Re: Radio: The Scars of Evolution (Aquatic Ape Theory)

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0504192256.5f6c24fa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> The program was actually extremely good.

The program was extremely bad. Although,
it did, probably for the first time EVER on the
broadcast media, state that the savanna
theory was dead. That has such a firm grip
on the public imagination, and forms the
basis for so many bad 'scientific theories',
that we need it stated for on the hour, ever
hour, for about ten years.

However, the program was streets ahead of
the usual stuff we get in this area -- often
fronted by Sir (or is it 'Lord') Robert Winston
-- which so bad that I cannot bear more than
10 seconds at a time and have to switch off
or over: those ghastly 'Walking with
Cavemen' . . . ugghhs.

> Anyone with a hint of an open mind would be left
> thinking that there is clearly something in this
> AAH idea.

Not if you had a brain, of course. The 'AAH'
is now apparently and 'officially' the doctrine
that 'our ancestry had more to do with water
than chimps did' -- or something along those
lines.

Perhaps that's a good move. We can all agree
on that; everyone can claim that they've won.
And we can forget about the whole thing.

> It's time aquascpetics began to realise that their dogmatic
> and most hostile approach to this most modest idea
> ought to be reformed.

But 'this most modest idea' is merely a cover
for the usual nonsense. Much of the program
was about the greasy covering often found
on pre-term human infants. Apparently it's
also found on harbour seal infants. So we
have 'proof' that humans once lived in much
the same way as seals.

This was not stated, of course. But that
was the clear implication. The bone-headed
nonsense is always there, hiding just below
the surface, using its cover of a meaningless,
banal 'pretend-scientific' theory of 'more
contact with water than chimps'.


Paul.



.

Relevant Pages