 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » Modern humans less athletic than ancestors... |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Paul Crowley... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote]Some tribal types have demonstrated they were able to give
Olympic level performances. Why would that surprise anyone?
A) It's unlikely. "Tribal types" generally have a
range of things to do to keep alive, and simply
can't specialise in one activity -- i.e. devote
most of their waking hours to becoming highly
skilled at one (usually highly peculiar activity).
Cite -
No answer.
[/quote]
And you think that you actually NEED
"a cite" before you can believe this? Do you
need "a cite" before you believe that water
usually flows downhill? Or that day follows
night?
[quote]B) "Tribal types" are like the rest of humanity
-- very lazy, and unwilling to exert themselves
if they don't see an immediate benefit.
Cite -
No answer.
[/quote]
And you think that you actually NEED
"a cite" before you can believe this? Do you
need "a cite" before you believe that water
usually flows downhill? Or that day follows
night?
[quote]C) Among such tribes, there is not likely to be
selection (from a large population) of those
with high athletic ability and for anatomies
best fitted for particular activities.
Cite -
No answer.
[/quote]
And you think that you actually NEED
"a cite" before you can believe this? Do you
need "a cite" before you believe that water
usually flows downhill? Or that day follows
night?
[quote]This is a good example of 'cargo cult science'.
Travsky has gathered that real scientists doing
real work often give (or ask for) citations for
aspects of a theory that may be open to question.
But he has no idea as to how or why. So, to be
safe, (very like the superstitious practice of
touching wood) he asks for 'a cite' on every
conceivable (and usually wildly inappropriate)
occasion, not realising that this behaviour, far
from making him 'appear scientific' (as he so
fondly imagines) shows that he has not the
faintest grasp as to what it is to do science.
So, simply declaring something is science?
[/quote]
The (meta-)issue here is whether or not
the particular matter is open to question.
YOU do NOT question any of my statements
-- because you know perfectly well that you
would look like a fool to do so. You merely
pretend to "be scientific" by pretending to
ask a question that you think is "scientific"
and that you have seen others ask. In fact,
these others (from who you have picked up
this behaviour) were often also 'cargo cult
scientists' -- vaguely going through the
motions, thinking (or hoping) that they were
'doing science' or (more likely) believing
that they looked as though they were 'doing
science'.
The rule for this behaviour (asking for
'cites') is DON'T -- unless (a) you are
willing to defend the opposite argument,
OR (b) you are prepared to express a genuine
ignorance of that matter and its context
(e.g. you might never have read anything
about "tribal types" -- and be prepared to
admit it).
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]RichTravsky wrote:
deowll wrote:
"RichTravsky" <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Paul Crowley wrote:
Traditional stories have long retailed the
most far-fetched fantasies. Of course, there
are always legions of dopes ready to believe
them -- and standard PA types are probably
the most credulous of all. They are trained
to be incapable of questioning anything -- so
long as the speaker appears to have some
'qualifications'.
He mentions the boob whose only education is as follows
I read it, in an old book in a library when I first got interested
in the
subject, about twenty years ago.
And what where you doing twenty years ago?
That quote of his illustrates the extent of his "research".
The clowns here (Olsen should also be included)
have taken this wholly out of context -- having
not merely forgotten the context, but the entire
issue.
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
No one around here knows. Nor knows how to
find the answer. Why? Because the information
is suppressed -- almost as though we lived in
a totalitarian state and we were questioning
sensitive ideas that went to the root of its
ideology -- roughly along the lines of:
"Does Herr Hitler have jewish ancestors?"
"Is Comrade Stalin a mass-murderer?"
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
The ratio is, in fact, about 75% male and 25%
female. That fact has no obvious explanation
so no one brings it up. It is not put into books.
Lecturers do not mention it to the students.
If someone happens to notice it (something
that rarely happens) it is cut from the paper.
Why raise embarrassing questions to which
we don't know the answer -- and which no
one knows anything about any more?
[/quote]
OMIGOD IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!
[quote]That's what happens in degenerate disciplines
where almost all the 'science' is of a 'cargo
cult' nature.
How do I know that the ratio is ~75% male and
25%? I read it in an old book about 30 years
ago. At the time, I was hoping to be able to
investigate it further -- in the usual way. But
the data is not to be found. It is around 50 years
since the topic was, in any way, mentionable in
this corrupt and degenerate 'discipline'.
[/quote]
This book has been suppressed? HORRORS!
Our heartfelt thanks to Polly for spreading the word! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]
RichTravsky wrote:
Some tribal types have demonstrated they were able to give
Olympic level performances. Why would that surprise anyone?
A) It's unlikely. "Tribal types" generally have a
range of things to do to keep alive, and simply
can't specialise in one activity -- i.e. devote
most of their waking hours to becoming highly
skilled at one (usually highly peculiar activity).
Cite -
No answer.
And you think that you actually NEED
"a cite" before you can believe this? Do you
need "a cite" before you believe that water
usually flows downhill? Or that day follows
night?
[/quote]
You make a number of claims, Shirley, you have some source for them...
Tribe members are unable to specialize, are lazy, no selection for ability...
[quote]B) "Tribal types" are like the rest of humanity
-- very lazy, and unwilling to exert themselves
if they don't see an immediate benefit.
Cite -
No answer.
And you think that you actually NEED
"a cite" before you can believe this? Do you
need "a cite" before you believe that water
usually flows downhill? Or that day follows
night?
[/quote]
You make a number of claims, Shirley, you have some source for them...
Tribe members are unable to specialize, are lazy, no selection for ability...
[quote]C) Among such tribes, there is not likely to be
selection (from a large population) of those
with high athletic ability and for anatomies
best fitted for particular activities.
Cite -
No answer.
And you think that you actually NEED
"a cite" before you can believe this? Do you
need "a cite" before you believe that water
usually flows downhill? Or that day follows
night?
[/quote]
You make a number of claims, Shirley, you have some source for them...
Tribe members are unable to specialize, are lazy, no selection for ability...
[quote]This is a good example of 'cargo cult science'.
Travsky has gathered that real scientists doing
real work often give (or ask for) citations for
aspects of a theory that may be open to question.
But he has no idea as to how or why. So, to be
safe, (very like the superstitious practice of
touching wood) he asks for 'a cite' on every
conceivable (and usually wildly inappropriate)
occasion, not realising that this behaviour, far
from making him 'appear scientific' (as he so
fondly imagines) shows that he has not the
faintest grasp as to what it is to do science.
So, simply declaring something is science?
The (meta-)issue here is whether or not
the particular matter is open to question.
YOU do NOT question any of my statements
-- because you know perfectly well that you
would look like a fool to do so. You merely
[/quote]
Asking for a cite IS questioning them.
[quote]pretend to "be scientific" by pretending to
ask a question that you think is "scientific"
and that you have seen others ask. In fact,
these others (from who you have picked up
this behaviour) were often also 'cargo cult
scientists' -- vaguely going through the
motions, thinking (or hoping) that they were
'doing science' or (more likely) believing
that they looked as though they were 'doing
science'.
[/quote]
How much simpler for them is they could simply declare something to be so.
[quote]The rule for this behaviour (asking for
'cites') is DON'T -- unless (a) you are
willing to defend the opposite argument,
OR (b) you are prepared to express a genuine
ignorance of that matter and its context
(e.g. you might never have read anything
about "tribal types" -- and be prepared to
admit it).
[/quote]
What have you read? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom McDonald... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]RichTravsky wrote:
deowll wrote:
"RichTravsky" <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Paul Crowley wrote:
Traditional stories have long retailed the
most far-fetched fantasies. Of course, there
are always legions of dopes ready to believe
them -- and standard PA types are probably
the most credulous of all. They are trained
to be incapable of questioning anything -- so
long as the speaker appears to have some
'qualifications'.
He mentions the boob whose only education is as follows
I read it, in an old book in a library when I first got interested
in the
subject, about twenty years ago.
And what where you doing twenty years ago?
That quote of his illustrates the extent of his "research".
The clowns here (Olsen should also be included)
have taken this wholly out of context -- having
not merely forgotten the context, but the entire
issue.
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
No one around here knows. Nor knows how to
find the answer. Why? Because the information
is suppressed -- almost as though we lived in
a totalitarian state and we were questioning
sensitive ideas that went to the root of its
ideology -- roughly along the lines of:
"Does Herr Hitler have jewish ancestors?"
"Is Comrade Stalin a mass-murderer?"
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
The ratio is, in fact, about 75% male and 25%
female. That fact has no obvious explanation
so no one brings it up. It is not put into books.
Lecturers do not mention it to the students.
If someone happens to notice it (something
that rarely happens) it is cut from the paper.
Why raise embarrassing questions to which
we don't know the answer -- and which no
one knows anything about any more?
That's what happens in degenerate disciplines
where almost all the 'science' is of a 'cargo
cult' nature.
How do I know that the ratio is ~75% male and
25%? I read it in an old book about 30 years
ago. At the time, I was hoping to be able to
investigate it further -- in the usual way. But
the data is not to be found. It is around 50 years
since the topic was, in any way, mentionable in
this corrupt and degenerate 'discipline'.
