Re: Savanna hominids
- From: vincent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (pete)
- Date: 1 Jun 2006 23:44:22 GMT
on 31 May 2006 21:19:30 -0700, Lee Olsen <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> sez:
` pete wrote:
` > on 30 May 2006 21:30:49 -0700, Lee Olsen <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> sez:
` > ` pete wrote:
` > ` > on 29 May 2006 11:04:17 -0700, Lee Olsen <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> sez:
` > ` >
` > ` > ` Day Brown wrote:
` > ` > ` >
` > ` > ` > The polyunsaturated fats of sea life, the Omega 3, Omega 6,
` > ` > ` > DHA, and the minerals from Kelp would have dramatically
` > ` > ` > improved the diet from the standpoint of mental development.
` > ` >
` > ` > ` If that were the case, starfish (as they also eat a brain-improving
` > ` > ` shellfish diet) should be smarter than chimps.
` > ` >
` > ` > Cute but silly comment. Despite your biases,
` >
` > ` Biases? You made the accusation, why don't you spell out just exactly
` > ` what you think those biases might be. And don't forget to include the
` > ` volume number where I can find your counter evidence.
` >
` > You can reread that plainly hostile, stupid and baiting remark,
` Pete-"Cute but silly comment. Despite your biases,"
` Yes, try re-reading your vicious, unprovoked attack on me again.
You are still seriously confused. A remark is not a person. Calling
a remark "silly" is not ad hominem. When the remark is silly, it
is in fact a simple statement of fact. Comparing the nervous system
development of a starfish to a mammal in what was apparently supposed
to be a discussion with at least some sort of scientific pretention
could be called much worse; silly is a charitable description, suggesting
the intent was whimsy.
` Who do
` think you are, other than one arrogant smart-ass? The use of the word
` "silly" in itself is nothing more than an ad hominem attack
Wrong.
` and
` > say that it does not reveal any bias?
"Starfish should be smarter than chimps" shows no bias. I see. Interesting
logic in the world you inhabit.
` Did I call any of your comments "silly" before your vicious attack
` on me and the intelligence of my kids?
I think you must have a persecution complex. Nowhere have I assumed that
you even have any kids. And if I made a silly comment, I would be quite
happy to have it recognized. Crafting good silliness is quite an art.
You should spend some time getting acquainted with Monty Python.
` You appear to have lost all
` > perspective.
` You appear to have lost all honesty, assuming you had any in the first
` place.
I have to say, I don't have much respect for your ability to make
such assessments; you're quite wrong in this instance, anyway.
` Perhaps you should take a rest for a few days, and
` > come back to posting when you've rediscovered your centre.
` Perhaps you ought to stop inciting flame wars and take a rest from this
` list permanently.
The incitement started in your own mind. I may be guilty of poking
you with a stick, now, but you're such an easy target it's getting
quite hard to resist.
` >
` > ` and independent of whether
` > ` > hominins spent their time on the beaches, more omega 3 oils in the
` > ` > diet dramatically improve the quality of neural development in
` > ` > young humans. If you want smart children, you will make use of this
` > ` > information.
` >
` > ` Obviously from the content of your reply you certainly didn't get
` > ` enough omega 3 as a child.
` >
` > Ah, now we leap immediately to ad hominem.
` Pete..."Cute but silly comment. Despite your biases," next you
` attack the intelligence of my kids.
` Yes, tell us all about leaps, Two Face....
Well, this is beginning to get just painful. I have no idea if you're
a teenager or a grandparent, but that doesn't change the fact that
omega-3 oils are good for childhood mental development, and if you
have children in your future, it's good information to know.
` This is quite sad,
` > really. You're the only one in this exchange who sounds
` > developmentally impaired. Lots of noise, no consideration for the
` > facts at hand, too busy concentrating on your emotional attack on
` > the position you don't like, and topped off with willful ignorance.
` ...so says Two Face, who makes unprovoked attacks full of nothing but
` lip service.
` >
` > ` You fight fire with fire. Assuming kelp was
` > ` leading the evidence by Brown, and chimps were getting enough of what
` > ` ever it takes to get smarter than a starfish with out eating a seafood
` > ` diet. If that isn't clear enough for you, go eat some nuts.
