Re: wet aper insults Sir Hardy (Re: "Why do biologists avoid writing about AAT?"

On Sep 20, 11:53 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Op 20-09-2007 16:47, in artikel
1190299621.090482.219...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

On Sep 19, 8:54 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Not worth an answer.

because Verhaegin has no evidence to reply with.

Don't be ridiculous, my boy:

Don't be rediculous doughboy:

Aquatic Ape (non)Theory: Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture
by
Cameron M. Smith
PhD, Department of Archaeology
"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



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
Description
(Edit)
Comparative & fossil information on human & ape evolution.
Waterside diaspora of Homo after Homo & Pan split ~5 Ma.

AAT:
* Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term E.Morgan 1982)
* Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes (aqua=water, arbor=tree)
* Amphibious Ancestors Theory of Plio-Pleistocene Homo (AAT strict sense)

AAT s.s. is based on comparisons of the behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of
living humans with chimps & other living animals.

Waterside collection of, eg, fruits, coconuts, turtle, bird eggs, shell-,
crayfish, water(side)plants, drowned antelopes, stranded whales etc.
explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes & australopiths) better than
plains- or forest-dwelling: huge brain, slow-diving skills, breath control,
vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
projecting nose, poor sense of smell, handiness & tool use, late puberty,
long legs, alined body, poor climbing, flat feet, fur loss, fatness, profuse
sweating, high needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsat.fatty acids...

Homo & Pan split ~6-4 Ma. Homo populations dispersed along
lakes/shores/rivers in savannas & elsewhere,


Message-ID: <1124421294.671438.286120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"You are asking for someone to contradict something
that you've not made a case for. You are asking someone to prove a
negative. This isn't science, though I suspect you don't know what
science is and as such will continue your mentally ill diatribes."


eg, crossed 18 km sea to reach
Flores 0.8 Ma.

Ah, 1.8 million years later than they were at Gona evolving out on the
hot, salty savanna.

Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma are found near Rift valley lakes & even (sea
level fluctuations hindered fossilisation) Indian Ocean & African coasts:
Mojokerto, Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea...

"Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
posture (Dennell 2003:442)."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7003502.stm
"They have remarkably human-like spines and lower limbs that would
have been well
suited for long distance travel. Their feet had well-developed
arches."

Of course, built for kudu chasing, what else?

http://www.chimpcollaboratory.org/news/run.asp
"From our spring-loaded ligaments to our muscular behinds to our
ability to sweat, the human body took the ideal shape of a long-
distance runner starting some 2 million years ago, the researchers
say. The long, lean build helped us scavenge widely scattered kills
and could also have been an advantage when hunting down prey over long
distances."

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1206/1206_samplings.html
"In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
African groups have traditionally practiced "persistence hunting,"
chasing antelopes or other game in the midday heat, often for hours,
until the animals overheat and collapse."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12381-duplicate-genes-help-huma...
"Human beings can run long distances because we carry multiple copies
of a gene
that helps supply our cells with energy, a new study suggests. That
supports
the idea that endurance running gave our human ancestors an
evolutionary edge."

http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo
" In fact, he walked and ran with better mechanics than we do today.
The mechanics of his femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower back are
superior to those of today. We have had to sacrifice some of that
efficiency of walking and running to give birth to children with
larger brains."

Leakey (1994:55): "Two indepandent lines of research converged on the
conclusion that early Homo was an efficient runner, the first human
species to be so."

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
"The hips were more slender and adapted to walking and running over
long distances."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/1804830.stm
Man beats horse in 50 mile desert race





* Max Westenhöfer 1942. Der Eigenweg des Menschen. Mannstaede
* Alister Hardy 1960. Was Man more aquatic in the past? NS 7:624
* Maggie Roede...1991. The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction? Souvenir
* Elaine Morgan 1997. The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Souvenir London
* Marc Verhaegen...2002. Aquarboreal ancestors? TREE 17:212
* Stephen Cunnane 2005. Survival of the Fattest. World Scientific
* Phillip Tobiashttp://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
* Symposium 1999. Water & Human Evolutionhttp://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html





Message-ID: <C26408C2.1D71%m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx>
FYI:
Verhaegin: "AAT = Homo littoral diaspora."

Hardy 1960: "Was man more aquatic in the past?"

Verhaegin: "Aquatic Ape Theory is an inaccurate term: it's not about
apes,"

Hardy 1960: "The author explains his hypothesis that we descend from
more aquatic ape-like ancestors."

Verhaegin: "nor about having been aquatic."

Hardy 1960: "I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we
have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals."

Sir Alister Hardy, Was Man More Aquatic In The Past? The New Scientist
17th March 1960.

______

Op 19-09-2007 13:54, in artikel
1190202876.019914.310...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op 19-09-2007 05:52, in artikel
1190173946.086311.311...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the imbecile who
called Chris Stringer ignorant & stupid now says <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> :

My little boy, your only argument below is: I'm waiting for AATers to
publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Doughboy, we know what the amateur AATers publish: "? and opinions."
What is needed is professional papers.

Sigh. Again for the 100th time (why not inform a little little bit, my
boy?): they gave me the choice: writing a review paper or an opinion paper.
Okidoki, little boy?

"review" is not original research, I'm suprised even an amateur like
you doesn't know the difference.

Dont you even know that peer-review = conservatism??
Peer-review is excellent for old ideas that have to be fine-tuned, but
peer
review doesn't allow radically new ideas.

Silly Marc claims no "radically new ideas" accepted in peer-review
journals, then he thanks
"four anonymous referees for corrections" in his TREE 2002
Acknowledgements section.
Doughboy can't remember what he says from one day to the next. This is
just further proof of the incompetent people writting about AAT.

New? 47 years is new?

O years, my boy: no anthropol.journal ever accepted an AAT paper
(John Langdon's irrelevant blabla can't be call an AAT paper).

Are you senile??? You were asked about biology journals, not
"anthropol.journal"

PA journals refuse to publish papers pro-AAT

I never asked about PA journals, I asked why no biology journals
argued AAT.

My little boy, ever heard of TREE = Trends in Ecology & Evolution? Even
never heard of the "Trends" journals??

Doughboy, we know what the amateur AATers publish: "? and opinions."

And you claim to produce science,
you fool.

You claim "? and opinions." is producing science?

Message-ID: <1124421294.671438.286...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jason Eshleman: "You're argumentative style is to set up a strawman,
claiming that the "alternative" is the "savanna" as if that somehow
has meaning. It doesn't. You're a
nutcase, a delusional fool who passes off his correspondence to
Nature
like it was a peer reviewed article, who passes off his TREE article
like it was original research and not an opinion piece, and who
pretends that he's got stratocladistic support for things for which
he
does not. You're a fraud, and on top of that, you're an ***."

Keep runing after kudus, my boy. Already found your list of
publications?? :-DDD

No original research from Hardy on AAT, none from Stringer, none from
Morgan, Algis , none from nobody. Keep running after your semi-aquatic
mountain beavers doughboy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.