Re: Elaine Morgan: 88 Years old and still head and shoulders above your typical anthropologist

On Dec 7, 4:51 am, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 7, 1:55 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:25 pm, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[I expected..] just a word to say where it
had been evaluated and reviewed. He's basically lying when he is
assuring people that they shouldn't take any notice of Elaine because
the ideas been considered by the authorities and rejected.

That is a negative argument. How do you know what's been considered by
the  "authorities"?

It's been considered when a paper's been published against it (like
Langdon 1997)

Who considered that, you?


and then a proponent is allowed a reply (like Elaine
Morgan was not allowed to do - her reply was rejected, of course) and
then a discussion follows. Or, if someone goes to the trouble to test
one its hypotheses. the first has never been done. The second, only
rarely. I tried to do the second but the anthropological authorities
would not let it pass into their hallowed pages. Cowards.

Elaine, in her talk, gave names when necesary.

Talk?  You have that correct, that's all you people have done in the  last 48 years.

"You people"? Tarring people


Oh, you mean changing the original hypothesis beyond any recognition
to the original
is not tarring? No, you forget the reality of your place in this
place in this world.
I will refrain to remind you of just what that is in order to keep
this civil.


with the same brush is a preducial way to
behave. There are several waterside hypotheses. It's proponents are
all very different in what they propose and in their methods. Elaine
has written six books on the subject and given lots of talks.
Considering she only started at the age of 52, and isn't a scientist
by trade, I think she's contributed more than most anthropologists do
in a life time.

Verhaegen et al have published many papers. Crawford, Cunnane,
Broadhurst et al have done proper science and published many papers
and books. Ellis has published several papers. There are others too.

None of which demonstrate anything more than incompetencey or some
things that are totally irrelevant speculation.



But that contradicts Cameron Smith's claim

A little is all there is. You have that right also.

that it's been carefully
reviewed and rejected. I think you're wrong.

Little is little.

Cameron Smith implied that the AAT had been subjected tio the full
scrutiny of the field and had failed. It's a lie to suggest that when,
actually, all that has been published against it is one baised paper
which put the idea under the same umbrella as creationism and aliens
from outer space.

Since he didn't say, you are speculating.



 There's plenty to
critique. Putting Elaine's books to one side, there's at least 55
pieces in the literature open to the AAH but only three that attempt a
critique.

Where, an "OPINION"  piece in an obscure journal? Diet and Health
Magazine?

Your ignorance again.

Several original papers have been published in
favour of waterside hypotheses of human evolution. Here are some of
the journals: Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, British Journal
of Nutrition, American Journal of Human Biology, Lipids, Trends in
Ecology and Evolution.

No, your ignorance again. I went to
the trouble of tracking down some of those above.
Enough of them to know there has never been anything but speculation
printed in any of them
Once ones sees crap, there is no reason to waste anymore of ones life
reading crap.

Same reason you gave up on your degree.


Waterside hypotheses explain all the major ape-juman differences - and
yet mainstream anthropology continues to pretend it doesn't exist or,
worse, that it's already rejecte it. What a bunch of intellectual
cowards.

Explaining is not evidence of anything.

Most of the paleoanthropological literature in the past 60 years is
guilty of that, then.

That only demonstrates your ingnorance. The trend is now about
details,
not generalizations. Your ignorance about Kano, etc. only proved you
live in
a vacuum.


The evidence in favour of waterside hypotheses
of human evolution is clear and has been spelled out to you many
times, but you refuse to take it on board. To take just one example,
humans are clearly the best swimmers and divers among the ape clade.
Any other such "odd-man-out" species in any other taxa would be
explained by Darwinian natural selection but, as you will no doubt
repeat, the human-ape swimming anomaly, according to the authorities,
must be explained by anything BUT natural selection. The confidence
that the so-called AAT is wrong is so strong it even trumps Darwinism.
It's a very bizarre situation for a science to find itself in that is
supposed to be based on evolutionary biology.

Well, it's the fault of AAH propoents, for sure. But anyone claiming
to know what "it" is or that "it" had been soundly rejected is
compounding the error if they pretend to know what "it" is. I agree
there should be more clarity in defining waterside hypotheses. That is
what I have tried to do anyway.

How do you know what he was referring to if he didn't say?

By calling waterside hypotheses "it", I know he was being simplistic
and, it's a fair assumption that the "it" he meant was the one he'd
heard about through gossip over coffee. Like most anthropologists,
he's probably never read any of the literature.

You have been corrected. He had a 650 word limit. You are delusional
to be speculating
anymore than that. No wonder "you people" have such a comprehension
problem.





Anyone can complete a PhD on a topic that is the pet subject of their
supervisor and when they have the support of a whole field behind
them. I can tell you it's a little harder when your supervisor thinks
the idea is crazy and when your thesis is basically that the whole
field has been wrong for 50 years.

Wrong? Where has that been demonstrated?

For 50 years orthodoxy has shied away from waterside explanations

"orthodoxy"??? " Tarring people again?

Since you are so inconsisent in you debating tactics, ie, accusing
others of doing
the very thing you do yourself, I will waste no more with this reply.

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast