The following is a link to a one-hour video of the latest
jillery wrote:
The following is a link to a one-hour video of the latest
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
Recorded around Feb 12 aka Darwin Day, posted April 11.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/QtL8o_GnhrY/m/3TE1_mavBQAJ >"Yesterday's news, tomorrow!
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Still the same old article
How thoughtful of you
On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens
species.
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Still the same old article by an ardent fan of yours, that you keep linking without checking whether it is relevant.
There is no mention of naledi in it, never mind any argument as to which genus it is in.
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Still the same old article
They asked me to tell you: In science, not usenet trolldom but science, the longer a published article stands without refutation the better.
it's the opposite of a bad thing.
You honestly are divorced from what you pretend to be.
You want to try and insult, like your sad attempt here, not understand.
You deleted the url for it because it ruins your spiel below. Here it is again.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
They asked me to tell you: In science, not usenet trolldom but science, the longer a published article stands without refutation the better.
Unless it is ignored
Op woensdag 3 mei 2023 om 18:50:10 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
...
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Still the same old article by an ardent fan of yours, that you keep linking without checking whether it is relevant.
There is no mention of naledi in it, never mind any argument as to which genus it is in.
Sorry, here's the correct link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317336008_Not_Homo_but_Pan_or_Australopithecus_naledi
This is not a serious research article.
jillery wrote:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
He just said that.
To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens
species.
You mean "Consistency." I can see why that would be so upsetting. To you.
So if you called one species something like, oh, I dunno, Australopithecus >sediba, next thing you know someone else might try to to call Naledi >Australopithecus naledi.
Fascinating.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:09?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
100 Quatloos says that John Hawks did NOT call it an ape in the video.
I would not be betting like this if I had watched the video. I seldom watch >videos close to an hour long. I could read through a transcript in less than >ten minutes, but there is no sign of there being one.
[Clicking on "Show transcript" took me to a captionless and mostly black screen,
with two skulls that were obviously not of hominids.]
I would watch it if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recent >breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,
but you seemed to think that
the beauty of the cavern was all it was worthwhile to tell us about the contents of the video.
Moreover, after JTEM gave you an opening to display your scientific understanding
of the video, you made it clear that you weren't interested.
Now, you try to strut your scientific stuff with the following comment:
To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.
Where is the support for this sweeping claim? Did you conclude it from something in the video?
jillery wrote:
How thoughtful of you to cite yet another one of your legendary >>self-parodies.
You're a pussy.
On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:09?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
100 Quatloos says that John Hawks did NOT call it an ape in the video.
You lose.
I would not be betting like this if I had watched the video. I seldom watch >videos close to an hour long. I could read through a transcript in less than
ten minutes, but there is no sign of there being one.
[Clicking on "Show transcript" took me to a captionless and mostly black screen,
with two skulls that were obviously not of hominids.]
I have zero problem reading the transcript. Not sure what your
problem is.
I would watch it if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recent
breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,
The following is such an indication:
"John Hawks, Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
UW-Madison, gives an update on Homo naledi research in South Africa,
and outlines recent discoveries from around the world showing the
behavioral complexity of ancient human relatives."
You lose again.
but you seemed to think that
the beauty of the cavern was all it was worthwhile to tell us about the contents of the video.
And you seem to think [my] willful stupidity is something worth
bragging about.
Moreover, after JTEM gave you an opening to display your scientific understanding
of the video, you made it clear that you weren't interested.
Apparently you allude to where JTEM showed it had no more interest in knowing what its talking about than you do.
Now, you try to strut your scientific stuff with the following comment:
To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.
Where is the support for this sweeping claim? Did you conclude it from something in the video?
Where is the support for JTEM's claim? Did you conclude it was right
from something in the video?
Of course you didn't, because you chose
not to watch the video.
Where is the support for YOUR claim, that my claim is "sweeping"?
Did you conclude it because you have no idea what you're talking about? I bet 100 Quatloos the answer to that last question is "yes".
On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:09?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
100 Quatloos says that John Hawks did NOT call it an ape in the video.You lose.
I would not be betting like this if I had watched the video. I seldom watch >videos close to an hour long. I could read through a transcript in less thanI have zero problem reading the transcript. Not sure what your
ten minutes, but there is no sign of there being one.
[Clicking on "Show transcript" took me to a captionless and mostly black screen,
with two skulls that were obviously not of hominids.]
problem is.
I would watch it if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recentThe following is such an indication:
breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,
"John Hawks, Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
UW-Madison, gives an update on Homo naledi research in South Africa,
and outlines recent discoveries from around the world showing the
behavioral complexity of ancient human relatives."
You lose again.
but you seemed to think thatAnd you seem to think your willful stupidity is something worth
the beauty of the cavern was all it was worthwhile to tell us about the contents of the video.
bragging about.
Moreover, after JTEM gave you an opening to display your scientific understandingApparently you allude to where JTEM showed it had no more interest in knowing what its talking about than you do.
of the video, you made it clear that you weren't interested.
Now, you try to strut your scientific stuff with the following comment:
To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.
Where is the support for this sweeping claim? Did you conclude it from something in the video?Where is the support for JTEM's claim? Did you conclude it was right
from something in the video? Of course you didn't, because you chose
not to watch the video.
Where is the support for YOUR claim, that my claim is "sweeping"? Did
you conclude it because you have no idea what you're talking about? I
bet 100 Quatloos the answer to that last question is "yes".
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:00:09 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Still the same old article
You deleted the url for it because it ruins your spiel below. Here it is again.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
They asked me to tell you: In science, not usenet trolldom but science, the >> longer a published article stands without refutation the better.
Unless it is ignored, like popular science articles like the one I re-linked above.
You don't get grants from refuting popular science articles by fans
in which the only references are a few papers of your idol.
You also don't get grants from refuting under-supported articles by well-known cranks,
and that describes all published articles by Marc that he has been telling us to google.
Most of them are "published" in obscure places; for instance, his replacement
for the page I re-linked up there has ZERO citations and only appears in ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317336008_Not_Homo_but_Pan_or_Australopithecus_naledi
it's the opposite of a bad thing.
You honestly are divorced from what you pretend to be.
You don't even to pretend to know what makes for good grant proposals.
I do, having had several successful ones.
You have to be able to point to articles that lean heavily on your research. Marc is so devoid of these, that his big fan named a bunch of people
who support SOME of his smorgasbord of hypotheses without telling
which of the smorgasbord they endorsed, or anything else about them.
You want to try and insult, like your sad attempt here, not understand.
Liar.
Try being honest for a change, and leave in information about
what the hell you are actually talking about -- a SINGLE pathetic
pop science article.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS You are doing Marc no favors with this kind of shabby performance.
If you had kept your mouth shut about Marc, jillery might not have had to share
the hot seat with you, and if Marc had kept his mouth shut, jillery
would not have to share it with anyone.
How
He who?
John Hawks did not say "Australopithecus naledi".
So if you called one species something like, oh, I dunno, Australopithecus >sediba, next thing you know someone else might try to to call Naledi >Australopithecus naledi.
Fascinating.
Apparently fascinating things confuse you.
John Hawks did not say "Australopithecus naledi".
The issue you were misrepresenting was "Ape." The good
Doctor describes Naledi as an ape.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 12:45:10?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:09?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:You lose.
On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
100 Quatloos says that John Hawks did NOT call it an ape in the video.
I would not be betting like this if I had watched the video. I seldom watchI have zero problem reading the transcript. Not sure what your
videos close to an hour long. I could read through a transcript in less than
ten minutes, but there is no sign of there being one.
[Clicking on "Show transcript" took me to a captionless and mostly black screen,
with two skulls that were obviously not of hominids.]
problem is.
I would watch it if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recentThe following is such an indication:
breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,
"John Hawks, Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
UW-Madison, gives an update on Homo naledi research in South Africa,
and outlines recent discoveries from around the world showing the
behavioral complexity of ancient human relatives."
You lose again.
It's a bit more nuanced.
On a lark, I looked at the transcript and the term "apes" didn't appear.
In a deeper dive, I looked at how Hawks uses the term "apes".
He has a rather idiosyncratic view.
He agrees that modern phylogenetic systematics is good and proper.
He is opposed to paraphyletic schemes. But respective to the term
"apes", he considers it colloquial English and so not bound to rigorous >scientific meaning. Further, he asserts that modern humans are not apes.
This leaves open the question of how he would categorize various
human ancestors. In fact, it presses the problem with his non-scientific >notion of what "apes" means. I think it presses him into an undefined >category as there isn't any strong usage legacy of the term "apes" >respective to ancestral forms that the vast majority of people are
unfamiliar with.
The fact that he abandons science as a guide to meaning leaves him
with no anchor point. If he does happen to favor one choice or the
other, it will be a rather ungrounded opinion.
That said, I note that the question could run back to more than the
term "ape" but instead "bipedal ape". Some terms are best understood
as a combination of works and not in their dissected parts. If Hawks
would dispute the applicability of "bipedal ape" I would have to laugh
at what would be a hang-up on his part over the term ape.
but you seemed to think thatAnd you seem to think your willful stupidity is something worth
the beauty of the cavern was all it was worthwhile to tell us about the contents of the video.
bragging about.
Moreover, after JTEM gave you an opening to display your scientific understandingApparently you allude to where JTEM showed it had no more interest in
of the video, you made it clear that you weren't interested.
knowing what its talking about than you do.
Now, you try to strut your scientific stuff with the following comment:Where is the support for JTEM's claim? Did you conclude it was right
To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.
Where is the support for this sweeping claim? Did you conclude it from something in the video?
from something in the video? Of course you didn't, because you chose
not to watch the video.
Where is the support for YOUR claim, that my claim is "sweeping"? Did
you conclude it because you have no idea what you're talking about? I
bet 100 Quatloos the answer to that last question is "yes".
On Thu, 4 May 2023 17:39:37 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 12:45:10?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:09?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:You lose.
On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
100 Quatloos says that John Hawks did NOT call it an ape in the video.
I would not be betting like this if I had watched the video. I seldom watchI have zero problem reading the transcript. Not sure what your
videos close to an hour long. I could read through a transcript in less than
ten minutes, but there is no sign of there being one.
[Clicking on "Show transcript" took me to a captionless and mostly black screen,
with two skulls that were obviously not of hominids.]
problem is.
I would watch it if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recentThe following is such an indication:
breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,
"John Hawks, Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
UW-Madison, gives an update on Homo naledi research in South Africa,
and outlines recent discoveries from around the world showing the
behavioral complexity of ancient human relatives."
You lose again.
It's a bit more nuanced.
On a lark, I looked at the transcript and the term "apes" didn't appear.
Your comment above is factually incorrect.
**********************************
@29:55
Today, we understand that we are among the great apes. **********************************
More to the point, PeeWee Peter's comment is factually incorrect. Not
sure how he can claim what I quoted above doesn't indicate exactly
what he claims to seek. There's nothing nuaunced about being
factually incorrect.
In a deeper dive, I looked at how Hawks uses the term "apes".
He has a rather idiosyncratic view.
He agrees that modern phylogenetic systematics is good and proper.
He is opposed to paraphyletic schemes. But respective to the term
"apes", he considers it colloquial English and so not bound to rigorous
scientific meaning. Further, he asserts that modern humans are not apes.
This leaves open the question of how he would categorize various
human ancestors. In fact, it presses the problem with his non-scientific
notion of what "apes" means. I think it presses him into an undefined
category as there isn't any strong usage legacy of the term "apes"
respective to ancestral forms that the vast majority of people are
unfamiliar with.
The fact that he abandons science as a guide to meaning leaves him
with no anchor point. If he does happen to favor one choice or the
other, it will be a rather ungrounded opinion.
That said, I note that the question could run back to more than the
term "ape" but instead "bipedal ape". Some terms are best understood
as a combination of works and not in their dissected parts. If Hawks
would dispute the applicability of "bipedal ape" I would have to laugh
at what would be a hang-up on his part over the term ape.
What is "nuanced" here is that "ape" has multiple meanings, as do most
words. I have used it to distinguish some animals in the zoos from
humans. I have also used it to distinguish some humans from other
humans. I have also referred to tomatoes as "fruit" and as
"vegetable". These aren't scientific meanings, but they remain valid.
So whether "humans are apes" depends on the specific context. The
cited video documents John Hawks saying humans are one of several
great apes.
I found a link to an article from Jerry Coyne, where he criticizes
Jonathan Marks for claiming humans aren't apes.
<https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2015/11/02/wrongheaded-anthropologist-claims-that-humans-arent-apes/>
In the comments, someone named John Harshman says John Hawks says
humans are not apes. However, the links which should document who
said what are broken. In any case, Harshmans says Hawks made a very
different argument than Marks did. It's possible Hawks changed his
mind in the intervening years.
For completeness, it's annoying when some people play word games where
they make objections based on different meanings than what is meant in context. Some people claim humans aren't apes in the sense these two populations have no common ancestor aka that humans are specially
created, and that's a very different argument.
but you seemed to think thatAnd you seem to think your willful stupidity is something worth
the beauty of the cavern was all it was worthwhile to tell us about the contents of the video.
bragging about.
Moreover, after JTEM gave you an opening to display your scientific understandingApparently you allude to where JTEM showed it had no more interest in
of the video, you made it clear that you weren't interested.
knowing what its talking about than you do.
Now, you try to strut your scientific stuff with the following comment: >>>>Where is the support for JTEM's claim? Did you conclude it was right
To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.
Where is the support for this sweeping claim? Did you conclude it from something in the video?
from something in the video? Of course you didn't, because you chose
not to watch the video.
Where is the support for YOUR claim, that my claim is "sweeping"? Did
you conclude it because you have no idea what you're talking about? I
bet 100 Quatloos the answer to that last question is "yes".
On Thu, 4 May 2023 17:39:37 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 12:45:10?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:09?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:I have zero problem reading the transcript. Not sure what your
On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
100 Quatloos says that John Hawks did NOT call it an ape in the video. >> You lose.
I would not be betting like this if I had watched the video. I seldom watch
videos close to an hour long. I could read through a transcript in less than
ten minutes, but there is no sign of there being one.
[Clicking on "Show transcript" took me to a captionless and mostly black screen,
with two skulls that were obviously not of hominids.]
problem is.
I would watch it if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recentThe following is such an indication:
breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,
"John Hawks, Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
UW-Madison, gives an update on Homo naledi research in South Africa,
and outlines recent discoveries from around the world showing the
behavioral complexity of ancient human relatives."
You lose again.
It's a bit more nuanced.@29:55
On a lark, I looked at the transcript and the term "apes" didn't appear. Your comment above is factually incorrect. **********************************
Today, we understand that we are among the great apes. **********************************
More to the point, PeeWee Peter's comment is factually incorrect. Not
sure how he can claim what I quoted above doesn't indicate exactly
what he claims to seek. There's nothing nuaunced about being
factually incorrect.
In a deeper dive, I looked at how Hawks uses the term "apes".
He has a rather idiosyncratic view.
He agrees that modern phylogenetic systematics is good and proper.
He is opposed to paraphyletic schemes. But respective to the term
"apes", he considers it colloquial English and so not bound to rigorous >scientific meaning. Further, he asserts that modern humans are not apes.
This leaves open the question of how he would categorize various
human ancestors. In fact, it presses the problem with his non-scientific >notion of what "apes" means. I think it presses him into an undefined >category as there isn't any strong usage legacy of the term "apes" >respective to ancestral forms that the vast majority of people are >unfamiliar with.
The fact that he abandons science as a guide to meaning leaves him
with no anchor point. If he does happen to favor one choice or the
other, it will be a rather ungrounded opinion.
That said, I note that the question could run back to more than the
term "ape" but instead "bipedal ape". Some terms are best understood
as a combination of works and not in their dissected parts. If Hawks
would dispute the applicability of "bipedal ape" I would have to laugh
at what would be a hang-up on his part over the term ape.
What is "nuanced" here is that "ape" has multiple meanings, as do most words. I have used it to distinguish some animals in the zoos from
humans. I have also used it to distinguish some humans from other
humans. I have also referred to tomatoes as "fruit" and as
"vegetable". These aren't scientific meanings, but they remain valid.
So whether "humans are apes" depends on the specific context. The
cited video documents John Hawks saying humans are one of several
great apes.
I found a link to an article from Jerry Coyne, where he criticizes
Jonathan Marks for claiming humans aren't apes.
