Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1115765304.746504.277030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> Is Moore married to a very well respected anthropologist?? who might that
>> be?

> Jim writes, on the first page of his web site... "I've also had an
> informal background in anthropological research, helping my late wife,
> Nancy Tanner, with her research on human origins, matriliny, and social
> organization."

Of course. I forgot. I'm sorry to have made this mistake twice. Tanner's
book "On becoming human" has a lot of qualities (esp. her overviews of the
sites, eg, p.182, 234, 238 etc.), but also a lot of prejudices now proven to
be wrong (eg, p.133: "some 8 to 4 Ma & beginning to utilize the vast
compar.open savannas..."). If she died, she can't correct Moore's nonsense
any more... The man still lives in the past apparently.

>> Then why does he write such informed irrelevancies? eg, why doesn't he
>> let his wife read what he has written before sending us his nonsense??
>> why doesn't he even tell his wife where she can find find decent
>> information on AAT?? If his wife had serious critique on AAT, why
>> didn't she give us her arguments? Can't she tell us that for herself
>> instead of letting her husband produce "arguments" as relevant as those
>> of creationists?? I'm very curious to know why this very well respected
>> anthropologist might think we're wrong.

> Tanner made a good contribution, especially about the role of women in
> human evolution in my humble opinion, but Jim seems to be driven by some
> sort of cattish jealousy that Elaine Morgan became more famous in this
> area without any formal anthropological training. I can understand those
> emotions but I think it explains why his web site is so bitter and
> twisted. --Algis Kuliukas

Yes, well possible. Sad.

--Marc
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT


.

Relevant Pages