More Tall Tales from the Same Small Mind

Cartoon - Hulk action figure

This blog post elicited an absurd number of responses from Behan and each was just as nonsensical as the next. Like I noted in the original, not one of them is sourced.


The problem is that these folks think they know what I’m saying because they think they know what they’re saying and they thereby fail to see the internal contradiction at the heart of their own argument.

Behan doubles down on his absurd assertion that everyone else is wrong and fabricates some lies in his defense.

The Unknown Scientist doesn’t know what I’m saying because The US doesn’t know what she/he’s saying. The Russian Fox breeding experiment is cited as evidence that the domestication of the dog occurred through selecting for the trait of approachability.

Behan doesn’t know what he is saying because he is full of crap but blaming others is easier than learning. Nobody cites Belyaev’s work as “evidence” that dog domestication was the result of approachability – it’s one of Behan’s convenient lies. To be clear, the silver fox offers a MODEL of domestication (Trut 2009). To top it off, Belyaev’s selection was not for approachability as Behan claims but for reduced fear and aggression (Trut 2001).

Lyudmila N. Trut completed her doctoral dissertation under Belyaev in 1980 at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics.  Following his death she continued with Belyaev’s project and has been at it for over 30 years. Trut is head of a research group at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Siberian Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences.


In other words, the defining principle of a dog derives from the evolutionary track of wolves so that it What makes a dog a dog remains its heritage from the wolf as a group hunter of a large dangerous prey animal, and so that’s why the scavenging theory cannot account for the nature of the dog.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find scientist claiming anything is a “defining principle” of a dog; the idea is vague and operationally undefinable and takes Behan to foolishly claim a single trait could account for the “nature of a dog” – whatever that means.


If a dog can think about controlling a resource, or a couple of resources, then it can think about controlling ALL the resources.

Our brains have limited processing and memory capacities. While most can think and multiply two digits (3 X 8), we can’t multiply ALL digits or even just a few (235 X 173) because we quickly reach the limit of our processing capacity and working memory. Dogs aren’t magic; why would their brains have infinite capacity? Behan fails yet again.


“Natural selection favored the dogs……………………..” is like saying steel becomes magnetized by being placed besides a magnet. Yes, proximity is relevant, but we observe that when other items are placed near magnets they don’t become magnetized.

Quote - Priceless PhD

Even after being given links to VIDEO and PDFs explaining natural selection, this pathetic charlatan continues with the nonsense. Behan fancies himself an expert and should know “Natural selection” is a shortcut that describes environmental (biotic and abiotic) conditions that result in survival-reproductive advantage of one trait over another.


Bear in mind that this RHP “definition” is an amazingly complex bit of behavioral script in social-system making, one which invariably invokes a ToM,

Looks like the poor boy didn’t read the provided definitions. At no point does the definition necessitate Theory of Mind. A perching – sunning – butterfly has greater RPH than one looking for a place to perch. That’s the description. The explanation is that a perching butterfly is sunning itself and the boost in body temperature gives it better performance in defending the perching spot. It’s Behan’s wanton ignorance that is once again the issue.


The signal of the signaler has to find a ready audience in the individual receiving the signal in order for this capacity [to communicate] to evolve. One half of the communication equation can’t evolve without the other half evolving at the same stage of development

Another error caused by his misunderstanding of evolution. Levin shows “that a significant though imperfect level of understanding can be achieved by organisms through evolution alone. “(Levin 1995).

Another example violating Behan’s arbitrary restrictions on communication is illustrated by Blumberg. Cold neonate rats emit ultrasonic cries but they are not communicating and their ‘cries’ are a physiological by-product of abdominal compressions; a reflexive attempt to regulate venous return (Blumberg 2001). These cries elicit retrieval behavior from the mothers without communication.

As usual he makes up whatever he wants but the reality refutes him.


Trut LN,, Oskina I,, & Kharlamova A (2009). Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model Bioessays, 31 (3), 349-360 DOI: 10.1002/bies.200800070

Trut LN (2001) Experimental studies of early canid domestication. In: Ruvinsky A, Sampson J (eds) The genetics of the dog. CABI, London, pp 15–43
Blumberg M.S. & Sokoloff G. (2001). Do infant rats cry?, Psychological Review, 108 (1) 83-95. DOI:

Levin M. (1995). The evolution of understanding: A genetic algorithm model of the evolution of communication, Biosystems, 36 (3) 167-178. DOI:

One thought on “More Tall Tales from the Same Small Mind

  1. I enjoyed this post. I was waiting for the gloves to come off. 😀 I’d put my money on you any day. Loved the graphic too. I chucked at the processing power of dogs, always thinking back to the quizzical look on their faces given an equal choice of only two.

Comments are closed.