<https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2015/11/02/wrongheaded-anthropologist-claims-that-humans-arent-apes/>
In the comments, someone named John Harshman says John Hawks says
humans are not apes. However, the links which should document who
said what are broken. In any case, Harshmans says Hawks made a very different argument than Marks did. It's possible Hawks changed his
mind in the intervening years.
For completeness, it's annoying when some people play word games where
they make objections based on different meanings than what is meant in context. Some people claim humans aren't apes in the sense these two populations have no common ancestor aka that humans are specially
created, and that's a very different argument.
but you seemed to think thatAnd you seem to think your willful stupidity is something worth
the beauty of the cavern was all it was worthwhile to tell us about the contents of the video.
bragging about.
Moreover, after JTEM gave you an opening to display your scientific understandingApparently you allude to where JTEM showed it had no more interest in
of the video, you made it clear that you weren't interested.
knowing what its talking about than you do.
Now, you try to strut your scientific stuff with the following comment: >> >Where is the support for JTEM's claim? Did you conclude it was right
To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.
Where is the support for this sweeping claim? Did you conclude it from something in the video?
from something in the video? Of course you didn't, because you chose
not to watch the video.
Where is the support for YOUR claim, that my claim is "sweeping"? Did
you conclude it because you have no idea what you're talking about? I
bet 100 Quatloos the answer to that last question is "yes".
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
Yes. And beyond the malicious use of the word games, there's a game of
sewing confusion.
On 5/5/23 1:03 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:.
Yes. And beyond the malicious use of the word games, there's a game of sewing confusion.
Sewing confusion, presumably, refers to ragamuffins weaving a.
fabrication out of a patchwork of threadbare yarns?
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 12:45:10 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would watch [the video linked in the OP]
if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recent >breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,
The following is such an indication:
"John Hawks, Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
UW-Madison, gives an update on Homo naledi research in South Africa,
and outlines recent discoveries from around the world showing the behavioral complexity of ancient human relatives."
You lose again.
In a deeper dive, I looked at how Hawks uses the term "apes".
He has a rather idiosyncratic view.
He agrees that modern phylogenetic systematics is good and proper.
He is opposed to paraphyletic schemes.
But respective to the term
"apes", he considers it colloquial English and so not bound to rigorous scientific meaning. Further, he asserts that modern humans are not apes.
This leaves open the question of how he would categorize various
human ancestors.
In fact, it presses the problem with his non-scientific
notion of what "apes" means.
I think it presses him into an undefined
category as there isn't any strong usage legacy of the term "apes" respective to ancestral forms that the vast majority of people are unfamiliar with.
The fact that he abandons science as a guide to meaning leaves him
with no anchor point.
If he does happen to favor one choice or the
other, it will be a rather ungrounded opinion.
That said, I note that the question could run back to more than the
term "ape" but instead "bipedal ape". Some terms are best understood
as a combination of works and not in their dissected parts. If Hawks
would dispute the applicability of "bipedal ape" I would have to laugh
at what would be a hang-up on his part over the term ape.
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:26:17?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2023 17:39:37 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 12:45:10?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:Your comment above is factually incorrect.
On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:09?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:I have zero problem reading the transcript. Not sure what your
On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:46:49 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE9bws8XIqE>
:-D
Still the obsolete anthropocentric & afrocentric prejudices:
it was Australopithecus naledi, of course, not Homo:
Naledi is unambiguously a bipedal ape.
100 Quatloos says that John Hawks did NOT call it an ape in the video. >> >> You lose.
I would not be betting like this if I had watched the video. I seldom watch
videos close to an hour long. I could read through a transcript in less than
ten minutes, but there is no sign of there being one.
[Clicking on "Show transcript" took me to a captionless and mostly black screen,
with two skulls that were obviously not of hominids.]
problem is.
I would watch it if I had some indication that the video mentioned some recentThe following is such an indication:
breakthrough in our knowledge of naledi,
"John Hawks, Professor in the Department of Anthropology at
UW-Madison, gives an update on Homo naledi research in South Africa,
and outlines recent discoveries from around the world showing the
behavioral complexity of ancient human relatives."
You lose again.
It's a bit more nuanced.
On a lark, I looked at the transcript and the term "apes" didn't appear.
**********************************
@29:55
Today, we understand that we are among the great apes.
**********************************
Apologies for my error. I used a youtube feature to create a transcript
of the video and then did a text search of the transcript with no results
for "ape". Their "create transcript" feature apparently does not create
a complete transcript. My folly for assuming otherwise.
Nevertheless, Hawks is an odd fish. "we are among the great apes"
is oddly distinct to him from saying "we are apes". You have every
right to find that beyond weird.
I read ahead and note that Harshman has provided a link to the
self-same article I read ahead of my post.
[edit: here's the link to make this easier to process] >https://johnhawks.net/weblog/some-say-humans-are-apes-but-i-disagree/
This is all an arcane sidebar, as you also note. The factual, scientific >placement of the species being discussed is not legitimately
controversial. Hawks's peculiar preferences for the usage of the
term apes is likely best understood as a personal quirk. Leveraging
that quirkiness to sew confusion is dishonest.
I don't believe my post can be honestly understood to be pushing
that confusion. I think it should be clear that I was simply expanding
on the idiosyncratic preferences of Hawks respective to the term
"apes" and how it tends to spread confusion. Put me in the camp
that says humans are apes, and fish for that matter.
More to the point, PeeWee Peter's comment is factually incorrect. Not
sure how he can claim what I quoted above doesn't indicate exactly
what he claims to seek. There's nothing nuaunced about being
factually incorrect.
When Peter comes back and notes that there is a distinction between
Hawks saying that "we are among the great apes" and saying "we are
apes", this is me agreeing with him. The evidence is in the link John
posted. That this turns on a weird and confused standard for using
the term apes is true. It sadly plays into the obnoxious and racist
themes that are an undercurrent of this thread. Those need to be
rejected. I reject them. I think you are doing that. On that I agree with >you.
In a deeper dive, I looked at how Hawks uses the term "apes".
He has a rather idiosyncratic view.
He agrees that modern phylogenetic systematics is good and proper.
He is opposed to paraphyletic schemes. But respective to the term
"apes", he considers it colloquial English and so not bound to rigorous
scientific meaning. Further, he asserts that modern humans are not apes. >> >
This leaves open the question of how he would categorize various
human ancestors. In fact, it presses the problem with his non-scientific >> >notion of what "apes" means. I think it presses him into an undefined
category as there isn't any strong usage legacy of the term "apes"
respective to ancestral forms that the vast majority of people are
unfamiliar with.
The fact that he abandons science as a guide to meaning leaves him
with no anchor point. If he does happen to favor one choice or the
other, it will be a rather ungrounded opinion.
That said, I note that the question could run back to more than the
term "ape" but instead "bipedal ape". Some terms are best understood
as a combination of works and not in their dissected parts. If Hawks
would dispute the applicability of "bipedal ape" I would have to laugh
at what would be a hang-up on his part over the term ape.
What is "nuanced" here is that "ape" has multiple meanings, as do most
words. I have used it to distinguish some animals in the zoos from
humans. I have also used it to distinguish some humans from other
humans. I have also referred to tomatoes as "fruit" and as
"vegetable". These aren't scientific meanings, but they remain valid.
So whether "humans are apes" depends on the specific context. The
cited video documents John Hawks saying humans are one of several
great apes.
I found a link to an article from Jerry Coyne, where he criticizes
Jonathan Marks for claiming humans aren't apes.
<https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2015/11/02/wrongheaded-anthropologist-claims-that-humans-arent-apes/>
In the comments, someone named John Harshman says John Hawks says
humans are not apes. However, the links which should document who
said what are broken. In any case, Harshmans says Hawks made a very
different argument than Marks did. It's possible Hawks changed his
mind in the intervening years.
I think when you read the link John has provided, it will shed some light on >why Hawks says what he does, even if it won't convince many that he is >helping anything by taking the stance he does. He isn't.
For completeness, it's annoying when some people play word games where
they make objections based on different meanings than what is meant in
context. Some people claim humans aren't apes in the sense these two
populations have no common ancestor aka that humans are specially
created, and that's a very different argument.
Yes. And beyond the malicious use of the word games, there's a game of
sewing confusion. My intent was neither of those, but to point out where
the roots of the sewn confusion come from. Perhaps I wasn't explicit
enough about that purpose but I expect most understood my point.
but you seemed to think thatAnd you seem to think your willful stupidity is something worth
the beauty of the cavern was all it was worthwhile to tell us about the contents of the video.
bragging about.
Moreover, after JTEM gave you an opening to display your scientific understandingApparently you allude to where JTEM showed it had no more interest in
of the video, you made it clear that you weren't interested.
knowing what its talking about than you do.
Now, you try to strut your scientific stuff with the following comment: >> >> >Where is the support for JTEM's claim? Did you conclude it was right
To assign naledi to
Australopithecus would oblige similar assignment of all non-sapiens species.
Where is the support for this sweeping claim? Did you conclude it from something in the video?
from something in the video? Of course you didn't, because you chose
not to watch the video.
Where is the support for YOUR claim, that my claim is "sweeping"? Did
you conclude it because you have no idea what you're talking about? I
bet 100 Quatloos the answer to that last question is "yes".
Op vrijdag 5 mei 2023 om 04:50:12 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
...
John Hawks did not say "Australopithecus naledi".
The issue you were misrepresenting was "Ape." The good
Doctor describes Naledi as an ape.
:-)
Of course: all apes had BP ancestors, google "aquarboreal".
AFAICS, there's nothing exclusively human in naledi:
google "naledi verhaegen" or so. >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317336008_Not_Homo_but_Pan_or_Australopithecus_naledi
Discoverers of the naledi fossils (Gauteng, SA, first described 2015) assume: >naledi
(1) belonged to the genus Homo,
(2) buried their dead in caves, :-DDD
(3) were tool makers,
(4) ran over African plains. :-DDD
Comparative anatomy shows these assumptions to be wrong,
it suggests: naledi
(1) belonged to the genus Pan or Australopithecus, not Homo,
(2) fossilized in a natural way,
(3) were no better tool makers than extant chimps are,
(4) spent an important part of their day wading bipedally in forest swamps or wetlands, in search for wetland foods, e.g. waterlilies or other AHV, possibly containing snail shells, like bonobos & lowland gorillas still do, but more frequently.
PS You are doing Marc no favors with this kind of shabby performance.
If you had kept your mouth shut about Marc, jillery might not have had to share
the hot seat with you, and if Marc had kept his mouth shut, jillery
would not have to share it with anyone.
(2) The presence of an isolated child's skull, in a hole high up in a
cave wall is not "naturally" fossilized.
(3) Last time I checked, extant chimps don't make fire, or even take advantage of fire when they encounter it.
To the best of my knowledge
I have no problems searching entire transcripts.
jillery wrote:
Discoverers of the naledi fossils (Gauteng, SA, first described 2015) assume:
naledi
(1) belonged to the genus Homo,
(2) buried their dead in caves, :-DDD
(3) were tool makers,
(4) ran over African plains. :-DDD
Comparative anatomy shows these assumptions to be wrong,
it suggests: naledi
(1) belonged to the genus Pan or Australopithecus, not Homo,
(2) fossilized in a natural way,
(3) were no better tool makers than extant chimps are,
(4) spent an important part of their day wading bipedally in forest swamps or wetlands, in search for wetland foods, e.g. waterlilies or other AHV, possibly containing snail shells, like bonobos & lowland gorillas still do, but more frequently.
(1) This distinction requires expertise your posts don't demonstrate.
(2) The presence of an isolated child's skull, in a hole high up in a
cave wall is not "naturally" fossilized.
The caverns have existed for millions of years, and are known to
have been explored since the 1960s.
You're leaping from "They buried their dead" to "They decapitated
their children then deposited their heads within holes high up in
walls."
Of course, even after pointing this out you're not going to "Get it."
(3) Last time I checked, extant chimps don't make fire, or even take
advantage of fire when they encounter it.
This is the fire that nobody noticed for six years, unless you consider
the fact that the original discoveries were made two years earlier so
it was actually eight years...
So now they lugged their dead, plus kindling, plus antelope through
these tight openings, because they enjoyed breathing smoke...
(4) Cite. To the best of my knowledge, nobody who knows what they're >>talking about has made such claims.
That is a MASSIVE disclaimer. I can't claim to be surprised though.
You're not interested in discussing ideas, as you once again testify,
and instead cherry pick your high priests to obey.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 43:38:03 |
| Calls: | 9,799 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,752 |
| Messages: | 6,189,715 |