Re: Tobias 1995

On Dec 6, 5:04 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 5, 7:58 pm, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why is it absurd. It's the one factor

One factor?  Bull***.

 you can say, with almost 100%

confidence,

Say with 100% confidence?  This is propaganda rhetoric.  Not science.

Ok, same name one other factor that will induce an ape to move
bipedally for as long as the conditions prevail? Sawing their upper
arms off, perhaps?

You want science? Ok. Hunt studied extant apes for 700 hours and found
3% bipedality. Of that, 80% was in the context of postural feeding.
The only trouble was the place he studied did not include any
opportunitoies for wading. If he's have watched bonobos at Lukuru
instead he's have seen 24% bipedality (Myers-Thompson 2003) and most
of that would have been wading. My study showed 3% bipedalism on the
ground, 90% in water.

Now go on, tell me that's rhetoric too.

 that you can induce our nearest relatives to move

bipedally. No other factor can say that,

Why not?

So name one!

or even come close. It's

clearly not absurd.

Your whole approach is absurd.  You haven't the slightest idea how to
make an evolutionary argument.

Well I think you're an objectionable fool who knows less than I do.

....

Let me be a little more precise: In waist deep water all great apes
will move bipedally. That's a fact.

So you now wish to retract what you stated above as a, "simple fact."

What the hell would an ape be doing in waist deep water, you
whackjob?

In conversations, one sometimes makes mistakes. I was clarifying what
I said because I can see you're trying to be clever by being picky.

If their habitat was flooded, they'd have no choice... you plonker.

I'm quite happy to exchange name calling if that's the level you find
more comfortable, but I'd prefer it if we stayed civil.

What do you mean "incidental"? It seems to me that looking for
examples of bipedalism in our clade is the obvious thing to do if
we're trying to work out why we, alone, are obligate bipeds.

It seems to me there's a lot more to it than just this.

More to it, perhaps. But it's a start and it's very strong evidence
for wading.

Calling
this incidental is exactly what I'd expect, however, for someone who
was phobic of the dreaded 'a' factor in human evolution. It's
basically intellectual cowardice not to take on board evidence that
contradicts one's view and that is exactly what mainstream
anthropologists have been doing since March 5th1960.

I can't imagine what it is you think you've contradicted.  You are
obsessed with this silly notion.

There is nothing silly about the idea that moving through water acted
as an agency of selection in our lineage more than that of the apes.
Stating that contradicts the orthodox paradigm which insists that it
didn't.

Well if they've thought about it they clearly didn't act upon it.

Because it's absurd, incidental nonsense.

In your opinion. But it would appear that doesn't count for much.

....

Yes, and thus the reason they would never or rarely put themselves in
such a situation.  A fish out of water has no choice but to try to
flop itself back into the water.  That doesn't mean they would go out
of their way to put themselves out of water.  You really are a silly
ass.

Gallery forests, the place where most authorities agree that early
hominids lived, are subject to seasonal flooding. You're a bloody
idiot if you can't see that.

A seasonally-flooded gallery forest is not a swamp for most of the
year. It's not an absurd notion, it's clearly the answer to why we're
bipedal.

It's clear you are a lunatic.

*** off, you rude, objectionable wanker.
I don't want to waste my time talking to people like you. Claudius
Denk... goodbye.

Algis Kuliukas
.

Quantcast