http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
 http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
The SFs have not 1 single little argument against AAT:

Message-ID: <1123953656.257567.239430

JAE: "You should follow that thread very carefully Algis. I realize
you've made up your mind that I'm "short-sighted" or a bigot or a
boogyman against AAH or something, but, should you have any true
objectivity, you should be able to see that Marc provided nothing but
empty claims about a negative and essentially denied evidence on the
ground in favor of a scenario with no evidence on the ground and the
very loosest perversion of the comparative method. [I've heard the BS
that AAX has the comparative method when "PA" doesn't. I would suggest
that AAXers who are serious about science actually learn what the
comparative method is.

I would recommend Harvey and Pagel's *The Comparative Method in
Evolutionary Biology* as a starter. It is most certainly more complex
and more powerful than the ramblings that misrepresent comparative
biology from the wet side.] There's no scientist at all who would look
at what Marc presented in that thread and more importantly doesn't
present and think that it will pass review. This isn't because of a
closed mind. It's because he didn't make a case beyond insisting that
Lee disprove a negative.

You claim to want to do real science. Again, allying yourself with
Marc, specifically his "scientific" (quotes because it is not
scientific in the least) methods and his utter lack of scientific
reason will be your undoing. Hiding behind the veil that peer review
isn't important blah blah blah because novel ideas won't get through
peer review because of the establishment strikes them down is a cop-
out and it's false. Novel ideas get published and inspire research
when the novel ideas have scientific promise and evidence behind them.
When they are ramblings that seemingly deny real evidence and replace
it with "scenarios" that don't have similar evidence, when they take
real concepts (like stratocladistics) and use the namae of the concept
but do not employ the concept and the make the claim that the concept
supports their "scenario," they will not get published and it's not
because of any indoctrination. It's because they're lame piles of
crap. Choose you path wisely Algis."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
The SFs have not 1 single little argument against AAT:

To the uninformed....Marc is actually saying that 'SF's'
have not one single little argument that he can counter in
an informative, logical, coherent way. But what the heck
we all use shorthand of various sorts on Usenet

Nothing to add:

On Apr 11, 7:29 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:


To the uninformed: this blabla proves the SFs have 0 arguments.

Says the amateur wetloon who discovered a new species of semi-aquatic
mountain beaver.

TREE 2002 Page 213-14:
"... capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and
mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa [24]. Both these
semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
grasses and the bark of young trees."

Go back to school, fool.

SF:

What can an amateur say?

That only complete fools base a whole theory on a few ostrich egg shells
found next to homind raemians.

What can an amateur say?

That only complete fools base a whole theory on a few ostrich egg shells
found next to homind remains.
That's a few more ostrich eggs than you have crayfish, wetloon.

Why need crayfish, my little boy?

Large brain,

breath hold,

That only complete fools base a whole theory on a few ostrich egg shells
found next to homind remains.

That's a few more ostrich eggs than you have crayfish, wetloon.

On Apr 13, 1:50 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

That only complete fools base a whole theory on a few ostrich egg shells
found next to homind remains.
That's a few more ostrich eggs than you have crayfish, wetloon.

Why need crayfish, my little boy?

Because some pervert wetloon claimed for evidence what he didn't have
for evidence. He lied.
No algae evidence, Verhaegin lied. No coconut evidence, Verhaegin
lied.

Large brain,

Yes, first found on the savanna in early Homo, thanks for the savanna
proof.

claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:1a5087bb-9c2c-4bba-87b9-7097cc30e0a0@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 5:52 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[blah, blah]



Yes, first found on the savanna in early Homo, thanks for the savanna
proof.

So, in your mind large brains are long-distance running adaptations?
Yes?  No?

* Haven't figured out the editor yet, eh Dimmy?
* Too difficult?  And as an aside, that *really*
* is a stupid question.

Or is this too a secret?

* Can just as well be, to some people.

Please, do tell.
===============================> "If only you had a point."
  Dimmy --03/29/2008

claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:33b59982-63cb-4312-884c-807a7eb855b3@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 8:39 am, "Makouli" <m...@work.com> wrote:





claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:1a5087bb-9c2c-4bba-87b9-7097cc30e0a0@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 5:52 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[blah, blah]

Yes, first found on the savanna in early Homo, thanks for the savanna
proof.

So, in your mind large brains are long-distance running adaptations?
Yes? No?

* Haven't figured out the editor yet, eh Dimmy?
* Too difficult? And as an aside, that *really*
* is a stupid question.

Or is this too a secret?

* Can just as well be, to some people.

Please, do tell.
===============================> > "If only you had a point."
Dimmy --03/29/2008

Evasiveness noted.

Along the same lines: Isn't it true that you have no fact-based
dispute with my assertion that humans are the most communal, cultural,
and communally territorialistic species that has ever existed?

* No, that's not true.

Yes, first found on the savanna in early Homo, thanks for the savanna
proof.

claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:1a5087bb-9c2c-4bba-87b9-7097cc30e0a0@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 5:52 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[blah, blah]



Yes, first found on the savanna in early Homo, thanks for the savanna
proof.

So, in your mind large brains are long-distance running adaptations?
Yes? No?

* Haven't figured out the editor yet, eh Dimmy?
* Too difficult? And as an aside, that *really*
* is a stupid question.

Or is this too a secret?

* Can just as well be, to some people.

Please, do tell.
================================
"If only you had a point."
Dimmy --03/29/2008

Put up or shut up, Jackass.

On Apr 7, 12:35 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now
[...]
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game. This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting. How many tools are needed for a shellfish?
None. Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit. How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game? The emphasis is VERY clear.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed. and besides, predators usually drink a bit of water too.

(compare to chimp drinking behaviour... sponges and etc.)
The toolkit is relatively recent. Or at least the stone toolkit. As
generalists, "we" probably tried to eat just about everything, and
used our new tools to obtain it... and ended up favoring the large
animal meats. This only accounts for about the last 2.5 million years
of evolution; what were the apiths up to? Oh, by the way, it is

plausible IMHO that shellfish eating required at least some sort of
hammer tool. And that women may have been the main ones using such a

tool.

Ian Tattersall has a nice discussion about stone tools starting on
page 91 of his book "The Monkey in the Mirror."

What was of interest in this post was that the quality of the argument
was improving.