Re: Ealine Morgan
- From: Lee Olsen <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:11:43 -0700
On Jul 23, 11:54 am, "louan...@xxxxxxxxx" <louan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've tried several times to get them (yes YOU Marc) to give me a
better idea of how aquatic is "aquatic." As linked to water as an
otter? A manatee? A modern H. sapiens village of fishermen and pearl
divers in the Indian ocean? Nobody seems to want to narrow that down.
Here is one of Marc's latest diatribes:
http://tinyurl.com/2v4kw3
Or
Message-ID: <C26408C2.1D71%m_verhaegen@xxxxxxxxx>
Marc "FYI:
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora.
Aquatic Ape Theory is an inaccurate term: it's not about apes, nor
about
having been aquatic. AAT states that our ancestors sometime after the
Homo/Pan split relied partly on aquatic resources:
- Homo: AAT, contrary to what many PAs think, has nothing to do with
australopiths,
- littoral: it's about our ancestors having been shoreline dwellers
(coast/lake/river-side),
- diaspora: Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as far as Ain
Hanech
(Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto (Java) etc.: AAT simply says
that
these people got there along shorelines, not over dry plains."
As you can see, Marc's version of AAT is so watered down, it doesn't
have any explanatory powers, it really doesn't say anything about
human/Homo evolution or why the on-the-ground evidence for early Homo
is found in just exactly the opposite place of his imaginary scenario.
It is really just a 'location' scenario backed up by a lot of negative
arguments.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Elaine Morgan
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Elaine Morgan
- References:
- Re: Ealine Morgan
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: Ealine Morgan
- From: louann_m@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Ealine Morgan
- Prev by Date: Re: Proven facts (Re: Savanna hunters run down kudus (Re: AAT all washed up(WARNING: graphic photo)
- Next by Date: Re: Elaine Morgan
- Previous by thread: Re: Ealine Morgan
- Next by thread: Re: Elaine Morgan
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|