None of these feature, my little boy, is seen
in savanna mammals.

Really? But humans display some measure of your
list and they're savanna mammals.

Yes, if some fool says we're savanna mammals, then
we're savanna mammals...
Savanna mammals, my little boy, have a keen sense
of smell, are fast, don't need much water, don't much
iodine, don't need much sodium etc.etc.

On May 12, 3:57 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:

Aquatic Idiot stated:
None of these feature, my little boy, is seen
in savanna mammals.

Yeah, so?

Savanna Dimwit replied:
Really? But humans display some measure of your
list and they're savanna mammals.

Some, yes.

Aquatic idiot replied:
Yes, if some fool says we're savanna mammals, then
we're savanna mammals...
Savanna mammals, my little boy, have a keen sense
of smell, are fast, don't need much water, don't much
iodine, don't need much sodium etc.etc.

This knife cuts both ways, you idiot. Marc, at best you can say that
Hominids have *some* traits that are consistent with aquaticism. And
your opponents employ the same dimwittedness in opposing your vague
nonsense.

It's idiotic to suggest that humans are either aquatic adapted or
savanna adapted. It's an endlessly stupid argument that will,
undoubtedly, continue forever because the participants don't know how
to properly consider evidence.

Junk science happens when scientists believe something
based on just some of what they see.

Real science involves careful consideration of *ALL* of the evidence.

The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate: http://tinyurl.com/5chnp6

http://tinyurl.com/5chnp6

Each of the Savanna, the Aquatic, and
the Monsoon-Cities-in-the-Trees theories
can be rejected on the most obvious of
evidence.

Aquatic Idiot stated:
None of these feature, my little boy, is seen
in savanna mammals.

Savanna Dimwit replied:
Really? But humans display some measure of your
list and they're savanna mammals.

Aquatic idiot replied:
Yes, if some fool says we're savanna mammals, then
we're savanna mammals...
Savanna mammals, my little boy, have a keen sense
of smell, are fast, don't need much water, don't much
iodine, don't need much sodium etc.etc.

This knife cuts both ways, you idiot. Marc, at best you can say that
Hominids have *some* traits that are consistent with aquaticism. And
your opponents employ the same dimwittedness in opposing your vague
nonsense.

It's idiotic to suggest that humans are either aquatic adapted or
savanna adapted.

Junk science happens when scientists believe something
based on just some of what they see.

Real science involves careful consideration of *ALL* of the evidence.

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:3348e837-95fa-4549-93ef-9d00b62fb9a4 at (no spam) g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Aquatic Idiot stated:
None of these feature, my little boy, is seen
in savanna mammals.
Savanna Dimwit replied:
Really?  But humans display some measure of your
list and they're savanna mammals.
Aquatic idiot replied:
Yes, if some fool says we're savanna mammals, then
we're savanna mammals...
Savanna mammals, my little boy, have a keen sense
of smell, are fast, don't need much water, don't much
iodine, don't need much sodium etc.etc.

Monsoon Cities-in-the-trees Nutcase said:

This knife cuts both ways, you idiot.  Marc, at best you can say that
Hominids have *some* traits that are consistent with aquaticism.  And
your opponents employ the same dimwittedness in opposing your vague
nonsense.

It's idiotic to suggest that humans are either aquatic adapted or
savanna adapted.

Clearly.

Junk science happens when scientists believe something
based on just some of what they see.

Real science involves careful consideration of *ALL* of the evidence.

Real science consists in REJECTING
bad theories on the basis of the
evidence, and then seeing what is left.

Each of the Savanna, the Aquatic, and
the Monsoon-Cities-in-the-Trees theories
can be rejected on the most obvious of
evidence.

On May 12, 3:57 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:

The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate: http://tinyurl.com/5chnp6

http://tinyurl.com/5chnp6

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:e9027425-a6c2-45ee-abe7-ccf6aeab9511 at (no spam) q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Real science involves careful consideration of *ALL* of the evidence.

Real science consists in REJECTING
bad theories on the basis of the
evidence, and then seeing what is left.

Uh huh.  And so . . .?

Your head is full of bad theories --
so obviously bad that any remotely
competent scientist would disregard
them.  (Of course, that's also true of
the Savanna and Aquatic theorists.)

Real science involves careful consideration of *ALL* of the evidence.

Real science consists in REJECTING
bad theories on the basis of the
evidence, and then seeing what is left.

Uh huh. And so . . .?

Each of the Savanna, the Aquatic, and
the Monsoon-Cities-in-the-Trees theories
can be rejected on the most obvious of
evidence.

Yeah, right.

What it comes down to, Paul, is that you have no evidence based
dispute with my hypothesis.

Not only do you have no evidence based
dispute with the situational factors therein (onset of dry-season
monsoon climate, isolation of treed localities, tremendous competition
from food competitors, potential for collective predator siege/
massacres

Current theory just assumes that cities emerged suddenly 8 thousand
years ago.

It considers cities (and agriculture) as things that were
discovered at that time.

What is left unexplained is the selective
origins of the behaviors and abilities necessary. The communal
selection of my hypothesis solves this riddle.

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:e9027425-a6c2-45ee-abe7-ccf6aeab9511 at (no spam) q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Real science involves careful consideration of *ALL* of the evidence.

Real science consists in REJECTING
bad theories on the basis of the
evidence, and then seeing what is left.

Uh huh.  And so . . .?

Your head is full of bad theories --
so obviously bad that any remotely
competent scientist would disregard
them.  

(Of course, that's also true of
the Savanna and Aquatic theorists.)

Each of the Savanna, the Aquatic, and
the Monsoon-Cities-in-the-Trees theories
can be rejected on the most obvious of
evidence.

Yeah, right.

What it comes down to, Paul, is that you have no evidence based
dispute with my hypothesis.

Name two closely-related species
that occupy different habitats.

Not only do you have no evidence based
dispute with the situational factors therein (onset of dry-season
monsoon climate, isolation of treed localities, tremendous competition
from food competitors, potential for collective predator siege/
massacres

Quite unknown in nature.

Current theory just assumes that cities emerged suddenly 8 thousand
years ago.

Sure.  Standard PA has not yet absorbed
the notion of ice ages.  

For some very
peculiar reason, they ALL assume that
human ancestors lived on the tops of hills,
preferably when they were covered in ice.

It considers cities (and agriculture) as things that were
discovered at that time.

Of course, you are identical to the
standard PA dopes.  Where do you
think all the cities were 13 kya?

What is left unexplained is the selective
origins of the behaviors and abilities necessary.  The communal
selection of my hypothesis solves this riddle.

Nope. It doesn't.  

It also ignores every
significant fact in hominid evolution,
and in evolution generally

What it comes down to, Paul, is that you have no evidence based
dispute with my hypothesis.

Name two closely-related species
that occupy different habitats.

The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and the bobcat

What it comes down to, Paul, is that you have no evidence based
dispute with my hypothesis.

Name two closely-related species
that occupy different habitats.

The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and the bobcat
(Lynx rufus). The former inhabits the northern boreal
forest and specializes in preying upon snowhoe hares,
The latter is widely distributed south of the boreal
forest where winters are not too severe and is a generalized
predator.

Will that do?