I appreciate your good natured jest at George’s expense, but poking him, is just likely to get this thread off topic.
I think it is an important topic, even if few others apparently do.
Apparently you missed the import of my statement. First, unlike some here, I try to avoid long-winded babble. Second, I was pointing out that this did seem to validate some of George’s arguments. It certainly wasn’t “at George’s expense.”
As to your 2nd point: Some of George’s arguments are going to be validated by almost any statements that have to do with human behavior, as his arguments tend to be that they are a product of evolution. And that is incontrovertible, as ontogeny is impossible without phylogeny. It’s just that he seems to overemphasize phylogeny, to the extent that he has often seemed to consider ontogenic factors as generally irrelevant. (Which, I believe, is as big a mistake as claiming that phylogenic factors are generally irrelevant.)
As in the example of our ancestors discovery of the uses of fire. Sure, human’s may have been phylogenetically predisposed to discovering fire. But not all of the advances in our technologies, related to the use of fire, can possibly be attributed to purely phylogenic factors alone. All this, IMO, should go without saying. But alas, when George’s perspective is brought up…
As to your perennial underlying quest for succinctness, I didn’t notice anything particularly long-winded in this thread, prior to your comment.
First, when I used “here” I was referring to the forum, not to this specific thread. Second, I wasn’t trying to argue for or against any of George’s contentions, however, you demonstrated what I was saying by your own relatively long-winded response immediately above, starting with “As to your 2nd point” and ending with “brought up…”