Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 01/03/05 

Date: 3 Jan 2005 02:46:36 -0800

Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:1104730151.866249.185950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ok, so how come we didn't lose those abilities too then?
>
> When we were chimps, we probably did
> lose them/

Oh yes, I forgot. You think we evolved *from* chimps.

Ok, so if we did evolve from chimps we've *gained* a degree of aquatic
ability that they haven't gained, right? So, since the LCA with chimps
water has acted as an agency of selection in humans more than our ape
cousins.

> > It's because
> > our ancestors *were* exposed to continued selection for swimming
> > abilities, right? And therefore water has acted as an agency of
> > selection in human evolution more than in the volution of chimps,
> > right?
>
> Right.
>
> > This is what the AAH is.
>
> Wrong.

So what exactly is it then? Seeing you seem to know better than I, or
anyone else.

This is exactly why it needed a definition. Everyone seems to think
they know what it is, but in fact they are just deluding themselves.
They've just interpeted it in their own personal way and decided that
this is what the AAH *should* be.

Well tough, Paul. The AAH has been defined now and Elaine Morgan has
given it her endorsement. The debate is over.

> > > Dishonest, lying bull***.
> >
> > How is it dishonest? Where is the lie?
>
> Under your worthless 'definition' ALL
> species are aquatic -- except chimps.

Rubbish. The point is that it doesn't try to define 'aquatic' - that's
where you're wrong and clinging onto your outdated misconception.

AAH: The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in
the evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape
cousins...

It's specifically saying only that OUR ancestors were 'more aquatic'
than chimp ancestors. It's saying absolutely NOTHING about what
'aquatic' means or about how aquatic or otherwise any other species
was.

So, Paul, exactly *who* is dishing out the "dishonest, lying bull***"?

> > Why are you always so consistently objectionable?
>
> I consistently hate cheats and tricksters.

And so do I. But according to you it seems the entire world of
paleoanthropology qualifies for that.

Algis Kuliukas

Quantcast