Re: Conventional Evasiveness

On Feb 3, 10:33 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 4, 1:35 pm, claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
...

I wonder how many of the 9 specific direct questions that I put to Jim
in this post he will answer this time around?

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.

And this is a baseless claim, which you are unable to supply any
evidence in support of (typically.)

Why does is matter if you don't dispute it (you evasive twit).


 But this is not the claim being
discussed here you doofus.

Then what is, f@#$wit? (1)

Read upthread.




You need to support
your claim,

You don't disput it.  Right?

No response. (Answer the question you evasive twit.)


(If so then present
your dispute.)

lest it be dismissed as content-free.

It's content free by design, you idiot.

A remarkable admission.

It's not an admission you idiot. It's a statement of fact. Try to
follow.


Take careful note, colleagues: after 10 years
of Jim attacking us for not addressing his content, he has finally
conceded the reason why. As we have known for a decade, he hasn't any.

 Its and
interpretation of the evidence.

I take it you mean "It's an interpretation of the evidence".

It's not a very useful one Jim.

Shut up, retard.




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.)

I draw your intention to the entire content of this thread,

Dimwit.


in which I
have made no claims which are not supported by evidence, and you have
repeatedly refused to explain, elucidate or reference your claim that:

a) the morphological change from an LCA, which you acknowledge no one
has ever seen, to australopithecus was "dramatic";

Yet you don't dispute it. Right?


b) that the lifestyle of "early hominids (Apith)" was "distinct" from
that of chimps.



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?

Because you are saying it is dramatic, and you can't seem to tell us
what the word means when you use it in this biological / evolutionary
sense.

Dictionary.




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?"

I included definitions in the previous thread - from your nominated
reference.

So do you consider the change from Pan / Australopith LCA to A'pith to
be of or pertaining to the drama; employing the form or manner of the
drama; characteristic of or appropriate to the drama; vivid; moving;
highly effective; theatrical; startling; or sensational? (2)

Moreover, do you consider it to be more so than from brown bear to
polar bear, and if so, why? (3)



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? (4)

References?

This thread will henceforth provide concrete evidence that you have no
empirical basis for your hypothesis.

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








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? (5)

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

I reference message 14 in the following as evidence that this is a
demonstrably false statement:http://tinyurl.com/3b6wup

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

It's a secret, isn't it.


The chimp / australopith last common ancestor... Is it Ardipithecus?
Kenyapithecus? Orrorin? Sahelanthropus? Something else that we have or
haven't found yet? (6)

Can you see why the answers to these questions would be important to
answering your question? (7)



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?

No. I am saying that chimps and humans are social, communal,
communicative and communally territorial.

To the same degree?


You don't know definitively what the LCA looked, when or where it
lived. This fact invalidates your entire hypothesis, because you have
no idea if australopiths or any prehominids were capable of behaving
in the ways that you postulate.

I don't need any specific disputes with your scenario Jim

That's good for you because you certainly don't have any. Your
dispute is with objective reality.


(even though
the SAP archive lists hundreds of substantive disputes, none of which
you have ever resolved successfully).

It's unfortunate the rest of us don't have direct access to your
imagination.


I have an insuperable dispute
with your general hypothesis (a "killer argument", if you will). You
don't have one. You don't *have* a hypothesis.

You have a dispute with the word, "dramatic."




You appear desperate.

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

Please stay there.

 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!

Jim, it's no secret to anyone here that your reading comprehension
skills are not that wonderful (not to mention your diabolical writing
comprehension.) You are wrong about this. Lee has not claimed that
Homo erectus was doing what you say he has claimed.

Uh, yes he has you nitwit.








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.

Have I misrepresented your arguments? If so, please restate them,
preferably without repeating the ad hominem.(8)

You are going to have to keep track of your own delusions.


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.

You're not fooling anyone Jim. Your tactics are quite transparent.
Accusing me of not being able to support a premise that I have not
advanced will not absolve you from your ...

Vague nitwit.



read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Depths of Jims Genius
    ... >>> The answer is that you can't dispute it. ... For those of you playing at home, what we see here is evidence of one ... you may divine as the discussion proceeds that Jim does ... McGinnian technique for fact avoidance. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Conventional Evasiveness
    ... I wonder how many of the 9 specific direct questions that I put to Jim ... interpretation of the evidence. ... So do you consider the change from Pan / Australopith LCA to A'pith to ... changes took place in the line from that LCA to chimps & ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The Depths of Jims Genius
    ... >>> of evidence that indisputably supports your vague and unoriginal thought ... >> But you don't deny that you have no evidence-based dispute ... you may divine as the discussion proceeds that Jim does ... Ross, if you have a question ask it. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Savanna nonsense
    ... > Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> fossil record upwards of 7 million years ago. ... Anybody that looks at the evidence and concludes ... > You don't provide enough to dispute, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... what's left is to dispute some of the ... >>> archaeological evidence suggests otherwise. ... > specifically where you've been a majestic failure, Jim. ... Drift is a cause of molecular evolution. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading