| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jim McGinn
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 6:31 am Post subject: Travsky>s Vagueness |
 |
|
JMc
[quote]Hominid intellectual development could
only be a result of a shift to more complex social
conditions, ie. the communalism in my hypothesis. My
hypothesis explains why this shift happened. Also, for
reasons that I elaborate upon in my hypothesis, this
described shift coincides with a shift to (communal)
rock-throwing, stick-wielding.
[/quote]
RT
[quote]Chimps already do this. See Kortlandt>s stuff.
[/quote]
JMc
Yes. I know. They also walk bipedally on occasion.
And they work in groups on occasion. The problem is how
did they/we get so good at it and come to adopt these
behaviors permanently and effectively rather than just
occasionally and ineffectively.
JMc
[quote]The vague scenario you>re proposing . . .
[/quote]
RT
[quote]Not vague. We have the recent example of chimps that
use stones to crack open nuts. And, we have an Acheulian
site where evidence of nut cracking has been determined:
[/quote]
JMc
Okay, you have a preadaptive behavior. So what? Where>s
the adaptive scenario? (Many species are capable of this
level of tool usage.) Now explain how this observation
supposedly explains the selective origins of hominids.
RT
[quote]Chimps desire and hunt meat in a communal and
cooperative fashion - mere eating of meat requires
no cultural capacity and any communal selective
scenario...
[/quote]
JMc
[quote]The supposition that a shift to meat eating my A>piths
could result in a tool-using trend that would result in
hominid adaptations is just-so-story nonsense.
[/quote]
RT
[quote]Hasn>t it occurred to you that perhaps a desire and
need to get at marrow and get as much flesh as possible
off a bone is a problem whose solution can be met by
the insight of applying a rock to that bone? That>s
*problem solving*. In this case, meat eating led to a
greater exploitation of that resource...gosh, a rock
is the right tool for the job!
[/quote]
JMc
To answer your question, no. This does not occur to me.
What does occur to me is that the more one tries to work out
the details of these (intentionally) vague, tool-using
notions the more contrived they appear.
IMO, consciousness, intelligence, and even communicativeness
are the key. Until we have animals capable of such
sophisticated tool usage is completely out of the question.
Rock-throwing, stick-wielding--as indicated in my
hypothesis--explains the selective origins of bipedalism
before 7 mya, but to get an animal capable of intentionally
and consciously producing the tools that are evident at 2.5
mya we need a communal selective scenario and we have to
wait for millions of years to give it time to effect the
emergence of such an animal.
RT
[quote]You want nation states 8 mya? Do you have
any idea what cognitive skills would be needed?
[/quote]
JMc
According to my scenario it would take nothing more than
chimp level cognitive skills. Do you dispute this contention?
(I suggest you review my scenario before you answer this
question.)
RT
[quote]Explain how throwing a rock away leads to "more
sophisticated tool usage".
[/quote]
JMc
[quote]Sorry, there are no simple answers to this question:
this issue is addressed as an aspect of my entire
hypothesis.
[/quote]
RT
[quote]The jump to nation states at 8mya is something that truly
doesn>t appear until a few *thousand* years ago. That>s
with AMH and it>s a little late for group/communal
selection, eh?
[/quote]
JMc
Evidence? If you can prove this you>ll have refuted
my hypothesis. Where>s your evidence?
RT
[quote]. . . nut cracking chimps are facts. That IS the evidence.
[/quote]
JMc
You don>t understand how to properly consider evidence.
This is like tracking the sun and the stars movement across
the sky and concluding that this evidence proves the earth
is the center of the universe.
Your 'scenario' requires us to ignore the fact that these
animals were, literally, millions of years away from having
the intellectual development to be anything but occasionally
effective at practical-end oriented tool usage. And this
fact has been obviated by experimental evidence. Secondly,
and maybe most significantly of all, even if we dismiss
these problems and then allow ourselves to assume that such
a scenario would lead to the adoption of more and more
sophisticated tool usage there is nothing about this
scenario that would predict the emergence of such things as
language, social intelligence, etc. So what you end up with
is a nonsense scenario that only appeals to people that have
a poor understanding of biological evolution and who are
also extremely dishonest with themselves about the kind of
animal that humans actually are.