[/quote]
So you're banging on about this still. I thought we went over how
you could find more modern info on the issue of the ratio of
hominid male to female skeletal material in the fossil record: go
to the published literature and look.
But you want it all laid out nice and neat in one place in a
popular article or book. Huh.
Just because you are lazy or lack competence does not mean that
there is a conspiracy to keep you ignorant. That you're doing on
your own.
--
Tom
When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing;
When friends rejoice, both far and near,
How can I keep from singing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom McDonald wrote:
[quote]Paul Crowley wrote:
RichTravsky wrote:
deowll wrote:
"RichTravsky" <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Paul Crowley wrote:
Traditional stories have long retailed the
most far-fetched fantasies. Of course, there
are always legions of dopes ready to believe
them -- and standard PA types are probably
the most credulous of all. They are trained
to be incapable of questioning anything -- so
long as the speaker appears to have some
'qualifications'.
He mentions the boob whose only education is as follows
I read it, in an old book in a library when I first got interested
in the
subject, about twenty years ago.
And what where you doing twenty years ago?
That quote of his illustrates the extent of his "research".
The clowns here (Olsen should also be included)
have taken this wholly out of context -- having
not merely forgotten the context, but the entire
issue.
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
No one around here knows. Nor knows how to
find the answer. Why? Because the information
is suppressed -- almost as though we lived in
a totalitarian state and we were questioning
sensitive ideas that went to the root of its
ideology -- roughly along the lines of: "Does Herr Hitler have jewish
ancestors?"
"Is Comrade Stalin a mass-murderer?"
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
The ratio is, in fact, about 75% male and 25%
female. That fact has no obvious explanation
so no one brings it up. It is not put into books. Lecturers do not
mention it to the students. If someone happens to notice it (something
that rarely happens) it is cut from the paper. Why raise embarrassing
questions to which
we don't know the answer -- and which no
one knows anything about any more?
That's what happens in degenerate disciplines
where almost all the 'science' is of a 'cargo
cult' nature.
How do I know that the ratio is ~75% male and
25%? I read it in an old book about 30 years
ago. At the time, I was hoping to be able to
investigate it further -- in the usual way. But
the data is not to be found. It is around 50 years
since the topic was, in any way, mentionable in
this corrupt and degenerate 'discipline'.
So you're banging on about this still.
[/quote]
I'm "banging on about it in response to
a particular point someone else raised.
Read the thread.
[quote]I thought we went over how you could find more
modern info on the issue of the ratio of hominid
male to female skeletal material in the fossil
record: go to the published literature and look.
[/quote]
I am not in the business. I don't receive
a salary for pretending to do science.
I am complaining about the fact that those
who are so paid -- from taxpayer money --
are not doing their job. Yet they go on
and on, endlessly, about the wonderful
'science' they are doing. It is manifest,
even from this topic alone, that they have
not a clue.
[quote]What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
[/quote]
Could a question be more simple?
[quote]But you want it all laid out nice and neat in one
place in a popular article or book. Huh.
[/quote]
Agreed. I expect people who are paid to do
science to, once in a while, ever so often,
get up off their arses and do something.
[quote]Just because you are lazy or lack competence does
not mean that there is a conspiracy to keep you
ignorant. That you're doing on your own.
[/quote]
This is just one issue. It is representative
of hundreds of others. This 'pretend science',
this body of the very worst kind of cargo-
cultists, could not find its arse even if it
used both hands -- let alone find out anything
significant about human evolution.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 16, 8:52 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]
I am not in the business. I don't receive
a salary for pretending to do science.
I am complaining about the fact that those
who are so paid -- from taxpayer money --
are not doing their job. Yet they go on
and on, endlessly, about the wonderful
'science' they are doing. It is manifest,
even from this topic alone, that they have
not a clue.
[/quote]
Same stupid mistake from Crowley, over and
over again.
If you don't read the published literature,
because you don't get a salary to do it, how
pray tell do you know they aren't doing
their jobs?
What source is telling you that this is so?
Wait, I know...you get your info down at the
pub.
Message-ID: <Kk_jh.17117$j7.336852 at (no spam) news.indigo.ie>
Crowley: "You'd get better observations in any pub in
Dublin on any day in any week." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]RichTravsky wrote:
deowll wrote:
"RichTravsky" <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Paul Crowley wrote:
Traditional stories have long retailed the
most far-fetched fantasies. Of course, there
are always legions of dopes ready to believe
them -- and standard PA types are probably
the most credulous of all. They are trained
to be incapable of questioning anything -- so
long as the speaker appears to have some
'qualifications'.
He mentions the boob whose only education is as follows
I read it, in an old book in a library when I first got interested
in the
subject, about twenty years ago.
And what where you doing twenty years ago?
