Re: Savanna Versus Aquatic equals Junk Science

On May 26, 5:45 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:e9027425-a6c2-45ee-abe7-ccf6aeab9511@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Real science involves careful consideration of *ALL* of the evidence.

Real science consists in REJECTING
bad theories on the basis of the
evidence, and then seeing what is left.

Uh huh.  And so . . .?

Your head is full of bad theories --
so obviously bad that any remotely
competent scientist would disregard
them.  

Well then maybe you should attempt to locate a remotely competent
scientist and the two of you can put your heads together and see if
you can formulate a substantive dispute with the substantive
assertions that I presented in my hypothesis. Fair enough?

(Of course, that's also true of
the Savanna and Aquatic theorists.)

Your ability to discern truth with nothing more than a wave of the
hand is, well, magical. Do you know any other tricks?

Each of the Savanna, the Aquatic, and
the Monsoon-Cities-in-the-Trees theories
can be rejected on the most obvious of
evidence.

Yeah, right.

What it comes down to, Paul, is that you have no evidence based
dispute with my hypothesis.

Name two closely-related species
that occupy different habitats.

Do your own research.

Not only do you have no evidence based
dispute with the situational factors therein (onset of dry-season
monsoon climate, isolation of treed localities, tremendous competition
from food competitors, potential for collective predator siege/
massacres

Quite unknown in nature.

You know this how?

Current theory just assumes that cities emerged suddenly 8 thousand
years ago.

Sure.  Standard PA has not yet absorbed
the notion of ice ages.  

Relevance? Don't assume the rest of us have direct access to your
imagination.

For some very
peculiar reason, they ALL assume that
human ancestors lived on the tops of hills,
preferably when they were covered in ice.

It considers cities (and agriculture) as things that were
discovered at that time.

Of course, you are identical to the
standard PA dopes.  Where do you
think all the cities were 13 kya?

Do your own research.

What is left unexplained is the selective
origins of the behaviors and abilities necessary.  The communal
selection of my hypothesis solves this riddle.

Nope. It doesn't.  

If you have a dispute with my assertion why don't you present it. Is
it a secret?

It also ignores every
significant fact in hominid evolution,
and in evolution generally

Don't assume the rest of us have direct access to your imagination.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Impeccable
    ... >>> sociobiology. ... > Typical anthropologists. ... believe it is consistent with all of the evidence. ... That's a dispute. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Conventional Evasiveness
    ... I wonder how many of the 9 specific direct questions that I put to Jim ... Why does is matter if you don't dispute it. ... interpretation of the evidence. ... So do you consider the change from Pan / Australopith LCA to A'pith to ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • 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: 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: Thermodynamics, again
    ... that Feinman has supplied. ... In this case I'll choose the side thats got overwhelming evidence on ... control BG. ... raises the status of the dispute. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)