Re: grasp on the aquatic hypothesis


"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1127504096.338509.89520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Here is something more realistic on current AAT thinking:
>
> http://www.sfu.ca/~csmith/aat.html
>
> Aquatic Ape (non)Theory
>
> If you were among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good amount of time
> listening to visiting lecturer Elaine Morgan recently,
> regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be advised of the following points.
>
> 1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed, and, despite
> what was presented at this lecture, it has been found to be severely
> wanting. AAT is not a 'credible alternative theory'; it is what is
> known as a post-hoc accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT does
> not really have a coherent body of theory, only a few disassociated
> (non)explanations for a few biological characteristics of the genus
> Homo. People should be aware that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a viable
> alternative' as claimed at the lecture.
> 2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory device. It
> is poorly regarded because it has been examined and found to be
> invalid. It is not poorly regarded because of some scientific cover-up
> or paranoia. It is not poorly regarded because scientists cannot accept
> change. Scientific knowledge does change, all the time, and it has been
> pointed out that science is the worst place to try to hide anything
> because fraud will be exposed through experiment. AAT is simply a
> theory that has been evaluated (and ditched) by most serious
> anthropologists.
> 3. The presentation on 14 October is an embarrassment to Simon Fraser
> University, and the sponsoring hosts. How this pop/crypto/science
> 'theory' was given equal billing with real research efforts is beyond
> me. The fact that the 'theory' was included in a series of lectures
> dealing with darwinian processes (The Institute of Humanities' 'Old
> Minds and Bodies in New Worlds: A Darwinian Perspective on Our Past,
> Present and Future' lectures) is a travesty, as AAT crumbles when
> examined for internal darwinian logic. Unfortunately, having the
> speaker lecture on AAT was akin to having SFU sponsor Erich von Daniken
> to speak about spaceship depictions in Maya tombs.
> Here's a point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not learn this
> point from some academic overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned it
> while trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I spent
> several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya, investigating some
> of the most important early hominid sites in the world, one of our
> overriding concerns -- while swimming, bathing, or catching fish with a
> net -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A croc can be
> on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and drag you under to drown before
> you have time to screech for help.
> The fact that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with early
> hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not explain what
> advantages early humans would have gained by spending time in
> crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they could not make
> fires, throw stones or sticks, use other tools, or have any hope
> whatever of escaping the most common predator. A troop of early
> hominids wading in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best be described
> as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good images of babies swimming
> freely in a pool, shown in the AAT video, have nothing to do with the
> real situation of predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the Dasenich or
> Turkana people who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting maniacs swim
> in that lake.
> There's much else to say, but I have a 650-word limit. Please keep in
> mind, the 'savanna hypothesis' has indeed been largely abandoned, but
> that does NOT validate AAT a priori. Neither is AAT validated because
> of the common sentiment that 'it is someone's opinion, and everyone is
> entitled to an opinion'. Opinion is not the same thing as scientific
> theory.
> The damage of this lecture was to those who came to the lecture
> expecting, and possibly believing, that AAT was a viable body of
> theory. It is not, and it does not deserve that label.
>
> Cheers,
> Cameron M. Smith
>
>
Lee, you could post this weekly or daily but for crying out loud start
snipping Marco's trash. Bad enough it gets posted once but it wastes a lot
of space in replies. We all know his trashy stuff by heart & have heart
burn as it is.

Jois


.

Relevant Pages