Re: Conventional Evasiveness
- From: rmacfarl <rmacfarl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 23:33:47 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 3, 6:45 am, claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx was
Playing dumb, as usual.
Well may we ask:
Then why the constant whining?
You asked 2 questions, to be quite specific, but in fact you
disguised (from yourself, no doubt) a couple of other premises
within those 2 questions.
Such as . . . ?
One premise being the "dramatic shift in morphology". Do we
agree that this is a valid premise? Yes, we know
Australopthecines are morphologically distinct from great
apes, but is the change "dramatic"? (Mikey asked you that,
but you - typically - did not understand his question, and
therefore deflected it.) Can the word "dramatic" be defined
in a scientific sense?
Evasive twit.
Is there an empirical
measure which could show that the degree of morphological
change from pre-hominid ape to australopith is more
"dramatic" than - for example - brown bear to polar bear?
These are the kinds of questions scientists ask, but you
never do.
References?
Two clever obfuscations. You are the contributor who is being evasive,
and you are the contributor who is unable to support his claims with
references.
What is the empirical basis for your description of the morphological
shift from great ape-hominid LCA as dramatic?
Either answer the direct question directly, or accept that this thread
will henceforth provide concrete evidence that you have no empirical
basis for your hypothesis.
To take that point further: your question preassumes that we
know what the chimp / australopith last common ancestor looked
like - and that we know how many morphological changes took
place in the line from that LCA to chimps & bonoboes. This
is a false premise, as anyone with
a modicum of paleoanthropological knowledge would know. Is it
Ardipithecus? Kenyapithecus? Orrorin? Sahelanthropus? Something
else that we have or haven't found yet? Can you see why the
answers to these questions would be important to answering your
question?
So, in your mind the evidence isn't clear enough for any premise
at all.
No, in my mind the answer is not clear enough for the sweeping
conclusions you choose to draw from ill-defined premises.
Now answer my question, you evasive twit.
Do you know definitively what the LCA looked, and when and where it
lived?
If this is the case why do we not see you protesting when
conventional theorist, Lee for example, propose hominids hunting
extremely fast mammals in open habitat with spears and outrunning
lions? (Answer the question you evasive twit.)
No, that is a straw man argument. Lee has not, to my knowledge,
postulated this behaviour among early hominids such as australopiths,
nor would he have any basis for doing so.
The long-running argument regarding "kudu runners" relates to Lee's
highlighting the *fact* that Kalahari Khoi-San hunters can and do
successfully hunt kudu and other large game, despite Marc Verhaegen's
vain protestations that our "aquatic" adaptations make such behaviour
impossible. Lee provided well-attested evidence for this behaviour
(yes Jim, "references").
[Don't waste your breath Marc, I'll ignore you anyway. I'll also get
in first with the ad hominem. Dumb-arse tooth-fairy believing aquatic
ape enthusiast.]
A second premise that Mike took issue with was the reference
to a "distinct" lifestyle. He asks an entirely relevant
question - and you did not - could not - answer it.
Provide a reference you evasive twit. Keep in mind that we
don't have access to your imagination.
Nice try, but yet again it demonstrates that you still can't answer
the question.
Firstly, we don't know what the lifestyle was like, owing to
the absence of physical evidence, so we are unable to say how
distinct the lifestyle was - but I'm going to assume that that
ugly little fact won't do anything to reign in your imaginative
enthusiasm. So answer
me this... Was the lifestyle of your eco-doormen
more "distinct" from chimpanzees than a Bedouin goatherd's
is from a Manhattan stockbroker's?
In what respect?
Answer the question, you evasive twit.
Was the lifestyle of your eco-doormen more "distinct"* from
chimpanzees than a Bedouin goatherd's is from a Manhattan
stockbroker's?
[MClark: sidebet - I'll lay you 10 shares in a
Bear Sterns "financial instrument" that Jimmy's answer
doesn't stretch to 2 lines of Google text...]
I win.
And I'm still here, laughing at you...
Ross Macfarlane
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Conventional Evasiveness
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: Conventional Evasiveness
- References:
- Conventional Evasiveness
- From: claudiusdenk
- Conventional Evasiveness
- Prev by Date: Re: Sweating on the Savanna
- Next by Date: anthropologist vindicates pedophilia
- Previous by thread: Re: Caution,
- Next by thread: Re: Conventional Evasiveness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
