Seven


"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wxvlf.23739$BZ5.22679@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Philip Deitiker" <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:oCtlf.237483$zb5.112910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In sci.anthropology.paleo message
>> news:1133925372.481912.40490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx by "Jim
>> McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :
>>
>>>
>>> Tom McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or I'll have to get all deitiker up in your asses. :-)
>>>
>>> Too late for that.
>>>
>>> The best policy is that if you're asked to pick something up
>>> don't bend but crouch. And whatever you do don't turn your back
>>> on him.
>>
>> If you would stop bending over to put your head up your ass,
>> I would stop kicking you in both. Jimbo you give advice to others
>> to bad you don't have any advice for yourself, for instance in
>> the clue getting catagory.
>>
>> "
>> Why don't you point out to the audience here, you fool, what
>> statement I made that you think requires a reference.

One

>> "
>>
>> "
>>>> 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.
>> "
>>
>> Reference, Inger? Object 1.
>>
>> "
>>> I do not believe you to know what the hell you're actually
>>> talking about Jim,
>>
>> I know you know nothing about genetic drift because you've proven
>> yourself incapable of discussing it directly. "
>>
>> [i.e. it has been discussed with you directly and you refuse to
>> admit it exists or impacts molecular evolution, would you like to
>> see all the posts?
>
> I'd absolutely love to. Just like the old days. (But then again, Phil.
> You remember how things turned out. I can't promise you that the outcome
> won't be the same. If you'd prefer to wait until after you've had a
> chance
> to discuss it with your therapist, well, I have no problem with that.)
>
>> Second your arguing with someone who has
>> published papers in molecular evolution and you have posted how
>> many? 0]
>
> Well, AFAICT, we aren't arguing. Not yet anyways. And I want you to know
> that if and when we do start arguing that you'll be arguing with somebody
> who considers himself second to none on the topic of genetic drift. So
> don't pull any punches.
>
>>
>>
>> Question: What's the difference between 0 and the number of peer
>> reviewed primary literature papers Jim has used to construct his
>> manifesto?
>> Answer: Expect excuses.
>
> You, kind sir, are correct. I am not published in the peer review
> literature.
>
>>
>>
>> How wonderfully childish of you.
>>
>> "
>>>> 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.
>> "
>>
>> Reference for you definition of group selection? Object 2, and
>> specifically with regard to hominoids.
>
> I think you're getting in way over your head, Phil. You just committed,
> above, to discussing genetic drift. And now you want to discuss group
> selection also?

Two

I know it's the holiday season and all, but aren't you
> loading your plate kind of high? Again, if you'd prefer to wait until
> after you've had a chance to discuss it with your therapist, well, you
> know.
>
>>
>> "
>>>> 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.
>> "
>>
>> OK, so let see some of the primary literature references from the
>> peer review feild specific journals that you are using for support
>> of your beleifs.
>
> I'll make it easy on you. I'm in agreement with all of the data
> associated
> with the current paradigm. I'm mostly, if not completely, in disagreement
> with the theoretical aspects of how this data is interpreted. If you want
> a
> response that is more specific then please make your question more
> specific.

Three

> Or, if you'd prefer, you could forget all that and tell us more about your
> pygmy boat building theory of early hominid evolution.
>
>>
>> "
>> It's a stupid argument based on intentional ignorance. Humans
>> evolved from chimps. Get used to it.
>> "
>>
>> Obviously you have a peer reviewed primary literature reference
>> for this. Object 3
>
> Are you disputing it? Why? References? Yes? No?

Four

>
> Surely you're not suggesting that A'pith descended from pygmies are you?
>
>>
>> "
>> No. They seem to be a problem for you. You said you had problems
>> with my definition of communal territorialism. I gave you an
>> opportunity to present a specific dispute about this definition.
>> You refused and, as usual, began whining.
>> "
>>
>> Precedential reference for the use of communal territorialism.
>
> It's all mine, yeah baby!
>
> Object
>> 4
>>
>> "
>> Another problem is that the group selective aspects of Goodall's
>> observations are very weak. There's not a lot keeping any member
>> of either troop from just running away and avoiding the conflict
>> altogether. In my scenario the groups selective aspects are
>> inescapable because of the geographic factors discussed therin
>> (patchiness of remaining forest habitat surrounded by predators).
>> In fact if you read Goodall's work very carefully you'll see all
>> kinds of evidence that group integrity is temporary and lacking in
>> distinctness. This is not the case in my scenario.
>> "
>>
>> Reference?
>
> All mine! I accept whatever blame and/or credit for this comment.
>
>
> Object #5
>>
>> "
>> Another thing lacking in Goodall's observations (I could go on and
>> on) in comparison to my scenario is any kind of selective benefit
>> for economic consciousness. Humans are conscious of the economic
>> factors (abundance, scarcity) in their surrounding and work
>> cooperatively with others to improve these conditions.
>> "
>>
>> Reference?
>
> That's three in a row. Yeah baby!
>
> Object #6
>>
>> "
>> "like the Mt Toba volcanoe at about 70 kya which is
>> believed to have caused extinction of many hominid groups.
>> "
>>
>> Reference?
>
> I have no specific references for this. You might try querying Val Lentz
> on
> this. Or even better research (Google Groups search engine) our
> discussion
> on this topic which took place here in SAP. Are you saying there was not
> a
> significant amount of hominid death associated with this geologic event?

Five

> (Anybody want to bet Phil refuses to provide a direct answer this last
> question?)
>
> Object #7
>>
>> "
>> "
>> So if you want to make the case that the evidence of recent
>> domestication in particular and/or the other evidence surrounding
>> what has been labelled, "The Agricultural Revolution," in general
>> amounts to a dispute of my model that takes place millions of years
>> beforehand (and which makes no claims regarding domestication) then
>> you will have to step us through the argument as to how and why.
>> "
>>
>> Reference to an early domestication of anything relative to 8 million
>> years?
>
> Read my statement above, Einstein, and you can answer this question
> yourself.
>
> Object #8
>>
>> OK so I expect you have primary literature references for all the
>> conclusive statements you made.
>
> Well, Phil, it appears that, once again, your expectations have mislead
> you.
>
>>
>> Object #1
>> Object #2
>> Object #3
>> Object #4
>> Object #5
>> Object #6
>> Object #7
>> Object #8
>>
>> Since Spiznet is so much enjoying these battles I expect he will keep
>> me informed with a new thread everytime you provide the reference
>> which supports your claim. What I an now going to do is start an
>> excuse list, everytime you use an excuse for not providing a
>> reference its going to start a new thread. You can google excuse and
>> sci.archaeology to see how it works. When you you reach 100 you get
>> the honorary Inger E. Johansson degree in excusology from Linchpin
>> University.
>> <plonk>
>>
>
> Okidoke. While we're on the topic, what's your excuse for not having a
> hypothesis of early hominid evolution (this assumes you're not still on
> board [no pun intended] with your pygmy boat builders)?

Six

And last but not
> least (if you didn't see it coming you shoulda) what's your excuse for
> having no evidence based dispute with my Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis?

Seven

>
> Jim
>
>


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast