Re: What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- From: "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:16:46 -0000
<claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f1423ad6-518d-4765-87ca-3107d3fdf949@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lee, let's list the things that you refuse to discuss:
1) Selective origins of bipedalism in the earliest hominids. (Since
you can't explain it you pretend not to notice.)
This is something YOU also refuse to
discuss -- except in terms of the utmost
vacousness. You CANNOT describe
the day-to-day pressures that made the
slightly more bipedal quasi-hominid more
successful than his or her siblings.
(Of course, brain-dead standard PA types
like Olsen or Mikey) have no idea.
2) Why you and the rest of you conventional dimwits choose to believe
that the selective origins of hominid intellect have to do with tool
usage despite the fact that tools don't show up until hominid
evolution has been in effect upwards of 2 million years.
Stone tools show up around 2.5 mya.
The ones made of wood (and other
softer material) didn't fossilise.
3) How HE supposedly ran down prey species in open habitat and outran
Sabertoothed cats and bear-sized hyena.
That is standard PA brain-dead nonsense.
But YOU cannot say how hominids avoided
ruinous predation when they left the
immediate protection of the trees.
4) Why we see stasis in tool advancement up until a few thousand years
ago.
A more fundamental question, to which
no one has provided an answer, is what
on earth were all those stone 'axes' for?
Stone tools are hard to make, and whatever
job they did, there was apparently no need
to change the design.
5) The selective origins of hominid/human social/communal/cultural
behaviors.
Too obvious to need stating. You
might as well set out the advantages
of literacy.
Real scientists are eager to discuss the things they don't yet
understand. Propagandists, like yourself, are only willing to discuss
the things that will preserve the illusion that they know it all.
Mikey is not a propagandist. He'd need
ideas to qualify for that -- or at least he'd
have to have something in his head.
(Olsen is the same, but I haven't seen his
posts for a long time, and have lost track
of the full extent of his ignorance and
stupidity.)
Paul.
.
- References:
- What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- From: claudiusdenk
- What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- Prev by Date: Re: What Conventional trolls Discuss
- Next by Date: Re: Savanna apes
- Previous by thread: Re: What Conventional trolls Discuss
- Next by thread: Re: What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
