Re: Hn Gibraltar
- From: Lee Olsen <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:26:42 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 20, 4:06 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
nothing again
FYI:
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
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- References:
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- From: RichTravsky
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- From: RichTravsky
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- From: RichTravsky
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Hn Gibraltar
- Prev by Date: Re: function of spleen
- Next by Date: Re: Gibraltar
- Previous by thread: Re: Hn Gibraltar
- Next by thread: Re: Hn Gibraltar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|