Re: Clark's dilemma

On Nov 17, 3:05 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Parents are rarely perfect, and our ancestors
were often under extreme pressure to survive
themselves.  Most parents would, in many ways,
prefer to see their infants remain immobile
(or less mobile) for much longer.  They could
then get on with their lives (in ancestral
terms -- acquire more food) much more easily.
That would make survival for everyone much
easier.

This is absurd reasoning. One indication of the lunacy of your
approach to evolution, Paul, is that you start talking in specifics
about something for which the evidence is very vague and
generalistic.

This is a completely ridiculous argument. What do you think
human mothers do now? They keep their children under close
supervision and teach them to recognise threats around them,
until they judge the children are old enough to take on greater
decision-making responsibility for themselves.

In the early years, immobility (i.e. altriciality)
is a great help to parents.  It stops the infant
getting into trouble. THAT is why it is there.

Absurd. Human altriciality is distinct from that of other mammals of
similar size and habitat. If what you are saying was the case then
we'd expect altriciality to be extremely common.

To me (and to most others, I believe) human altriciality is related to
development and the fact that human intellectual and social complexity
is so incredibly high in comparison to other species.

<snip>

You have not got even the basic elements of
natural selection.  For island birds there is
strong selection AGAINST flying.  Those that
fly best, in each generation, do worst. They
leave fewer offspring.

Well, yeah. Flying is a very expensive adaptation. By losing the
ablility to fly the bird also loses the expenses that go along with
it.

Humans evolved large brains living in Africa. I shouldn't
need to explain, but since it's you I know I do: a) brains
are the most energy-intensive organs in humans (consuming 25%
of our energy at rest); and b) Africa had and still has a lot
of large predators with big pointy teeth.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
But I am sure that I am not missing much.

I'm sure we are missing absolutely nothing. Ross is being
intentionally obscure to conceal the fact that what he is suggesting
is plainly absurd. If the fossil evidence and the extant evidence
tell us anything it's that you don't need a large brain and its
associated communication-based abilities that us hominids possess if
the only thing you are trying to achieve is to escape predation. It's
way overkill. The suggestion that hominids are and have been from the
outset highly communal creatures is considered a taboo subject for any
and all PAs. As a card-carrying member of the PA cult Ross feels
obligated to carry forth with the deception. I assure you, he himself
does not actually believe what he is saying here. He's just careful
to not say it too clearly so that he can't be pinned down on
anything. In PA politics is first, scientic truth is a distant
second--evidence be damned.

You said "Tell us how many new species came into existence
around 10 kya, when there was drastic climate change... It
can't happen." You were wrong, and I called you on it.

I was right,

No, Ross is right. Now, Paul, you are arguing against some really
obvious evidence. You might as well also be telling us the earth is
flat.

Paul, the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those making
extraordinary claims. You have a tendency to make a lot of
extraordinary statements and then when people point it out you make
the absurd suggestion that we are under some obligation to prove you
wrong.

<snip>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Logic in Schools
    ... way to prove that something is absurd than by writing an RAA proof. ... > #First, you've been arguing that "logic students" make these mistakes, ... Torkel calls "the power of formal logic to confuse and bewilder" some ... not evidence that anyone has been bewitched, bebothered, nor ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Is there a god?
    ... I'm not saying that and literally cannot both be true. ... Dianelos's position is absurd because his evidence that consciousness is ... push the planets around in ways that exactly match the predictions ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... different than calling racists' beliefs absurd and demanding ... "scientific" creationism is based on the faith that the bible is the ... but I challenge them to provide geological evidence. ... grounds for forced medication. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Because Thats What Heroes Do! (Countdown #38)
    ... so...and I'm assuming this will all play into the Crime Bible mini ... But I'll actually defend the scene. ... superhero stories The Questions assesment was not absurd. ... Obviously there's no real evidence in this issue that Piper ...
    (rec.arts.comics.dc.universe)
  • Re: Is there a god?
    ... introspection offers any evidence at all of anything analogous ... regard consciousness as non-physical - rather that the alleged ... beliefs, are, on the face of it, absurd when held simultaneously. ... push the planets around in ways that exactly match the predictions ...
    (uk.religion.christian)