Re: Evidence, and scientific palatability
From: Rich Travsky (traRvEsky_at_hotMOVEmail.com)
Date: 10/31/04
- Next message: Rich Travsky: "Re: Predation On Chimps"
- Previous message: Rich Travsky: "Re: Predation On Chimps"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:19:18 -0700
J Moore wrote:
>
> Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:417F0DAB.6F518A5E@hotMOVEmail.com...
> > J Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > Marc Verhaegen <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > > news:417b8fb2$0$15714$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> > > > > Yes, evidence, of course. Like the fact we're better swimmers than
> apes
> > > > ... --Algis
> > > >
> > > > This alone is enough evidence to prove AAT, the hypothesis that we
> were
> > > more
> > > > aquatic once than apes. Only fools & idiots don't see this. Don't
> waste
> > > your
> > > > time with them, Algis.
> > > >
> > > > --Marc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > This post describes the essense of the AAT/H problem -- we are even now
> > > demonstrably "more aquatic" than apes, but then by this measure so are
> > > horses and dogs. The statement lacks definition and explanatory power,
> and
> > > doesn't even begin to suggest why this tiny degree of "aquaticism" begat
> > > features like those of seals, whales, and serenia in humans and in no
> other
> > > animals. Of course that's granting that these features are actually the
> > > same as in those mammals, which is not actually true, which constitutes
> > > another problem for the AAT/H.
> >
> > This is because they have to make the definition of aquatic so broad as to
> > make it meaningless, such that any association with water makes a creature
> > aquatic. Just drinking water probably qualifies.
>
> As I mentioned before, there's these examples taken from feedback to my
> site:
>
> "I'll bet you have water piped into your house."
>
> "But if evolution had gone the other way, along the forest/savannah path,
> and you were an intelligent chimpanzee, would you have piped water for your
> baths?"
>
> Some of the posts here from AAT/H proponents get uncomfortably close to
> that -- damp ground, for instance, seems to be enough.
Wow. I suppose being caught in the rain counts... or just living where it
MIGHT rain...
- Next message: Rich Travsky: "Re: Predation On Chimps"
- Previous message: Rich Travsky: "Re: Predation On Chimps"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|