On 19.8.2021. 4:05, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2021. 3:56, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2021. 3:31, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/18/21 6:02 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.8.2021. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> I don't think he knew the word either, so no spoiler.
>>>>
>>>>          I did meet all three words, but:
>>>> - littoral I know, because Marc Verhaegen (he writes a lot in
>>>> s.a.p.) talks a lot about it
>>>> - riparian I did meet reading science papers, but I always have to
>>>> look in dictionary for what it means (yes, I am very bad at
>>>> languages, even my own). I wouldn't recall it, even if I knew what
>>>> to look for
>>>> - fluvial I also met, but frankly, right now I would need to look
>>>> out for the meaning of it (but I don't care, :) )
>>>>
>>> Can't help myself: fluvial refers to stuff in a river, riparian to
>>> stuff near a river, which is why riparian is the exact analog to
>>> littoral.
>>
>>          Oh, thanks very much. I really needed this, :) . Now it is
>> all sorted well (I hope I'll remember it).
>>          Englishmen would say: "Good man.". Thanks again.
>
>         Though, I have to say that littoral actually means near shore,
> but in both directions, towards the land, and in the sea. So, it,
> actually, isn't analogous neither to riparian, or fluvial (fluvial is,
> actually, a process).
>         A tough question, indeed, :) .

Yes, "fluvial" should, actually, be a landform, made by flow, the
processing of flow, :) .

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 8/18/21 7:12 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2021. 4:05, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2021. 3:56, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 19.8.2021. 3:31, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/21 6:02 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 19.8.2021. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> I don't think he knew the word either, so no spoiler.
>>>>>
>>>>>          I did meet all three words, but:
>>>>> - littoral I know, because Marc Verhaegen (he writes a lot in
>>>>> s.a.p.) talks a lot about it
>>>>> - riparian I did meet reading science papers, but I always have to
>>>>> look in dictionary for what it means (yes, I am very bad at
>>>>> languages, even my own). I wouldn't recall it, even if I knew what
>>>>> to look for
>>>>> - fluvial I also met, but frankly, right now I would need to look
>>>>> out for the meaning of it (but I don't care, :) )
>>>>>
>>>> Can't help myself: fluvial refers to stuff in a river, riparian to
>>>> stuff near a river, which is why riparian is the exact analog to
>>>> littoral.
>>>
>>>          Oh, thanks very much. I really needed this, :) . Now it is
>>> all sorted well (I hope I'll remember it).
>>>          Englishmen would say: "Good man.". Thanks again.
>>
>>          Though, I have to say that littoral actually means near
>> shore, but in both directions, towards the land, and in the sea. So,
>> it, actually, isn't analogous neither to riparian, or fluvial (fluvial
>> is, actually, a process).
>>          A tough question, indeed, :) .
>
>         Yes, "fluvial" should, actually, be a landform, made by flow,
> the processing of flow, :) .
>
Not quite. One can in fact talk about a fluvial environment.

On 19.8.2021. 4:19, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/18/21 7:12 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2021. 4:05, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 19.8.2021. 3:56, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.8.2021. 3:31, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 8/18/21 6:02 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 19.8.2021. 0:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't think he knew the word either, so no spoiler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          I did meet all three words, but:
>>>>>> - littoral I know, because Marc Verhaegen (he writes a lot in
>>>>>> s.a.p.) talks a lot about it
>>>>>> - riparian I did meet reading science papers, but I always have to
>>>>>> look in dictionary for what it means (yes, I am very bad at
>>>>>> languages, even my own). I wouldn't recall it, even if I knew what
>>>>>> to look for
>>>>>> - fluvial I also met, but frankly, right now I would need to look
>>>>>> out for the meaning of it (but I don't care, :) )
>>>>>>
>>>>> Can't help myself: fluvial refers to stuff in a river, riparian to
>>>>> stuff near a river, which is why riparian is the exact analog to
>>>>> littoral.
>>>>
>>>>          Oh, thanks very much. I really needed this, :) . Now it is
>>>> all sorted well (I hope I'll remember it).
>>>>          Englishmen would say: "Good man.". Thanks again.
>>>
>>>          Though, I have to say that littoral actually means near
>>> shore, but in both directions, towards the land, and in the sea. So,
>>> it, actually, isn't analogous neither to riparian, or fluvial
>>> (fluvial is, actually, a process).
>>>          A tough question, indeed, :) .
>>
>>          Yes, "fluvial" should, actually, be a landform, made by flow,
>> the processing of flow, :) .
>>
> Not quite. One can in fact talk about a fluvial environment.

Ah, OK.
Thanks.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2021. 1:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 18.8.2021. 13:43, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> Mario isn't even playing the game, because he didn't know that it was an
> >>>> analogy question.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I should have also spelled it out for him: "ocean is to littoral as river is to __________"
> >>> But I mistakenly assumed that the notation was familiar to him.
> >>>
> >>> I did not make that kind of mistake when I told him about the Unique Factorization Theorem
> >>> of integers. I very carefully removed all possible ambiguity from it, and wrote "whole number"
> >>> instead of "integer".
> >>>
> >>> But hey, if you had really wanted to help him, you should have told him it was an
> >>> analogy question instead spoiling the riddle for him.
> >
> >> Oh, nothing would help me. I have "brain fog", or something, I am not
> >> in the mood for solving that kind of riddles, actually, I even didn't
> >> think that this is some kind of a game,
> >
> > I didn't mean it as a game, I meant it as an illustrative example
> > of how tests for intelligence are not well set up for measuring
> > intelligence. It does take a bit of intelligence to grasp that
> > "littoral" means "having to do with the shore of a sea or ocean"
> > [and if you don't know that, you can look up the word in a good dictionary]
> > and to then realize that when "river" is substituted for "ocean", you need to
> > find a word that means "having to do with a bank of the river."
> >
> > Then it becomes a vocabulary test of an especially difficult sort.
> > The usual vocabulary test might ask you to define "riparian,"
> > but this one starts with the definition and makes you hunt for the word.
> > Short of going through a dictionary with at least 100,000 words,
> > it just boils down to the luck of being familiar with the word "riparian" .
> >
> > So we have a question that is under-1% an intelligence test and over-99% a vocabulary test.
> >
> >> I just answered anything to
> >> continue with conversation. Yes, John was right, I wasn't actually
> >> playing, I didn't, actually, understand, nor did I make an effort to
> >> understand, and, after all, I don't think that I would understand it in
> >> the first place. Word riddles aren't quite suitable for non-English
> >> speakers. Since my line of thinking was too simple, I thought that this
> >> is just some kind of example,
> >
> > Yes, an example to illustrate a point I was making.
> >
> > There is a very serious side to this. Back in the early 1970's was a furor when a professor
> > named Shockley published a paper that said Blacks in the USA were less intelligent
> > on average than Whites. He was branded a racist and his public appearances
> > were accompanied by riots. I witnessed one when a like-minded professor named Banfield
> > came to the University of Chicago and tried to give a speech; it was completely
> > disrupted by radicals.
> >
> > All this trouble could have been avoided if these people had been made
> > to see that IQ tests are unfair for making such allegations, because
> > of the different experiences an average Black has than the average White has.

> In tune with my view on intelligence, I am looking at it from the
> Evolution point of view. Just like physical abilities, I am claiming
> that different races have different mental abilities, depending on the
> conditions they evolved in. Of course, a lot of those mental abilities
> aren't measurable at all.

Quite true. Why not try posting this on sci.anthropology.paleo?
It looks to be even more on-topic there than here.

> >> and juts wanted to show that I know two
> >> words for small river, lol.
> >> Your mathematical question I did consider a riddle, but, for sure I
> >> cannot get into this. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with
> >> Covid, maybe its the old age,
> >
> > Old age? I seem to recall that you are more than a decade younger
> > than I am. If you are in as good health when I was your age, you have a lot of great years ahead of you.
> >
> > One of my favorite sayings after I became 60 is "The sixties are the youth of old age."
> > When I turned 60 I still could have run a kilometer in 4.5 minutes; now, 15 years older, I think
> > I'll be lucky to do it in 5.5.

> I'll turn 60 in two months. Of course, a lot depends on your physical
> abilities. I don't move out of my room *at all* (I am retired, :) ),
> during my whole life I was sitting whole day long (being a train driver,
> but I did hike a lot for one period on my life),

It's no too late to return to that state. Work up to it a little bit at a time.
I haven't run a kilometer in over a decade, but I've been slowly increasing
my stamina these last three months with daily walks and 4 shorter runs some mornings that add
up to over a kilometer and are interspersed with 2-minute walks.

When the cooler weather arrives, I expect to be routinely doing 1-kilometer runs.
For you, it might take a year to get up to that level, but it will be worth it.
When I got a nuclear stress test last month, all my arteries showed
completely normal. I don't know whether that would have been the case if I had had it before regular workouts.

> and things like that.
> After making a short walk, I am so tired that I usually fell to sleep, lol.
> I like it that way never the less. My idea is that people aren't made
> for physical endeavor. I am claiming that we ate shellfish, shellfish
> give you protein, but not energy.

It wasn't exclusively shellfish, I'm sure. Even Inuit (formerly called Eskimos)
ate vegetable material when they could get it.

And even if you are right, they probably ate everything in the shellfish,
and didn't clean it out with multiple rinses like they do before
you are served shellfish in a restaurant, or even before you buy
them in a grocery store. Otherwise, I believe they would have gotten
any number of vitamin deficiency "diseases" like scurvy, or beriberi, or pellagra.

> So, we probably did what we are doing
> on our vacation, laying down on the sun for whole day, :) .

And sitting ducks for predators? No thanks.

> >> maybe I am just too full, or maybe I am
> >> more concerned about the imminent global political reshuffling (which
> >> should greatly affect my region, Balkans, actually, this should be the
> >> most important thing of my life).
> >
> > All true, but since you have little way of predicting how it will turn out,
> > and less of being to change it, you might as well take time to have
> > some fun, and only think hard about it from time to time.
> Oh, not at all. Actually, I am really good at that. And I am doing it
> naturally, it looks like (since I grew up in this messy situation on
> Balkans). I grew up in the capitol of my country, in a, kind of, richer
> neighborhood (comparable to Berkeley Hills, but me being poor), going to
> school with kids from some prominent families. Later I was politically
> active (after the fall of communism) in my neighborhood, volunteer in
> war, in my youth I was hanging out with some intelligent people (one of
> my closest friends is now the main editor of 8 book history of Croatia,
> a major work; I learned some things from him, 30 years ago, when we were
> close). So, I was involved in some things, seen a lot with my own eyes,
> I know a lot of people, daughter of one Croatian president was my
> classmate, father of another classmate was the first director of
> national TV network, later, another classmate became that director (of
> national TV network, lol). And I was discussing the politics with
> everybody around me, and on the internet, whole the time.
> I can easily predict a lot of things. When West started with
> Globalization, I knew how this will end up.

Globalization is, IMO, an extension of imperialism, when the UK and the USA
and later the Soviet Union carried it out under various labels: "The White Man's Burden"
for the UK's British Empire; "Manifest Destiny" in the USA's expansionism, first
against Native American tribes east of the Mississippi and in buying part of
the French Empire from Emperor Napoleon, then in meddling in Latin America
including the conquest of half of Mexico; then in unsuccessful attempts to extend the USA
to include Cuba and other Central American countries.

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 6:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/18/21 4:43 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/17/21 6:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 6:47:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 8/17/21 3:44 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>> On 17.8.2021. 23:04, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 8.7.2021. 21:37, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 11:31:56 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 8.7.2021. 1:56, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 1:33:24 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/uyS1cXrsgIg
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> OK, I watched the rest of it. And if the narrator is telling the
> >>>>>>>>>> truth, it (and an even more absurd problem)
> >>>>>>>>>> is a sobering example of how all too many elementary school
> >>>>>>>>>> students cannot recognize that there is not enough
> >>>>>>>>>> information in a math problem to answer it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Either that, or they are so inhibited by the "authority figures"
> >>>>>>>>>> they have for teachers that they cannot
> >>>>>>>>>> bring themselves to write that there isn't enough information
> >>>>>>>>>> given to solve the problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Instead, we are told, a lot of the students thought the "right
> >>>>>>>>>> answer" could be found by adding
> >>>>>>>>>> or subtracting or otherwise manipulating the numbers given in
> >>>>>>>>>> simple ways. And so that was
> >>>>>>>>>> what they turned in. IOW, they guessed that the teacher wanted an
> >>>>>>>>>> actual answer and didn't
> >>>>>>>>>> care whether it really had anything logically to do with the
> >>>>>>>>>> problem, thinking it might improve their score on the test.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There may be a general lesson about human behavior in here
> >>>>>>>>>> somewhere, but I'm not going to spend any
> >>>>>>>>>> more time trying to figure it out.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> PS I do see the way the title of your post is, in a satirical way,
> >>>>>>>>>> a comment on all of the above.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, those students can be, and, obviously, are, confused by many a
> >>>>>>>>> things. One of the thing is that they think that the problem is
> >>>>>>>>> solvable. There may also be a lot of other things which distracts them
> >>>>>>>>> from seeing the answer.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But, on the other hand, the problem is extremely simple, *everybody*
> >>>>>>>>> should be able to solve it without problems. It is *obvious* that
> >>>>>>>>> captain's age has nothing to do with sheep and goats.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On the other hand, the video did give a clever way of theorizing that
> >>>>>>>> the captain had to be at least 28 years old. So it could be argued that
> >>>>>>>> the only thing wrong with the problem was that it didn't ask, "What is
> >>>>>>>> the minimum age that the captain could be?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Actually, no. The whole "license" thing isn't part of the equation at
> >>>>>>> all. Those variables aren't part of the test.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wrong. To carry cargo beyond a certain low limit, one needs licensure.
> >>>>>> This could then be a test question like so many other test questions
> >>>>>> that ostensibly study intelligence, yet require specialized knowledge,
> >>>>>> such as a vocabulary beyond
> >>>>>> what the ordinary person knows. Here is one question from an
> >>>>>> intelligence test that shows this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ocean : littoral : : river : _________________
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you answer it? I assure you, the word is only part of the
> >>>>>> vocabulary of
> >>>>>> maybe 1% of Americans, mostly those who have studied law or geography
> >>>>>> on an advanced level.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Creek? :) . Maybe, stream. Pond shouldn't be. Spring isn't
> >>>>> there, yet. In Croatian it should be "potok".
> >>>>> No, this (the original question) isn't a "trick" question, the
> >>>>> question is for kids, the "license" thing is out of the scoop.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I believe the word Peter is looking for is "riparian".
> >>>
> >>> How could you miss the hints that I was NOT "looking for" the word
> >>> but had it well in mind? Didn't my putting "law" in addition to
> >>> "geography" tip you off?
> >
> >> You are misunderstanding what I said.
> >
> > Wrong. YOU are misunderstanding what you said.

> You misunderstand simple English expressions and idioms.

Wrong again. You changed "word" into "answer" and "you are" into "I'm" to broaden the connotations.

> "The answer I'm
> looking for" is easily and commonly understood as implying that I know
> the answer and are hoping you can also produce it.

Irrelevant. When "you are" is used, the understanding is what you see with the following search page:

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrJ7J.ulh5hjpkAhwNXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA21jYWZlZQRmcjIDc2ItdG9wBGdwcmlkAzVLTFgwU1FvU0hTZ1BoMzFTZGN1QkEEbl9yc2x0AzAEbl9zdWdnAzQEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMwBHFzdHJsAzM4BHF1ZXJ5AyUyMnRoZSUyMGFuc3dlciUyMHlvdSUyMGFyZSUyMGxvb2tpbmclMjBmb3IlMjIlMjB1c2FnZQR0X3N0bXADMTYyOTM5NDY0OA--?p=%22the+answer+you+are+looking+for%22+usage&fr2=sb-top&fr=mcafee&type=E210US105G91483

This usage is exemplified by an exchange that occurred when someone (whose name I forget) was
praised by one of the blog regulars, named William, for his "excellent repost." To which I replied:

[He] didn't repost anything, Willie. The word you are looking for is "riposte."

> Perhaps mathematicians have difficulties with idioms?

Perhaps long-unemployed biologists have nothing better to do with their time
than to ask mean-spirited questions.

By the way, does your wife still accuse you of having Aspergers?

I praised your courage for daring to let us know that your wife suspects
something to which you have never admitted on Usenet, but your
agenda forbids you to thank anyone like me for praise, and instead you claimed that it took no courage at all.

Which only seems to support her unconfirmed "diagnosis."

> > > By "looking for" I meant "asking
> >> you for". No implication that you didn't know the word, and in fact the
> >> implication was that you did.
> >
> > Wrong again. If that was your intent, you should have said,
> > "I believe the word Peter has in mind is "riparian."

No attempt by you to refute this. Your moving of the goalposts above does
not qualify as an attempt.

> > But over a decade of putting the worst spin that you can
> > think of [1] on thousands of things I say or do has probably clouded
> > your mind to where you often don't realize that what you are saying is bullshit.
> >
> > And that's why I wrote "should" instead of "would" where I fixed your sentence for you.
> >
> > [1] A very notable exception was the oasis of civilization you agreed to
> > in sci.bio.paleontology between June (or was it April? I'll have to check when I have more time)
> > 1995 and early 1998. But you kept up that denigration full blast on talk.origins the
> > whole time.

On 19.8.2021. 19:31, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2021. 1:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 18.8.2021. 13:43, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> Mario isn't even playing the game, because he didn't know that it was an
>>>>>> analogy question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I should have also spelled it out for him: "ocean is to littoral as river is to __________"
>>>>> But I mistakenly assumed that the notation was familiar to him.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not make that kind of mistake when I told him about the Unique Factorization Theorem
>>>>> of integers. I very carefully removed all possible ambiguity from it, and wrote "whole number"
>>>>> instead of "integer".
>>>>>
>>>>> But hey, if you had really wanted to help him, you should have told him it was an
>>>>> analogy question instead spoiling the riddle for him.
>>>
>>>> Oh, nothing would help me. I have "brain fog", or something, I am not
>>>> in the mood for solving that kind of riddles, actually, I even didn't
>>>> think that this is some kind of a game,
>>>
>>> I didn't mean it as a game, I meant it as an illustrative example
>>> of how tests for intelligence are not well set up for measuring
>>> intelligence. It does take a bit of intelligence to grasp that
>>> "littoral" means "having to do with the shore of a sea or ocean"
>>> [and if you don't know that, you can look up the word in a good dictionary]
>>> and to then realize that when "river" is substituted for "ocean", you need to
>>> find a word that means "having to do with a bank of the river."
>>>
>>> Then it becomes a vocabulary test of an especially difficult sort.
>>> The usual vocabulary test might ask you to define "riparian,"
>>> but this one starts with the definition and makes you hunt for the word.
>>> Short of going through a dictionary with at least 100,000 words,
>>> it just boils down to the luck of being familiar with the word "riparian" .
>>>
>>> So we have a question that is under-1% an intelligence test and over-99% a vocabulary test.
>>>
>>>> I just answered anything to
>>>> continue with conversation. Yes, John was right, I wasn't actually
>>>> playing, I didn't, actually, understand, nor did I make an effort to
>>>> understand, and, after all, I don't think that I would understand it in
>>>> the first place. Word riddles aren't quite suitable for non-English
>>>> speakers. Since my line of thinking was too simple, I thought that this
>>>> is just some kind of example,
>>>
>>> Yes, an example to illustrate a point I was making.
>>>
>>> There is a very serious side to this. Back in the early 1970's was a furor when a professor
>>> named Shockley published a paper that said Blacks in the USA were less intelligent
>>> on average than Whites. He was branded a racist and his public appearances
>>> were accompanied by riots. I witnessed one when a like-minded professor named Banfield
>>> came to the University of Chicago and tried to give a speech; it was completely
>>> disrupted by radicals.
>>>
>>> All this trouble could have been avoided if these people had been made
>>> to see that IQ tests are unfair for making such allegations, because
>>> of the different experiences an average Black has than the average White has.
>
>> In tune with my view on intelligence, I am looking at it from the
>> Evolution point of view. Just like physical abilities, I am claiming
>> that different races have different mental abilities, depending on the
>> conditions they evolved in. Of course, a lot of those mental abilities
>> aren't measurable at all.
>
> Quite true. Why not try posting this on sci.anthropology.paleo?
> It looks to be even more on-topic there than here.

I, very probably, did, sometime in the past. I have enough of posting
always the same things. I posted it here because we are discussing this.

>>>> and juts wanted to show that I know two
>>>> words for small river, lol.
>>>> Your mathematical question I did consider a riddle, but, for sure I
>>>> cannot get into this. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with
>>>> Covid, maybe its the old age,
>>>
>>> Old age? I seem to recall that you are more than a decade younger
>>> than I am. If you are in as good health when I was your age, you have a lot of great years ahead of you.
>>>
>>> One of my favorite sayings after I became 60 is "The sixties are the youth of old age."
>>> When I turned 60 I still could have run a kilometer in 4.5 minutes; now, 15 years older, I think
>>> I'll be lucky to do it in 5.5.
>
>> I'll turn 60 in two months. Of course, a lot depends on your physical
>> abilities. I don't move out of my room *at all* (I am retired, :) ),
>> during my whole life I was sitting whole day long (being a train driver,
>> but I did hike a lot for one period on my life),
>
> It's no too late to return to that state. Work up to it a little bit at a time.
> I haven't run a kilometer in over a decade, but I've been slowly increasing
> my stamina these last three months with daily walks and 4 shorter runs some mornings that add
> up to over a kilometer and are interspersed with 2-minute walks.
>
> When the cooler weather arrives, I expect to be routinely doing 1-kilometer runs.
> For you, it might take a year to get up to that level, but it will be worth it.
> When I got a nuclear stress test last month, all my arteries showed
> completely normal. I don't know whether that would have been the case if I had had it before regular workouts.

My goal in life is to accommodate my needs, my feeling. I don't feel
like running around, I feel like sitting in front of computer.
You are suggesting me that I should run, so that I feel better when
sitting in front of computer, and so that I can live longer, so that I
can longer sit in front of computer?
Good idea, but I never go after some imaginary goals, I always
accommodate my current needs, ;) .

> > and things like that.
>> After making a short walk, I am so tired that I usually fell to sleep, lol.
>> I like it that way never the less. My idea is that people aren't made
>> for physical endeavor. I am claiming that we ate shellfish, shellfish
>> give you protein, but not energy.
>
> It wasn't exclusively shellfish, I'm sure. Even Inuit (formerly called Eskimos)
> ate vegetable material when they could get it.
>
> And even if you are right, they probably ate everything in the shellfish,
> and didn't clean it out with multiple rinses like they do before
> you are served shellfish in a restaurant, or even before you buy
> them in a grocery store. Otherwise, I believe they would have gotten
> any number of vitamin deficiency "diseases" like scurvy, or beriberi, or pellagra.

Thanks, excellent suggestion.
Yes, they were eating normal primate food, fruits and such, probably
also eggs, plus they were eating shellfish.
We have thick enamel because shellfish (unrinsed) is full with sand.

>> So, we probably did what we are doing
>> on our vacation, laying down on the sun for whole day, :) .
>
> And sitting ducks for predators? No thanks.

Actually, no.
At first we were living on seaside cliffs. There, we were safe from
predators. Take a look at those two videos. See, scientists don't
understand what is going on. What is happening is that terrestrial
predators aren't made to hunt in water:
https://youtu.be/jSGikymKFlc?t=124
https://youtu.be/vnClAxxL1j0?t=173
Later we started to use fire. Cats need ambush, with fire you can burn
low vegetation, so cats cannot hide, and they will not attack.
Cowboys in pampas had problems with jaguars, jaguars were attacking
their cattle. Then they figured out how to solve the problem. It is
enough to move your cattle 200 meters away from jungle, and jaguars will
not attack.

>>>> maybe I am just too full, or maybe I am
>>>> more concerned about the imminent global political reshuffling (which
>>>> should greatly affect my region, Balkans, actually, this should be the
>>>> most important thing of my life).
>>>
>>> All true, but since you have little way of predicting how it will turn out,
>>> and less of being to change it, you might as well take time to have
>>> some fun, and only think hard about it from time to time.
>> Oh, not at all. Actually, I am really good at that. And I am doing it
>> naturally, it looks like (since I grew up in this messy situation on
>> Balkans). I grew up in the capitol of my country, in a, kind of, richer
>> neighborhood (comparable to Berkeley Hills, but me being poor), going to
>> school with kids from some prominent families. Later I was politically
>> active (after the fall of communism) in my neighborhood, volunteer in
>> war, in my youth I was hanging out with some intelligent people (one of
>> my closest friends is now the main editor of 8 book history of Croatia,
>> a major work; I learned some things from him, 30 years ago, when we were
>> close). So, I was involved in some things, seen a lot with my own eyes,
>> I know a lot of people, daughter of one Croatian president was my
>> classmate, father of another classmate was the first director of
>> national TV network, later, another classmate became that director (of
>> national TV network, lol). And I was discussing the politics with
>> everybody around me, and on the internet, whole the time.
>> I can easily predict a lot of things. When West started with
>> Globalization, I knew how this will end up.
>
> Globalization is, IMO, an extension of imperialism, when the UK and the USA
> and later the Soviet Union carried it out under various labels: "The White Man's Burden"
> for the UK's British Empire; "Manifest Destiny" in the USA's expansionism, first
> against Native American tribes east of the Mississippi and in buying part of
> the French Empire from Emperor Napoleon, then in meddling in Latin America
> including the conquest of half of Mexico; then in unsuccessful attempts to extend the USA
> to include Cuba and other Central American countries.
>
> Finally, I don't even need to tell you about the imperialism that Soviet Russia inherited
> from the Russian Empire, first by reconquering the Caucasus countries [Stalin made very
> sure that his native Georgia was included] and then reconquering the Baltic countries
> [except for the unsuccessful attempt to re-annex Finland] and Bessarabia, then including
> Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, and East Germany under its imperialist rule.
> You have Tito to thank for Yugoslavia being at least nominally outside it.
>
> The mindset which justified all this imperialism is alive and well in globalism.

On 8/19/21 10:31 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

>> Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against
>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .
>
> I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not avoiding it for the wrong reasons.

Seriously?

On 8/19/21 11:13 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 6:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/18/21 4:43 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/21 6:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 6:47:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/21 3:44 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17.8.2021. 23:04, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8.7.2021. 21:37, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 11:31:56 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8.7.2021. 1:56, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 1:33:24 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/uyS1cXrsgIg
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I watched the rest of it. And if the narrator is telling the
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth, it (and an even more absurd problem)
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a sobering example of how all too many elementary school
>>>>>>>>>>>> students cannot recognize that there is not enough
>>>>>>>>>>>> information in a math problem to answer it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Either that, or they are so inhibited by the "authority figures"
>>>>>>>>>>>> they have for teachers that they cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> bring themselves to write that there isn't enough information
>>>>>>>>>>>> given to solve the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, we are told, a lot of the students thought the "right
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer" could be found by adding
>>>>>>>>>>>> or subtracting or otherwise manipulating the numbers given in
>>>>>>>>>>>> simple ways. And so that was
>>>>>>>>>>>> what they turned in. IOW, they guessed that the teacher wanted an
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual answer and didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> care whether it really had anything logically to do with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, thinking it might improve their score on the test.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There may be a general lesson about human behavior in here
>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere, but I'm not going to spend any
>>>>>>>>>>>> more time trying to figure it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PS I do see the way the title of your post is, in a satirical way,
>>>>>>>>>>>> a comment on all of the above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, those students can be, and, obviously, are, confused by many a
>>>>>>>>>>> things. One of the thing is that they think that the problem is
>>>>>>>>>>> solvable. There may also be a lot of other things which distracts them
>>>>>>>>>>> from seeing the answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, on the other hand, the problem is extremely simple, *everybody*
>>>>>>>>>>> should be able to solve it without problems. It is *obvious* that
>>>>>>>>>>> captain's age has nothing to do with sheep and goats.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, the video did give a clever way of theorizing that
>>>>>>>>>> the captain had to be at least 28 years old. So it could be argued that
>>>>>>>>>> the only thing wrong with the problem was that it didn't ask, "What is
>>>>>>>>>> the minimum age that the captain could be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, no. The whole "license" thing isn't part of the equation at
>>>>>>>>> all. Those variables aren't part of the test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong. To carry cargo beyond a certain low limit, one needs licensure.
>>>>>>>> This could then be a test question like so many other test questions
>>>>>>>> that ostensibly study intelligence, yet require specialized knowledge,
>>>>>>>> such as a vocabulary beyond
>>>>>>>> what the ordinary person knows. Here is one question from an
>>>>>>>> intelligence test that shows this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ocean : littoral : : river : _________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you answer it? I assure you, the word is only part of the
>>>>>>>> vocabulary of
>>>>>>>> maybe 1% of Americans, mostly those who have studied law or geography
>>>>>>>> on an advanced level.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Creek? :) . Maybe, stream. Pond shouldn't be. Spring isn't
>>>>>>> there, yet. In Croatian it should be "potok".
>>>>>>> No, this (the original question) isn't a "trick" question, the
>>>>>>> question is for kids, the "license" thing is out of the scoop.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the word Peter is looking for is "riparian".
>>>>>
>>>>> How could you miss the hints that I was NOT "looking for" the word
>>>>> but had it well in mind? Didn't my putting "law" in addition to
>>>>> "geography" tip you off?
>>>
>>>> You are misunderstanding what I said.
>>>
>>> Wrong. YOU are misunderstanding what you said.
>
>> You misunderstand simple English expressions and idioms.
>
> Wrong again. You changed "word" into "answer" and "you are" into "I'm" to broaden the connotations.

One has to ask if this is some special disability associated with
mathematicians.

> > "The answer I'm
>> looking for" is easily and commonly understood as implying that I know
>> the answer and are hoping you can also produce it.
>
> Irrelevant. When "you are" is used, the understanding is what you see with the following search page:

But nobody say "you are". Right? So even if you were correct about the
(sole) understanding, that would be irrelevant.

> https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrJ7J.ulh5hjpkAhwNXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA21jYWZlZQRmcjIDc2ItdG9wBGdwcmlkAzVLTFgwU1FvU0hTZ1BoMzFTZGN1QkEEbl9yc2x0AzAEbl9zdWdnAzQEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMwBHFzdHJsAzM4BHF1ZXJ5AyUyMnRoZSUyMGFuc3dlciUyMHlvdSUyMGFyZSUyMGxvb2tpbmclMjBmb3IlMjIlMjB1c2FnZQR0X3N0bXADMTYyOTM5NDY0OA--?p=%22the+answer+you+are+looking+for%22+usage&fr2=sb-top&fr=mcafee&type=E210US105G91483
>
> This usage is exemplified by an exchange that occurred when someone (whose name I forget) was
> praised by one of the blog regulars, named William, for his "excellent repost." To which I replied:
>
> [He] didn't repost anything, Willie. The word you are looking for is "riposte."

That's not even slightly relevant. You were correcting a misspelling,
not referring to a question. Context is important when interpreting
language.

>> Perhaps mathematicians have difficulties with idioms?
>
> Perhaps long-unemployed biologists have nothing better to do with their time
> than to ask mean-spirited questions.

Speaking of mean-spirited, why do you have to insert "long-unemployed"?

> By the way, does your wife still accuse you of having Aspergers?

Frequently, but again this seems to be nothing more than a gratuitous
attack. What the heck?

> I praised your courage for daring to let us know that your wife suspects
> something to which you have never admitted on Usenet, but your
> agenda forbids you to thank anyone like me for praise, and instead you claimed that it took no courage at all.

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 6:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/18/21 4:43 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

I had written:

> >>> Mario and I get along well, and our numerous disagreements are all friendly,
> >>> and only serve to spice up the conversation. And the topic interested both of us.
> >>>
> >>> 'nuff said?
> >
> >> Way more than enough. Notice that you take offense when there is no
> >> offense offered. Try dialing it back.
> >
> > Notice that you cast aspersions on my sanity when I caught you red-handed
> > in a lie on a talk.origins thread,

> No, you supposed you had caught me in a lie, in which you were wrong.

I knew I had caught you in a lie: once I posted a tightened version of the proof,
neither you nor either of your allies, named below, ever even hinted at the fact
that you had been accused of a lie, but relentlessly cast aspersions on my
sanity, as you are doing here.

The tightened version was here:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg/m/-xa_YvUtAQAJ

And to this day, no one has dealt with any part of my proof there. It is quite short:

_____________________________________________________________________________
Absent from that one-line general statement of yours was any reference to what I had written in the preceding
three lines. In everyday life, when person makes such a general statement in such a context, people often
get the impression that he is denying what had been stated. That is what I meant by
"made it seem like [you were] claiming to have argued science with Dr.Dr. Kleinman...,"
and it was a lie to say that this displays any inability to read; the opposite is the truth.
[...]
> > It is all about the history of talk.origins, which your kind massively rewrites in their favor.
> > "That's just your inability to read" is a prime example of that.
>
> Considering that you grossly misunderstood the statement, it isn't an
> example of what you imagine it is.

As can be seen, I did not misread your statement; I dealt with it as written,
without trying to "read your mind" -- something you perennially criticize me for allegedly doing.
==============================================================================
If that is still too intricate for you, I'll gladly rephrase it so anyone on your level of intelligence can understand it.

> The crazy part was the obsessive, Queeg-like rant.

Liar. Queeg's behavior was the polar opposite of even thinking he had
caught a culprit red-handed. You have been running a "Queeg" scam
for years on this pretense that the two behaviors are similar.

Hemidactylus unwittingly helped me to see that, by providing
a link to that scene, which it might otherwise taken me a long time to find..

And I capitalized on that as follows:

__________________________excerpt with side issue snipped _________________________

> Didn’t Harshman once make allusions to a well known movie pivoting on
> missing strawberries and featuring the dad from My Three Sons?

He did that several times over the years, on similar occasions. This time, he has
used it as a talisman to avoid even alluding to the fact that he has been caught
red-handed in a lie, and in misrepresenting what the lie was about.

It's been similarly used on other occasions, but at least once on behalf of someone else.
IIRC John's main sidekick, Erik Simpson, was the one in the hot seat on one occasion.

[...]

> https://youtu.be/edQy5jBxhV8
>
> Do you even like strawberries? What might they symbolically represent?

I suppose you are familiar with the simile,

"Like a drowning man grasping at straws."

Here is a similar metaphor:

"You are helping a man drowning in his dishonesty in grasping at strawberries."

========================= end of excerpt from ==================
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg/m/Gvdy_FA1AQAJ
Re: A Tale of Two Newsgroups: talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology

> > following the lead of the perennial "you need to show
> > what you wrote to your psychiatrist" Mark Isaak, and supported
> > by Hemidactylus to the hilt, with all three of you gossiping about me in a
> > typical Internet Hellion Thread Diluting Kaffeeklatsch.
> >
> > You are a fine one to talk about dialing back. It is only because Mario doesn't
> > care for personal fighting that I'm not documenting what I wrote just now.

> If that's the only reason, that's a problem too.

Not a problem at all, prevaricator.

Peter Nyikos

On 20.8.2021. 0:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>         I was in London, in 1987. and I was discussing this with some
> Slovenians (we were in the same camp). Everybody knew everything.
> Slovenians knew that Slovenia will escape the real war, I knew the
> extent of war that will happen in Croatia, Bosnians knew that it will be
> a bloodshed in Bosnia. We all knew everything.

Ok, this is the basis of things that are going on in politics.
Do you know how we knew the extent of war that will happen? The amount
of Serbs you have in your country, the bigger the trouble. Serbs are the
troublemakers.
Why? Because they want to rule the world. Their problem is, the West
is ruling the world. Whoever wants to rule the world (everybody wants
it) will go against the West. You name it, communists, Catholic church,
Muslims, everybody.
Serbs will never come to their senses, until the last Serb is here he
will want to rule the world. The same goes for Vatican, the same goes
for Moscow, the same goes for Beijing.
The mistake West makes. West included women votes in election. West
included 16 years old in election. Women are excellent for raising
babies, not for ruling the country. Young people are stupid, in the old
days old people were setting the rules.
And now the politics of West thinks that the World is their
kindergarten. 50,000 of poorly armed Talibans wiped off 300,000 of
government troops, just like that, with ease. Because the world *isn't*
their kindergarten. They will kill whoever they need to kill to achieve
their goals.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 21.8.2021. 14:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.8.2021. 0:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>          I was in London, in 1987. and I was discussing this with some
>> Slovenians (we were in the same camp). Everybody knew everything.
>> Slovenians knew that Slovenia will escape the real war, I knew the
>> extent of war that will happen in Croatia, Bosnians knew that it will
>> be a bloodshed in Bosnia. We all knew everything.
>
>         Ok, this is the basis of things that are going on in politics.
>         Do you know how we knew the extent of war that will happen? The
> amount of Serbs you have in your country, the bigger the trouble. Serbs
> are the troublemakers.
>         Why? Because they want to rule the world. Their problem is, the
> West is ruling the world. Whoever wants to rule the world (everybody
> wants it) will go against the West. You name it, communists, Catholic
> church, Muslims, everybody.
>         Serbs will never come to their senses, until the last Serb is
> here he will want to rule the world. The same goes for Vatican, the same
> goes for Moscow, the same goes for Beijing.
>         The mistake West makes. West included women votes in election.
> West included 16 years old in election. Women are excellent for raising
> babies, not for ruling the country. Young people are stupid, in the old
> days old people were setting the rules.
>         And now the politics of West thinks that the World is their
> kindergarten. 50,000 of poorly armed Talibans wiped off 300,000 of
> government troops, just like that, with ease. Because the world *isn't*
> their kindergarten. They will kill whoever they need to kill to achieve
> their goals.

This show was filmed 28 years ago. If a parent behaves like this
today, he would be jailed. In this show guy even mentions fat people in
derogatory fashion (if I understood it correctly). For sure this show
would never be aired today. In the meantime I saw Talibans whip people
with a whipcord, like a cattle. If you think that your baby face idiots
would win in a war against those savages, you are wrong.
https://youtu.be/0QVPUIRGthI

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 8/20/21 6:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 6:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/18/21 4:43 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> I had written:
>
>>>>> Mario and I get along well, and our numerous disagreements are all friendly,
>>>>> and only serve to spice up the conversation. And the topic interested both of us.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'nuff said?
>>>
>>>> Way more than enough. Notice that you take offense when there is no
>>>> offense offered. Try dialing it back.
>>>
>>> Notice that you cast aspersions on my sanity when I caught you red-handed
>>> in a lie on a talk.origins thread,
>
>> No, you supposed you had caught me in a lie, in which you were wrong.
>
> I knew I had caught you in a lie: once I posted a tightened version of the proof,
> neither you nor either of your allies, named below, ever even hinted at the fact
> that you had been accused of a lie, but relentlessly cast aspersions on my
> sanity, as you are doing here.

Just because I don't mention something doesn't mean I don't think it or
that it isn't true. I certainly do have doubts about your sanity, as
would anyone reading some of the stuff you post.

> The tightened version was here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg/m/-xa_YvUtAQAJ
>
> And to this day, no one has dealt with any part of my proof there. It is quite short:
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> Absent from that one-line general statement of yours was any reference to what I had written in the preceding
> three lines. In everyday life, when person makes such a general statement in such a context, people often
> get the impression that he is denying what had been stated. That is what I meant by
> "made it seem like [you were] claiming to have argued science with Dr.Dr. Kleinman...,"
> and it was a lie to say that this displays any inability to read; the opposite is the truth.
> [...]
>>> It is all about the history of talk.origins, which your kind massively rewrites in their favor.
>>> "That's just your inability to read" is a prime example of that.
>>
>> Considering that you grossly misunderstood the statement, it isn't an
>> example of what you imagine it is.
>
> As can be seen, I did not misread your statement; I dealt with it as written,
> without trying to "read your mind" -- something you perennially criticize me for allegedly doing.
> ===============================================================================
>
> If that is still too intricate for you, I'll gladly rephrase it so anyone on your level of intelligence can understand it.

I have no interest in discussing this insanity.

>> The crazy part was the obsessive, Queeg-like rant.
>
> Liar. Queeg's behavior was the polar opposite of even thinking he had
> caught a culprit red-handed. You have been running a "Queeg" scam
> for years on this pretense that the two behaviors are similar.
>
> Hemidactylus unwittingly helped me to see that, by providing
> a link to that scene, which it might otherwise taken me a long time to find.
>
> And I capitalized on that as follows:
>
> __________________________excerpt with side issue snipped _________________________
>
>
>> Didn’t Harshman once make allusions to a well known movie pivoting on
>> missing strawberries and featuring the dad from My Three Sons?
>
> He did that several times over the years, on similar occasions. This time, he has
> used it as a talisman to avoid even alluding to the fact that he has been caught
> red-handed in a lie, and in misrepresenting what the lie was about.
>
> It's been similarly used on other occasions, but at least once on behalf of someone else.
> IIRC John's main sidekick, Erik Simpson, was the one in the hot seat on one occasion.
>
> [...]
>
>> https://youtu.be/edQy5jBxhV8
>>
>> Do you even like strawberries? What might they symbolically represent?
>
> I suppose you are familiar with the simile,
>
> "Like a drowning man grasping at straws."
>
> Here is a similar metaphor:
>
> "You are helping a man drowning in his dishonesty in grasping at strawberries."
>
> ========================= end of excerpt from ===================
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg/m/Gvdy_FA1AQAJ
> Re: A Tale of Two Newsgroups: talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology
>
>
>>> following the lead of the perennial "you need to show
>>> what you wrote to your psychiatrist" Mark Isaak, and supported
>>> by Hemidactylus to the hilt, with all three of you gossiping about me in a
>>> typical Internet Hellion Thread Diluting Kaffeeklatsch.
>>>
>>> You are a fine one to talk about dialing back. It is only because Mario doesn't
>>> care for personal fighting that I'm not documenting what I wrote just now.
>
>> If that's the only reason, that's a problem too.
>
> Not a problem at all, prevaricator.

Seriously: anyone reading all this would be likely to doubt your sanity.
Just stop.

Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Hemidactylus unwittingly helped me to see that, by providing
> a link to that scene, which it might otherwise taken me a long time to find.
>
Why are you still bringing me into this on a newsgroup I rarely contribute
to and in a manner far removed from paleontology? Isn’t that the subject
matter of this group? Long buried extinct organisms?

I could maintain a presence on usenet just replying to you talking about me
for whatever reason.

On 21.8.2021. 14:10, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.8.2021. 0:28, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>          I was in London, in 1987. and I was discussing this with some
>> Slovenians (we were in the same camp). Everybody knew everything.
>> Slovenians knew that Slovenia will escape the real war, I knew the
>> extent of war that will happen in Croatia, Bosnians knew that it will
>> be a bloodshed in Bosnia. We all knew everything.
>
>         Ok, this is the basis of things that are going on in politics.
>         Do you know how we knew the extent of war that will happen? The
> amount of Serbs you have in your country, the bigger the trouble. Serbs
> are the troublemakers.
>         Why? Because they want to rule the world. Their problem is, the
> West is ruling the world. Whoever wants to rule the world (everybody
> wants it) will go against the West. You name it, communists, Catholic
> church, Muslims, everybody.
>         Serbs will never come to their senses, until the last Serb is
> here he will want to rule the world. The same goes for Vatican, the same
> goes for Moscow, the same goes for Beijing.
>         The mistake West makes. West included women votes in election.
> West included 16 years old in election. Women are excellent for raising
> babies, not for ruling the country. Young people are stupid, in the old
> days old people were setting the rules.
>         And now the politics of West thinks that the World is their
> kindergarten. 50,000 of poorly armed Talibans wiped off 300,000 of
> government troops, just like that, with ease. Because the world *isn't*
> their kindergarten. They will kill whoever they need to kill to achieve
> their goals.

When the going gets tough, different reactions of men and women:
https://youtu.be/i6Fr9UztVkk

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

What goes around comes around. Harshman's lie was about something that he had written
in sci.bio.paleontology, and now, with Harshman reacting like a common criminal to being shown
the proof of his having lied, it has returned to sci.bio.paleontology.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 1:30:37 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus*, seeing how dishonestly
his buddy Harshman reacted to seeing the evidence, decided to complain about a triviality
to distract people's attention:

> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Hemidactylus unwittingly helped me to see that, by providing
> > a link to that scene, which it might otherwise taken me a long time to find.
> >
> Why are you still bringing me into this

Because you tried to promote Harshman's perennial Queeg scam, and it backfired on
both of you. You know that, because, unlike the marked snip you did at the beginning,
you made an unmarked snip of the exchange where I quoted you doing it. And I did
this in direct reply to Harshman lying about me having behaved like Queeg again.

> on a newsgroup I rarely contribute
> to and in a manner far removed from paleontology?

IIRC you did some posts far removed from paleontology in your last long presence here.
Do you recall differently?

> Isn’t that the subject
> matter of this group?

It is, and that is what it was almost exclusively for between mid-2015 and early
2018, but Harshman got tired of behaving like Mr. Nice Guy, and reverted
to his talk.origins behavior here in s.b.p. with numerous examples of blatant favoritism and unjustified attacks,
punctuated by occasional demonstrable lies, and outright libel about me behaving
like one afflicted by Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

> Long buried extinct organisms?
>
> I could maintain a presence on usenet just replying to you talking about me
> for whatever reason.

"whatever reason, " in this case, was you working hand in glove with Harshman
and Mark Isaak, who kept casting aspersions on my sanity to deflect attention
from the proof of Harshman's dishonesty.

Peter Nyikos

PS You are extremely consistent in at least one way: here, as well as in talk.origins,
you are playing the role of an ethical nihilist to the hilt.

On 8/23/21 8:15 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> What goes around comes around. Harshman's lie was about something that he had written
> in sci.bio.paleontology, and now, with Harshman reacting like a common criminal to being shown
> the proof of his having lied, it has returned to sci.bio.paleontology.
>
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 1:30:37 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus*, seeing how dishonestly
> his buddy Harshman reacted to seeing the evidence, decided to complain about a triviality
> to distract people's attention:

I still hold out some faint hope that upon re-reading what you wrote
above (and below too), you will be able to view it with enough
detachment to realize how insane it would sound to anyone who wasn't
you. I will admit that it's faint.

>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Hemidactylus unwittingly helped me to see that, by providing
>>> a link to that scene, which it might otherwise taken me a long time to find.
>>>
>> Why are you still bringing me into this
>
> Because you tried to promote Harshman's perennial Queeg scam, and it backfired on
> both of you. You know that, because, unlike the marked snip you did at the beginning,
> you made an unmarked snip of the exchange where I quoted you doing it. And I did
> this in direct reply to Harshman lying about me having behaved like Queeg again.
>
>
>> on a newsgroup I rarely contribute
>> to and in a manner far removed from paleontology?
>
> IIRC you did some posts far removed from paleontology in your last long presence here.
> Do you recall differently?
>
>> Isn’t that the subject
>> matter of this group?
>
> It is, and that is what it was almost exclusively for between mid-2015 and early
> 2018, but Harshman got tired of behaving like Mr. Nice Guy, and reverted
> to his talk.origins behavior here in s.b.p. with numerous examples of blatant favoritism and unjustified attacks,
> punctuated by occasional demonstrable lies, and outright libel about me behaving
> like one afflicted by Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
>
>
>> Long buried extinct organisms?
>>
>> I could maintain a presence on usenet just replying to you talking about me
>> for whatever reason.
>
> "whatever reason, " in this case, was you working hand in glove with Harshman
> and Mark Isaak, who kept casting aspersions on my sanity to deflect attention
> from the proof of Harshman's dishonesty.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS You are extremely consistent in at least one way: here, as well as in talk.origins,
> you are playing the role of an ethical nihilist to the hilt.
>

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 1:53:19 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/20/21 6:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 6:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/18/21 4:43 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> > I had written:
> >
> >>>>> Mario and I get along well, and our numerous disagreements are all friendly,
> >>>>> and only serve to spice up the conversation. And the topic interested both of us.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'nuff said?
> >>>
> >>>> Way more than enough. Notice that you take offense when there is no
> >>>> offense offered. Try dialing it back.
> >>>
> >>> Notice that you cast aspersions on my sanity when I caught you red-handed
> >>> in a lie on a talk.origins thread,
> >
> >> No, you supposed you had caught me in a lie, in which you were wrong.
> >
> > I knew I had caught you in a lie: once I posted a tightened version of the proof,
> > neither you nor either of your allies, named below, ever even hinted at the fact
> > that you had been accused of a lie, but relentlessly cast aspersions on my
> > sanity, as you are doing here.

> Just because I don't mention something doesn't mean I don't think it or
> that it isn't true.

"mention something" is completely missing the point: none of you made any
effort to show that what I wrote was *mistaken*, which any rational, innocent person
would naturally try to do.

But you were not innocent, and your behavior in this post (and
several times in talk.origins, recounted above) is anything but rational.

> I certainly do have doubts about your sanity, as
> would anyone reading some of the stuff you post.

Did you have "anyone" in mind besides yourself and Mark Isaak? I suppose
Thrinaxodon/Oxyaena would be another, but if Hemidactylus entertained
any such doubts, he certainly hasn't voiced them. His reply to the same
post to which you are replying was a masterpiece of "Ignoring the Elephant in the Room."

Even Mark Isaak might hesitate in pronouncing what you write below as "sane and rational".

> > The tightened version was here:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg/m/-xa_YvUtAQAJ
> >
> > And to this day, no one has dealt with any part of my proof there. It is quite short:
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________________________
> > Absent from that one-line general statement of yours was any reference to what I had written in the preceding
> > three lines. In everyday life, when person makes such a general statement in such a context, people often
> > get the impression that he is denying what had been stated. That is what I meant by
> > "made it seem like [you were] claiming to have argued science with Dr.Dr. Kleinman...,"
> > and it was a lie to say that this displays any inability to read; the opposite is the truth.
> > [...]
> >>> It is all about the history of talk.origins, which your kind massively rewrites in their favor.
> >>> "That's just your inability to read" is a prime example of that.
> >>
> >> Considering that you grossly misunderstood the statement, it isn't an
> >> example of what you imagine it is.
> >
> > As can be seen, I did not misread your statement; I dealt with it as written,
> > without trying to "read your mind" -- something you perennially criticize me for allegedly doing.
> > ===============================================================================
> >
> > If that is still too intricate for you, I'll gladly rephrase it so anyone on your level of intelligence can understand it.

> I have no interest in discussing this insanity.

Of course you don't: all the simulation of insanity here is by yourself, and you escalated
it at the end of this post, big time.

> >> The crazy part was the obsessive, Queeg-like rant.
> >
> > Liar. Queeg's behavior was the polar opposite of even thinking he had
> > caught a culprit red-handed. You have been running a "Queeg" scam
> > for years on this pretense that the two behaviors are similar.
> >
> > Hemidactylus unwittingly helped me to see that, by providing
> > a link to that scene, which it might otherwise taken me a long time to find.

It's interesting to see that this two-line snippet, which is all that Hemidactylus
preserved of this long post in his reply to it, does not sound at all critical of him.
Anyone with street smarts might be suspicious of the way he is making an issue of it,
and wonder how he learned of the post in the first place.

> > And I capitalized on that as follows:
> >
> > __________________________excerpt with side issue snipped _________________________
> >
> >
> >> Didn’t Harshman once make allusions to a well known movie pivoting on
> >> missing strawberries and featuring the dad from My Three Sons?
> >
> > He did that several times over the years, on similar occasions. This time, he has
> > used it as a talisman to avoid even alluding to the fact that he has been caught
> > red-handed in a lie, and in misrepresenting what the lie was about.
> >
> > It's been similarly used on other occasions, but at least once on behalf of someone else.
> > IIRC John's main sidekick, Erik Simpson, was the one in the hot seat on one occasion.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> https://youtu.be/edQy5jBxhV8
> >>
> >> Do you even like strawberries? What might they symbolically represent?
> >
> > I suppose you are familiar with the simile,
> >
> > "Like a drowning man grasping at straws."
> >
> > Here is a similar metaphor:
> >
> > "You are helping a man drowning in his dishonesty in grasping at strawberries."
> >
> > ========================= end of excerpt from ===================
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg/m/Gvdy_FA1AQAJ
> > Re: A Tale of Two Newsgroups: talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology

Where's your sense of humor about the pun at the end?
> >
> >>> following the lead of the perennial "you need to show
> >>> what you wrote to your psychiatrist" Mark Isaak, and supported
> >>> by Hemidactylus to the hilt, with all three of you gossiping about me in a
> >>> typical Internet Hellion Thread Diluting Kaffeeklatsch.
> >>>
> >>> You are a fine one to talk about dialing back.

The sheer unmitigated hypocrisy of telling me to "Try dialing it back" [quoted from your first comment above]
was what motivated me to bring up your shabby behavior in the wake of your lie.

> >>> It is only because Mario doesn't
> >>> care for personal fighting that I'm not documenting what I wrote just now.
> >
> >> If that's the only reason, that's a problem too.
> >
> > Not a problem at all, prevaricator.

> Seriously: anyone reading all this would be likely to doubt your sanity.

If a normal, intelligent adult with no ax to grind were to read "all this," meaning everything in your post,
one thing that would surely strike him/her would be what I said this time around:
you made no effort whatsoever to show that my rational, calm analysis that I reposted was even *mistaken*.

And then, if that person wanted to avoid making any value judgments about *you*,
then [s]he might well characterize what you write in this parting shot as "ridiculous nonsense,"
or words to that effect.

> Just stop.

That all depends on what, if anything, will be your reaction to this post.

Peter Nyikos

On 8/24/21 5:37 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 1:53:19 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/20/21 6:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 6:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/21 4:43 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>> I had written:
>>>
>>>>>>> Mario and I get along well, and our numerous disagreements are all friendly,
>>>>>>> and only serve to spice up the conversation. And the topic interested both of us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'nuff said?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Way more than enough. Notice that you take offense when there is no
>>>>>> offense offered. Try dialing it back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice that you cast aspersions on my sanity when I caught you red-handed
>>>>> in a lie on a talk.origins thread,
>>>
>>>> No, you supposed you had caught me in a lie, in which you were wrong.
>>>
>>> I knew I had caught you in a lie: once I posted a tightened version of the proof,
>>> neither you nor either of your allies, named below, ever even hinted at the fact
>>> that you had been accused of a lie, but relentlessly cast aspersions on my
>>> sanity, as you are doing here.
>
>> Just because I don't mention something doesn't mean I don't think it or
>> that it isn't true.
>
> "mention something" is completely missing the point: none of you made any
> effort to show that what I wrote was *mistaken*, which any rational, innocent person
> would naturally try to do.

Or perhaps your accusations were so absurd that nobody saw any reason to
bother with them. Could that conceivably be it?

> But you were not innocent, and your behavior in this post (and
> several times in talk.origins, recounted above) is anything but rational.
>
>
>> I certainly do have doubts about your sanity, as
>> would anyone reading some of the stuff you post.
>
> Did you have "anyone" in mind besides yourself and Mark Isaak? I suppose
> Thrinaxodon/Oxyaena would be another, but if Hemidactylus entertained
> any such doubts, he certainly hasn't voiced them. His reply to the same
> post to which you are replying was a masterpiece of "Ignoring the Elephant in the Room."

You keep projecting attitudes onto other people based on things they
fail to say. These are not good inferences.

I'm going to fail to go further into this post. Please try not to read
anything into that.

> Even Mark Isaak might hesitate in pronouncing what you write below as "sane and rational".
>
>
>>> The tightened version was here:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg/m/-xa_YvUtAQAJ
>>>
>>> And to this day, no one has dealt with any part of my proof there. It is quite short:
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________________________________
>>> Absent from that one-line general statement of yours was any reference to what I had written in the preceding
>>> three lines. In everyday life, when person makes such a general statement in such a context, people often
>>> get the impression that he is denying what had been stated. That is what I meant by
>>> "made it seem like [you were] claiming to have argued science with Dr.Dr. Kleinman...,"
>>> and it was a lie to say that this displays any inability to read; the opposite is the truth.
>>> [...]
>>>>> It is all about the history of talk.origins, which your kind massively rewrites in their favor.
>>>>> "That's just your inability to read" is a prime example of that.
>>>>
>>>> Considering that you grossly misunderstood the statement, it isn't an
>>>> example of what you imagine it is.
>>>
>>> As can be seen, I did not misread your statement; I dealt with it as written,
>>> without trying to "read your mind" -- something you perennially criticize me for allegedly doing.
>>> ===============================================================================
>>>
>>> If that is still too intricate for you, I'll gladly rephrase it so anyone on your level of intelligence can understand it.
>
>> I have no interest in discussing this insanity.
>
> Of course you don't: all the simulation of insanity here is by yourself, and you escalated
> it at the end of this post, big time.
>
>>>> The crazy part was the obsessive, Queeg-like rant.
>>>
>>> Liar. Queeg's behavior was the polar opposite of even thinking he had
>>> caught a culprit red-handed. You have been running a "Queeg" scam
>>> for years on this pretense that the two behaviors are similar.
>>>
>>> Hemidactylus unwittingly helped me to see that, by providing
>>> a link to that scene, which it might otherwise taken me a long time to find.
>
> It's interesting to see that this two-line snippet, which is all that Hemidactylus
> preserved of this long post in his reply to it, does not sound at all critical of him.
> Anyone with street smarts might be suspicious of the way he is making an issue of it,
> and wonder how he learned of the post in the first place.
>
>
>>> And I capitalized on that as follows:
>>>
>>> __________________________excerpt with side issue snipped _________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>> Didn’t Harshman once make allusions to a well known movie pivoting on
>>>> missing strawberries and featuring the dad from My Three Sons?
>>>
>>> He did that several times over the years, on similar occasions. This time, he has
>>> used it as a talisman to avoid even alluding to the fact that he has been caught
>>> red-handed in a lie, and in misrepresenting what the lie was about.
>>>
>>> It's been similarly used on other occasions, but at least once on behalf of someone else.
>>> IIRC John's main sidekick, Erik Simpson, was the one in the hot seat on one occasion.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/edQy5jBxhV8
>>>>
>>>> Do you even like strawberries? What might they symbolically represent?
>>>
>>> I suppose you are familiar with the simile,
>>>
>>> "Like a drowning man grasping at straws."
>>>
>>> Here is a similar metaphor:
>>>
>>> "You are helping a man drowning in his dishonesty in grasping at strawberries."
>>>
>>> ========================= end of excerpt from ===================
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JaflLa7Zgdg/m/Gvdy_FA1AQAJ
>>> Re: A Tale of Two Newsgroups: talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology
>
> Where's your sense of humor about the pun at the end?
>
>>>
>>>>> following the lead of the perennial "you need to show
>>>>> what you wrote to your psychiatrist" Mark Isaak, and supported
>>>>> by Hemidactylus to the hilt, with all three of you gossiping about me in a
>>>>> typical Internet Hellion Thread Diluting Kaffeeklatsch.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a fine one to talk about dialing back.
>
> The sheer unmitigated hypocrisy of telling me to "Try dialing it back" [quoted from your first comment above]
> was what motivated me to bring up your shabby behavior in the wake of your lie.
>
>>>>> It is only because Mario doesn't
>>>>> care for personal fighting that I'm not documenting what I wrote just now.
>>>
>>>> If that's the only reason, that's a problem too.
>>>
>>> Not a problem at all, prevaricator.
>
>> Seriously: anyone reading all this would be likely to doubt your sanity.
>
> If a normal, intelligent adult with no ax to grind were to read "all this," meaning everything in your post,
> one thing that would surely strike him/her would be what I said this time around:
> you made no effort whatsoever to show that my rational, calm analysis that I reposted was even *mistaken*.
>
> And then, if that person wanted to avoid making any value judgments about *you*,
> then [s]he might well characterize what you write in this parting shot as "ridiculous nonsense,"
> or words to that effect.
>
>
>> Just stop.
>
> That all depends on what, if anything, will be your reaction to this post.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 6:28:59 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2021. 19:31, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 19.8.2021. 1:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>> On 18.8.2021. 13:43, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> Mario isn't even playing the game, because he didn't know that it was an
> >>>>>> analogy question.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, I should have also spelled it out for him: "ocean is to littoral as river is to __________"
> >>>>> But I mistakenly assumed that the notation was familiar to him.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I did not make that kind of mistake when I told him about the Unique Factorization Theorem
> >>>>> of integers. I very carefully removed all possible ambiguity from it, and wrote "whole number"
> >>>>> instead of "integer".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But hey, if you had really wanted to help him, you should have told him it was an
> >>>>> analogy question instead spoiling the riddle for him.
> >>>
> >>>> Oh, nothing would help me. I have "brain fog", or something, I am not
> >>>> in the mood for solving that kind of riddles, actually, I even didn't
> >>>> think that this is some kind of a game,
> >>>
> >>> I didn't mean it as a game, I meant it as an illustrative example
> >>> of how tests for intelligence are not well set up for measuring
> >>> intelligence. It does take a bit of intelligence to grasp that
> >>> "littoral" means "having to do with the shore of a sea or ocean"
> >>> [and if you don't know that, you can look up the word in a good dictionary]
> >>> and to then realize that when "river" is substituted for "ocean", you need to
> >>> find a word that means "having to do with a bank of the river."
> >>>
> >>> Then it becomes a vocabulary test of an especially difficult sort.
> >>> The usual vocabulary test might ask you to define "riparian,"
> >>> but this one starts with the definition and makes you hunt for the word.
> >>> Short of going through a dictionary with at least 100,000 words,
> >>> it just boils down to the luck of being familiar with the word "riparian" .
> >>>
> >>> So we have a question that is under-1% an intelligence test and over-99% a vocabulary test.
> >>>
> >>>> I just answered anything to
> >>>> continue with conversation. Yes, John was right, I wasn't actually
> >>>> playing, I didn't, actually, understand, nor did I make an effort to
> >>>> understand, and, after all, I don't think that I would understand it in
> >>>> the first place. Word riddles aren't quite suitable for non-English
> >>>> speakers. Since my line of thinking was too simple, I thought that this
> >>>> is just some kind of example,
> >>>
> >>> Yes, an example to illustrate a point I was making.
> >>>
> >>> There is a very serious side to this. Back in the early 1970's was a furor when a professor
> >>> named Shockley published a paper that said Blacks in the USA were less intelligent
> >>> on average than Whites. He was branded a racist and his public appearances
> >>> were accompanied by riots. I witnessed one when a like-minded professor named Banfield
> >>> came to the University of Chicago and tried to give a speech; it was completely
> >>> disrupted by radicals.
> >>>
> >>> All this trouble could have been avoided if these people had been made
> >>> to see that IQ tests are unfair for making such allegations, because
> >>> of the different experiences an average Black has than the average White has.
> >
> >> In tune with my view on intelligence, I am looking at it from the
> >> Evolution point of view. Just like physical abilities, I am claiming
> >> that different races have different mental abilities, depending on the
> >> conditions they evolved in. Of course, a lot of those mental abilities
> >> aren't measurable at all.
> >
> > Quite true. Why not try posting this on sci.anthropology.paleo?
> > It looks to be even more on-topic there than here.

> I, very probably, did, sometime in the past. I have enough of posting
> always the same things. I posted it here because we are discussing this.

I'm glad you did, because you wrote what I've never seen anyone write
before: a straightforward acknowledgement that races have different abilities
without trying to say one ability is better than another.

The American Ambassador to the UN under Jimmy Carter, Andrew Young, said almost what you did,
but went on to make a fool of himself (IMO) by labeling anyone who did NOT
make some such distinction between races as a "racist".

Andrew Young was African-American, by the way.

> >>>> and juts wanted to show that I know two
> >>>> words for small river, lol.
> >>>> Your mathematical question I did consider a riddle, but, for sure I
> >>>> cannot get into this. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with
> >>>> Covid, maybe its the old age,
> >>>
> >>> Old age? I seem to recall that you are more than a decade younger
> >>> than I am. If you are in as good health when I was your age, you have a lot of great years ahead of you.
> >>>
> >>> One of my favorite sayings after I became 60 is "The sixties are the youth of old age."
> >>> When I turned 60 I still could have run a kilometer in 4.5 minutes; now, 15 years older, I think
> >>> I'll be lucky to do it in 5.5.
> >
> >> I'll turn 60 in two months. Of course, a lot depends on your physical
> >> abilities. I don't move out of my room *at all* (I am retired, :) ),
> >> during my whole life I was sitting whole day long (being a train driver,
> >> but I did hike a lot for one period on my life),
> >
> > It's no too late to return to that state. Work up to it a little bit at a time.
> > I haven't run a kilometer in over a decade, but I've been slowly increasing
> > my stamina these last three months with daily walks and 4 shorter runs some mornings that add
> > up to over a kilometer and are interspersed with 2-minute walks.
> >
> > When the cooler weather arrives, I expect to be routinely doing 1-kilometer runs.
> > For you, it might take a year to get up to that level, but it will be worth it.
> > When I got a nuclear stress test last month, all my arteries showed
> > completely normal. I don't know whether that would have been the case if I had had it before regular workouts.

> My goal in life is to accommodate my needs, my feeling. I don't feel
> like running around, I feel like sitting in front of computer.

Back when you were growing up, a great deal of stress was laid on spontaneity,
on "going with your feelings." But that declined in the eighties, because spontaneity all
too often results in acting on impulses which one comes to regret. Sometimes the
regret comes the same day, as one reflects on some impulsive retort one made,
with the conclusion, "I wish I hadn't said that."

> You are suggesting me that I should run,

Not necessarily. Just walking a little further each day can bring you back
to the point where you can take long hikes again. I wasn't trying to suggest
that you try to do running as well; I hope I made that cle>ar.

> so that I feel better when
> sitting in front of computer, and so that I can live longer, so that I
> can longer sit in front of computer?

You've got it: your time at the computer is longer in the long run,
and what's more, you'll have lots more experiences to make it possible to show
greater wisdom in what you post.

> Good idea, but I never go after some imaginary goals, I always
> accommodate my current needs, ;)

I hope you know what those are. One thing is sure: you should have a thorough checkup if you are like my father.
Shortly after he turned 65, he found himself getting more and more easily out of breath, and
the diagnosis was that he was in need of a triple cardiac bypass.
But he also had phlebitis, so the bypass was delayed for a month,
and he suffered a heart attack. Fortunately, he survived for almost two decades longer,
but only because he did have that triple bypass.

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 6:28:59 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.8.2021. 19:31, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 19.8.2021. 1:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> >> I am claiming that we ate shellfish, shellfish
> >> give you protein, but not energy.
> >
> > It wasn't exclusively shellfish, I'm sure. Even Inuit (formerly called Eskimos)
> > ate vegetable material when they could get it.
> >
> > And even if you are right, they probably ate everything in the shellfish,
> > and didn't clean it out with multiple rinses like they do before
> > you are served shellfish in a restaurant, or even before you buy
> > them in a grocery store. Otherwise, I believe they would have gotten
> > any number of vitamin deficiency "diseases" like scurvy, or beriberi, or pellagra.

> Thanks, excellent suggestion.
> Yes, they were eating normal primate food, fruits and such, probably
> also eggs, plus they were eating shellfish.

So maybe they did have a lot more energy than you do.

> We have thick enamel because shellfish (unrinsed) is full with sand.
> >> So, we probably did what we are doing
> >> on our vacation, laying down on the sun for whole day, :) .
> >
> > And sitting ducks for predators? No thanks.
> Actually, no.
> At first we were living on seaside cliffs. There, we were safe from
> predators. Take a look at those two videos. See, scientists don't
> understand what is going on. What is happening is that terrestrial
> predators aren't made to hunt in water:
> https://youtu.be/jSGikymKFlc?t=124
> https://youtu.be/vnClAxxL1j0?t=173
> Later we started to use fire. Cats need ambush, with fire you can burn
> low vegetation, so cats cannot hide, and they will not attack.

You are beginning to be on topic for sci.bio.paleontology, but you
are badly in need of coming up with some plausible dating hypotheses for all this.

> Cowboys in pampas had problems with jaguars, jaguars were attacking
> their cattle. Then they figured out how to solve the problem. It is
> enough to move your cattle 200 meters away from jungle, and jaguars will
> not attack.

<huge snip here of things I will talk about in a later post, perhaps only tomorrow>

> >>>> I even don't follow paleoanthropology, lately.
> >>>
> >>> I can relate to that. When Trump was impeached, I was really bothered by the wildly conflicting narratives
> >>> that the majority of Republicans and practically all the Democrats in Congress were sticking to.
> >>> When it turned out that first the House and then the Senate hardly had anyone addressing the
> >>> allegations of the other side, and almost no witnesses were called, I knew the USA was in for a lot of trouble.
> >>>
> >>> Both the impeachment by the House and the trial in the Senate were mere formalities,
> >>> and both rushed to a vote that was almost all along party lines.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't return to talk.origins or sci.bio.paleontology for over two months, because I wanted
> >>> to get a good feel for how people with a wide range of outlooks thought of these
> >>> events and of many other issues. The pandemic was a major source of conflicting
> >>> narratives. There were some really toxic, pseudoscientific stories about what the mRNA vaccines
> >>> could do to you, and I persisted until I found out the truth about them. As a result,
> >>> I gladly took the Pfizer vaccine: first dose February 1, second February 22.
> >
> >> Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against
> >> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .

I wonder whether Harshman thought your smiley meant you were kidding, with
his one word response "Seriously?" in response to what I wrote next:

> > I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not avoiding it for the wrong reasons.

> The reason is exactly the same why you are running. You are running
> not to atrophy. If vaccination is fighting viruses, our defense
> mechanism will atrophy.

Correction: those of our descendants will atrophy, because we weren't
weeded out for our lack of immunity to this or that potentially deadly disease.

This is so elementary, so much in line with Darwin's theory,
that I grasped it at the age of 14. I figured we were
creating a biological time bomb for us, to explode maybe ten centuries later,
by our compassionate attitude towards people with all kinds of "unfit"
defense mechanisms.

Just look at how "compassionate" governments all over the world are
in response to the pandemic. Among the most extreme are Victoria, Australia, where
Covid-19 deaths are still among the lowest in the world, but where the
leaders are so "compassionate" that the state has been in lockdown
more often than not this year. The government seemingly cannot bear the thought
of a tiny percentage of their population dying because they aren't vaccinated.

Meanwhile, ordinary citizens have suffered so much that about 4,000
defied lockdown just the other day, and demonstrated against the mess
the government has made of their everyday lives. Over 200 were arrested,
and some face fines up to US$3000 for "resisting arrest".

> Our defense mechanism is the only thing that
> keeps us alive.

AND, for untold millions of us, the vaccinations that are mandatory for infants. Diphtheria
was a great killer before a vaccine was developed. And so was polio,
which maimed millions that it didn't kill outright. Covid may evolve to be like that.

Face it, Mario: we have been thwarting natural selection for centuries,
and we seem to be stuck in a downward spiral from which there is no escape.

> Of course, it doesn't matter in my case, because I am old, I will not
> have descendants. But never the less, I want to give a support to anyone
> who wants to keep our defense mechanism in shape.
> A lot of people say that jab saves lives. It is true, without jab 50 %
> of people would die. With jab, 100 % of people will die, but not
> tomorrow, maybe in 500 years, maybe in 1,000 years, maybe in 2,000
> years, but *for sure* we all will die.

I would *love* it if I could live for 2000 or even 200 years, but even the
latter seems out of reach in this century and the next for anyone.
And I do hate the thought that I might not make it to be 100:
there is so much that I want to know and see and do before I die.

> Of course, science doesn't see this, science looks only in front of
> its nose, 2,000 years from now is too far for science to see what will
> happen.

Anyway, it's nice to see that you are broaching a topic which I consider to be on-topic
for sci.bio.paleontology. The reason is that sci.bio.evolution, which is the
natural place for this kind of talk, has been extinct for over half a dozen years.
It was a moderated newsgroup, and it died of boredom before I discovered
a way it might have been revived.

These last few years I have treated sci.bio.paleontology as a "sci.bio.evolution in exile",
just as I treat it as a "talk.origins in exile" on the occasions where "Beagle," the
robo-moderator of talk.origins, is down.

And now, for the first time on this thread, I feel we are sufficiently on topic for me
to do one of my four-line virtual .sigs that let anyone know that there is some
good on-topic material that I've added to the post.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 24.8.2021. 18:22, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 6:28:59 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2021. 19:31, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.8.2021. 1:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 18.8.2021. 13:43, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mario isn't even playing the game, because he didn't know that it was an
>>>>>>>> analogy question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I should have also spelled it out for him: "ocean is to littoral as river is to __________"
>>>>>>> But I mistakenly assumed that the notation was familiar to him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not make that kind of mistake when I told him about the Unique Factorization Theorem
>>>>>>> of integers. I very carefully removed all possible ambiguity from it, and wrote "whole number"
>>>>>>> instead of "integer".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But hey, if you had really wanted to help him, you should have told him it was an
>>>>>>> analogy question instead spoiling the riddle for him.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, nothing would help me. I have "brain fog", or something, I am not
>>>>>> in the mood for solving that kind of riddles, actually, I even didn't
>>>>>> think that this is some kind of a game,
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't mean it as a game, I meant it as an illustrative example
>>>>> of how tests for intelligence are not well set up for measuring
>>>>> intelligence. It does take a bit of intelligence to grasp that
>>>>> "littoral" means "having to do with the shore of a sea or ocean"
>>>>> [and if you don't know that, you can look up the word in a good dictionary]
>>>>> and to then realize that when "river" is substituted for "ocean", you need to
>>>>> find a word that means "having to do with a bank of the river."
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it becomes a vocabulary test of an especially difficult sort.
>>>>> The usual vocabulary test might ask you to define "riparian,"
>>>>> but this one starts with the definition and makes you hunt for the word.
>>>>> Short of going through a dictionary with at least 100,000 words,
>>>>> it just boils down to the luck of being familiar with the word "riparian" .
>>>>>
>>>>> So we have a question that is under-1% an intelligence test and over-99% a vocabulary test.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just answered anything to
>>>>>> continue with conversation. Yes, John was right, I wasn't actually
>>>>>> playing, I didn't, actually, understand, nor did I make an effort to
>>>>>> understand, and, after all, I don't think that I would understand it in
>>>>>> the first place. Word riddles aren't quite suitable for non-English
>>>>>> speakers. Since my line of thinking was too simple, I thought that this
>>>>>> is just some kind of example,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, an example to illustrate a point I was making.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a very serious side to this. Back in the early 1970's was a furor when a professor
>>>>> named Shockley published a paper that said Blacks in the USA were less intelligent
>>>>> on average than Whites. He was branded a racist and his public appearances
>>>>> were accompanied by riots. I witnessed one when a like-minded professor named Banfield
>>>>> came to the University of Chicago and tried to give a speech; it was completely
>>>>> disrupted by radicals.
>>>>>
>>>>> All this trouble could have been avoided if these people had been made
>>>>> to see that IQ tests are unfair for making such allegations, because
>>>>> of the different experiences an average Black has than the average White has.
>>>
>>>> In tune with my view on intelligence, I am looking at it from the
>>>> Evolution point of view. Just like physical abilities, I am claiming
>>>> that different races have different mental abilities, depending on the
>>>> conditions they evolved in. Of course, a lot of those mental abilities
>>>> aren't measurable at all.
>>>
>>> Quite true. Why not try posting this on sci.anthropology.paleo?
>>> It looks to be even more on-topic there than here.
>
>> I, very probably, did, sometime in the past. I have enough of posting
>> always the same things. I posted it here because we are discussing this.
>
> I'm glad you did, because you wrote what I've never seen anyone write
> before: a straightforward acknowledgement that races have different abilities
> without trying to say one ability is better than another.
>
> The American Ambassador to the UN under Jimmy Carter, Andrew Young, said almost what you did,
> but went on to make a fool of himself (IMO) by labeling anyone who did NOT
> make some such distinction between races as a "racist".
>
> Andrew Young was African-American, by the way.

Hm, this is an interesting subject, and people should know about this.
100 years ago, they would call me a "racist", because that is what I
was, back then. "Racist", 100 years ago, was what "racist" is today, but
without negative/chauvinistic connotations. What we cal today a
"racist", 100 years ago was called a "racialist". But then came WWII,
and they starter to call Hitler a racist, although he was actually a
racialist. So, those two terms exchanged meaning, what is now racist,
before it was racialist, and what is now racialist, before it was racist.
So, I am a racialist (but 100 years ago I was a racist). This means
that I differ everything, races, nations, I differ people on all
possible terms. But, I am not a chauvinist, I don't say that my race, my
nation, is the best there is. Mind you, this doesn't exclude that my
race/nation/anything can be better than all the others, racialist
doesn't exclude categorizing, it may be that some race is better than
the other in some aspect, or, probably, it *should be* that some race is
better than others in some aspect (like, black people are better in some
sports than others).

>>>>>> and juts wanted to show that I know two
>>>>>> words for small river, lol.
>>>>>> Your mathematical question I did consider a riddle, but, for sure I
>>>>>> cannot get into this. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with
>>>>>> Covid, maybe its the old age,
>>>>>
>>>>> Old age? I seem to recall that you are more than a decade younger
>>>>> than I am. If you are in as good health when I was your age, you have a lot of great years ahead of you.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my favorite sayings after I became 60 is "The sixties are the youth of old age."
>>>>> When I turned 60 I still could have run a kilometer in 4.5 minutes; now, 15 years older, I think
>>>>> I'll be lucky to do it in 5.5.
>>>
>>>> I'll turn 60 in two months. Of course, a lot depends on your physical
>>>> abilities. I don't move out of my room *at all* (I am retired, :) ),
>>>> during my whole life I was sitting whole day long (being a train driver,
>>>> but I did hike a lot for one period on my life),
>>>
>>> It's no too late to return to that state. Work up to it a little bit at a time.
>>> I haven't run a kilometer in over a decade, but I've been slowly increasing
>>> my stamina these last three months with daily walks and 4 shorter runs some mornings that add
>>> up to over a kilometer and are interspersed with 2-minute walks.
>>>
>>> When the cooler weather arrives, I expect to be routinely doing 1-kilometer runs.
>>> For you, it might take a year to get up to that level, but it will be worth it.
>>> When I got a nuclear stress test last month, all my arteries showed
>>> completely normal. I don't know whether that would have been the case if I had had it before regular workouts.
>
>> My goal in life is to accommodate my needs, my feeling. I don't feel
>> like running around, I feel like sitting in front of computer.
>
> Back when you were growing up, a great deal of stress was laid on spontaneity,
> on "going with your feelings." But that declined in the eighties, because spontaneity all
> too often results in acting on impulses which one comes to regret. Sometimes the
> regret comes the same day, as one reflects on some impulsive retort one made,
> with the conclusion, "I wish I hadn't said that."

On 24.8.2021. 19:12, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 6:28:59 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2021. 19:31, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.8.2021. 1:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>>>> I am claiming that we ate shellfish, shellfish
>>>> give you protein, but not energy.
>>>
>>> It wasn't exclusively shellfish, I'm sure. Even Inuit (formerly called Eskimos)
>>> ate vegetable material when they could get it.
>>>
>>> And even if you are right, they probably ate everything in the shellfish,
>>> and didn't clean it out with multiple rinses like they do before
>>> you are served shellfish in a restaurant, or even before you buy
>>> them in a grocery store. Otherwise, I believe they would have gotten
>>> any number of vitamin deficiency "diseases" like scurvy, or beriberi, or pellagra.
>
>> Thanks, excellent suggestion.
>> Yes, they were eating normal primate food, fruits and such, probably
>> also eggs, plus they were eating shellfish.
>
> So maybe they did have a lot more energy than you do.
>
>
>> We have thick enamel because shellfish (unrinsed) is full with sand.
>>>> So, we probably did what we are doing
>>>> on our vacation, laying down on the sun for whole day, :) .
>>>
>>> And sitting ducks for predators? No thanks.
>> Actually, no.
>> At first we were living on seaside cliffs. There, we were safe from
>> predators. Take a look at those two videos. See, scientists don't
>> understand what is going on. What is happening is that terrestrial
>> predators aren't made to hunt in water:
>> https://youtu.be/jSGikymKFlc?t=124
>> https://youtu.be/vnClAxxL1j0?t=173
>> Later we started to use fire. Cats need ambush, with fire you can burn
>> low vegetation, so cats cannot hide, and they will not attack.
>
> You are beginning to be on topic for sci.bio.paleontology, but you
> are badly in need of coming up with some plausible dating hypotheses for all this.

By "dating hypotheses", do you think that I should put it in a time frame?
Well, I wrote about this a lot, also. But, to explain it, I should
write a longer post. Here it is, and this is with some explanations of
why I do think this is so. It is, mostly, comparative biology, or whatever.
First, why apes, why not in South America? South America is, actually,
the initial state. Primates are smallish creatures, that live on trees,
climb trees, over branch locomotion. Climbing doesn't like body size,
the biggest primate can be the size of howler monkey, and he has big
problems because of its size, this is why he is the loudest animal on
Earth (because that way he doesn't have to move much). Also, branches at
the tips are narrow, they don't hold big body weight.
Apes aren't of that type, apes are big primates.
So, why Africa? Because Popigai asteroid hit 35.7 mya (some say 33
mya) in Siberia.
Per my idea, this created tinning of the Earth's crust in a line that
goes from Popigai crater, to its antipode point. The greatest tinning
was at the half way. This half way point was somewhere in Tanzania,
south of lake Victoria. This was a low land, back then, but since crust
tinned there, the pressure from below started to bulb the are. This area
started to rise and rise, like a bulb, until, finally, it didn't break
up at the edges of the bulb. This is why we have today two arms of Grate
Rift Valley, that go around "the bulb".
It isn't me who imagined this, this is how things did develop, per
what the scientists claim. The only thing is that nobody before tied the
Popigai impact to those events. Popigai happened immediately before this.
So, this bulb, along with the line (that was also thin) that goes from
the bulb towards the Popigai crater, created rifting. "Rifting" is,
actually, a myriad of completely vertical cliffs. Cliffs are safer
sleeping places for primates, than trees, so, primates start to use
those cliffs as safe sleeping places, just like baboons are using it today.
Also, this rifting allowed sunlight to reach ground above the cliffs.
So primates didn't have to climb trees anymore, now they were living on
cliffs, and they were eating plants that were on the ground, above
cliffs. Or vines that were going over cliffs.
This is what created apes.
On this video you can see the process of rifting. You will see
parallel rifts, stretching for hundreds of kilometers:
https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=51
Here you can see a close up (something similar is also happening on
Iceland):
https://youtu.be/546Ov8uaLDI
Gee, I decided to put a lot of my selected videos here, these are the
best for explaining things.
Now, few videos that will explain apes using cliffs as their preferred
sleeping sites.
Here you will see baboons using cave cliffs as a sleeping site.
Although it is pitch-dark, they still prefer this over trees:
https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA
Here you can see Hamadryas baboons using cliffs for sleeping. Also,
you can see how a primate climbs on cliffs. They say that slow,
deliberate, overhead climbing was the mode of locomotion of early apes.
You can see exactly that on this video, but here it is the descent, not
ascent (only the first 2:50 of the video is important):
https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY
On this video you will see advanced, big body, cliff climbing. This
isn't an ape (it is a bear), but you can clearly see how human body plan
evolved (with our adduction/abduction abilities, shallow chest, flexible
wrists, big toe used for toe off). Mind you, if you climb branches
overhead, your fingers turn into hooks, and get longer. Miocene apes had
short fingers, they climbed cliffs, not branches:
https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM
Mind you, although all this cliff climbing looks so hard for those
animals, it is a piece of cake for humans. This (and only this) is where
humans are advantageous compared to other animals:
https://youtu.be/Wy3SuhEQHVg
The collision with Euroasia created triple rift system, with Red Sea
Rift, and Gulf of Aden Rift being the other two hands of this triple
rift system.
Now, it turned out that those two happen to be flooded by sea. So we
had cliffs, with apes on them, but below we had sea, with a lot of food,
accessible to somebody who has hands (like otters, or apes). This is
what is happening when baboons live by the sea:
https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88
Regarding further time framing, we should look at gibbons. Gibbons
were the first who moved out of Africa to Euroasia. What were apes in
the time of gibbons? Still not going into sea, just living on cliffs.
This is how that looked like:
https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88
Whether they exploited shellfish by then, we should know by the state
of their enamel. Ancient apes had thick enamel. Thick enamel you get by
the way of abrasion. Abrasion comes from food. I would suggest that sand
in shellfish would create this abrasion.
So, thick enameled apes are the ones who ate shellfish.
You can see in the last video that baboons have to wait for low tide.
Why? Why they don't reach those shark eggs at high tide? Because, in
that case they would need to go into sea with their bodies. The problem
isn't to wet your fur, the problem arises when sea vapors off, and
leaves salt crystals. Those crystals are sharp, and they damage fur. A
land otter doesn't go into sea unless there is a pool of fresh water
nearby. To wash themselves off. Polar bear rolls in snow after exiting
sea. If you soak otter five times in sea water, then otter will show
signs of hypothermia. Furred animals don't like to go into sea.
But, take a look at that, great apes all lack underfur. It looks like
they first lost fur, and then they got it back again. I presume that
great apes once went into sea to get shellfish. They didn't dive for
shellfish, though. I presume that we were still quadruped when we lost
our fur, since we have our pubic hair on the place where you would
expect hair to remain if we are quadrupeds (just like underarm hair,
between body and arms, we also have hair between legs).
So, at that stage we were all great apes, with short fingers, and we
lost body hair. But, great apes already separated onto two branches,
klinorhynchy facial morphology (African apes plus humans), and
airorhynch facial morphology (orangutans). I have a perfect place for
that to happen. Since we are talking about the angle at which face is
rolled, and since apes should expect predators to come from the
direction of sun (eagles), the two distinctive morphologies can evolve
if their position in relation to sun is different. And this happens at
the shores of Red Sea. There you can have spatially separated seaside
cliffs living apes, one on Arabian side (orangutan, gigantopithecus,
sivapithecus), and one on African side (European and African Miocene apes).
So, this separation should be in the time before Great Apes moved into
Euroasia (so, before 17 mya).
Later one of the apes started to use marine resources more (I also
have a detailed scenario which explains this line of events), humans. We
started to dive, so we evolved external nose, and we evolved
subcutaneous fat thermal protection. We conquered shores, and expelled
other apes inland.
OK, enough for now, :) .

Oops, the video of gibbons living on cliffs (I screwed it in the
previous post):
https://youtu.be/mvzQla0KItE

On 24.8.2021. 23:15, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 24.8.2021. 19:12, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 6:28:59 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 19.8.2021. 19:31, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 19.8.2021. 1:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>
>>>>> I am claiming that we ate shellfish, shellfish
>>>>> give you protein, but not energy.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't exclusively shellfish, I'm sure. Even Inuit (formerly
>>>> called Eskimos)
>>>> ate vegetable material when they could get it.
>>>>
>>>> And even if you are right, they probably ate everything in the
>>>> shellfish,
>>>> and didn't clean it out with multiple rinses like they do before
>>>> you are served shellfish in a restaurant, or even before you buy
>>>> them in a grocery store. Otherwise, I believe they would have gotten
>>>> any number of vitamin deficiency "diseases" like scurvy, or
>>>> beriberi, or pellagra.
>>
>>> Thanks, excellent suggestion.
>>> Yes, they were eating normal primate food, fruits and such, probably
>>> also eggs, plus they were eating shellfish.
>>
>> So maybe they did have a lot more energy than you do.
>>
>>
>>> We have thick enamel because shellfish (unrinsed) is full with sand.
>>>>> So, we probably did what we are doing
>>>>> on our vacation, laying down on the sun for whole day, :) .
>>>>
>>>> And sitting ducks for predators? No thanks.
>>> Actually, no.
>>> At first we were living on seaside cliffs. There, we were safe from
>>> predators. Take a look at those two videos. See, scientists don't
>>> understand what is going on. What is happening is that terrestrial
>>> predators aren't made to hunt in water:
>>> https://youtu.be/jSGikymKFlc?t=124
>>> https://youtu.be/vnClAxxL1j0?t=173
>>> Later we started to use fire. Cats need ambush, with fire you can burn
>>> low vegetation, so cats cannot hide, and they will not attack.
>>
>> You are beginning to be on topic for sci.bio.paleontology, but you
>> are badly in need of coming up with some plausible dating hypotheses
>> for all this.
>
>         By "dating hypotheses", do you think that I should put it in a
> time frame?
>         Well, I wrote about this a lot, also. But, to explain it, I
> should write a longer post. Here it is, and this is with some
> explanations of why I do think this is so. It is, mostly, comparative
> biology, or whatever.
>         First, why apes, why not in South America? South America is,
> actually, the initial state. Primates are smallish creatures, that live
> on trees, climb trees, over branch locomotion. Climbing doesn't like
> body size, the biggest primate can be the size of howler monkey, and he
> has big problems because of its size, this is why he is the loudest
> animal on Earth (because that way he doesn't have to move much). Also,
> branches at the tips are narrow, they don't hold big body weight.
>         Apes aren't of that type, apes are big primates.
>         So, why Africa? Because Popigai asteroid hit 35.7 mya (some say
> 33 mya) in Siberia.
>         Per my idea, this created tinning of the Earth's crust in a
> line that goes from Popigai crater, to its antipode point. The greatest
> tinning was at the half way. This half way point was somewhere in
> Tanzania, south of lake Victoria. This was a low land, back then, but
> since crust tinned there, the pressure from below started to bulb the
> are. This area started to rise and rise, like a bulb, until, finally, it
> didn't break up at the edges of the bulb. This is why we have today two
> arms of Grate Rift Valley, that go around "the bulb".
>         It isn't me who imagined this, this is how things did develop,
> per what the scientists claim. The only thing is that nobody before tied
> the Popigai impact to those events. Popigai happened immediately before
> this.
>         So, this bulb, along with the line (that was also thin) that
> goes from the bulb towards the Popigai crater, created rifting.
> "Rifting" is, actually, a myriad of completely vertical cliffs. Cliffs
> are safer sleeping places for primates, than trees, so, primates start
> to use those cliffs as safe sleeping places, just like baboons are using
> it today.
>         Also, this rifting allowed sunlight to reach ground above the
> cliffs. So primates didn't have to climb trees anymore, now they were
> living on cliffs, and they were eating plants that were on the ground,
> above cliffs. Or vines that were going over cliffs.
>         This is what created apes.
>         On this video you can see the process of rifting. You will see
> parallel rifts, stretching for hundreds of kilometers:
> https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=51
>         Here you can see a close up (something similar is also
> happening on Iceland):
> https://youtu.be/546Ov8uaLDI
>         Gee, I decided to put a lot of my selected videos here, these
> are the best for explaining things.
>         Now, few videos that will explain apes using cliffs as their
> preferred sleeping sites.
>         Here you will see baboons using cave cliffs as a sleeping site.
> Although it is pitch-dark, they still prefer this over trees:
> https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA
>         Here you can see Hamadryas baboons using cliffs for sleeping.
> Also, you can see how a primate climbs on cliffs. They say that slow,
> deliberate, overhead climbing was the mode of locomotion of early apes.
> You can see exactly that on this video, but here it is the descent, not
> ascent (only the first 2:50 of the video is important):
> https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY
>         On this video you will see advanced, big body, cliff climbing.
> This isn't an ape (it is a bear), but you can clearly see how human body
> plan evolved (with our adduction/abduction abilities, shallow chest,
> flexible wrists, big toe used for toe off). Mind you, if you climb
> branches overhead, your fingers turn into hooks, and get longer. Miocene
> apes had short fingers, they climbed cliffs, not branches:
> https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM
>         Mind you, although all this cliff climbing looks so hard for
> those animals, it is a piece of cake for humans. This (and only this) is
> where humans are advantageous compared to other animals:
> https://youtu.be/Wy3SuhEQHVg
>         The collision with Euroasia created triple rift system, with
> Red Sea Rift, and Gulf of Aden Rift being the other two hands of this
> triple rift system.
>         Now, it turned out that those two happen to be flooded by sea.
> So we had cliffs, with apes on them, but below we had sea, with a lot of
> food, accessible to somebody who has hands (like otters, or apes). This
> is what is happening when baboons live by the sea:
> https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88
>         Regarding further time framing, we should look at gibbons.
> Gibbons were the first who moved out of Africa to Euroasia. What were
> apes in the time of gibbons? Still not going into sea, just living on
> cliffs. This is how that looked like:
> https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88
>         Whether they exploited shellfish by then, we should know by the
> state of their enamel. Ancient apes had thick enamel. Thick enamel you
> get by the way of abrasion. Abrasion comes from food. I would suggest
> that sand in shellfish would create this abrasion.
>         So, thick enameled apes are the ones who ate shellfish.
>         You can see in the last video that baboons have to wait for low
> tide. Why? Why they don't reach those shark eggs at high tide? Because,
> in that case they would need to go into sea with their bodies. The
> problem isn't to wet your fur, the problem arises when sea vapors off,
> and leaves salt crystals. Those crystals are sharp, and they damage fur.
> A land otter doesn't go into sea unless there is a pool of fresh water
> nearby. To wash themselves off. Polar bear rolls in snow after exiting
> sea. If you soak otter five times in sea water, then otter will show
> signs of hypothermia. Furred animals don't like to go into sea.
>         But, take a look at that, great apes all lack underfur. It
> looks like they first lost fur, and then they got it back again. I
> presume that great apes once went into sea to get shellfish. They didn't
> dive for shellfish, though. I presume that we were still quadruped when
> we lost our fur, since we have our pubic hair on the place where you
> would expect hair to remain if we are quadrupeds (just like underarm
> hair, between body and arms, we also have hair between legs).
>         So, at that stage we were all great apes, with short fingers,
> and we lost body hair. But, great apes already separated onto two
> branches, klinorhynchy facial morphology (African apes plus humans), and
> airorhynch facial morphology (orangutans). I have a perfect place for
> that to happen. Since we are talking about the angle at which face is
> rolled, and since apes should expect predators to come from the
> direction of sun (eagles), the two distinctive morphologies can evolve
> if their position in relation to sun is different. And this happens at
> the shores of Red Sea. There you can have spatially separated seaside
> cliffs living apes, one on Arabian side (orangutan, gigantopithecus,
> sivapithecus), and one on African side (European and African Miocene apes).
>         So, this separation should be in the time before Great Apes
> moved into Euroasia (so, before 17 mya).
>         Later one of the apes started to use marine resources more (I
> also have a detailed scenario which explains this line of events),
> humans. We started to dive, so we evolved external nose, and we evolved
> subcutaneous fat thermal protection. We conquered shores, and expelled
> other apes inland.
>         OK, enough for now, :) .
>
>>> Cowboys in pampas had problems with jaguars, jaguars were attacking
>>> their cattle. Then they figured out how to solve the problem. It is
>>> enough to move your cattle 200 meters away from jungle, and jaguars will
>>> not attack.
>>
>>
>> <huge snip here of things I will talk about in a later post, perhaps
>> only tomorrow>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> I even don't follow paleoanthropology, lately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can relate to that. When Trump was impeached, I was really
>>>>>> bothered by the wildly conflicting narratives
>>>>>> that the majority of Republicans and practically all the Democrats
>>>>>> in Congress were sticking to.
>>>>>> When it turned out that first the House and then the Senate hardly
>>>>>> had anyone addressing the
>>>>>> allegations of the other side, and almost no witnesses were
>>>>>> called, I knew the USA was in for a lot of trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both the impeachment by the House and the trial in the Senate were
>>>>>> mere formalities,
>>>>>> and both rushed to a vote that was almost all along party lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't return to talk.origins or sci.bio.paleontology for over
>>>>>> two months, because I wanted
>>>>>> to get a good feel for how people with a wide range of outlooks
>>>>>> thought of these
>>>>>> events and of many other issues. The pandemic was a major source
>>>>>> of conflicting
>>>>>> narratives. There were some really toxic, pseudoscientific stories
>>>>>> about what the mRNA vaccines
>>>>>> could do to you, and I persisted until I found out the truth about
>>>>>> them. As a result,
>>>>>> I gladly took the Pfizer vaccine: first dose February 1, second
>>>>>> February 22.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against
>>>>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .
>>
>> I wonder whether Harshman thought your smiley meant you were kidding,
>> with
>> his one word response "Seriously?" in response to what I wrote next:
>
>         I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
> doesn't think in a way that isn't broadly accepted.
>
>>>> I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not avoiding
>>>> it for the wrong reasons.
>>
>>> The reason is exactly the same why you are running. You are running
>>> not to atrophy. If vaccination is fighting viruses, our defense
>>> mechanism will atrophy.
>>
>> Correction: those of our descendants will atrophy, because we weren't
>> weeded out for our lack of immunity to this or that potentially deadly
>> disease.
>>
>> This is so elementary, so much in line with Darwin's theory,
>> that I grasped it at the age of 14. I figured we were
>> creating a biological time bomb for us, to explode maybe ten centuries
>> later,
>>   by our compassionate attitude towards people with all kinds of "unfit"
>> defense mechanisms.
>>
>> Just look at how "compassionate" governments all over the world are
>> in response to the pandemic. Among the most extreme are Victoria,
>> Australia, where
>> Covid-19 deaths are still among the lowest in the world, but where the
>> leaders are so "compassionate" that the state has been in lockdown
>> more often than not this year. The government seemingly cannot bear
>> the thought
>> of a tiny percentage of their population dying because they aren't
>> vaccinated.
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile, ordinary citizens have suffered so much that about 4,000
>> defied lockdown just the other day, and demonstrated against the mess
>> the government has made of their everyday lives. Over 200 were arrested,
>> and some face fines up to US$3000 for "resisting arrest".
>>
>>
>>> Our defense mechanism is the only thing that
>>> keeps us alive.
>>
>> AND, for untold millions of us, the vaccinations that are mandatory
>> for infants. Diphtheria
>> was a great killer before a vaccine was developed. And so was polio,
>> which maimed millions that it didn't kill outright. Covid may evolve
>> to be like that.
>>
>> Face it, Mario: we have been thwarting natural selection for centuries,
>> and we seem to be stuck in a downward spiral from which there is no
>> escape.
>>
>>
>>> Of course, it doesn't matter in my case, because I am old, I will not
>>> have descendants. But never the less, I want to give a support to anyone
>>> who wants to keep our defense mechanism in shape.
>>> A lot of people say that jab saves lives. It is true, without jab 50 %
>>> of people would die. With jab, 100 % of people will die, but not
>>> tomorrow, maybe in 500 years, maybe in 1,000 years, maybe in 2,000
>>> years, but *for sure* we all will die.
>>
>> I would *love* it if I could live for 2000 or even 200 years, but even
>> the
>> latter seems out of reach in this century and the next for anyone.
>> And I do hate the thought that I might not make it to be 100:
>> there is so much that I want to know and see and do before I die.
>>
>>
>>> Of course, science doesn't see this, science looks only in front of
>>> its nose, 2,000 years from now is too far for science to see what will
>>> happen.
>>
>> Anyway, it's nice to see that you are broaching a topic which I
>> consider to be on-topic
>> for sci.bio.paleontology. The reason is that sci.bio.evolution, which
>> is the
>> natural place for this kind of talk, has been extinct for over half a
>> dozen years.
>> It was a moderated newsgroup, and it died of boredom before I discovered
>> a way it might have been revived.
>>
>> These last few years I have treated sci.bio.paleontology as a
>> "sci.bio.evolution in exile",
>> just as I treat it as a "talk.origins in exile" on the occasions where
>> "Beagle," the
>> robo-moderator of talk.origins, is down.
>>
>>
>> And now, for the first time on this thread, I feel we are sufficiently
>> on topic for me
>> to do one of my four-line virtual .sigs that let anyone know that
>> there is some
>> good on-topic material that I've added to the post.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics   -- standard disclaimer--
>> University of South Carolina
>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
>         Well, I enjoyed reading this. But, I want to point you to one
> thing that everybody already forgot, regarding Covid-19.
>         When Covid-19 started to emerge the reports were like this,
> Covid-19 *shouldn't be* a serious threat, it is just a *mild* virus. The
> problem *this time*, is in our defense mechanism, which is not
> responding accordingly to this *mild* virus. In the case of Covid-19, it
> is not the virus that kills us, it is, actually, our defense mechanism
> that is killing us, because it already doesn't work like it should, it
> doesn't respond, anymore, like it should. I mean, we are vaccinating our
> babies for, maybe, 60 years, and this already screwed our defense
> mechanism so much.
>         Imagine if you are driving your car. Then turn comes, and you
> start to turn your wheel. And you know by how much, exactly. But then
> your passenger starts to help you with turning the wheel. Well, OK. The
> only problem is, this passenger doesn't know what he is doing. But, OK,
> every turn it comes, you get a help from passenger. But now, the turn
> comes, and passenger doesn't respond to this turn. And now you are all
> confused, you cannot determine, anymore, how much input you will do. If
> you do like you are used to do so far (when your passenger helped you),
> it'll be too little. Now, when you realize that, it is already too late,
> now you have to put a lot more. But, this "lot more" can be too much.
>         This is what we are doing to our dense mechanism.
>

On 8/24/21 2:15 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against
>>>>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .
>>
>> I wonder whether Harshman thought your smiley meant you were kidding, with
>>
>> his one word response "Seriously?" in response to what I wrote next:
>
>         I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
> doesn't think in a way that isn't broadly accepted.
>
>>>> I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not avoiding it for the wrong reasons.
>>>>

Since you asked, Peter is misunderstanding what I was addressing by
"seriously?". I was talking about his response, that he wasn't 100% sure
that you were wrong. You are wrong, and he seems pretty sure of that in
later responses. I'm willing to say that I'm 100% sure, even if he
isn't. Your evolutionary argument is nonsensical. Do you eat cooked
food? Would you be willing to wear glasses if you needed them to see? Do
you ever considering seeing a doctor? Do you use a calculator? You
thwart natural selection all the time or, more correctly, you change the
selective regime so as to render some adaptations no longer
advantageous. It's what human society does and has been doing from the
beginning. As far as reasons to object to vaccination go, it's even more
absurd than most of the others. (I say "most" because of the Bill Gates
microchip and magnetization theories.)

On 24.8.2021. 23:43, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/24/21 2:15 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against
>>>>>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .
>>>
>>> I wonder whether Harshman thought your smiley meant you were kidding, with
>>>
>>> his one word response "Seriously?" in response to what I wrote next:
>>
>>          I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
>> doesn't think in a way that isn't broadly accepted.
>>
>>>>> I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not avoiding it for the wrong reasons.
>>>>>
>
> Since you asked, Peter is misunderstanding what I was addressing by
> "seriously?". I was talking about his response, that he wasn't 100% sure
> that you were wrong. You are wrong, and he seems pretty sure of that in
> later responses. I'm willing to say that I'm 100% sure, even if he
> isn't. Your evolutionary argument is nonsensical. Do you eat cooked
> food? Would you be willing to wear glasses if you needed them to see? Do
> you ever considering seeing a doctor? Do you use a calculator? You
> thwart natural selection all the time or, more correctly, you change the
> selective regime so as to render some adaptations no longer
> advantageous. It's what human society does and has been doing from the
> beginning. As far as reasons to object to vaccination go, it's even more
> absurd than most of the others. (I say "most" because of the Bill Gates
> microchip and magnetization theories.)

Uh. Do I eat cooked food? We never ate raw meat (except shellfish). It
is impossible to eat raw meat if you don't have carnassials. So, yes,I
am eating cooked food, I always was. Is it advantageous? Yes it is. This
is how we came to this level. A part of our evolution.
I am wearing glasses for reading, because I need them for reading.
There are a lot of things that I need to read, yet.
I never wanted to see a doctor, but I had to, because this was the
only way to get excuse from working when I was ill. I never took any
pills, though. Since I retired, I forgot that doctor exists.
Yes, I use calculator, I even use computers and the internet.
I agree that humans "thwart" natural selection. I don't think that
this is smart thing to do.
I don't think that you understand my reason to object vaccination.
Although I am using calculator, I will still not lay flat down in front
of a moving truck. Why would I? You say that this is a smart thing to
do. I say that it isn't.
Your views are so lightweight, it is unbelievable. A lot of times you
sound like you are alcoholic, you don't understand a sh.t.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com