Re: Updated AAH Definition

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 11/15/04 

Date: 15 Nov 2004 00:43:24 -0800

"Michael Clark" <biteme@spammer.com> wrote in message news:<ntydnWzyMaw_dArcRVnysg@skypoint.com>...
> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message

> > How, tell me, does the AAH threaten the 'hard won collection of
> > knowledge'? It adds to it, you great wally. Why do you seek to draw an
> > arbitrary line in the sand and say 'thus far and no further - we know
> > all the answers now'?
>
> It is a major subtraction, doofus. It isn't science as it isn't
> testable and its' proponents don't seem to be able to muster
> a viable hypothesis ~to begin the process~ of discovery.

Of course it's testable.
It predicts that human ancestors lived in water-side habitats more
than Pan/Gorilla ancestors. Test that.
It predicts that humans swim better than apes. Test that.
It predicts that having less body hair makes you a better swimmer
through drag reduction. Test that.
It predicts that having more sc fat increases buoyancy and therefore
makes you less likely to drown. Test that.

Name me one example of how the the orthodox paradigm (whatever that
is) is testable.

> Add insult to injury, no single one of its supporters seem capable
> of assembling a rational argument and then *defending* it --
> as you *constantly* do in this NG. Where are your rebuttals
> to any of the arguments leveled at your presentation here?
> ---------------------------------
> Where are they, Algis?
> ---------------------------------

What are you talking about? Oh I get it. This is the latest ploy to
pretend that it's all been dismissed before, right? Like Jim Moore's
site's a magnus opus and like Jason Eshleman and NAS both destroyed my
arguments. The next great invention is that... I've never defended any
of my arguments from the s0-called 'rebuttals'.

I've answered them all - easily. I've done it again and again. I'll do
so again if you like - which ones did you have in mind?

> And don't point to those lighter-than-air, rhetoric-filled
> retorts about waist-deep water etc. They have been seen
> (and laughed at) before.

Exactly. You're just myth-making. I've answered all these points many
times but you always pretend that I haven't. If you've convinced
yourself that the current paradigm (whatever that is) is absolutely
right and needs no further ammendments, what's the point trying to
convince you?

Algis Kuliukas