Re: Conventional Evasiveness

On Feb 2, 11:33 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 3, 6:45 am, claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx was

Why did you snip the context you evasive twit. Now people have to
read upthread to see what a complete evavise twit yoiu are.

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 made the claim. You support it. If you don't like this then
maybe you need to find a new hobby.

You are the contributor who is being evasive,
and you are the contributor who is unable to support his claims with
references.

Your inability to support your argument is not my concern.

What is the empirical basis for your description of the morphological
shift from great ape-hominid LCA as dramatic?

Are you saying it's not "dramatic?" (Answer the question you evasive
twit.)

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.

You're pretend ignorance of the evidence is not my concern. You're a
big phoney.

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.

Nevertheless we don't see you protesting when Lee makes specific
claims about HE living a hunting/scavenging existence in treeless
habitat. You only protest because my solution collides with the
paleoanthropological agenda to whitewash human social realities.

Humans are first and foremost social, communal (communicative), and
communally territorial. The fact that you've been indoctrinated with
the believe that this isn't the case doesn't add up to an excuse to
ignore evidence and its implications. Science is about what is. It
is not about what we wish to be.

Now answer my question, you evasive twit.

Do you know definitively what the LCA looked, and when and where it
lived?

Does anybody?

 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.

No, it's not a straw man argument. You stated that the evidence is
too vague for my conclusions. But, through some magical process that
you've yet to explain, the evidence, apparently, isn't too vague for
Lee's outlandish claims that HE could outrun lions, horses, kudu
etc.

Lee has not, to my knowledge,
postulated this behaviour among early hominids such as australopiths,
nor would he have any basis for doing so.

You evasive twits are unable to incorporate A'piths into your
dimwittted premise so you employ the propaganda tactic of pretending
not to notice that the evidence of A'piths is plainly contradictory to
your premise about HE lifestyle. You (yourself, Lee and all
conventional nitwits) purposively keep your thinking vague so that you
can pretend to not have to confront this issue. This proves that
yourself and Lee are not acting like scientists but like
propagandists.

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").

Phoney nonsense. Obviously this "evidence" is irrelevant to anything
that happened millions of years ago.

[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.

Keep in mind that we don't have access to your imagination.

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?

Answer the question, you evasive twit

[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...

Evasive jackass.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Conventional Evasiveness
    ... Why did you snip the context you evasive twit. ... You're pretend ignorance of the evidence is not my ... Nevertheless we don't see you protesting when Lee makes specific ... plainly contradictory to your premise about HE lifestyle. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... Quote me directly you strawman baiting evasive twit. ... data consistent with the evidence. ... you just repeated a negative question. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Conventional Evasiveness
    ... know what the chimp / australopith last common ancestor looked ... in your mind the evidence isn't clear enough for any premise ... Now answer my question, you evasive twit. ... to a "distinct" lifestyle. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Conventional Evasiveness
    ... had a lifestyle that was distinct from chimps? ... One premise being the "dramatic shift in morphology". ... Provide a reference you evasive twit. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Fire/Cooking -> Bigger Brains - erectus
    ... Answer the question you evasive twit: ... Is it not obvious that early hominids must have had a ... lifestyle that was distinct from chimps? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)