david l burkhead (email@example.com)
14 Jul 1996 21:09:26 GMT
In article <rfoyDuJsB4.ItF@netcom.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <email@example.com>,
>david l burkhead <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>In article <rfoyDuIDwE.email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>I admire your skill in posting. It could qualify you to run for
Irrelevant and vague. Nothing more than argument by insinuation.
Is this the best you can do?
>You left off the premise of my post.
You have one?
>>>1. If newborns kick in water, it may or may not be an indication that
>>>the kicking is an aquatic adaption.
>> Perhaps you should explain how you are using the term
>>"indication" here. If a newborn continues a behavior that it exhibits
>>on land in the water it provides no special evidence of aquatic
>>anything. The only way kicking in water might be evidence of aquatic
>>adaptation would be if it were a behavior not observed out of water.
>Is my statement wrong or correct?
The statement is indefinite. You have used "indication" in a
manner that makes it impossible to determine truth or falsity of the
statement until you define the way you are using the term. So define
just what you mean by "indication."
>>>2. If newborns kick when born on land it tends to support the idea
>>>that newborns have an instinct to kick. It provides as by itself
>>>absolutely no data regarding the cause of the instinct.
>> Exactly. It provides absolutely no data regarding the cause of
>>the instinct--even if the behavior continues when the newborn is in
>>the water. If the behavior were something seen _only_ in water, then
>>it _might_ be evidence of some kind of aquatic past. Since it is not,
>The post you are responding to was a discussion of your logic not a
>discussion of water kick > aquatic ape.
If that's what it was then it was totally worthless that way.
You are the one implying that water kick > aquatic ape. I merely
point out that the supposed "evidence" is nothing of the kind. (NB:
since presuming that you did not mean to imply that kicking in water
implied swimming instinc implied potentially aquatic past would leave
you with no point whatsoever, I chose to proceed on the assumption
that you actually had a point and were not just posting to see the
phosphors make pretty pictures on the screen.)
>Have you considered running for poltical office.
Once again vague little insinuations. Try arguments with some
substance to them next time.
>You left out my concusion.
I also left out the Declaration of Independance too, since that
followed about as well from your arguments as your "conclusion."
>> Newborns kick. That they continue to do so in water does not
>>provide evidence of anything. I suspect that if you took an infant up
>>in the Space Shuttle and chucked it out the airlock it would continue
>>to kick in vaccuum (for a few seconds at least). Would this provide
>>evidence of a "spacefaring ape"?
>Newborns or adults kicked out iof an airlock, without a space suit,
>would not kick for a few seconds. They would "explode" instantly.
To be blunt, you are totally, flatly, 100% _wrong_. The effect
of extremely low pressures (read "vaccuum") on humans has been known
for at least 30 years. It does _not_ involve exploding. You might
try reading the sci.space.* faq, which has a nice section on the
subject. Or you might try reading some of the works of Dr. Jerry
Pournelle (known more for his science fiction and his politics than
for his work in the aerospace field, but he's done plenty of that too)
who was an experimental subject in one of those tests in an altitude
chamber. _He_ didn't explode. In fact, he's still alive and writing
today, more than 30 years later.
>That does not of coure provide evidence that humans are made of
Even if humans did explode in space, this would not support
_your_ case. If anything, it comes down on my side of the argument.
But since your soundbite here is based on a totally wrong presumption,
it's totally meaningless.
You've really _got_ to stop making these wildly incorrect
statements. But I'll be honest here. I was kind of expecting you to
make the "exploding" presumption that you did. It's a popular myth
for those who learn their science from low quality "popular" books
(and movies like "Total Recall"). You responded exactly as I expected
you to do, repeating a myth as if it were fact.
BTW, the Babylon 5 newsgroups have a "faq" that also includes
the real scoop on "explosive decompression." 2001 got it right. Total
Recall was a farce.
David L. Burkhead "If I had eight hours to cut down
email@example.com a tree, I'd spend seven sharpening
FAX: 330-253-4490 my axe." Attributed to Abraham