Notices
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 608

Thread: Aquatic Apes Again.

  1. #1 Aquatic Apes Again. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    The Aquatic Ape Theory Again.


    I think it’s the greatest idea since Kepler’s ellipses. And for the same reasons. Someone took existing data, made no new observations, and yet created a new, world-altering idea.


    Many of you will be thinking “Oh no , not again”. (But – it will be new for many people).


    If you don’t know what it is, “The Aquatic Ape Theory of human origins”, go look it up. Then read this.

    (If you’re wearing socks while you read about this idea, they’ll be blown off. Clear off).



    I’ve heard that the idea had been widely discredited.

    I’ve been a bit of student of this, and it seems to me that most of the discrediting has been discreditable.

    Honestly, (no, really, honestly), I have not seen effective evidence/ideas that invalidates this idea.


    I suppose my point is that I know a bit about it, and yet I still think it's a good idea.

    Can you present me with one single theory-breaker?

    (Other intelligent comments, invited)


    My hope is that all discussion will be civilised.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post


    Honestly, (no, really, honestly), I have not seen effective evidence/ideas that invalidates this idea.
    I've never seen any that validates it.





    It'd be better if you stated what the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis actually is, because there are too many versions of it ranging from fully aquatic to so-called waterside.


    Last edited by Zwirko; July 25th, 2014 at 09:18 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Most disagreement is over the degree of aquaticness.

    I think we all agree there is real advantage in being able to cope if you fall in the water, and that foraging in shallows would be sometimes worthwhile.

    But don't make too much of it okay? Like, I can leap straight off the ground, and that's sometimes advantageous... but it doesn't mean my ancestors spent all their time leaping.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    the problem with the aquatic ape hypothesis is that it hardly gets out of the starting blocks
    normally a scientific theory starts off with a couple of anomalous or curious phenomena, for which an initial hypothesis is built to try and explain them
    and then comes the predictions and consequences that need to be tested, as a result of which the hypothesis evolves and if it manages to maintain its foothold may even get promoted to a theory
    all the while it needs to be able to handle new observations and easily incorporate them in its explanatory structure without making too many ad hoc modifications - if it does so, it strengthens and provided it does a better job at explaining the available facts than competing theories may in the end even become the new paradigm

    however, the AAH (you'll notice i don't call it a theory, merely a hypothesis) hasn't moved beyond "hmmm, there's a few curious aspects about human physiology, here's a potential explanation of why that might be so" - at no stage in all the past decades has it progressed beyond this stage, and as such, until it moves more firmly towards becoming a proper theory, most people who study human evolution consider it to be rather lightweight

    not exactly falsified, but then again there's not all that much that lends itself to proper investigation and falsification
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    The Aquatic Ape Theory Again... ...and yet created a new, world-altering idea.
    I don't see it as being all that world-altering, and I see little point in it.
    To me it is little more than speculation.

    So allow me to speculate for a moment in return
    One thing about humans is that we can be quite adaptable and thrive in a wide variety of habitats. Seashores are good because they provide a wide variety of food sources, but almost any border between two different habitats does that because you have the critters and plants that are specialized in each environment as well as the ones that exploit both environments together.
    You see the same effect along forest and prairie boundaries too.
    Farmers and hunters refer to it as the fencerow effect and even if the edge is between one wider habitat and the other habitat is as narrow as a fencerow the effect is still quite dramatic.
    S&W Report - Fencerows

    Even counting the edge effects on food and other supplies it is still worth noting that we managed to populate almost every possible habitat early in our development. I think about the only possible places we missed were glacier covered mountain tops and the truly extreme deserts.
    Considering how difficult many coasts are to navigate on foot, and how sparsely populated many coasts are even now, I might think that humans preferred to disperse along other habitat boundaries than the land and sea boundary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    the problem with the aquatic ape hypothesis is that it hardly gets out of the starting blocks
    normally a scientific theory starts off with a couple of anomalous or curious phenomena, for which an initial hypothesis is built to try and explain them
    and then comes the predictions and consequences that need to be tested, as a result of which the hypothesis evolves and if it manages to maintain its foothold may even get promoted to a theory
    all the while it needs to be able to handle new observations and easily incorporate them in its explanatory structure without making too many ad hoc modifications - if it does so, it strengthens and provided it does a better job at explaining the available facts than competing theories may in the end even become the new paradigm

    however, the AAH (you'll notice i don't call it a theory, merely a hypothesis) hasn't moved beyond "hmmm, there's a few curious aspects about human physiology, here's a potential explanation of why that might be so" - at no stage in all the past decades has it progressed beyond this stage, and as such, until it moves more firmly towards becoming a proper theory, most people who study human evolution consider it to be rather lightweight

    not exactly falsified, but then again there's not all that much that lends itself to proper investigation and falsification
    I like the hypothesis, it's a nice idea. But I do wonder how it could ever progress beyond that into an actual theory. What kinds of steps would need to be taken and what manner of predictions would be acceptable to the anthropological community? It seems to me that the Aquatic Ape idea is stuck in a rut with no mechanism available to be able to advance in viability.

    Unless we had a spare million years in order to examine a controlled breeding regime of apes in increasingly aquatic environments and chart their evolutionary progress, I'm not sure what can really be done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    I suppose my point is that I know a bit about it, and yet I still think it's a good idea.
    Can you present me with one single theory-breaker?
    It is a good idea, and thus far there has been nothing that completely disproves it. However, there is also nothing that requires it. (Now, if we all had blowholes that would make a much better argument.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    Can you present me with one single theory-breaker?
    "I claim humans were created by the ominipotent invisible pink unicorn Yzarc-Tihstab -- prove me wrong."

    The burden of proof is on the AAT proponent. There's not much good support for the AAT. A yellow flag is that many proponents seem to engage in making unsupported assertions. A red flag is that those same proponents seem to engage in outright dishonest behaviour.

    (Other intelligent comments, invited)


    My hope is that all discussion will be civilised.
    I recommend spending a lot of time reading Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT): Sink or Swim?. The responses from Elaine Morgan in particular are quite telling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Many of the reasons that made it interesting idea more than half a century ago have been found either false, or pretty good explanations already discovered to explain those differences.

    Things such as the humans hold their breath instinctively in water...thought to be uniquely human...but as it turns out most mammals also do this.

    Another, humans lack body hair....now pretty well explained by thermoregulation...the best adaptation is little body hair and a bit on top to cut sunlight and protect the brain--making humans the best endurance running mammal in hot temperatures.

    Babies having more body fat. Little known is humans can last up to two weeks without food--an excellent adaptation to travelling between water holes or hunting ground in the rift valley when a mother's milk production might have dropped of.

    --
    And as TK so accurately describes there's no requirement for any hypothesis to be disproven (though it is sometimes possible to quickly discard them by doing so).

    --
    Virtually non of the evidence discovered since AAT came to light has supported it's ideas--if anything most as tilted against it...no discoveries of coastal evolution for example. The action seems mostly to be centered even now near the Great rift valley and likely adaptations to changing geology and climatology from most rain forest to more open grasslands with intermittent forest and mountains requiring highly adaptive, social and mobile species.

