|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] (fwd) Re: Human & ape evolution
|-- forwarded message --
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:408:b0:3f3:8459:956c with SMTP id n8-20020a05622a040800b003f38459956cmr6549968qtx.3.1683794276853;
Thu, 11 May 2023 01:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6c9a:0:b0:6ab:2de:1d5c with SMTP id
c26-20020a9d6c9a000000b006ab02de1d5cmr2252806otr.5.1683794276520; Thu, 11 May
2023 01:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 01:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=184.108.40.206; posting-account=pysjKgkAAACLegAdYDFznkqjgx_7vlUK
Subject: Re: Human & ape evolution
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 08:37:56 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: panix sci.bio.paleontology:77285
On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 01:53:28 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...-at-hot.ee wrote:
> > I do not believe you. I look from Wikipedia:
> Wiki isn't a cite. It's controlled by nimrods, including a number of
> usenet trolls.
Wiki is source of reliable references to actual scientific literature
not troll spam to his own name and own-invented terminology
> > > Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are
> > > literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good
> > > Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.
> > Misrepresentation.
> No. You're "arguing" that savanna idiocy is so stupid nobody believes
> in it, or ever believed in it, and that the good Doctor is wrong for
> saying that it's idiocy.
Misrepresentation. I'm arguing that majority of people, (me included) being
very sceptical about the savanna hypothesis does not make that swamp
ape hypothesis anyhow better. It is anyway even worse. But marc verhaegen
discusses nothing else but solely bashes that unpopular savanna hypothesis.
This clear false dichotomy is therefore his main "evidence".
> > Of course running around in heat does not look like clever thing to do.
> Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter
What is the point? You anyway snip it, misrepresent and run away with
insults. You do not discuss.
Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings. Apes have learned to
also use inanimate objects as weapons. Most animals and apes ignored a tool
or weapon after what they planned to do with it was done. Some apes learned
to improve those tools and weapons. So these had lasting value and were worth
to carry with starting around 3.5 mya. But that is inconvenient to when walking
on four feet or climbing from tree to tree. So 3.5 - 2.2 mya that was the most
likely pressure for walking on two feet and to climb tree only when needed. Marc
talks about h.erectus on Java 1.8 mya while by that time all evidence
shows that tool and weapon-using (and possibly also making clothes and controlling
fire) pack animals had already spread all over the place.
But marc does not discuss that picture nor provide any evidence about his
aquatic apes ... instead runs away with insults, misrepresentation and denial
-- end of forwarded message --
Hangout mailing list