` >
` > I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did kelp come from?
` > Nevermind.
` Never mind that you can't read?
` Day Brown: "The polyunsaturated fats of sea life, the Omega 3, Omega
` 6, DHA, and the minerals from Kelp would have dramatically improved
` the diet from the standpoint of mental development."
Oh, OK, I didn't notice that line. No big deal (I did say "nevermind",
afterall). Anyway, given that, I still can't parse what you were
trying to express with that paragraph.
` > How about you just stick to respecting logic and facts. You might
` > easily have the more defensible position, if you bother to argue
` > it using only valid points, rather than the rhetorical nonsense
` > you've put out recently.
` Try it yourself sometime, Two Face...
OK. This is how it's done: here is a good argument against a long
history of seaside habitat for out hominin ancestors. It's not
bulletproof, but it is pretty good, particularly as it makes use of
many of the same sort of techniques that shoreline advocates use.
To criticize it, they must criticize their own methods.
This takes a little while, it needs a bit of back story. First, consider
that modern humans possess several instinctive phobias. There are
people who do not experience them, for whatever reason, and these
people are often vocal in decrying the notion of the instinctive
nature of these phobias as fictitious, but for the majority of the
population, who have experienced them, the validity of their existence,
and their unlearned and fully featured manifestation is not in
doubt. Two nice examples are fear of heights and fear of snakes.
With fear of heights - vertigo - it can manifest so severely that
the subject is described as having symptoms "on a thick carpet".
What is interesting about this is that it would be fatally
debilitating for a creature which lived in trees. On the other
hand, for an animal which had grown in size to the point where
tree climbing was hazardous, it is net beneficial. Now, current
estimates have us leaving the trees somewhere 7 to 9 Mya. By
6Mya we are pretty clearly on the ground, at 12-14Mya best-guess
ancestors are fully arboreal. Thus, we can reasonable conclude
this phobia took less than 7My to develop to its current degree.
Now consider the fear of snakes. If you have it, you know that
it is triggered by the sight of snake-shaped objects moving
with the characteristic snaky slither on the ground; ie it
would seem to be something aimed at provoking avoidance behaviour
in a ground dwelling animal. Thus, we might reasonably suppose
that this phobia developed to its current state only during
our ground-dwelling period.
OK. These points can be argued, but seem on the whole not
unreasonable. Now, consider this. There exists on the floor of the
Indian Ocean a mollusc of the "cone shell" family, usually 5-8cm
length, brightly coloured in red and white stripes, with a shiny
polished surface. It is widely distributed, has been around for a
very long time, and is often found on the shoreline, and in shallow
water. It is quite attractive, and is a favourite object of shell
collectors. It is also a severe hazard. It is not easy to tell if a
shell you meet on the beach is alive or dead. The live ones have a
particularly nasty defence reflex. They have a spear mounted on the
end of a flexible extension, which can shoot out from under the
shell at lightning speed, reaching anywhere around the shell, to
inject poison into anything it encounters. The poison is extremely
toxic.
What is of interest for us is that when people, particularly young
children, see these shells, they find the bright colours fascinating,
and will go right up to them and try to pick them up, if they aren't
restrained. The sting is likely fatal to a small child. If our
ancestors spent several million years living mainly on the east
african beaches, they should have developed a phobia of these
shells, to ensure a low child mortality rate, or at the very least
a diminishment of the strong attraction that chidren show.
Well, I don't have time to say more today, and I rather think that
as the responses I'm getting are only getting more shrill and
unconsidered, that I will leave off this conversation. The temptation
to poke further with a stick is too great, and won't so either of
us any good. I just hope you can rediscover some serenity and
perspective.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Savanna hominids
- From: richardparker01
- Re: Savanna hominids
- From: Paul Crowley
- Re: Savanna hominids
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: Savanna hominids
- References:
- Re: Savanna hominids
- From: pete
- Re: Savanna hominids
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: Savanna hominids
- Prev by Date: Re: Tidal pool savanna hominids?
- Next by Date: Re: Tidal pool savanna hominids?
- Previous by thread: Re: Savanna hominids
- Next by thread: Re: Savanna hominids
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
