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

On Dec 8, 1:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Algis, your silly little wading-caused-bipedalism notion has nothing
to do with anything Hardy or Morgan wrote.  So it's kind of absurd for
you to suggest you are like minded with them.  

First, it's not silly at all. It's by far the best model of them all.
Second, it has a lot to do with Hardy/Morgan. They both suggested
wading was a major factor in bipedal origins. Hardy's timing was out
and probably his habitat too in my opinion - for bipedalism.

They indicate hominids
swimming.  You don't.  

Yes I do. There are many waterside hypotheses of human evolution, not
just one. One of them is the wading hypothesis of hominid bipedal
origins. I focused on that one for my masters thesis and PhD and tried
to get it published in a peer-reviewed anthropological journal because
i think it is the most blatantly obvious one. It's the only model
which would kill you if you were quadrupedal. It's the only model
where every one of the great apes can be induced to move bipedally for
as long as the conditions prevail and its the best at explaining how
bipedalism could be practiced before the anatomical traits evolved to
make it efficient. It's also consistent with the fossil record.

In my River Apes... Coastal People model. The first phase is hominid
bipedalissm in gallery forests subject to seasonal flooded. Not much
swimming there, I accept. But the second (coastal people) phase is
just Hardy/Morgan/Verhaegen et al. Swimmign and diving, feeding on
fish/shelsfish etc.

You do the same thing that conventional
theorists like Lee do.  You introduce an absurd notion, when it is
poorly recieved you just dumb it down and keep it vague and pretend
that it has survived scrutiny based on its merits rather than its
vagueness.

Wrong again. I have tried harder than anyone to lay out precise
hypotheses and ways of testingg them.

I can see that there is no amount of evidence that will change your
mind. Anything in favour of waterside hypotheses

There's no such thing as a waterside hypothesis.  Waterside is a
habitat.  It's your silly wading notions that are the problem.  You're
such an evasive twit you won't even correctly label your hypothesis.

Wrong again. And now you've slipped back into inevitable ad hominems
I'll stop.

Algis Kuliukas
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Elaine Morgan: 88 Years old and still head and shoulders above your typical anthropologist
    ... It's absurd, anecdotal nonsense. ... and probably his habitat too in my opinion - for bipedalism. ... One of them is the wading hypothesis of hominid bipedal ... There is no swimming in your model you evasive jackass. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Tobias 1995
    ... Why is it absurd. ... Let me be a little more precise: In waist deep water all great apes ... examples of bipedalism in our clade is the obvious thing to do if ... selection happens. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... > Algis's version of the AAH? ... armory of facts or from the lack of personal integrity and professionalism ... The energy efficiency model is equally absurd as an ... > explanation for the origins of bipedalism. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Tobias 1995
    ... Your whole approach is absurd. ... Let me be a little more precise: In waist deep water all great apes ... examples of bipedalism in our clade is the obvious thing to do if ... selection happens. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)