Re: What's More Idiotic?

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: 22 Jan 2005 18:58:16 -0800

Rick Wagler wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106423328.422939.33090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > The most ironic thing about the attempts to dismiss the aquatic ape
> > scenario
> > is that its attackers seem to have this bizarre double standard,
where
> > they
> > demand perfect proof and precision from the AAH people, but require
> > /nothing/ of the plains ape (or whatever you'd like to call it)
> > hypothesis.
> >
> > Not quite accurate. AAH people make big claims. Their opponents
point
> > out how ridiculous are these claims. In contrast the "plains ape"
> > people make few claims. They have no hypothesis at all. This
position
> > is, of course, impossible to reconcile with the observations that
> > humans/hominids are radically different animals than chimps.
> >
> >
> > The only scientific question that emerges from this endless
argument is
> > which of these two approaches is more idiotic:
> > 1) AAT proponents who propose a radical but unsupportable shift in
> > habitat to explain these radical differences between hominids and
> > chimps; or
> > 2)Plains ape people (conventional vagueness) who propose no shift
in
> > habitat or lifestyle to explain the emergence of such a radically
> > different animal.
> >
> Point 2 is a\bsolutely false - assuming for the moment that
> "plains ape people" means the vast majority of PAs. It is
> precisely a shift in habitat, lifestyle and diet that is pointed
> to as the major influences on hominin evolutionary history.

I agree, Rick. The 'traditional savannah hypothesis' (or whatever you
want to call it) does at least offer an explanation for why we differ
from the apes. But if that's your claim (and it appears to be here)
then it's not a straw man that Elaine Morgan invented, is it?

> This statement puts you in Crowley's camp. Raging against
> something you make no effort to understand.

It's not just Crowley's camp, it's Eshleman's, Deitiker's and anyone
elses's who's main (if not only) argument is "you do not understand
evolutionary theory as well as I do."

It reminds me of some kind of religious conflict. Each protagonist
claims to understand the teachings of 'God' better than the other
protagonists, so they argue, (or battle), on the basis of their
interpretation of an interpretation, as opposed to empiacle facts.
Algis Kuliukas

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats More Idiotic?
    ... > The most ironic thing about the attempts to dismiss the aquatic ape ... > habitat or lifestyle to explain the emergence of such a radically ... to as the major influences on hominin evolutionary history. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Of lice and men
    ... Homo = most aquatic ape ... (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) ... Rick Wagler ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)