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

On Dec 15, 4:20 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:21 am, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

It's absurd, anecdotal nonsense.

No it's not.

They indicate hominids
swimming.  You don't.  

Yes I do.

You're such a phoney.  You do not and everybody knows it.

The coastal people phase does involve swimming and diving. I've made
that clear all along.

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.

There is no swimming in your model you evasive jackass.  Admit it.

Well, if you ignore what I say - then you can believe what you want.

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.

The fact that you refer to "phases" is all a real evolutionary
theorists need to here to immediatly dismiss you as an ignoramous.

Just like terrestrial animals came out of an aquatic phase, or birds
came out of a non-flying phase.

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.

The fact that you've tried as hard as you have and still can produce
nothing that cannot be described as anecdotal nonsense should tell you
something.

That it's not published in a peer review paper just speaks volumes
about the peer review process. I thought even you could see that.
Perhaps you're a secret supporter of authority too but I find that
concept more bizarre than anything.

Algis Kuliukas
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast