Gaspode, I reread your last long post and came to the following conclusions:
a. You are stubborn. If so, there is nothing I can do.
b. You are unaware of Aristotle principle (or is it an axiom? I am getting rusty) that a negative cannot be proven or
c. a and b
As an example: I cannot prove that the human sinuses do not contain the sensory endings of the olfactory nerve. If you have evidence that they do, you have to prove it. Usually, your word would be enough, but in this case I’d like to see a ref to Gray’s Anatomy, or something of this nature. I do not know much about the anatomy and physiology of farm animals.
Q:smelling is not crucial (and never was) to human and/or canine survival
Reference please.
No reference. This is my opinion.
Again, I cannot prove that “something is NOT…” If you think that the sense of smell is crucial to human or animal survival, proves it. E.g., to have the sense of sight is crucial. To have the sense of smell is important, but not crucial.
Q:I can think of numerous examples where smell would be crucial to an individual’s survival. Individual, perhaps. Not the species. Q: Secondly in the example given above I never said it was crucial to human survival. Where the hell did you get the idea that a trait had to be crucial to an individual’s survival to become widespread in a population. Fair. You are correct.
According to current evolutionary theory any trait that confers any reproductive advantage will become widespread. Having hair isn’t crucial to human survival, but it confers some reproductive advantage and so is passed on. Personally, I do not believe that having head hair “confers reproductive advantage”. What is a possible reproductive advantage of armpit hair?
Species definition(s) is (are) vague (“group of individuals closely related in structure…”); classificators themselves argue about them; it’s not related directly to the discussed topic and I suggest we avoid it. If nothing else, we have enough disagreement points as is.
And that, folks, is the way evolution works. It doesn’t bloody well care about the next generation of critters, aside from ensuring they get born by prolonging the lifespan of the individual. Are there situations you can think of where having smell would be crucial to that individual’s survival? You’ve already said yes. Therefore, take it to the next step. Those individuals with smell would survive (or at least be slightly more likely to survive) and pass on their smell-iness to their smelling offspring. Over numerous gererations and repetitions, it becomes apparent that almost everyone would end up having the genes for smell-iness or whatever.
I am extremely stubborn, though I prefer tenacious, this does not make my arguments any less true of course. I tend to become more so when offended. I am totally and blissfully unaware of the Aristotle principle. I am aware that a negative is occasionally difficult to prove. It is not impossible. “That duck does not have two heads” strikes me as being rather easy to demonstrate. Piece you seem to be implying that you can refute any argument at any time, and what you say remains unassailable fact so long as you state it as a negative. If you say ‘the moon is not made out any material aside from green cheese’ that is not fact, and it does not mean the moon is made out of green cheese. That is assertion with no factual basis. If you hold to this opinion then it simply means that nothing could ever be decided by reasoned argument. Anyone can phrase any proposition in the negative. If this is so why are you here aside from trolling? If you find it difficult to support your negative assertions phrase them more tactfully. We covered this in The Pit, I don’t want to repeat it here. If you cannot prove your negative assertions then you must be able to prove the positive reverse. If you cannot prove The sinuses do not have anything to do with the sense of smell’ then provide cites that during even one dissection there were no olfactory nerves discovered in the sinuses. Provide something more than opinion.
I have provided a reference that the sinuses do influence smell. This proves that it is more than physiologically possible that the hypothetical argument I proposed is acceptable.
Do you have a reference stating empirically that this is all that has ever been found in the human sinus? If not then again you are using assertion as a basis for an argument and you are being rude.
Q:smelling is not crucial (and never was) to human and/or canine survival
Reference please.
** No reference. This is my opinion. **
But you stated it is fact. Don’t be ill mannered, state that it is opinion and don’t state it in direct contention to my statement. This is also covered in The Pit.
Again, I cannot prove that “something is NOT…” If you think that the sense of smell is crucial to human or animal survival, proves it. E.g., to have the sense of sight is crucial. To have the sense of smell is important, but not crucial.
And again, if you cannot prove something true, do not state it as fact.
Q:I can think of numerous examples where smell would be crucial to an individual’s survival. Individual, perhaps. Not the species.
JdeMobray covered this better than I can. ‘Nuff said.
Q: Secondly in the example given above I never said it was crucial to human survival. Where the hell did you get the idea that a trait had to be crucial to an individual’s survival to become widespread in a population. Fair. You are correct.
** Personally, I do not believe that having head hair “confers reproductive advantage”. What is a possible reproductive advantage of armpit hair? ** You may be learning. That is the way to sate opinion. I can’t argue with that.
I never said armpit hair. Someone has already mentioned to you on another thread about setting up strawman arguments just to knock them down. Of course if you want to open another thread in GQ I will be happy discuss the evolution of Armpit hair. But not just here. Species definition(s) is (are) vague (“group of individuals closely related in structure…”); classificators themselves argue about them; it’s not related directly to the discussed topic and I suggest we avoid it. If nothing else, we have enough disagreement points as is.
Is that yet another concession? If you admit that species is something you cannot clearly define or understand then don’t make assumptions about it, don’t state anything concerning species as fact without clearly stating what definition you are using and don’t contradict people on the basis of your ignorance.
I will repeat all my unanswered questions.
1)“That link is simply to an online copy of “The Origin of Species”. Did you post the wrong link? As you should have guessed from the above post I own a copy of the original and have read it cover to cover, so this provides me with no new information whatsoever. As I stated above there is a section in there that is in direct contradiction to what you have written, but what assumption on your part is this ‘reference’ intended to support. I still don’t see any explanation of what the reference is to. Can you please give a quote that backs up something for which I have requested a reference? The mere existence of a work to which you have alluded does not constitute supporting argument or a referential cite”
2)“Having cleared up the point that Manx cats are not a separate species do you still wish to continue with your assertion “But a species does not loose anything”, or are you willing to concede that this too may have been hasty and somewhat of a generalisation? “
3)“Which of the three sons has the greater reproductive advantage:
(a) With a domesticated dog?
(b) Without a domesticated dog?
Has the dog influenced the evolution of our small family group? “
4)“Presense or absense of the tail will makes two groups of animals sufficiently different to warrant separate specification. Often, the external differences are very subtle. For the fourth time, do you have a reference for this stuff? Has anyone else seen a reference for this, or even heard anything like it before? This is not a negative statement.”
5)“Acquired traits are not inherited. Reference please”
6)The social/learned behaviour is not inherited; Reference please.
7)Humans did not loose the ability to smell. Reference please.
8)What is the ‘other’ definition of ancestor you weer using.
9)Then you refuted my original statement without the basic knowledge required to do so, unless of course you have access to opinion making a blanket statement that nutrition does not affect form or size. Do you?
10)NO. You can experiment on yourself. Starting tomorrow morning, eat exclusively protein. When you start “to produce muscle”, report it here. So again you refute my statement without the knowledge required to do so without it becoming more than gainsaying. I don’t need to experiment on myself, this has all been done under controlled conditions and published in peer reviewed journals. Again I’m prepared to provide references to back up my statement, can you do likewise?
NO. What are you talking about? What genetic drift? .
The one that occurs in the human, or any other population. Is there another possible interpretation? Question resubmitted with clarification.
12)I used the other definition of “ancestor”… Which is?
The only other one that my dictionary has stipulates that it must be a person. And even you couldn’t have been using this since you yourself used the term when referring to animals. That having been said every comment I’ve made is, so far as I can see, perfectly grammatically and technically correct, and you have entered into a semantic argument over a technical issue without feeling it necessary to consult an English dictionary to clarify your preconception of a words definition. This makes it very difficult to discuss anything.
13)They became a different species at the moment they began to swim.
Reference please. This is radically different from what I learned at university and what is accepted in every ecology journal I’ve read in the past seven years. I’d really like to see the article stating this.
