Re: Conventional Evasiveness

On Feb 3, 3:54 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:52 am, claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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.

Why do you continually accuse other of employing what are self-
evidently your own debating tactics?

Look at the title of this thread.




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.

No,

Yes. Read upthread.

, you made the claim that there was a "dramatic" morphological
change. I simply asked you to support your claim.

Yes, I did. But this is not the claim being discussed here you
doofus.

You need to support
your claim,

You don't disput it. Right? (If so then present your dispute.)

lest it be dismissed as content-free.

It's content free by design, you idiot. Its and interpretation of the
evidence.




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.

Why do you continually accuse other of employing what are self-
evidently your own debating tactics?

Really? Reference? (Put up or shut up.)

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.)

No,

Then why did you bring it up?

I'm not saying that it's not dramatic. I'm asking you what your
measure of dramatic is.

You tell us. Go ahead. What is your, "measure of 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.

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

Why do you continually accuse other of employing what are self-
evidently your own debating tactics?

References?





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.

Wrong on both counts. I don't protest against Lee making such claims
because he isn't making them. And I protest against your claims
because they are vague, ill-defined, content-free and not based on
scientific data.

Would you care to expand on what these human social realities are
which your imaginary paleoanthropological agenda is supposedly
intending to whitewash?

You are so brainwashed that you are unable to even acknowledge the
existence of human social beahviors.


Humans are first and foremost social, communal (communicative),
and communally territorial.

Which makes them different to chimpanzees, how?

Are you saying humans are the same as chimps?


 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?

No.

A fact which invalidates your entire hypothesis, because you have no
idea if australopiths or any prehominids were capable of behaving in
the ways that you postulate.

But you admit that you have no specific disputes with my scenario.
Right?


This is the core dispute with your hypothesis, Jim. You don't have
one.

You appear desperate.




 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.

Yes, it is a straw man argument. I repeat, Lee has not made the
outlandish claims that you claim that he has. You are attacking an
argument that he is not making - the very definition of a straw man
fallacy.

Yes he did. He's made these claims hundreds of times!




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.

Sorry Jim, but you are getting carried away with the force of your own
arguments. You seem to be suggesting that "conventional nitwits" don't
acknowledge that morphological differences between Australopith and
early Homo imply differences in abilities and lifestyle.

Reference? (Refer to my words directly you straw-baiting nitwit.)

This is also
a straw man argument based on a false premise,

I wouldn't know since I never made such an argument. Keep in mind
that the rest of us don't have direct access to your imagination.

as clearly it is a
subject of lively debate in the paleoanthropological community.

Thank you for this useless information. Now let's get back to the
issue under discussion:

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.

This
is likely to be one of those areas in which your efforts to portray
yourself as a maverick or some kind of original thinker are doomed to
disappointment.

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.

It's not irrelevant, but I agree it's not definitive. Try to keep
things in context, Jim.



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.

Why do you continually accuse other of employing what are self-
evidently your own debating tactics?



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

Why do you continually accuse other of employing what are self-
evidently your own debating tactics?

In the respect that you describe "early hominids (Apith)" as having a
"lifestyle that was distinct from chimps", was their lifestyle more
"distinct"  from chimpanzees than a Bedouin goatherd's is from a
Manhattan stockbroker's?

Ross Macfarlane
I'm still here, laughing at you...

.