Jim |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Rich Travsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 10:23 am Post subject: Re: Travsky>s Non Vagueness |
|
|
Jim McGinn wrote:
[quote]
JMc
Hominid intellectual development could
only be a result of a shift to more complex social
conditions, ie. the communalism in my hypothesis. My
hypothesis explains why this shift happened. Also, for
reasons that I elaborate upon in my hypothesis, this
described shift coincides with a shift to (communal)
rock-throwing, stick-wielding.
RT
Chimps already do this. See Kortlandt>s stuff.
JMc
Yes. I know. They also walk bipedally on occasion.
And they work in groups on occasion. The problem is how
did they/we get so good at it and come to adopt these
behaviors permanently and effectively rather than just
occasionally and ineffectively.
JMc
The vague scenario you>re proposing . . .
RT
Not vague. We have the recent example of chimps that
use stones to crack open nuts. And, we have an Acheulian
site where evidence of nut cracking has been determined:
JMc
Okay, you have a preadaptive behavior. So what? Where>s
the adaptive scenario? (Many species are capable of this
level of tool usage.) Now explain how this observation
supposedly explains the selective origins of hominids.
RT
Chimps desire and hunt meat in a communal and
cooperative fashion - mere eating of meat requires
no cultural capacity and any communal selective
scenario...
JMc
The supposition that a shift to meat eating my A>piths
could result in a tool-using trend that would result in
hominid adaptations is just-so-story nonsense.
RT
Hasn>t it occurred to you that perhaps a desire and
need to get at marrow and get as much flesh as possible
off a bone is a problem whose solution can be met by
the insight of applying a rock to that bone? That>s
*problem solving*. In this case, meat eating led to a
greater exploitation of that resource...gosh, a rock
is the right tool for the job!
JMc
To answer your question, no. This does not occur to me.
What does occur to me is that the more one tries to work out
the details of these (intentionally) vague, tool-using
notions the more contrived they appear.
IMO, consciousness, intelligence, and even communicativeness
are the key. Until we have animals capable of such
sophisticated tool usage is completely out of the question.
Rock-throwing, stick-wielding--as indicated in my
hypothesis--explains the selective origins of bipedalism
before 7 mya, but to get an animal capable of intentionally
and consciously producing the tools that are evident at 2.5
mya we need a communal selective scenario and we have to
wait for millions of years to give it time to effect the
emergence of such an animal.
RT
You want nation states 8 mya? Do you have
any idea what cognitive skills would be needed?
JMc
According to my scenario it would take nothing more than
chimp level cognitive skills. Do you dispute this contention?
(I suggest you review my scenario before you answer this
question.)
RT
Explain how throwing a rock away leads to "more
sophisticated tool usage".
JMc
Sorry, there are no simple answers to this question:
this issue is addressed as an aspect of my entire
hypothesis.
RT
The jump to nation states at 8mya is something that truly
doesn>t appear until a few *thousand* years ago. That>s
with AMH and it>s a little late for group/communal
selection, eh?
JMc
Evidence? If you can prove this you>ll have refuted
my hypothesis. Where>s your evidence?
RT
. . . nut cracking chimps are facts. That IS the evidence.
JMc
You don>t understand how to properly consider evidence.
This is like tracking the sun and the stars movement across
the sky and concluding that this evidence proves the earth
is the center of the universe.
Your 'scenario' requires us to ignore the fact that these
animals were, literally, millions of years away from having
the intellectual development to be anything but occasionally
effective at practical-end oriented tool usage. And this
fact has been obviated by experimental evidence. Secondly,
and maybe most significantly of all, even if we dismiss
these problems and then allow ourselves to assume that such
a scenario would lead to the adoption of more and more
sophisticated tool usage there is nothing about this
scenario that would predict the emergence of such things as
language, social intelligence, etc. So what you end up with
is a nonsense scenario that only appeals to people that have
a poor understanding of biological evolution and who are
also extremely dishonest with themselves about the kind of
animal that humans actually are.
[/quote]
Here>s a proper example of considering evidence:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ac6a5059.0308192234.15c023e6%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
...
All research is consistent with my hypothesis ... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jim McGinn
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:40 pm Post subject: Re: Travsky>s Non Vagueness |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
[quote]All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
[/quote]
Yep.
Jim |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rich Travsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:13 am Post subject: Re: Travsky>s Non Vagueness |
|
|
firstjois wrote:
[quote]
Hi Rich,
I>ve apreciated all the articles you have tossed into this lion>s den
'though it is taking me a while to catch up.
Keep up the good work, more information shouldn>t hurt this group at all.
[/quote]
Classic case of pearls before swine.
One is stunned by his ... "non-acquaintance" (to put it delicately) with
this info.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ac6a5059.0308192234.15c023e6%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn)
...
All research is consistent with my hypothesis ... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rich Travsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:47 am Post subject: Re: Travsky>s Non Vagueness |
|
|
Jim McGinn wrote:
[quote]
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
Yep.
[/quote]
HAHAHHAAH! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jim McGinn
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2003 12:35 am Post subject: Re: Travsky>s Non Vagueness |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F4AE64C.3DFA22CC@hotmMOVEail.com>...
[quote]Jim McGinn wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
Yep.
HAHAHHAAH!
[/quote]
My hypothesis is consistent with, and explanatory of, all of the
evidence. Do you dispute this supposition. Please be specific and
comprehensive with your response.
Jim |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rich Travsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:40 am Post subject: Re: Travsky>s Non Vagueness |
|
|
Jim McGinn wrote:
[quote]
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F4AE64C.3DFA22CC@hotmMOVEail.com>...
Jim McGinn wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
Yep.
HAHAHHAAH!
My hypothesis is consistent with, and explanatory of, all of the
evidence. Do you dispute this supposition. Please be specific and
comprehensive with your response.
[/quote]
I repeat: HAHAHAHAHAH!
Since you make the claim, it>s incumbent upon you to prove it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jim McGinn
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2003 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: Travsky>s Non Vagueness |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F597082.52260E63@hotmMOVEail.com>...
[quote]Jim McGinn wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F52795A.65106E9E@hotmMOVEail.com>...
Jim McGinn wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F4AE64C.3DFA22CC@hotmMOVEail.com>...
Jim McGinn wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
Yep.
HAHAHHAAH!
My hypothesis is consistent with, and explanatory of, all of the
evidence. Do you dispute this supposition. Please be specific and
comprehensive with your response.
I repeat: HAHAHAHAHAH!
Since you make the claim, it>s incumbent upon you to prove it.
You can>t dispute any of it, can you?
You can>t *prove* any of it, can you?
[/quote]
Nobody can prove *any hypothesis* in PA. This is the nature
of historical sciences. The best we can do is present
hypotheses that are consistent with and explanatory of the
evidence.
Why not just answer the question you evasive twit: You can>t
dispute any of it, can you?
Jim |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rich Travsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2003 8:35 am Post subject: Re: Travsky>s Non Vagueness |
|
|
Jim McGinn wrote:
[quote]
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F597082.52260E63@hotmMOVEail.com>...
Jim McGinn wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F52795A.65106E9E@hotmMOVEail.com>...
Jim McGinn wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F4AE64C.3DFA22CC@hotmMOVEail.com>...
Jim McGinn wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
All research is consistent with my hypothesis ...
Yep.
HAHAHHAAH!
My hypothesis is consistent with, and explanatory of, all of the
evidence. Do you dispute this supposition. Please be specific and
comprehensive with your response.
I repeat: HAHAHAHAHAH!
Since you make the claim, it>s incumbent upon you to prove it.
You can>t dispute any of it, can you?
You can>t *prove* any of it, can you?
Nobody can prove *any hypothesis* in PA. This is the nature
of historical sciences. The best we can do is present
hypotheses that are consistent with and explanatory of the
evidence.
[/quote]
Give some non vague examples.
[quote]Why not just answer the question you evasive twit: You can>t
dispute any of it, can you?
[/quote]
Things your "theory" doesn>t explain or accomodate -
Communal hunting.
Paleo neurology.
The extent of hunting by chimpanzees. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jim McGinn
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 7:02 am Post subject: Re: Travsky>s Non Vagueness |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
[quote]Why not just answer the question you evasive twit: You can>t
dispute any of it, can you?
Things your "theory" doesn>t explain or accomodate -
Communal hunting.
Paleo neurology.
The extent of hunting by chimpanzees.
[/quote]
I don>t understand how any of this supposedly disputes my hypothesis.
Can you be more specific?
Jim |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