14)Correct. Correct as in you misinterpreted what you heard?
15)Are you implying that you can refute any argument at any time, and what you say remains unassailable fact so long as you state it as a negative. Do you believe this, and if so why are you bothering with these boards since any statement can be converted
Q: I am aware that a negative is occasionally difficult to prove.
Always. I remember it as a mathematical/logical theorem. Q: “That duck does not have two heads” strikes me as being rather easy to demonstrate.
Of course. That duck, the one we both see. But I am not sure about all ducks, including ducks, which will be born next year.
Q:. If you say ‘the moon is not made out any material aside from green cheese’ that is not fact,
As reasonable people, we both know that the moon is not made of green cheese, and not of olives, and not of potato, and … ad infinitum. All our experience and knowledge will argue against green cheese. Yet formally, to prove this general statement is not possible. It’s possible to show what the moon is actually made of. Let’s play this more. Let’s pretend (I have no idea) that N. Armstrong found Ca, Fe, Al…, but no Cu on the Moon. He will not be able to prove that there is no Cu on the Moon. The only thing we know is that so far Cu was not found there. If, after careful search no Cu is found after 100 years, we can reasonably conclude that, for some reason, Cu is not part of the lunar landscape, I mean, moonscape. So, I will say, in a 100 years: “See, Gaspole, there is no Cu on the Moon”. And you say: “Strange. Plenty of it here, we must look better.” I agree. But so far, there are no olfactory nerves in human sinuses.
Following this argument, I cannot find a sentence saying: “Olfactory nerves are not present in human sinuses”. Perhaps, after a long search I could’ve found something like: “ After careful study, we failed to demonstrate any olfactory nerves in human sinuses”. But, a formal skeptic could always say: “Yes, but they failed to demonstrate any green cheese there either. How can I believe them?” And formally he would be right. So the fact, that olfactory nerves were found in bovine sinuses, make it likely, but not certain, that they exist in human sinuses. Like finding one hooter with four nipples in cows makes it likely, but not certain, that they exist in girls. Q: Which of the three sons has the greater reproductive advantage:
(a) With a domesticated dog?
(b) Without a domesticated dog?
The answer is (b), of course. But this is a strawman logic you reproached me with. You created the situation and proved that it might’ve happened. But that does not mean that this happened in fact. Similarly, a reasonable argument can be made that we do not have to rely on smell as our savage ancestors did. But there is no prove that they actually smelled better, or had longer noses, or bigger olfactory bulbs, etc.
Q: 5)“Acquired traits are not inherited. Reference please”
6)The social/learned behaviour is not inherited; Reference please
These statements are the same. If you agree that only sexual genetic complement is inheritable, it would be a corollary. Social behavior and other acquired traits are not a part of that complement.
So, I repeat: your argument that dogs influenced human evolution, does not contradict any laws of nature. If, e.g., a mutation occurred and we lost the olfactory nerves, presence of dogs would, probably, facilitate our survival. If we had lost the ability to produce milk, only humans which had domesticated cows, had survived. But there is no factual prove that this happened. So, instead of jumping to conclusions, let’s try to find facts.
I can’t help but notice here that only one of my questions has been answered directly, and the vast majority haven’t even been addressed. They weren’t that difficult really. And still I see not one reference, only conjecture, opinion and hearsay. Is this all that you have to back up your statements? I’d really be interested to know which statement that complete copy of ‘The Origin of Species’ refers to. Anyhoo.
**Q: I am aware that a negative is occasionally difficult to prove.
Always. I remember it as a mathematical/logical theorem. **
Again with the always. This isn’t a negative statement. Can I have a reference please?
**Q: “That duck does not have two heads” strikes me as being rather easy to demonstrate.
Of course. That duck, the one we both see. But I am not sure about all ducks, including ducks, which will be born next year. **
I never made any absolute statements, only you do that. So your idea that negative statements can never be proven is actually not correct by your own admission of course. I’m taking this over to GQ. Care to join me?
The answer is (b), of course. But this is a strawman logic you reproached me with. You created the situation and proved that it might’ve happened. But that does not mean that this happened in fact. Similarly, a reasonable argument can be made that we do not have to rely on smell as our savage ancestors did. But there is no prove that they actually smelled better, or had longer noses, or bigger olfactory bulbs, etc. **
This is not a strawman. I suggest you find the definition of that term as well. This is a question in response to your statement that you didn’t understand the original hypothesis when you decided to argue with it. I never created the situation, I hypothesised. I never said this was fact, you are again putting words in my mouth. I have always said quite clearly that this is a “theory”. Go check that dictionary again. You stated ** I know that dogs or anything else in the environment did not cause humans to develop anything, including “unique facial/pharyngeal structures”. Thank you for finally admitting the statement was unfounded and untrue. You claimed to know something, and used that ‘knowledge’ to refute what several other people had said. You have now contradicted your own argument by saying it was possible. You don not apparently know as much as you claim.
**Q: 5)“Acquired traits are not inherited. Reference please”
6)The social/learned behaviour is not inherited; Reference please
These statements are the same. If you agree that only sexual genetic complement is inheritable, it would be a corollary. Social behaviour and other acquired traits are not a part of that complement. **
These statements are far from the same. Can I have a reference for that one while you’re at it? You made the statements, either back them up or withdraw them. Do you have references or not?
So, I repeat: your argument that dogs influenced human evolution, does not contradict any laws of nature. If, e.g., a mutation occurred and we lost the olfactory nerves, presence of dogs would, probably, facilitate our survival. If we had lost the ability to produce milk, only humans which had domesticated cows, had survived. But there is no factual prove that this happened. So, instead of jumping to conclusions, let’s try to find facts. **
Again you imply that someone said this is fact. Can you show me where? Did I or anyone else even say that we believed the theory? If you wish to say that there is no factual basis for the theory then do so, but be prepared to back this up. That is very different from ** I know that dogs or anything else in the environment did not cause humans to develop anything, including "unique facial/pharyngeal structures
So to sum up, your entire basis as presented for the statement
which started this argument consists of:
1)“I just know that”
2)“English isn’t my first language”
3)“I used the other definition of ancestor but refuse to provide a reference for it”
4)“I don’t understand the exact definition of species, to me it is muddled”
5)“I made a negative statement and this cannot be argued”
6)”Even though there are many possible hypotheses and solid, researched facts to refute my original statement and none to support it, I still ‘know’ that it isn’t true and will in no way concede the point’
So to summarise the summary: You have no facts, no support, an erroneous concept of what can and can’t be argued that is accepted by no one else involves, and a thin grasp of the English language.
jb_farley said it far better than I ever could **Piece[/b}.
http://www.2think.org/lamarck.shtml …support the concept of natural selection acting on random genetic variations as the only mechanistic agent of evolutionary change.
If “random genetic variations” is the “only mechanistic agent” of evolution, other categories, including “acquired traits”, “social behavior”, etc. do not apply.
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/b3pillar.htm Q: Neither the things your father had learned, nor the strength that his muscles had developed through hard work were passed on to you by heredity. The early evolutionists who believed this are now
considered to have been wrong.
Please, see my recent response to Col, in the Peace, You…(Major’s thread) in the Pit. It took me ~15’ to find the above cites. It would take you even less, you are more proficient with computers.
Q: You don not apparently know as much as you claim
That’s your imagination: I have never claimed anything (except ESL, but it is apparent, it was more explaning than claiming). I am even willing to claim the opposite: I do not know much. Which does not preclude me from being an actor (police lingo: one who acts) or a clown (clown is a type of an actor, isn’t he?) here.
To confirm my low level, I would be very interested in refreshing my knowledge of formal logic, so, go ahead and open a new thread. As far as “negative” goes, I believe that it covers only generalizations. But I am not sure that I remember correctly.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by peace *
[BIf “random genetic variations” is the “only mechanistic agent” of evolution, other categories, including “acquired traits”, “social behavior”, etc. do not apply.*
Not even partially true. If you believe that then you’re going to have to back that up as well. The article never states (not suprisingly) that the two are in any way mutually exclusive. It does not in any way say that either acquired traits or social behaviour is not inherited. To put it in terms easier to understand: combustion is the only ‘mechanistic agent’ in the propulsion of most automobiles, that does not mean that they can’t be painted blue and used to haul pigs. The three points are completely unrelated. Try again Piece
Q: Neither the things your father had learned, nor the strength that his muscles had developed through hard work were passed on to you by heredity. The early evolutionists who believed this are now considered to have been wrong.
Your point? How does this prove that social behaviour isn’t inherited or that acquired characteristics aren’t inherited. You seem to have a knack, as with the ‘Origin of Species’ links above, of posting links that state accepted theory. They don’t actually support your position.
I have never claimed anything I know that dogs or anything else in the environment did not cause humans to develop anything, including "unique facial/pharyngeal structures. That’s a claim . So is “A species never loose anyting”, so is “** An ape isn’t your ancestor either**” Should I go on?
Yet another claim by ** Piece** that is obviously untrue.
As far as “negative” goes, I believe that it covers only generalizations.
Even if that were what you said, “No species ever loose it’s tail” is about as far from a generalisation as you can get. It’s very specific. Theer is an intersting discussion going on in GQ right now, and so far no one seems to be supporting your viewpoint. Take a hint and concede.
Try again Piece. You still haven’t addressed 12 out of my 15 questions, and your references do not even come close to supporting your argument.
Okay, you do know that you posted a review of a book rather than an actual citation for any of your claims, right? Secondly, the reviewer, as well as the second reviewer, both were very critical of neo-Lamarkian theory (Which I believe is what you’re arguing for? Help me out here, I re-read the thread again and it still isn’t clear.)
One is pro-evolution (the test), and the second link is a creationism site. What exactly are you supposedly arguing?
Let me try again with the whole environmentaly accquired traits idea. The way it works is pretty simple when you look at it the right way.
Creatures live under an enormous number of environmental factors; temperature, humidity, vegetation, predation, etc.
Random genetic mutations occur in all creatures.
Occasionally, a random genetic mutation will occur which slightly, ever so subtly, improves a creature’s (Let’s call him BOB) ability to function and survive in his environment.
BOB has a slightly higher chance of survival than his un-mutated brother PHIL.
PHIL produces, say, 3 offspring with his genetic code (barring any further random mutation). We’re assuming here that both BOB and PHIL come from a species which has already been proven to be successful in their environment.
BOB on the other hand, survives a little longer and produces 4 offspring to which he passes his pre-mutated genetic code.
These 4 offspring have the same mutated genes as BOB did, and so are more likely to survive in their environment than PHIL’s unmutated offspring. And, there are more of them.
Within a (evolutionarily speaking) small number of generations, most of these creatures in this environment will be descended from BOB and his mutated genetic stock. Indeed, PHIL’s unmutated stock will be selected out by the superior survivability of BOB’s offspring.
JDeMobray
Well presented. I think he knows he posted a book review, hell he posted an entire book further back.
In actual fact I think we are both arguing non-Larmarckian evolution. The problem is Peice’s blanket statement that acquired traits are not inherited. I would simply like him to admit that he meant that non-genetically acquired traits are not inherited, as I stated above. I assume that is what he meant, but he refuses to admit to it so I have to work on the assumption that his statement stands as written.
I genuinely want a reference stating that social behaviour since I have given an example (honeybees) where it very definitely and obviously is inherited. Of course there are thousands of others examples where social behaviour is obviously inherited since it could not be learned. The mating behaviour of cuckoo’s is an obvious one. They have no parents to learn from, yet two cuckoos stuck in a cage will still go through courtship and breed. If this isn’t inherited then where did it come from? If the acts of courtship and mating aren’t social what actually qualifies?
Oh and I still want answers to my other questions, particularly since the "you can’t prove a negative’ thing seems to have been out to bed over in GQ.
Qo: I would simply like him to admit that he meant that non-genetically acquired traits are not inherited, as I stated above.
Of course. “Non-geneticic” means acquired. “Genetic” means inherited, i.e. not acquired. I ADMIT the sentence above.
Honeybees’ behavior is instinctive, not social. As is cuckoos’. In both cases, as you said, they do not learn it, they are born with it.
JDM, all your points are correct, I see no disagreement.
Gaspode apparently agrees that one does not inherit things learned by the father, then he says that it does not mean that social behavior is not inherited. Evidently, he does not consider social behavior a learned behavior. I can’t understand this logic.
Can you provide any sort of refernce for this, or is it just more supposition? You keep repeating the same statement ‘is instinctive, not social, social is not leaned’ over and over but are apparently unable to support it.
You seem to have the idea that ‘social’ and ‘instinctive’ are mutually exclusive. I think you have ‘learned’ and ‘social’ confused. Can you provide any evidence to support this. I’ve got a lot below that refutes it.
Like, duh. I thought that when I said that social behaviour is inherited that would have been a bit of a give-away.
Of course just because every competent authority I can find from Charles Darwin forward agrees with me, and you can find no sources to support you case shouldn’t make you reconsider your position. That would demonstrate an ability to adapt. Do you have any evidence to support you assertion that all social behaviour is learned?
Just to give you some food for thought I suggest you read the following?
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/printable/6/0,5722,119306,00.html
“The origins of social behaviour can be seen in bees and wasps. There are solitary bees and wasps, all of which prepare a protected place for the egg and later the larva. Some “gall wasps”–as in “gall aphids” and some mites–sting plants, which then provide fleshy galls for the young larvae. The parent often provides food for the larva. The tarantula-killer wasp will sting a huge spider and store it in a drugged state by the egg. The “parasitoid” hymenopterans lay an egg on or in a wandering caterpillar to parasitize it. Some bees or wasps return to put a new spider or other food source into the nest after the first food has been eaten, a process called progressive provisioning. From this it is only a short step to having a single female care for several young in a compound nest, as in Polistes wasps, and another short step to having sisters or young stay around the nest and help care for the later young. In some insects, such as wasps of the genus Polistes, this is done by having the first or strongest female harass or dominate the later or weaker ones. Their sexual growth is repressed and they cannot lay eggs as long as the dominant female is there. Chemical dominance, or drugging, is the next step; in the more social bees and ants, chemicals produced by the queen are actually needed by the workers, and exchange of food and drugs (trophallaxis) is regular. “
Ecology and evolution of social behaviour among Australian gall thrips
Evolution of social behavior in Passalidae (Coleoptera);
The evolution of social behaviour in the Augochlorine bees
Evolution and explanation of social systems
intrinsic and extrinsic factors underlying social evolution in bees
Social’ insects and arachnids exhibit forms of complex behaviour that involve cooperation in building a nest, defending against attackers or rearing offspring. : From here.
This book is a comprehensive, up-to-date guide to sociality and its evolution in a wide range of taxa.
, as well as tests of current theories of the evolution of social behaviour. http://biology.queensu.ca/~biol206/BEHAV206.htm
Certainly seems to refute your statement that honeybees behaviour is not social’ But what would the worlds leading entomologists know?
Now for the next question: How can social behaviour evolve if it is not inherited?
We’ve now reched the stage where you are simpy repeating your previous groundless statements ad-nauseum with no hint of independant support.This despite considerable evidence to the contrary. If this is the best you can come up with I think I can safely claim victory on all points without fear of contradiction from any impartial viewers.
Qo:If this is the best you can come up
with I think I can safely claim victory on all points without fear of contradiction from any impartial viewers.
you can claim victory regardless. I am going to demostrate that I can behabe socially on this MB.
Even before I read your last post, it suddenly dawned on me: we are talking about different things: you use “social behavior” as synonymous with “group behavior”, I use it as it is used in human culture. So, bee hivining is “social behavior”; it is inherited. Frisbee catching by dog is “social behavior” to me, is learned and is not inherited.
Good of you to admit it after a month and after several world experts stated you were wrong.
So you admit that your entire argument is based on not understanding the topic, speculation stated as fact, hearsay stated as fact, opinion stated as fact and an inability to find a dictionary.
You obviously have no intention of adressing any of my other questions, so until you are prepared to I think I’ll leave it here. All your arguments were completely groundless. I think you should bone up a bit more on evolutionary theory and terminology before entering any more discussions on the subject.
I hope you’ve decided to act with a little more tact from here on in, and think before opening your mouth.
I said that we used the term in its different meanings. I did not say anything like: “You used it correctly and I fucked up on all my terminology”.
But I feel that you want to triumph. Go ahead, I do not mind. Have your day. Qu:…several world experts stated you were wrong
What “world experts”? I do not think that any world experts suspect of my existence. QU: So you admit that your entire argument…
Do not put words into my mouth. I said what I said. I do not admit anything. Reread your posts and you will see that many of your initial assertions disappeared. I gave your your day, but within limits, no gluttony. Quiet enjoyment will do.
But the fact remains that that is the case, whether you said it or not. If you care to dispute it then show me a definition that agrees with your use of the terminology. I’ve showed you references that agree with mine.
I don’t think anyone believes you ‘gave’ me anything Peice. You gave it your best shot given a total lack of evidence for your beliefs. You came out second best to a better informed, more educated and more literate opponent. Concede defeat and bow out graciously! Don’t attempt to make me believe that if I don’t keep quite you’ll come back with all the nasty ‘facts’ that you’ve been keeping hidden from us. If you had any supporting argument it would have been trotted out long before your irrelevant links.
After the way you’ve been behaving I’m not only going to wallow loudly in your submission, I’ll rub your nose in it and use it to humiliate you if I like.
After all as you said
Qu:Cheerio
What’s that? Your new sig? I like, anyway. Qo:… better informed, more educated and more literate opponent
If you mean yourself, whatever. You can call yourself a Ph.D., or a better educated, I’ll be equally (un)impressed.
As far as the facts:
The are no olfactory nerves in human sinuses.
Acguired (not present in genes) traits are not inheritable. Corollary: learned behavior is not inheritable.
Sinuses are unrelated to speech.
Nothing in human anatomy/physiology suggests “loss” of smell.
“Social behavior” was [inadvertantly] used ambiguously; by you as it is commonly used in animal studies and by me as it it commonly used in humans.
Do you simply want me to say that you are superior?
Still no new information here. Still no references to back up any of his statements. Still waiting for some. Just the same old re-iteration of the same old beliefs and the same old baseless assumptions.
This is getting tiring. I’m retiring unchallenged if his next post doesn’t provide at least one supporting reference.
You in no way proved any points or provided any outside information that supported your “views”, which I hesitate to use because it only resembles the view from a plummetting 747- constantly changing and pretty shitty.
I would provide plenty of cites of you not proving any kind of point whatsoever (like, say, linking to a copy of Origin of the Species- wa-hoop-de-frickin-doo, you learned vB coding!), but many others have done so repeatedly, and you ignored them.
So rest assured in your contention that you are the baddest-ass mofo ever to wander the boards, while the rest of us can see just what a fool you are making of yourself when you engage in such stupidly stubborn behavior and ignore you.
Jb, I am really puzzled. I did not say anything that is not widely known. What evidence do you want? About olfactory nerves? About speech? Tell me, I will “find” it.