Re: grasp on the aquatic hypothesis


"Jois" <firstjois@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PYCdnVMoadP6caveRVn-hA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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
>
>

Including the way he sludges it all over the place contradicting himself. He
can't even decide when our ancestors were in the water or how much other
than maybe all the time. Almost nothing he says adds up when looked at hard.

He is one reason for only looking at this news groups during the summer.
Nothing changes in his arguments no matter how void they are.


.

Relevant Pages
Loading