Re: "Why do biologists avoid writing about AAT?"


Marc Verhaegen wrote:
A fanatic anti-AATer asked:

A fanatic wet aper replied:


in all the years AAT has been around, why do
professional biologists avoid writting original research papers on
the subject and publish them in biology journals?


Professional PAs (few can be called biologists),
you mean (non-PA biologists

I didn't ask about PAs, I asked about biologists, was not Sir Hardy a
biologist?


leave to field to "professional"PAs, of course, who might be thought to be
the experts on the subject).
Anthropocentrism, egocentrism, conservatism, lack of insight, lack of
intelligence, lack of comparative knowledge, lack of statistical insight,
lack of biological & evolutionary insight, etc.etc. Why didn't geologists
listen to the meteorologist Wegener?

That's just it, they did listen and that is my point.
Wegener wasn't the first to come up with the continents moving idea:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
http://www.pangaea.org/wegener.htm
"The American F. B. Taylor had published a rather speculative paper
suggesting continental drift in 1910 which, however, had attracted
relatively little attention, as had previous such suggestions by
Humbolt and Fisher."

Alexander Du Toit and geologist Émile Argand almost immediately joined
in support.

So, Taylor, Du Toit, Argand, Humbolt and Fisher all jumped on the
bandwagon. Where are the professional biologists that jumped on the
bandwagon with Hardy and argued the case in the journals as with
Wegener and his colleagues?

Why did't "scientists" want to see
that the earth was round, that the earth turned around the sun, that
continents move etc.etc.

Your example is science in it's infancy, people dominated by the
church. Today science has journals on topics those people couldn't
even imagine years ago.



Many PAs are only afraid of the reactions of there fanatic colleagues &
understandaly keep their mouths shut on the subject: otherwise they would be
called senile or infantile by blind anti-AATers like Olson, Wagler & that
kind of people.

I'm old enough to remember when text books and journals were dominated
by ramapithicus as one of our direct ancestors, the second fossil find
destroyed years of orthodoxy overnight. Hard evidence is accepted
easily by the field, even if it does overturn convention. There is no
conspiracy against scientific evidence.


And of course, most serious leading PAs are open-minded, just to mention a
few of them:
- Tobias 1995 ³We were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! Š All the
former savannah supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier
words Š²

Tobias is not talking about AAT, nor has he published original
research papers in a peer-reviewed biology journal on AAT.


- Wood 1996 ³the Œsavannah¹ hypothesis of human origins, in which the
cooling begat the savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now
discredited²

Nothing about AAT here either.


- Stringer 1997 ³One of the strong points about the aquatic theory is in
explaining the origin of bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water,
that would forced them to walk upright Š²

Stringer is not a biologst who publishes in biology journals. He is a
museum administrator who has proven he is ignorant of the literature.
Kano falisied his stupid comment before he made it.

- Tobias 1998 ³ŠBamford identified fossil vines or lianas of Dichapetalum
in the same Member 4: such vines hang from forest trees and would not be
expected in open savannah. The team at Makapansgat found floral and faunal
evidence that the layers containing Australopithecus reflected forest or
forest margin conditions. From Hadar, in Ethiopia, where ŒLucy¹ was found,
and from Aramis in Ethiopia, where Tim White¹s team found Ardipithecus
ramidus Š well-wooded and even forested conditions were inferred from the
fauna accompanying the hominid fossils. All the fossil evidence adds up to
the small-brained, bipedal hominids of four to 2.5 Ma having lived in a
woodland or forest niche, not savannah.² ³Š if ever our earliest ancestors
were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
urinators there²

Not one word about AAT in biology journals here.


- Stringer 2001 ³In the past I have agreed that we lack plausible models
for the origins of bipedalism and have agreed that wading in water can
facilitate bipedal locomotion (as observed in other normally quadrupedal
primates). I have never said that this must have been the forcing mechanism
in hominids, but I do consider it plausible.

Stringer is not a biologst who publishes in biology journals. He is a
museum administrator who has proven he is ignorant of the literature.
Kano had falisied his ignorant comment before he made it. Stringer's
ignorance of chimps is appalling


As for coastal colonisation, I
argued in my Nature News & Views last year that this was an event in the
late Pleistocene that may have facilitated the spread of modern humans.²
- Wrangham 2005 ³Here I follow the conventional assumption that hominins
began in the savanna.² ³Š the composition of the Okavango as a network of
islands could favor the evolution of bipedalism. For those who envisage
bipedalism as facilitated by the need to traverse or exploit aquatic
environments, an inland delta that generates low islands termitogenically or
hydrodynamically offers rich scenarios.²
- Alemseged 2006 ³I believe we should just put the savannah theory aside.
I think they basically became biped while they were living in a wooded,
covered environment Š²

Not one word about the now defunct AAT hypothesis.


As usual, it's a small fanatic minority the followers who are more fanatic
that the pope in their prosecution of the heretics (Olson, Wagler & that
kind of people).

There are thousands of biologists in the world, their silence on AAT
is deafening.


But non-PA biologists

I didn't ask you about non-PA biologists, but about biologists like
Hardy.


are open to (or even discovered) the idea, but often
they leave it to the PAs (who should know they think): Hardy, D.Morris,
Attenborough, Dennett, Frans de Waal, Richard Ellis, Dawkins etc.
BTW, in the Netherlands the waterside idea is completely accepted &
considered well-possible by most biologists

If it is thought to be considered "well-possible" by so many people,
how could
"the reactions of there fanatic colleagues" even enter into the
discussion if these other people are in the minority?

& is teached in lessons of
biology in the middle school: Midas Dekker, Piet Vroon, Marcel Roele, Frans
Roes, Tijs Goldschmidt, Dirk Draulans etc.

Harlan Bretz was a middle school teacher with a hypothesis that was
contrary to the field, "the reactions of there fanatic colleagues"
did not prevent the idea from being debated in the peer-rewiew
journals by professional colleagues afraid of censorship.

I searched
http://jbiol.com/search
and got this answer:
"No items could be found for the search terms: aquatic ape theory in
all fields"

It seems there are a lot more of "Olson, Wagler & that
kind of people)" in the professional world than on forums. There must
be thousands of members in the various biology associations around the
world. Not one member has thought the AAT is worthy of an original
research paper?

Wegener had hard evidence of similar shellfish on both sides of the
Atlantic to study and argue from. You have imaginary diets of
shellfish. No wonder AAT has been a giant flop for the last 70 years.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Why do biologists avoid writing about AAT?"
    ... professional biologists avoid writting original research papers on ... Tobias is not talking about AAT, ... research papers in a peer-reviewed biology journal on AAT. ... Stringer is not a biologst who publishes in biology journals. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • "Why do biologists avoid writing about AAT?"
    ... Professional PAs (few can be called biologists), ... former savannah supporters must now swallow our earlier ... islands could favor the evolution of bipedalism. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Quantcast