Re: Only fools believe that human ancestors could not have been coastal once because there exist tsunamis... ( Re: Look humans really are aquatic!

From: mikelist (mikelist_at_tds.net)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:34:24 -0500

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "Michael Clark" <biteme@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:4OSdnetzEpbFalLcRVnyvQ@skypoint.com...
>
>>"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
>>news:1104139205.067039.209520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-
>>>>bin/news?e=pri&dt=041226&cat=news&st=newsd877evgg0&src=ap
>>>>
>>>>Maybe so, they build their houses ocean.
>>>>Wee, the sea is so purty. Look at the purty big rolly waves!
>>>>
>>>>[OK, so I have a morbid sense of humor, :^)]
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>Good fortune will have clearly been
>>>the most significant factor but is it really too far fetched to imagine
>>>that this kind of event might have, in some small way, acted as an
>>>agency of selection for better abilities in water? And if so, doesn't
>>>this flip Phillips point around 180 degrees?
>>
>>So now "good fortune" is the selection criteria. Could a "roll of the
>>dice" be too far behind?
>>
>>
>>>Algis Kuliukas
>>
>>--
>>Yada, yada, yada.
>>
>>
>
>
>
Actually, the ONLY explanation that doesn't cover 'good fortune' is
'Intelligent Design'. Bon Fortuna IS behind many of our physical
developments. What might have been an advantage many years previous may
not show up or be distributed in time to 'actually be of advantage', so
that change would be cancelled out. Folks in this newsgroup seem to back
up good arguments with fallacious reasoning, like you have in this post.
  Thought you guys tended to be more educated and scientifically
realistic than is born out by observation of the strawman and ad
hominems hurled around here (yeah, pretend it isn't so). To say that one
of our direct ancestors was aquatic is probably an overstatement; to say
they were not significantly affected by river, lake, or ocean proximity
is just as questionable. Of course, some AATers have some bizarre ideas
(nostrils on the upper portion of nose, swimming on backs as a habitual
form of locomotion), but some of the savannah theorists also have lapses
in reason to contend with.

When it's all said and done, Ed Conrad may have a point, just not about
his specimens or how they got there.