Re: MV is the most published author of SAP

algis_at_RiverApes.com
Date: 12/19/04 

Date: 18 Dec 2004 17:11:19 -0800

Philip Deitiker wrote:
> "Charles" <lmno@mindspring.com> says in
> news:V8Zwd.3464$yK.2217@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> > seems to me that just about everybody here in sap, including
> > myself, has at one time or another had a hissy fit. we are just
> > so damn territorial! --charles
>
> Well at 7000 posts regarding a singular topic, I would say some of us

> are much more territorial than others.
>
> I think if we added up all the post from algis, mario, pauline,
> marco you would find that their 'territory' covers most of s.a.p.

So what? It is the fact that paleoanthropology has created this
ridiculous rod for its own back, by steadfastly holding onto a blind
spot when it comes to the effect that water might have had on our
evolution, that is the biggest problem with it today. Of course those
of us who are not influenced by sheep-like peer pressure to adhere to
this taboo are going to try again and again to shake people up to the
fact.

That's why the AAH remains the only topic of any real interest on
forums such as this - the rest is just relatively dull and uncontested.

We're only trying to get you to see common sense but you seem to see it
as some kind of bizarre threat to your scientific credability. Of
course, the more you do this, the more of a threat it *does* become,
because the more ridiculous you look in your determination to resist
the notion. But that is your fault, not ours.

Just look at yourselves: You killfile people who's only crime is to get
frustrated at the outright hostility to a view of human evolution that
is so painfully modest and then you bitch about those of you who
haven't yet agreed to this form of self-censorship. I think that's just
an astonishing from people who claim to be scientifically minded. In
years to come people will be amazed at how such a brilliantly simple,
satisfying and yet trivial idea could have been received with such an
inappropriate response by so many for so long.

> Unfortunately the science of paleoanthropology as 95% nothing to do
> with ape theories at all. Its about recent migrations, molecular
> evolution, archaeological hotspots, divisions between species, etc.

That's an astonishing claim. So paleoanthropology has nothing to do
with determining which factors led to ape-human divergence? Really?

The determination you guys have to deny that water played a role knows
no bounds - even to the level of re-defining paleoanthropology!

> So lets just be clear, when some of us present here we are talking,
> fairly about that other 95% and probably not enough at that. Whereas
> my guess is that the 60% share (discounting the completely OT stuff
> from World Class Net Loons) they are 12 fold overrepresenting a
> particular aspect, in essence they are trying to dominate the group
> and turn it in to their group.

That the AAH remains the hottest unofficial topic in paleoanthropology
is not our fault. That it can be 'rejected' on the basis of coffee
break gossip and corridor rumours is not our fault either. But some of
us are not satisfied with that kind of a refutation. Some of us expect
some degree of scientific method, transparency and objectivity.

There have been some 60+ pieces of lietrature published that are open
or supportive of the AAH. Even if you take away all the work of
outright proponents that still leaves about a dozen. However,
bizarrely, just two crap papers arguing for a refutation and one single
detailed balanced but highly polarised treatment, which came down on
the side of a rejection on a knife-edge on the basis of a clearly
exaggerarated position of the idea, seem to have won primacy. And yet
you defend this position and claim that it is the AAHers who do the bad
science.

You shouldn't be surprised that some people are keen redress the
balance.

> The same thing goes on in sci.archaeology, except there, there are
> a variety of completely squirreled out nuts. Most notably are the
> hyperdiffusionist who make claims like the Irish discovered Vanuatu
> eons before the columbus did.
>
> Disliking what someone is talking does not make a person
> territorial anymore than the disliked topic is marking off
> territorial. Territory is gained and lost in quantities.
> The people who would have presented and discussed the other 95% of PA

> that's not discussed here have mostly left. THAT is how territorial
> they are, so don't hand me some bull*** about us being all
> alike. Clearly it is the wanted intent for the AAT group to dominate
> this newsgroups, but also realize that in the evolution of all things
> good, every species has its day, s.a.p. not to be left out, and
> that day gone, the discussion has moved elsewhere and will never
> return.

That statement shows how badly you've misconceived the whole excercise.
It's not that 'the AAT group' (whatever that is) has an intent to
dominate this or any newsgroup, as if we were some kind of political
movement. It's that some of us realise that this topic, neglected for
far too long, is a fundamental part of understanding human evolution.
In accepting that, the science of paleoanthropology is greatly
strengthened. We are on *your* side. Can't you see that? I don't think
you can. See? you are the ones being territorial, which was Charles'
point.

> Algis for instance talking about how well he was taken at a
> conference where he spoke and people listened. But one on one with
> another science, he pulls every childish propoganda ploy in the book.
> That is an attempt to mark off territory, any such person should be
> summarily rejected as a scientist.

That's just not true. I've steadfastly attempted to debate the issues
with people here and, when they're not engaged in killfiling me or
childish name-calling (what was it, Phillip? - Al-gas, a real classic
that one!) sometimes they do appear to address the issues. But only for
a moment before they apparently realise they have no good responses and
quit.

The fact is that there is simply no aquasceptic response worth
mentioning. All you can do is put your hands over your ears, close your
eyes and sing 'la, la la!' Meanwhile, some of us are actually engaged
in primary research into testing this hypothesis and when fair minded
scientists see that they are generally impressed. When scientists have
their ignorance about what the AAH actually is lifted they generally
realise that this is no big deal and certainly no threat. Some of them
then begin to see that it actually might prove to be be very useful
indeed. It's a pity that the majority of aquasceptics on this newsgroup
have argued themselves into such a tight corner on this issue, they
cannot now come out of it without eating a big slice of humble pie. But
that too, is your fault, not ours.

Algis Kuliukas

Quantcast