That quote of his illustrates the extent of his "research".
The clowns here (Olsen should also be included)
have taken this wholly out of context -- having
not merely forgotten the context, but the entire
issue.
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
No one around here knows. Nor knows how to
find the answer. Why? Because the information
is suppressed -- almost as though we lived in
a totalitarian state and we were questioning
sensitive ideas that went to the root of its
ideology -- roughly along the lines of:
"Does Herr Hitler have jewish ancestors?"
"Is Comrade Stalin a mass-murderer?"
What is the sex-ratio among hominid fossils?
The ratio is, in fact, about 75% male and 25%
female. That fact has no obvious explanation
so no one brings it up. It is not put into books.
Lecturers do not mention it to the students.
If someone happens to notice it (something
that rarely happens) it is cut from the paper.
Why raise embarrassing questions to which
we don't know the answer -- and which no
one knows anything about any more?
[/quote]
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=hominids+%22sex+ratios%22&btnG=Google+Search&fp=308f339eac69ecd2
Over 7000 hits.
[quote]That's what happens in degenerate disciplines
where almost all the 'science' is of a 'cargo
cult' nature.
How do I know that the ratio is ~75% male and
25%? I read it in an old book about 30 years
ago. At the time, I was hoping to be able to
investigate it further -- in the usual way. But
the data is not to be found. It is around 50 years
since the topic was, in any way, mentionable in
this corrupt and degenerate 'discipline'.
[/quote]
Perhaps if you did a modicum of research before posting you'd look less foolish. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote]Paul Crowley wrote:
RichTravsky wrote:
Some tribal types have demonstrated they were able to give
Olympic level performances. Why would that surprise anyone?
A) It's unlikely. "Tribal types" generally have a
range of things to do to keep alive, and simply
can't specialise in one activity -- i.e. devote
most of their waking hours to becoming highly
skilled at one (usually highly peculiar activity).
Cite -
No answer.
And you think that you actually NEED
"a cite" before you can believe this? Do you
need "a cite" before you believe that water
usually flows downhill? Or that day follows
night?
You make a number of claims, Shirley, you have some source for them...
Tribe members are unable to specialize, are lazy, no selection for ability...
[/quote]
No answer.
[quote]B) "Tribal types" are like the rest of humanity
-- very lazy, and unwilling to exert themselves
if they don't see an immediate benefit.
Cite -
No answer.
And you think that you actually NEED
"a cite" before you can believe this? Do you
need "a cite" before you believe that water
usually flows downhill? Or that day follows
night?
You make a number of claims, Shirley, you have some source for them...
Tribe members are unable to specialize, are lazy, no selection for ability...
[/quote]
No answer.
[quote]C) Among such tribes, there is not likely to be
selection (from a large population) of those
with high athletic ability and for anatomies
best fitted for particular activities.
Cite -
No answer.
And you think that you actually NEED
"a cite" before you can believe this? Do you
need "a cite" before you believe that water
usually flows downhill? Or that day follows
night?
You make a number of claims, Shirley, you have some source for them...
Tribe members are unable to specialize, are lazy, no selection for ability...
[/quote]
No answer.
[quote]This is a good example of 'cargo cult science'.
Travsky has gathered that real scientists doing
real work often give (or ask for) citations for
aspects of a theory that may be open to question.
But he has no idea as to how or why. So, to be
safe, (very like the superstitious practice of
touching wood) he asks for 'a cite' on every
conceivable (and usually wildly inappropriate)
occasion, not realising that this behaviour, far
from making him 'appear scientific' (as he so
fondly imagines) shows that he has not the
faintest grasp as to what it is to do science.
So, simply declaring something is science?
The (meta-)issue here is whether or not
the particular matter is open to question.
YOU do NOT question any of my statements
-- because you know perfectly well that you
would look like a fool to do so. You merely
Asking for a cite IS questioning them.
[/quote]
Still waiting for Polly to back up his claims.
[quote]pretend to "be scientific" by pretending to
ask a question that you think is "scientific"
and that you have seen others ask. In fact,
these others (from who you have picked up
this behaviour) were often also 'cargo cult
scientists' -- vaguely going through the
motions, thinking (or hoping) that they were
'doing science' or (more likely) believing
that they looked as though they were 'doing
science'.
How much simpler for them is they could simply declare something to be so.
[/quote]
Like Paulie does.
[quote]The rule for this behaviour (asking for
'cites') is DON'T -- unless (a) you are
willing to defend the opposite argument,
OR (b) you are prepared to express a genuine
ignorance of that matter and its context
(e.g. you might never have read anything
about "tribal types" -- and be prepared to
admit it).
What have you read?
[/quote]
No answer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:52 am
|
|