Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


I think your assertion would be more convincing if it was based on

content and not propaganda. If what you're saying is true (and you
know it isn't) then it only stands to reason that you can quote me
directly. How many times to I have to make this request? (If you were
a real scientist I would never have to make this request.)

Is there someone here who cares what you think is convincing? You are
more delusional than I first thought. You are an entertainer, nothing
more. As a hypothetical therorist you are about the level of the
Flintstones.

Maybe you need to find a nonintellectual hobby.



From then on you make a continuous barrage of ad
hominem attacks and circular arguments,

Quote me directly you evasive twit.

Ad hominem attacks. "Twit"? ROTFL


everyone else is a dimwit until
you get caught in a "saber-tooth cat" or McGinn: "IOW, it makes about
as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo, neanderdudes,
and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and guns) in treeless
savanna habitat..." BS. So then guns and jeeps become another "
pointless diversion." No, not pointless in the sense that it proves you
did not know what you are talking about in the first place. Too many of
these, a point which you surpassed years ago, and they aren't going to
waste the time discussing anything with an illiterate.

Why not quote the substantive aspects of my conversations at PalAnt,
then you won't have to base your assertion on propaganda?

Go ahead, Lee. Make my day.

Why, I've seen enough right here to know you are loon.
And yes, I will "Quote <you> directly"



"Saber-tooth lions"
"There is no such thing as negative evidence retard."
"IOW, it makes about as much sense to emplace human ancestors,
including homo, neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent
of jeeps and guns) in treeless savanna habitat..."
"Homo rarely if ever left treed habitat."



If you include the context it is apparent that these comments were
their excuses for why they couldn't answer difficult questions. Post
the conversations that lead up to those dimwitted comments. Then
you'll see what really took place at that idiotfest Palant.

That has nothing to do with the fact that you have made it clear that
your are ignorant of the literature, this makes any hypothetical
thinking from you based on ignorance---- therefore worthless.

IOW, you aren't interested in discussing the substantive aspects of
those conversations. Right? Why do you wish to avoid the substantive
aspects of those conversations? What are you trying to hide (like it's
not obvious).

Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21A99@xxxxxxxxxxx>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo: " It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you
to continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data."

Dan Barnes: "..a number of people have suggested that the best thing
you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and come back
again."

Greg Laden: "Read the stuff. If you have a vague memory
of it, that is not good enough." "Hit the books, kid!"

Su Solomon: "I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four
hundred words of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time,
then if is not evident in this latest of postings."

I can understand why you would want to claim this isn't substantive.

I expected that you thought this. I just didn't expect you to be so
naively honest about revealing it to the world. There is nothing even
remotely substantive about these quotes. Did you read them before you
posted them?

I'd want to sweep it under the rug too if I were you. How embarrassing
for you.

For me? How do you figure? Did you actually read the thread?

I didn't. Slow doesn't mean you will get caught, getting ambused you
will, so stay out of areas where you will get ambushed. That didn't
work for leopards because they can go right up in the tree after you,
and at night, especially, you are duck soup. This is the most
parsimonious reason for all the apiths bones in the caves since leopard
tooth marks match holes in a few apiths skulls. They don't match
saber-tooth cat teeth.

References?

CK Brain (1983)

This is good. But, as I stated previously, I think we need a more
comprehensive analysis on this issue. Until then, if ever, I see no
reason to jump to any conclusions.

You, as a student with the equivelent of a 4th-grade education, are in
no position to challege CK Brain. You challenge him with counter data,
not lip service, that's how science works. Of course how you work, data
is not a problem to be concerned with.

So, you're saying we should ignore the data and take CK's word for it?
I'm not impressed by arguments based on authority.



As we discussed, I'm not convinced the evidence can be interpreted so
simply as you seem to indicate here. Late miocene ecology--which we
know by way of faunal assemblages reconstructed based on fossil
evidence--was distinctive. This was not only pre-ice age but it was in
the miocene. Different climate, different environment. Different
migratory patterns (more local). There's no reason to jump at the
conclusion that these were leopards or leopard like cats. It's best to
do some kind of quantitative analysis of the evidence and let the
result thereof dictate our conclusions.

Nothing different about your thinking, it never changes. "saber-toothed
lions.....guns and jeeps"

Shut up, retard. I retracted this statement. (And you know I have.)
The only thing that hasn't changed is your desperation.

Yes and I acknowledge that fact completely, you did indeed retract
those statements. The issue is how illiterate you are to be making
profound theories when......

Niccolo Caldararo: "It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data."

Your posts are more like train wrecks than factually based data.


All? Boy, you just read right past anything you don't want to know
about don't you? No, quite the contray, Pleistocene Homo was getting to
the fully-fleshed large carcusses and keeping them long enough to get
them butchered. This has been proven at countless sites in treeless
areas.

Yes, and in each case the fossil evidence indicates that the locality
upon which this butchering took place was heavily treed. You cannot
dispute this. In fact, as you keep demonstrating over and over again,
you refuse to even acknowledge this issue.

Since you have only the equivalent of a 4th-grade education, how would
you know where these sites are found?

Maybe you oughta actually read the literature.



BTW, the evidence of homo's stone tools is *not* associated with
treeless habitat.

References?

Just as you have no references that contradict this assertion I have
none that confirm it. Again, its a wash.

Not quite, I'm not the guy who invented the saber-toothed lion. And I'm
the guy who cited CK Brain who has pictures in his book showing the
match between leopard teeth and the holes in apith skulls. Looks like
you will just have to believe me.

I don't deny this evidence and I don't know why you seem to think I do.


That's even sillier than your comment: McGinn: "IOW, it makes about as
much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo, neanderdudes,
and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and guns) in treeless
savanna habitat..."

BTW, I have already cited one source for my position, bet you forgot
already didn't you? Well, learn to use the sap search engine, you'll
find it.

You haven't cited anything that associated stone tools with treeless
habitat. And I know for a fact that no such evidence exists.

You must be from the Flat Earth Society then.



Just about everything you say is a pointless diversion. So is your
Miocene gardens.

Niccolo Caldararo: "It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are unsupported by
the data. You need to read the literature and find which ideas you
have which are just plain wrong and which are worthy of development."

Propaganda. Real scientists have no need for propaganda. Real
scientist are happy to let their thinking stand on the merit of its
content.

Well, since you are not a real scientist, I don't expect a lot of
content from you anytime soon.


Why don't you show us the question I asked the brought Niccolo to make
these evasive statements? (If you were anything but a propagandist I
wouldn't have to make this request.)

Evasive? In over 60+ posts in these threads, you have not given any
indication that you know anymore about the subjects on which you speak
than could be learned by watching two NOVA programs.

What, exactly, are you having trouble comprehending and I'll see what I
can do to assist you.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... and even early humans in treeless ... "IOW, it makes about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, ... parsimonious reason for all the apiths bones in the caves since leopard ... conclusion that these were leopards or leopard like cats. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... I have no reason to strawman you. ... that they hunted and scavenged out on the treeless savanna. ... predatory realities in treeless habitat." ... Do you have any evidence that the habitat was treeless when the tools ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... maybe if I'd set reason aside one time and went with my feeling that one time might have worked. ... Evidence is used to convince someone who DOESN'T already believe. ... entered the guy's head. ... there are all sorts of regulations about secondary usage of tech related to a whole host of items - being able to take something apart and rebuild it into something else. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: High Rise Living
    ... It was all over science fiction at the time, and I had some of the ... was supposing that there was a close relation between population density ... You haven't offered any evidence that ongoing increase in unsustainable, ... reason to think will. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... I still haven't seen a good reason. ... People in Biblical times supposedly saw God. ... The evidence says the opposite. ... that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Big Bang theory. ...
    (talk.origins)