Re: Updated AAH Definition

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

Date: 15 Nov 2004 00:51:07 -0800

"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<419716af$0$20364$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>...
> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.0411131748.67ee296b@posting.google.com...

> > I'm trying, apparently for the first time, to define a hypothesis that
> people have been debating for over forty years and the majority of experts
> seem to have dismissed - even though, in truth, they clearly couldn't tell
> you what it is - because even AAH proponents haven't spelt it out.
>
> Algis, it's not AAT vs something else. IMO we don't need definitions
> (although I'm happy with yours). We need possible scenarios ("aquatic" or
> not), which can be corrected if necessary.

I disagree, Marc. All the ideas on human evolution are competing for
respectability based on their evidence-based reasoning. An idea can
only be evaluated if we have a clear, agreed, idea of what it is. The
trouble with the AAH is that everyone seems to have invented their own
definition of what they think Hardy (and others) meant. Langdon (1997)
has interpreted it as an exaggerated version which can easily be
dismissed. We need to clarify what it is, then at least we can all
argue about the same thing.
 
Algis Kuliukas

Relevant Pages
Quantcast