Re: Born to run long distances


Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op 16-09-2007 17:23, in artikel
1189956237.597661.97850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

Parotted for the 100th time this irrelevant blabla:

Says the amateur who doesn't know a capybara from a mountain beaver.


My little boy, you're no doubt the most stupid of the savanna believers
(which is not easy):



Well, Wagler seems to be even more stupid that you: he now claims (see other
post) humans have no myoglobin... :-DDDDDDDDD

ROFL! That's the best argument you have, insults? How childish.

Everyone on this planet knows, except you, that garbage in equals
garbage out. Sloppy research equals sloppy conclusions. If you can't
get the simple basics right, how can you get the more complex issues
right?


Do you think the mountain beaver error was the only one in your
pathetic TREE 2002 paper?

It's not even an error.

Says doughboy, who doesn't know a mountain beaver from a capybara.


There were a few errors,

Now you are finally getting it, about time.


On page 215 you argue: "....(e.g. tools attributed to A. robustus
now suggest termite-eating [30])."

And?? Have you checked ref.30??

Yep, I guess you think A. robustus is Homo.


Then on page 217 you turn right around and claim: "Oldowan: earliest
stone tool industries, usually attributed to early Homo."

And?? Any point??

Error two.


What does our little boy want to say??

Nah, Mario already said it:
http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html
Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
idiosyncratic by most of the participants."


You simply switch arguements for whatever page you happen to be on at
the time. Okidoki?

Switching?? You're crazy.

Oh, so you do think A. robustus is Homo? I thought that might be what
you were trying to say.


My little boy, short-sighted imbeciles like you confuse a logical inventory
& comparison & discussion of the facts with just-so interpretations à la
savanna.

Says doughboy, who doesn't know the difference between a capybara and
a mountain beaver. Who thinks on one page A. robustus was making tools
and two pages later he thinks only Homo made tools.


That Homo was watereside in savannas or elsewhere is beyond doubt for any
sensible person.

The same claim can be made for any creature that walks to a waterhole
for a drink of water. Are baboons littoral?

No answer.


Confusing baboons with humans, my boy? :-)

What makes you say that? Still delusional I see.


Already seen naked, fat baboons
with small canines, atrophied olfaction, aligned body etc.? I suggest you
do a bit primatology.

No, I see baboons drinking water, just like Homo. Do you think that
makes you a baboon?


The bonobos are closely surrounded by rivers and swamps (far more so
than early Homo, who is continually found with associated with dry-
land ostriches) does that make them littoral? Do chimps, baboons, and
Homo have web feet like capybaras who are waterside creatures? So
water has nothing what-so-ever to do with accounting for our
differences from chimps as AAT so ridiculously claims.

No reply.



Well, after all you're more stupid than Wagler (luckily: I've always liked
Wagler more than you).

Only more insults, just as I thought.

Never heard of, eg, clawless otters who search for shells etc.& use stone
tools

Otters do not use stone tools, just how ignorant are you?


to open them & have remarkably humanlike fingers?

Oh, so now clawless otters are human???

Well, my boy, these creatures have no webs... :-) Only imbeciles like you
claim that semi-aq.animals have to have webbed fingers. Sigh. Go to
school, my boy.

So, not only don't you know the difference between a mountain beaver
and a capybara, you think capybaras don't have web feet?

.

Relevant Pages
Loading