Re: Elaine Morgan: 88 Years old and still head and shoulders above your typical anthropologist

On Dec 7, 11:59 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:51 am, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 7, 1:55 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:25 pm, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"You people"? Tarring people

Oh, you mean changing the original hypothesis beyond any recognition
to the original
is not tarring?

No, it's not. It's called clarifying. I haven't changed anything Hardy
or Morgan wrote. All I've done is add my slant on their ideas.

Tarring is when you take a dispared group of people and treat them as
if they're all the same. Waterside proponents are not all the same.
Their ideas differ in timescale and evidence used.

No, you forget the reality of your place in this
place in this world.
I will refrain to remind you of just what that is in order to keep
this civil.

Well thanks for doing that, at least. I will remain civil as long as
you do. "My place in the world" is, like yours, like everyone's to be
able to comment on and question ideas no matter how much authority
lies behind them.

Verhaegen et al have published many papers. Crawford, Cunnane,
Broadhurst et al have done proper science and published many papers
and books. Ellis has published several papers. There are others too.

None of which demonstrate anything more than incompetencey or some
things that are totally irrelevant speculation.

I can see that there is no amount of evidence that will change your
mind. Anything in favour of waterside hypotheses is speculation,
anything against is rock-hard science. Fine. You're clearly biased.

No, your ignorance again. I went to
 the trouble of tracking down some of those above.
Enough of them to know there has never been anything but speculation
printed in any of them
Once ones sees crap, there is no reason to waste anymore of ones life
reading crap.

Practically all of paleoanthropology is speculation.

Most of the paleoanthropological literature in the past 60 years is
guilty of that, then.

That only demonstrates your ingnorance. The trend is now about
details,
not generalizations. Your ignorance about Kano, etc. only proved you
live in
a vacuum.

It's still speculation. Did you see Crompton et al's paper that made
the front page of Science recently. their orang-utan thin-branch
wobbling hypothesis is also just speculation. Just because they
include a load of clever looking mathematical formulae in the paper
doesn't change that.

You have been corrected. He had a 650 word limit. You are delusional
to be speculating
anymore than that. No wonder "you people" have such a comprehension
problem.

You just told me that once you'd checked a couple of waterside papers
there was no point looking for any more. i have the same view about
aquasceptic anthropologists. I have yet to meet one who's read more
than the minimal stuff on waterside hypotheses. Despite this most are
sure it's crap.

For 50 years orthodoxy has shied away from waterside explanations

"orthodoxy"??? "  Tarring people again?

Since you are so inconsisent in you debating tactics, ie, accusing
others of doing
the very thing you do yourself, I will waste no more with this reply

That's convenient.

There is a difference between lumping a disparate band of ideas under
one, false, label and attributing a label to the authorities of
anthropology.

Algis Kuliukas
.

Relevant Pages