On Mar 24, 6:36 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Op 25-03-2008 01:13, in artikel
d4757cf4-abbb-485b-84cb-b09bac52d...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
On Mar 24, 4:55 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Savanna netloon:
http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html
Jim Moore:
"Marc Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an AAT/H
claim that
he doesn't make himself. But then taking umbrage seems to be a
specialty with him;
his online method tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the sole
content of his
newsgroup posts, and continually reposting the same, non-responsive,
paragraphs
(earning him the nickname "macro-man" after the usual technique for
doing that),
and, starting from his very first online post in 1998, comparing his
position to Wegener,
Galileo, etc. These methods certainly don't help his argument,
instead placing his online
newsgroup contributions in the realm of the netloon."
IOW, Moore = too stupid to give us 1 little arguments against AAT.
Pathetic fool. :-D
From: "JAE" <j...@ucdavis.edu> Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: Re: Here are my thoughts about the habitat of the wading
(substitute AAR for wading)
Date: 13 Aug 2005 10:20:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1123953656.257567.239430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > > If new ideas have to be "peered" by short-
sighted people like you, they will be no new ideas.
I have to agree.
Jason: "That has got to be one of the lamest excuses I've heard yet.
Marc got eviscerated. His macro that he reposts with the repetition of
a two-year-old shouting "no" was broken apart by Lee Olsen, who quite
clearly showed that Marc's tired claim of "still no argument against"
was false. Lee presented arguments against and noted that by-and-large
Marc had no argument *for* save the impossible demand that his
opponent prove a negative.
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."
