
> will be noted and disregarded as the babblings of an undermedicated nut
> who really ought to thank his lucky stars that deficient as it may be,
> there's a support mechanism that allows basketcases like himself who
> cannot function in the real world but instead find themselves in a
> delusional reality far apart from the one the rest of the world
> inhabits.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Well, then, it does seem we are at an impasse then doesn't it.
>
> Until you actually take those pills you had prescribed around the time
> you were deemed unable to work and support yourself, yes.

.