    --
    Was tempted to autotrash this subject..but content to leave here as long as it remains civil and professional objective conversation. If it gets personal or goes into wooland it will be moved without warning.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    >> The burden of proof is on the AAT proponent.

    No more than the 'proponent' of any other idea of human evolution. So, that's not a point.

    There's no 'proof' of anything.

    Evidence, hypothesis. The AAT is indistinguishable from any other theory of human evolution in this regard.
    Last edited by Echelon Eight; July 26th, 2014 at 01:55 AM. Reason: indistinguishable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    Daecon, you offered:

    >>... it's a nice idea. But I do wonder how it could ever progress beyond that into an actual theory. What kinds of steps would need to be taken and what manner of predictions would be acceptable to the anthropological community?

    Can you tell me what 'steps' any other 'theory' has taken to be 'acceptable to the anthropological community'?

    There are no 'steps'. You point at the evidence, and you say, "how about this idea?" It's that simple.


    You may not know, but all previous ideas about human evolution (in the time period we're talking about) are now thought to be Wrong. There was no "Savanna". The "Savanna" theory, whatever 'steps' it went through to gain acceptance in your posited "anthropological community" is now dismissed. It was Wrong.

    This was a result of new evidence about the African environment at the time.

    But, "steps"? It's really just who shouts loudest.
    Last edited by Echelon Eight; July 26th, 2014 at 02:09 AM. Reason: Daecon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    I know it's early days, but so far no one has offered the " one single theory-breaker" I had asked for.


    Many have asked, "how aquatic"? I'm thinking, as most people do, about shore-living proto-humans, wading, shallow diving, following the sea food. Er, no blow-holes.


    Find a reference that invalidates this claim: Humans, following the coastline, were in Australia before they were in central Europe.

    Because - humans followed the shoreline. Because they were aquatic apes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    Dan Hunter,

    >> To me it is little more than speculation.

    Please describe how how the AAT is different from any other idea of human evolution? Are you saying that other ideas are *not* speculation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    MarnixR,

    "...and then comes the predictions and consequences that need to be tested"

    Please show how the current theories of human evolution have been tested.


    Then how you didn't think of that.


    Then show how that's not a prejudice against the new idea.
    Last edited by Echelon Eight; July 26th, 2014 at 02:29 AM. Reason: I got carried away - yes I toned it down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    I'd personally support the aquatic ape hypothesis.
    Elaine Morgan OBE FRSL (7 November 1920 – 12 July 2013)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Morgan_(writer)

    Elaine was one of the prime movers for the hypothesis. There is a balanced documentary called "the Aquatic Ape: Elaine Morgan BBC." Google it.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; July 26th, 2014 at 04:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    I personnally like the part time swamp ape hypothesis. We have an number of physical adaptations that are helpful in an environment of shallow water. With our upright stance we can stand and walk in an environment where a quadraped predator must swim. We have "shear water "noses that allow us to dive. No other ape has those. But I am not suggesting a completly aquatic life style merely one that is more at home in swampy wet lands .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    But, "steps"? It's really just who shouts loudest.
    So you have opened up this thread to shout louder? What's the point?

    I know it's early days, but so far no one has offered the " one single theory-breaker" I had asked for.
    You really need to stop using this "prove me wrong" ploy. It's the hallmark of a crank.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You really need to stop using this "prove me wrong" ploy. It's the hallmark of a crank.
    Nice try Harold, but he *is not* trying to make it about himself. He's asking us to disprove Morgan's hypothesis. *You* are trying to make it about himself.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You really need to stop using this "prove me wrong" ploy. It's the hallmark of a crank.
    Nice try Harold, but he *is not* trying to make it about himself. He's asking us to disprove Morgan's hypothesis. *You* are trying to make it about himself.
    What? No, I'm just pointing out that "prove me wrong" is not a valid argument. Can you prove that UROD's Universal Property of Nature (UPN) theory is wrong? Remember UROD? No, nobody could prove UROD wrong because he didn't make any testable predictions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    He didn't say "prove me wrong."

    He's already offered at least one testable prediction.

    Attack the hypothesis not the character.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    He didn't say "prove me wrong."

    He's already offered at least one testable prediction.

    Attack the hypothesis not the character.
    What was the testable prediction again? Could you remind us of that please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    Find a reference that invalidates this claim: Humans, following the coastline, were in Australia before they were in central Europe.

    Because - humans followed the shoreline. Because they were aquatic apes.
    Here we want to show that humans going from Africa to Australia used an inland route at any part of the journey.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    He didn't say "prove me wrong."

    He's already offered at least one testable prediction.

    Attack the hypothesis not the character.
    He absolutely did. He has repeatedly asked us to disprove the AAH, and has not discussed any evidence yet.

    I did not attack anyone's character, but simply pointed out that the "prove me wrong" challenge is a crank argument. It's about the argument, not the character.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    I know it's early days, but so far no one has offered the " one single theory-breaker" I had asked for.


    Many have asked, "how aquatic"? I'm thinking, as most people do, about shore-living proto-humans, wading, shallow diving, following the sea food. Er, no blow-holes.


    Find a reference that invalidates this claim: Humans, following the coastline, were in Australia before they were in central Europe.

    Because - humans followed the shoreline. Because they were aquatic apes.
    OK.
    Early human migrations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Around 125,000 years ago Modern Humans reached the
    Near East from where they later spread across Asia andEurope.[2] From the Near East, these populations spread east to South Asia by 50,000 years ago, and on to Australia by 40,000 years ago,[3] when for the first time H. sapiens reached territory never reached by H. erectus. H. sapiens reached Europe around 43,000 years ago,[4] eventually replacing the Neanderthal population. East Asia was reached by 30,000 years ago."

    --------------
    It should be noted that humans were moving through forests and mountain passes at these times too.

    About speculation: All hypothethetical proposals are speculation until you do the reality testing for them.
    This aquatic ape hypothesis has no method proposed for testing it against reality and it does not really explain any known facts better than any other current theory does, nor does it make any interesting predictions that go against what we already know.
    In other words it is useless because it is not even wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    Find a reference that invalidates this claim: Humans, following the coastline, were in Australia before they were in central Europe.

    Because - humans followed the shoreline. Because they were aquatic apes.

    There's a huge difference in time scale between species leading up to humans and the migrations to Australia. If you don't recognize this, you probably need to do some investigation before you make any further claims about AAT.
    --
    You are now stepping into Wooland. The thread is now moved to pseudoscience.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I'd personally support the aquatic ape hypothesis.
    Of course you would.

    Elaine was one of the prime movers for the hypothesis. There is a balanced documentary called "the Aquatic Ape: Elaine Morgan BBC." Google it.
    I do not find her to be a credible source at all. Again, read Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT): Sink or Swim?. Pay particular attention to Morgan's response to the critics. They are not of the style of a scientist. They are, in fact, disingenuous at minimum and outright dishonest at worst.

    As to the BBC/Discovery Channel special, your characterisation is overly generous. I suggest you read http://www.aquaticape.org/critique_b...cumentary.html. You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    My hope is that all discussion will be civilised.
    You're not gonna get a civilised debate, not when site moderators are looking for any comma sentence than can be labeled a provocation for an excuse to keep shovelling this irritatingly persistent topic into the false label "pseudoscience". You'd just as soon go to a creationist forum that claims to be open for a rational debate and make a valid effort for explaining and supporting the theory of evolution, and then some creationist user calls you a cocksucker, and that's enough for site moderators to claim, that the entire concept of evolution is pseudoscience; 'cause that's what they wanted to hear in the first place. The moderators here keep displaying a gross prejudice against all aquatic thought in the debate on human evolution, and it is so depressing to see that happen once again in the public scientific debate. The massing of bullies trumps the scientific method by a mile. It further illustrates how rotten we are at studying ourselves. Even though at this point in time the scientific concept of humans being past/present semiaquatic apes is no longer controversy, but scientific fact. By this rate, it's no wonder that creationism is defeating evolution in the Western world.



    And incidentally, aquaticape.org is a viscious character assassination of Elaine Morgan, which has proven to be our modern day equivalent to Galileo Galilei. You'd just as soon go to creationism.org to try to understand the theory of evolution.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I'd personally support the aquatic ape hypothesis.
    Of course you would.

    Elaine was one of the prime movers for the hypothesis. There is a balanced documentary called "the Aquatic Ape: Elaine Morgan BBC." Google it.
    I do not find her to be a credible source at all. Again, read Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT): Sink or Swim?. Pay particular attention to Morgan's response to the critics. They are not of the style of a scientist. They are, in fact, disingenuous at minimum and outright dishonest at worst.

    As to the BBC/Discovery Channel special, your characterisation is overly generous. I suggest you read Review/Critique of BBC/Discovery Channel documentary <i>The Aquatic Ape</i>. You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough.
    You just can't help yourself can you! Here you go again attacking me rather than the points of discussion.
    "Of course you would." Is an immediate put down.
    "You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough." You of all people should not have mentioned that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You just can't help yourself can you! Here you go again attacking me rather than the points of discussion.
    "Of course you would." Is an immediate put down.
    "You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough." You of all people should not have mentioned that.
    More whining from one our resident cranks.
    You have been given a link to a refutation of the "points of discussion".
    You have consistently shown yourself to be a sucker for fringe claims.
    As for "You of all people should not have mentioned that" can you give a link to a post where th421 has shown less than critical thinking?
    Can you give a link to a post where you have shown yourself to be even capable of critical thinking? (I won't ask for a post where you've displayed such a faculty, since that would be almost impossible).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    "You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough." You of all people should not have mentioned that.
    I had posted the link to aquaticape.org just a few posts prior to yours. And then again in direct response to you. You missed these or consciously chose to ignore them.

    To characterise a documentary as "balanced" without a basis for that statement is evidence that you do not exercise critical thinking. Pointing that out, and then advising that you need to exercise such thinking, is hardly inconsistent with the aims of a science forum. It is tiresome that you need to be reminded of that basic requirement. It is additionally tiresome that you reject that requirement and complain when you are reminded of how science works.

    The bulk of the evidence is that you do not exercise much critical thinking, Robittybob1. You may not like that conclusion, but that is not my problem. I have provided the data that backs up that assessment, and will happily provide more if you persist in complaining.

    Finally, I remind you -- AGAIN -- that you are free to complain to the mod team at any time about any alleged rule violations. Complaining to me is useless. It will not have any effect other than, perhaps, to stimulate a still-stronger response to refute additional spurious statements that you make. I am disappointed (but not terribly surprised) that you have failed to discern the pattern.
    Last edited by tk421; July 26th, 2014 at 04:27 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    My hope is that all discussion will be civilised.
    You're not gonna get a civilised debate, not when site moderators are looking for any comma sentence than can be labeled a provocation for an excuse to keep shovelling this irritatingly persistent topic into the false label "pseudoscience"....

    And incidentally, aquaticape.org is a viscious character assassination of Elaine Morgan, which has proven to be our modern day equivalent to Galileo Galilei. You'd just as soon go to creationism.org to try to understand the theory of evolution.
    The reason that civilised debate is nigh impossible is that many AAT proponents are dogmatically attached to their beliefs. Look at your own post -- there's not a single reference to any factual basis for your claims. It also helps not at all that you pull out the Galileo Gambit.

    As to aquaticape.org's alleged character assassination, you're going to have to do more than simply assert. The author of the site has carefully documented many instances where Morgan made provably false statements. That's not assassination, although it may well document suicide.

    AAT proponents typically exhibit many of the archetypal characteristics of cranks, to wit: Extreme anger that their "obviously true" statements aren't accepted by the mainstream; rejection of the idea that the burden rests upon the claimant; attempts to shift the burden away from them; and the subsequent appearance of the Galileo Gambit.

    Notably absent is a willingness to examine critically the weaknesses in their hypothesis. Aquaticape.org makes specific arguments, backed by citations to the refereed literature. It also points out egregious inconsistencies in many of the claims made by its proponents. To dismiss those documented instances with a wave of the hand is not to engage in a discussion. One therefore concludes that many AAT proponents aren't interested in a true discussion; they just want to evangelise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    The reason that civilised debate is nigh impossible is that many AAT proponents are dogmatically attached to their beliefs. Look at your own post -- there's not a single reference to any factual basis for your claims. It also helps not at all that you pull out the Galileo Gambit.

    As to aquaticape.org's alleged character assassination, you're going to have to do more than simply assert. The author of the site has carefully documented many instances where Morgan made provably false statements. That's not assassination, although it may well document suicide.

    AAT proponents typically exhibit many of the archetypal characteristics of cranks, to wit: Extreme anger that their "obviously true" statements aren't accepted by the mainstream; rejection of the idea that the burden rests upon the claimant; attempts to shift the burden away from them; and the subsequent appearance of the Galileo Gambit.

    Notably absent is a willingness to examine critically the weaknesses in their hypothesis. Aquaticape.org makes specific arguments, backed by citations to the refereed literature. It also points out egregious inconsistencies in many of the claims made by its proponents. To dismiss those documented instances with a wave of the hand is not to engage in a discussion. One therefore concludes that many AAT proponents aren't interested in a true discussion; they just want to evangelise.
    (like+1)

    Damn good summation of why AAH and its proponents aren't taken seriously. That second sentence is worth rereading a couple times......
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    The reason that civilised debate is nigh impossible is that many AAT proponents are dogmatically attached to their beliefs. Look at your own post -- there's not a single reference to any factual basis for your claims.

    As to aquaticape.org's alleged character assassination, you're going to have to do more than simply assert. The author of the site has carefully documented many instances where Morgan made provably false statements. That's not assassination, although it may well document suicide.
    No, I'm not gonna discuss the particulars of this complex topic under the false label pseudoscience. It is nothing of the sort and never has been, whether people desperately want it all to be about dolphin apes or mermaids or whatever nonsense. I refuse to accept any further bullying of one of the greatest single ideas of our time. Allow this topic to be discussed rationally in the proper subfora, and I'll be happy to debate its current state, in particular in relation to the conference in London in May last year.

    As to aquaticape.org, best I can do right now is link to Algis Kuliukas' comments on the site. It is astounding that such a brutalising site is still being uncritically referenced by people claiming to support science. Had the attitude displayed in this debate been around 150 years ago, we wouldn't be talking about evolution today. Darwin wouldn't have stood a chance.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    ....

    Finally, I remind you -- AGAIN -- that you are free to complain to the mod team at any time about any alleged rule violations. Complaining to me is useless. It will not have any effect other than, perhaps, to stimulate a still-stronger response to refute additional spurious statements that you make. I am disappointed (but not terribly surprised) that you have failed to discern the pattern.
    I disagree, you are slowly coming right.
    I am still of the opinion the BCC documentary was balanced. I will try and get time to read the link at sometime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You just can't help yourself can you! Here you go again attacking me rather than the points of discussion.
    "Of course you would." Is an immediate put down.
    "You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough." You of all people should not have mentioned that.
    More whining from one our resident cranks.
    You have been given a link to a refutation of the "points of discussion".
    You have consistently shown yourself to be a sucker for fringe claims.
    As for "You of all people should not have mentioned that" can you give a link to a post where th421 has shown less than critical thinking?
    Can you give a link to a post where you have shown yourself to be even capable of critical thinking? (I won't ask for a post where you've displayed such a faculty, since that would be almost impossible).
    My complaints about TK all referred to his use of ad-hominem argument, not his powers or lack of critical thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    No, I'm not gonna discuss the particulars of this complex topic under the false label pseudoscience.
    Let me understand: You are demanding certain preconditions before condescending to discuss this topic? That is a stance typically -- and almost exclusively -- used by crackpots. I'm sure that isn't your intent, but you must understand that your hero, Galileo, made no such demands. It was the other side of the argument that wanted to impose constraints. You might wish to reconsider how you propose to persuade the skeptical.

    I refuse to accept any further bullying of one of the greatest single ideas of our time.
    If proponents of the savanna(h)-ape theory adopted that tone, I suspect that you would charge -- and properly so -- that the claimants were refusing to engage in a discussion.

    Allow this topic to be discussed rationally in the proper subfora, and I'll be happy to debate its current state, in particular in relation to the conference in London in May last year.
    To my understanding, the sponsor of that conference specialises in cancer. It would be far better to discuss papers that appear in the relevant refereed literature.

    As to aquaticape.org, best I can do right now is link to Algis Kuliukas' comments on the site.
    Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading what he has to say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    The reason that civilised debate is nigh impossible is that many AAT proponents are dogmatically attached to their beliefs. Look at your own post -- there's not a single reference to any factual basis for your claims. It also helps not at all that you pull out the Galileo Gambit.

    As to aquaticape.org's alleged character assassination, you're going to have to do more than simply assert. The author of the site has carefully documented many instances where Morgan made provably false statements. That's not assassination, although it may well document suicide.

    AAT proponents typically exhibit many of the archetypal characteristics of cranks, to wit: Extreme anger that their "obviously true" statements aren't accepted by the mainstream; rejection of the idea that the burden rests upon the claimant; attempts to shift the burden away from them; and the subsequent appearance of the Galileo Gambit.

    Notably absent is a willingness to examine critically the weaknesses in their hypothesis. Aquaticape.org makes specific arguments, backed by citations to the refereed literature. It also points out egregious inconsistencies in many of the claims made by its proponents. To dismiss those documented instances with a wave of the hand is not to engage in a discussion. One therefore concludes that many AAT proponents aren't interested in a true discussion; they just want to evangelise.
    (like+1)

    Damn good summation of why AAH and its proponents aren't taken seriously. That second sentence is worth rereading a couple times......
    The second sentence "Look at your own post -- there's not a single reference to any factual basis for your claims."?????
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    My complaints about TK all referred to his use of ad-hominem argument, not his powers or lack of critical thinking.
    And as I have repeatedly reminded you, report me to the mods whenever you think that I have used ad homs. I do not think that pointing out the need for you to use more critical thinking is an ad hom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    My complaints about TK all referred to his use of ad-hominem argument
    There was no ad hom.

    not his powers or lack of critical thinking.
    Yeah?
    Quote Originally Posted by You
    "You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough." You of all people should not have mentioned that.
    Either your command of English is incredibly bad or you're lying.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    My complaints about TK all referred to his use of ad-hominem argument
    There was no ad hom.

    not his powers or lack of critical thinking.
    Yeah?
    Quote Originally Posted by You
    "You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough." You of all people should not have mentioned that.
    Either your command of English is incredibly bad or you're lying.
    The first part in quotations is TK's words, "You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough". "You of all people should not have mentioned that" is what I said reminding him of our previous arguments about pulling me down.


    Was there or wasn't there an "ad-hominem argument"? I could be using bad English here but that was my understanding as to how an ad-hominem argument went.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The second sentence "Look at your own post -- there's not a single reference to any factual basis for your claims."?????
    Yes that one.

    It becomes particularly potent when it's followed by quotes such as

    "Had the attitude displayed in this debate been around 150 years ago, we wouldn't be talking about evolution today. Darwin wouldn't have stood a chance."
    Darwin faced far more resistant than nearly any modern scientist. This is why he waited decades and accumulated dozens of examples across the breadth of science of his time to refine and make his case--finally prompted (and perhaps jolted) by Wallace who shared many of ideas before he published. By contrast AAH (it's not a theory...), though to have some interesting parsimonious strengths 60 years ago, has failed to find supported evidence (e.g. any partially morphologically different aquatic groups anywhere), no longer fits any of the timelines for evolution of what has been found (proponents that miss by millions of years, such as the Australia comments don't help), many of its unique facts found not to be so, or pretty well explained by other things. Virtually all (or perhaps just "all) the evidence has gone against the idea.

    --
    Robert while there was a cheap shot taken at you (yes TK it was), it's also obvious you're repeating a strong pattern of taking up for the most batshit crazy (AAH isn't quite there...but on that side of the scale) ideas you can find on this forum--and doing so without offering any credible support for why you think as you do. And as always, if you have an issue that really bothers you, please report it (seen by all mods) rather than derail a thread.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 26th, 2014 at 06:09 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The first part in quotations is TK's words, "You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough".
    I know.

    "You of all people should not have mentioned that" is what I said reminding him of our previous arguments about pulling me down.
    The use of "you of all people" in conjunction with [the quoted] "do not exercise critical thinking" is a direct implication that [you consider tk421] to not do so.

    Was there or wasn't there an "ad-hominem argument"? I could be using bad English here but that was my understanding as to how an ad-hominem argument went.
    Try Wiki: "in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument".
    Your argument isn't being rejected on the basis of your character (irrelevant facts or otherwise), it's the converse: your "character" is in question because you persist in presenting spurious arguments and a lack of critical thinking.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Was there or wasn't there an "ad-hominem argument"? I could be using bad English here but that was my understanding as to how an ad-hominem argument went.
    You seem to think that any criticism is an ad hom. That is simply wrong.

    You have an established pattern of embracing woo uncritically. Pointing that out is not an ad hom. Recommending that you exercise more critical thinking is not an ad hom.

    Calling your ideas stupid would not be an ad hom. I'm sure you wouldn't particularly like such a charge, but feeling offended is not necessarily the result of an ad hom. You really need to get a grip, Robbitybob1. If you can't muster a solid scientific, logical argument, the solution is to refrain from typing something that will stimulate a response that you will find not to your liking. Complaining about it is not going to work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    Daecon, you offered:

    >>... it's a nice idea. But I do wonder how it could ever progress beyond that into an actual theory. What kinds of steps would need to be taken and what manner of predictions would be acceptable to the anthropological community?

    Can you tell me what 'steps' any other 'theory' has taken to be 'acceptable to the anthropological community'?

    There are no 'steps'. You point at the evidence, and you say, "how about this idea?" It's that simple.


    You may not know, but all previous ideas about human evolution (in the time period we're talking about) are now thought to be Wrong. There was no "Savanna". The "Savanna" theory, whatever 'steps' it went through to gain acceptance in your posited "anthropological community" is now dismissed. It was Wrong.

    This was a result of new evidence about the African environment at the time.

    But, "steps"? It's really just who shouts loudest.
    So if the Savannah hypothesis was wrong, is it not unreasonable to proceed under the suspicion that Aquatic Ape is also wrong until proven otherwise?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Was there or wasn't there an "ad-hominem argument"? I could be using bad English here but that was my understanding as to how an ad-hominem argument went.
    You seem to think that any criticism is an ad hom. That is simply wrong.

    You have an established pattern of embracing woo uncritically. Pointing that out is not an ad hom. Recommending that you exercise more critical thinking is not an ad hom.

    Calling your ideas stupid would not be an ad hom. I'm sure you wouldn't particularly like such a charge, but feeling offended is not necessarily the result of an ad hom. You really need to get a grip, Robbitybob1. If you can't muster a solid scientific, logical argument, the solution is to refrain from typing something that will stimulate a response that you will find not to your liking. Complaining about it is not going to work.
    Your definition of argumentum ad hominem is obviously not as per the Wikipedia definition, explanation and example.
    "You have an established pattern of embracing woo uncritically" is ad hom as it really does not argue the case in question. Fail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The first part in quotations is TK's words, "You do not exercise critical thinking nearly enough".
    I know.

    "You of all people should not have mentioned that" is what I said reminding him of our previous arguments about pulling me down.
    The use of "you of all people" in conjunction with [the quoted] "do not exercise critical thinking" is a direct implication that [you consider tk421] to not do so.

    Was there or wasn't there an "ad-hominem argument"? I could be using bad English here but that was my understanding as to how an ad-hominem argument went.
    Try Wiki: "in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument".
    Your argument isn't being rejected on the basis of your character (irrelevant facts or otherwise), it's the converse: your "character" is in question because you persist in presenting spurious arguments and a lack of critical thinking.
    My character should not be the point of the debate. My character should not even be mentioned in a debate about Aquatic Ape Hypothesis OK.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The second sentence "Look at your own post -- there's not a single reference to any factual basis for your claims."?????
    Yes that one.

    It becomes particularly potent when it's followed by quotes such as

    "Had the attitude displayed in this debate been around 150 years ago, we wouldn't be talking about evolution today. Darwin wouldn't have stood a chance."
    Darwin faced far more resistant than nearly any modern scientist. This is why he waited decades and accumulated dozens of examples across the breadth of science of his time to refine and make his case--finally prompted (and perhaps jolted) by Wallace who shared many of ideas before he published. By contrast AAH (it's not a theory...), though to have some interesting parsimonious strengths 60 years ago, has failed to find supported evidence (e.g. any partially morphologically different aquatic groups anywhere), no longer fits any of the timelines for evolution of what has been found (proponents that miss by millions of years, such as the Australia comments don't help), many of its unique facts found not to be so, or pretty well explained by other things. Virtually all (or perhaps just "all) the evidence has gone against the idea.

    --
    Robert while there was a cheap shot taken at you (yes TK it was), it's also obvious you're repeating a strong pattern of taking up for the most batshit crazy (AAH isn't quite there...but on that side of the scale) ideas you can find on this forum--and doing so without offering any credible support for why you think as you do. And as always, if you have an issue that really bothers you, please report it (seen by all mods) rather than derail a thread.
    Sorry about not replying to your post first Lynx but I was working my way back up from the most recent to previous posts. I have been an AAH supporter for many years and it doesn't seem like a "batshit idea" to me. I have never delved into the science of it though, but maybe we need to.
    I seem to think there were periods where human evolution revolved around water and other times savannah. A bit of both but predominantly aquatic fits my way of thinking.
    With humans being versatile, skills learned in the aquatic environment would be transferable to a land based existence too and vice versa.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; July 26th, 2014 at 11:50 PM. Reason: "and vice versa" added
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    No, I'm not gonna discuss the particulars of this complex topic under the false label pseudoscience.
    Quick reality check - you ARE, quite voluntarily and knowingly, discussing this topic under the label pseudoscience.
    t is astounding that such a brutalising site is still being uncritically referenced by people claiming to support science.
    Oh, the comments here are quite critical. That's how science works - constant criticism to refine any theory.
    Had the attitude displayed in this debate been around 150 years ago, we wouldn't be talking about evolution today. Darwin wouldn't have stood a chance.
    Had we had more of that attitude back then, Lamarckism, Lysenkoism and preformationism would not have lasted as long as they did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    No, I'm not gonna discuss the particulars of this complex topic under the false label pseudoscience.
    Quick reality check - you ARE, quite voluntarily and knowingly, discussing this topic under the label pseudoscience.
    Billvon it was moved to the pseudoscience. I think that label has upset CE.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Darwin faced far more resistant than nearly any modern scientist. This is why he waited decades and accumulated dozens of examples across the breadth of science of his time to refine and make his case--finally prompted (and perhaps jolted) by Wallace who shared many of ideas before he published. By contrast AAH (it's not a theory...), though to have some interesting parsimonious strengths 60 years ago, has failed to find supported evidence (e.g. any partially morphologically different aquatic groups anywhere), no longer fits any of the timelines for evolution of what has been found (proponents that miss by millions of years, such as the Australia comments don't help), many of its unique facts found not to be so, or pretty well explained by other things. Virtually all (or perhaps just "all) the evidence has gone against the idea.
    What Charles Darwin did was expose the folly of the Christian church. And the church has been pissed at the little shit ever since, trying to squelch his work via creationism, intelligent design and similar desperation. 'Cause how dare he be right? The only reason we can talk about evolution today, is because Darwin had allies among the natural scientists of the 19th century, who were already engaged in a pissing contest with the church since the martyrdom of Galileo. Otherwise, Darwin would've been discarded as a nutball and our generation would still be in the dark.

    Elaine Morgan traditionally had no allies, 'cause the folly she exposed came from within the academic establishment, the folly of arguing humans as fully terrestrial (male driven) apes. And for this, Academia has been pissed at the little bitch ever since, conducting a character assassinating sneer campaign on her from day one. 'Cause how dare that little peasant be right?

    And all while, the scientific method counts for nothing. It can be freely ignored in the face of inconvenient truths. We're a rotten scientific animal. This is why creationism is winning. Strength in numbers is all that matters when dictating scientific truth.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Nice story......

    Darwin/Wallace's idea were widely accepted because of the avalanche of evidence presented with the original idea as well as soon after its publication.

    And while supporters of AAH usually whine and claim about the character assassination of Morgan, the reality is her work is referenced and considered in hundred of peer-review scholarly works by others--it's not widely accepted because the evidence doesn't broadly support it. Please find one of these hundreds of peer reviewed works where character assassination is happening--you won't.

    And honestly most of these threads, including this one, that get moved because they focus on unsupported claims rather than even a basic view of those hundreds of peer-review papers. Rather than proponents going into conspiracy or persecution lane--they should be showing the work. Peer-review scholarly works that are open and neutral to the idea of AAH (some are even supportive) are widely available in a quick search on Google scholar. But I guess people would rather just whine about the mistreatment of Morgan, a mostly made up story, than actually review the considerable evidence about the idea.

    So please show the damn evidence, or kindly stop whining.

    (sigh)
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    So please show the damn evidence, or kindly stop whining.
    I'd be more than happy to do that, but not under the derogatory housing term "pseudoscience". With the current standing of the aquatic ideas of human evolution, continuing to instinctively label the life's work of Morgan and the individuals who has picked up her mantle as pesudoscience is an insult to all scientific endeavour, and I refuse to take part in it. It has to stop already. I don't care if people are prone to hysteria, whenever new perspectives about ourselves emerge, whether it is that we are not standing on a world that's the center of the Universe, or whether it is that we're an old beach ape. I don't care if Morgan was a bookselling amateur scientist of a type, where 99 out of a 100 are nutballs. I don't care if she stomped esteemed anthropologists in the groin, 'cause she thought they were thinking with their Johnson in some of their scientific conclusions. These debates has to be able to exist in their own neutral sphere, for the topic's own sake. To hell with human gorilla ethology, it benefits nothing in scientific work. If Morgan was on to something, so be it!
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    I'd be more than happy to do that, but not under the derogatory housing term "pseudoscience".
    Show the evidence and maybe you'll have the distinction of moving out of Pseudoscience.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    I'd be more than happy to do that, but not under the derogatory housing term "pseudoscience".
    Show the evidence and maybe you'll have the distinction of moving out of Pseudoscience.
    No, I'm not gonna be fooled into that. The aquatic ideas never were pseudoscience, their only transgression is to challenge our ingrown perspective on ourselves. If the moderators on this site cannot budge from their basic prejudices, then it's pointless to try to discuss this complex issue here, just as pointless as debating evolution on a creationist forum.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    My character should not be the point of the debate. My character should not even be mentioned in a debate about Aquatic Ape Hypothesis OK.
    By your own admission, you haven't really studied the AAH. Yet you feel qualified to opine -- twice, at least -- that you support it, ignoring the links to sources of information in between. It would've taken you little time to skim them, at minimum, but that's too much work, apparently. It's easier simply to go with the standard (for you, when woo is potentially involved) "I like it."

    That's what I'm referring to when I say that you need to exercise more critical thinking.

    Your "character" (I call it "behaviour") is an issue because you repeatedly make it an issue by your constant injection of ill-informed advocacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    My character should not be the point of the debate. My character should not even be mentioned in a debate about Aquatic Ape Hypothesis OK.
    By your own admission, you haven't really studied the AAH. Yet you feel qualified to opine -- twice, at least -- that you support it, ignoring the links to sources of information in between. It would've taken you little time to skim them, at minimum, but that's too much work, apparently. It's easier simply to go with the standard (for you, when woo is potentially involved) "I like it."

    That's what I'm referring to when I say that you need to exercise more critical thinking.

    Your "character" (I call it "behaviour") is an issue because you repeatedly make it an issue by your constant injection of ill-informed advocacy.
    If you go back through the thread quite a few others support AAH yet you aren't making them come to the party with evidence and research. I had formed my own conclusions after a life time of interest in the evolution of man. So I must have heard of it in the past without studying it specifically.

    Like I would suggest you look at your own behaviour too. You seem particularly picky when it comes to the times I say something. Not that I say anything particularly different but you are treating me as if all that I say is poison. But let's all get back to the topic of aquatic apes please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    If you go back through the thread quite a few others support AAH yet you aren't making them come to the party with evidence and research.
    I am under no obligation to do so, for one thing. For another, you ignored my post to the link that contained a great deal of critical information. Twice. That stimulated a response. CEngelbrecht provided a response with his own link to information. I thanked him for it.

    Do you not see the difference?

    Now, given that your lifelong study of human evolution has informed your knowledge about AAH, you must have specific points to discuss about it. The floor is yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    If you go back through the thread quite a few others support AAH yet you aren't making them come to the party with evidence and research.
    I am under no obligation to do so, for one thing. For another, you ignored my post to the link that contained a great deal of critical information. Twice. That stimulated a response. CEngelbrecht provided a response with his own link to information. I thanked him for it.

    Do you not see the difference?

    Now, given that your lifelong study of human evolution has informed your knowledge about AAH, you must have specific points to discuss about it. The floor is yours.
    Thank you for the offer, I might take it up too if I can get the time. I've a busy week at work but next week if the thread is still going I'll look into it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,394
    Weak Bob, very weak, you have time to post nonsense and whine but when asked for anything of substance you are too busy
    Last edited by PhDemon; July 28th, 2014 at 01:28 PM. Reason: typo changed if to of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Weak Bob, very weak, you have time to post nonsense and whine but when asked for anything if substance you are too busy
    The topic can't be answered quickly. Think of how long it has been and still unresolved. I'm not too sure that I could put up an argument that would have merit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,394
    But surely from your watching dodgy youtube vids "lifelong study" you could give at least an overview, no one is asking for a PhD thesis, if you have studied it as much as you claim 10 minutes would be enough to outline the major points but no you will continue to dodge and bluster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    To hell with it, at least you need to understand my perspective on all this. The reason I fly off at the mislabel pseudoscience in this debate, is because the aquatic ideas has unearthed a severe crisis in humanity: The risk of pandemic cretinism. Biochemical study has disclosed, that the brain of extant Homo sapiens is dependant on a key series of brain selective nutritions, in particular docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and Iodine ions, and also elements like Iron, Zinc and others. This is old news, and irrefutable scientific fact. And we could only have been subjected to this need from eon long selective pressure with daily exposure to a diet, that contained these elements. And it is irrefutable, that DHA and Iodine is almost impossible to garner in adequate measures from purely terrestrial food groups, while it is easily achieved from what? A seafood diet. Fish, shellfish, seaweed, sedges and the like. These are by far the best sources for these brain selective nutrients. By far. It is parsimonous nonsense to claim, that they could've come from anything terrestrial steadily for hundreds of thousands of years, supporting the buildup of a larger and larger brain generation after generation.

    Michael Crawford's key point during his segment in the London '13 conference (link containing his slides from that presentation) was that we cannot survive as an intellectual species without adequate access to these nutrients. Without them, we become creatins. Hell, many of us probably already are, being exposed to terrestrial agriculture for upwards of 10.000 years. This is the consequence of our recent semiaquatic evolution; the water gave us our brain, and it is in the process of taking it away again. Crawford relayed numbers from Indonesia, where 800,000 school children had been declared certifiable cretins, and not one of them living in fishing villages. On the advice of Crawford, the Indonesian government initiated the crowth of large coastal kelp farms to produce dietary additives for schools, and in a few years, the number of certifiable cretins in the same age group ... had halfed. Just from that one initiative.
    Crawford's closing statement in London was quite simple: We have to farm the oceans. Not simply gather from the oceans, 'cause we are already draining them, but farming from them, creating artificial reefs and the like to harvest from, so as to make sure that a DHA and Iodine-rich diet reach the entire world human population of 7 billion, which will surpass 8 in 2023 and 9 in 2050. That is the lesson of the aquatic ape hypothesis. This we only know today because of the life's work of Elaine Morgan. As with Darwin, without her, we would still be in the dark. Regardless of her being a bloody armchair scientist selling books.

    Those are the irrefutable facts at this point in the aquatic debate. And when the moderators of a site such as this claiming to support a free scientific debate for the benefit of general intellectualism are still falling back to their old misguided custom of mislabelling any and all of the aquatic ideas as insulting "pseudoscience", whereby people will not seek out proper information on this complex topic, then these moderators are exhibiting scientific negligence bordering on criminal! Then their hypocrisy and refusal to accept facts put them in cahoots with both creationists refusing to accept the conclusions of Charles Darwin because of an old pissing contest between the religious institutions and free natural science, and the coal and oil barons currently bribing specialists to lie to politicians and the general public about the human causing of global warming, so they can keep peddling their goods!

    There is only one reason that the aquatic ideas today is not part of the academic consensus so we can get cracking on solving this global human crisis, and that is that Morgan pissed off the academic aristocracy!
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    1. Why don't humans have really small ears (or no external ears) like virtually all aquatic mammals?

    2. Aquatic mammals have shorter legs, or no legs, relative to land-based animals, including their land-based relatives. Early hominids had legs similar in length to our relatives. According to the AAT/H, there was enormous selection pressures that produced massive changes to our skeletons for an aquatic life, and according to the AAT/H, this was due to convergent evolution. Why were our legs, unlike those of other aquatic animals, exempt from convergent evolution?

    3. Humans have young that are born less developed than our relatives, and they develop more slowly as well. Aquatic mammals have young that are quite advanced compared to similar terrestrial mammals, including their terrestrial relatives (for example, seals as opposed to land-based carnivores), or which grow very quickly, or both. Why did the purported aquatic hominids change in the opposite direction from other aquatic mammals?

    4. All marine mammals produce milk that is extremely rich in fat and protein, and very low in lactose (milk sugar). It ranges from a low of 20-25% fat for sea otters to 30-60% for pinnipeds and whales; protein ranges from 5-15% or more; lactose is virtually non-existent. By contrast, human milk and cow's milk are about 2-4% fat and 1-3% protein; lactose in the milk of terrestrial mammals is typically 3-5%. The lactose content of human milk is as high as 6-8 percent. Why are humans so unlike all marine mammals and so like terrestrial mammals?

    5. One AAT/H claim is that we evolved in saltwater and therefore adapted in the same manner as aquatic animals, with convergent evolution supposedly evolving a salt excretion system like that seen in sea birds and crocodiles (and many terrestrial reptiles and birds). Why didn't we adapt as all marine mammals have done, via a change to our pre-adapted kidneys -- which are the regulated salt excretion system used by all mammals -- developing better hormonal control over rate of urine formation and concentration via the kidneys, as has repeatedly happened, due to convergent and/or parallel evolution, in cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sea otters?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I'm not too sure that I could put up an argument that would have merit.
    Since when has that ever stopped anyone in AAH threads?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    1. Why don't humans have really small ears (or no external ears) like virtually all aquatic mammals? . . . Why were our legs, unlike those of other aquatic animals, exempt from convergent evolution? . . . Why did the purported aquatic hominids change in the opposite direction from other aquatic mammals?
    The questions in the post can be summed up as "why aren't we more like other mammals that are adapted to aquatic environments?" The answer is that the aquatic ape theory does not posit a fully adapted organism; it posits that occasional exposure to an aquatic environment resulted in some adaptations to that environment, but not complete or comprehensive ones.

    One might ask the same question of primates vs terrestrial mammals. Why do primates have such a poorly adapted foot, when other terrestrial mammals have much more durable and reliable hooves?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    To hell with it, at least you need to understand my perspective on all this. The reason I fly off at the mislabel pseudoscience in this debate, is because the aquatic ideas has unearthed a severe crisis in humanity: The risk of pandemic cretinism. Biochemical study has disclosed, that the brain of extant Homo sapiens is dependant on a key series of brain selective nutritions, in particular docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and Iodine ions, and also elements like Iron, Zinc and others. This is old news, and irrefutable scientific fact.
    Yes, indeed, nutrition research has shown the importance of DHA and other substances, I strongly agree. But...

    And it is irrefutable, that DHA and Iodine is almost impossible to garner in adequate measures from purely terrestrial food groups
    Here's where we run into a rather significant disagreement. Your assertion is manifestly not "irrefutable." Indeed, it is eminently refutable. First, it is well known that humans can synthesize DHA from substances that are readily available from "savanna"-type environments. Indeed, if your assertion were true, then strict vegetarians would suffer conspicuously from cretinism. That they don't is a strong refutation of your "irrefutable" claim. Relevant comments by PZ Myers (who, unlike Crawford, actually is an evolutionary biologist) may be found at Oh, no, not the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis again! – Pharyngula.


    There is only one reason that the aquatic ideas today is not part of the academic consensus so we can get cracking on solving this global human crisis, and that is that Morgan pissed off the academic aristocracy!
    I think that it is a combination of things that explains why AAH is not part of the academic consensus. One is that the bulk of the evidence isn't nearly as strong as the proponents claim. Using terms like "irrefutable" is a risky move, because it immediately stimulates additional scrutiny, as very, very few things in science are irrefutable. Rather than making declarations of absolutes, it is more reasonable to speak of probabilities. And in comparing hypotheses and theories, we choose that which is more likely to be correct.

    I agree that Morgan pissed of the "aristocracy" you speak of, but that isn't the reason AAH ideas haven't become mainstream. The AAH has real problems that are too often dismissed by proponents with a facile wave of the hand, and in a tone that is tinged with a persecution complex.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    To hell with it, at least you need to understand my perspective on all this. The reason I fly off at the mislabel pseudoscience in this debate, is because the aquatic ideas has unearthed a severe crisis in humanity: The risk of pandemic cretinism. Biochemical study has disclosed, that the brain of extant Homo sapiens is dependant on a key series of brain selective nutritions, in particular docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and Iodine ions, and also elements like Iron, Zinc and others. This is old news, and irrefutable scientific fact. And we could only have been subjected to this need from eon long selective pressure with daily exposure to a diet, that contained these elements. And it is irrefutable, that DHA and Iodine is almost impossible to garner in adequate measures from purely terrestrial food groups, while it is easily achieved from what? A seafood diet. Fish, shellfish, seaweed, sedges and the like. These are by far the best sources for these brain selective nutrients. By far. It is parsimonous nonsense to claim, that they could've come from anything terrestrial steadily for hundreds of thousands of years, supporting the buildup of a larger and larger brain generation after generation.

    Michael Crawford's key point during his segment in the London '13 conference (link containing his slides from that presentation) was that we cannot survive as an intellectual species without adequate access to these nutrients. Without them, we become creatins. Hell, many of us probably already are, being exposed to terrestrial agriculture for upwards of 10.000 years. This is the consequence of our recent semiaquatic evolution; the water gave us our brain, and it is in the process of taking it away again. Crawford relayed numbers from Indonesia, where 800,000 school children had been declared certifiable cretins, and not one of them living in fishing villages. On the advice of Crawford, the Indonesian government initiated the crowth of large coastal kelp farms to produce dietary additives for schools, and in a few years, the number of certifiable cretins in the same age group ... had halfed. Just from that one initiative.
    Crawford's closing statement in London was quite simple: We have to farm the oceans. Not simply gather from the oceans, 'cause we are already draining them, but farming from them, creating artificial reefs and the like to harvest from, so as to make sure that a DHA and Iodine-rich diet reach the entire world human population of 7 billion, which will surpass 8 in 2023 and 9 in 2050. That is the lesson of the aquatic ape hypothesis. This we only know today because of the life's work of Elaine Morgan. As with Darwin, without her, we would still be in the dark. Regardless of her being a bloody armchair scientist selling books.

    Those are the irrefutable facts at this point in the aquatic debate. And when the moderators of a site such as this claiming to support a free scientific debate for the benefit of general intellectualism are still falling back to their old misguided custom of mislabelling any and all of the aquatic ideas as insulting "pseudoscience", whereby people will not seek out proper information on this complex topic, then these moderators are exhibiting scientific negligence bordering on criminal! Then their hypocrisy and refusal to accept facts put them in cahoots with both creationists refusing to accept the conclusions of Charles Darwin because of an old pissing contest between the religious institutions and free natural science, and the coal and oil barons currently bribing specialists to lie to politicians and the general public about the human causing of global warming, so they can keep peddling their goods!

    There is only one reason that the aquatic ideas today is not part of the academic consensus so we can get cracking on solving this global human crisis, and that is that Morgan pissed off the academic aristocracy!
    I'm actually glad you took the time to write that. It's exactly the type of information that should be brought forward for discussion.

    I'm not sure I accept it however. Clearly while optimum nutrition would certainly include seafood, most of the evidence points towards continued evolution and certainly communities in inland areas even without seafood--including modern primitive ones. Humans, more than most species continue to thrive and adapt to many environments that are suboptimum. It's not necessary to live in optimum conditions, ones just good enough to produce a net positive selective pressure.

    --
    One of the things which bothers me (and probably others), is the idea leaves more questions than it seems to answer. When, for example, did it happen? 4.5 million years ago to explain bipedalism? The probably of course is the largest increase of the brain didn't happen till much later--the AAH doesn't seem so parsimonious.

    The same with hair. Is anyone suggesting that our ancestors were largely hairless for the past 4+ million years? That's a lot of time to evolve back to the hairiness of the rest of our primates. Genetic studies of primate and human lice might soon answer this question.

    Also not sure why misinformation continued to be pushed by AAH proponents.

    Take the idea that only humans of primates have larges amounts of subcutaneous fat. This one is largely specious, since other primates often have the same amounts as humans once sufficient food is available. (e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276972/#!po=31.2500)

    Another example, still pushed even by Morgan as recently as a couple years ago at a TED talk, is the idea that humans are the only primates that can control their breath...even when there's now many examples of other primates doing exactly that:
    http://www.enca.com/south-africa/fir...-apes-unveiled
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 29th, 2014 at 01:24 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    From wikipedia:
    ".... Some animals with access to seafood make very little DHA through metabolism, but obtain it in the diet. However, in strict herbivores, and carnivores that do not eat seafood, DHA is manufactured internally from α-linolenic acid, a shorter omega-3 fatty acid manufactured by plants (and also occurring in animal products as obtained from plants). ...."

    From Dieticians of Canada:
    Iodine Content of Some Common Foods

    • The best natural occurring source of iodine is saltwater seafood. Freshwater seafood also contains iodine.
    • Iodine is added to all table salt in Canada. 1 teaspoon of table salt contains 380 mcg of iodine.
    • Kosher, pickling and sea salt are a source of natural iodine but do not contain as much as iodized table salt.


    Food Serving Size Iodine (mcg)
    Vegetables and Fruits
    Lima beans, cooked 125 mL (1/2 cup) 8
    Corn, cooked 125 mL (1/2 cup) 7
    Green peas, cooked 125 mL (1/2 cup) 3-4
    Grain Products
    Cereal (check product label for serving size)
    Crisped rice 30 g 20
    Oat, o-shaped 30 g 14
    Shredded wheat 30 g 8
    Raisin bran 30 g 6
    Other
    Soda crackers 10 crackers 44
    Bread (rye, whole wheat, white) 1 slice (35g) 17-32
    Tortilla ½ tortilla (35g) 26
    Pasta, egg noodles, enriched, cooked 125 mL (1/2 cup) 9
    Rice, white, cooked 125 mL (1/2 cup) 4
    Milk and Alternatives
    Cottage cheese 250 mL (1 cup) 65
    Milk (3.3% homo, 2%, skim, chocolate, buttermilk) 250 mL (1 cup) 52-62
    Yogurt, plain 175 g (3/4 cup) 58
    Yogurt, fruit 175 g (3/4 cup) 35
    Hard cheese, cheddar 50 g (1 ½ oz) 22

    Meat and Alternatives
    Turkey, light, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 30
    Deli meat (salami, bologna) 75 g (2 ½ oz) ou 3 trances 16-21
    Beef, various cuts, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 11-14
    Chicken, light or dark, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 11-13
    Pork, various cuts, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 5-9
    Lamb chop, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 8
    Organ Meats
    Liver, beef, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 32
    Fish and Seafood
    Cod, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 87
    Haddock, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 87
    Tuna, canned 75 g (2 ½ oz) 15
    Meat Alternatives
    Soynuts 60 mL (1/4 cup) 60
    Beans (navy, black-eyed), cooked 175 mL (3/4 cup) 46-53
    Egg, cooked 2 large 48-52
    Beans (pinto, kidney), cooked 175 mL (3/4 cup) 19-28

    Source: Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington: The National Academies Press;2006 and Pennington, J. and Douglass, J. Bowes and Church's Food Values of Portions Commonly Used, 18 E. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2005.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    From wikipedia:
    ".... Some animals with access to seafood make very little DHA through metabolism, but obtain it in the diet. However, in strict herbivores, and carnivores that do not eat seafood, DHA is manufactured internally from α-linolenic acid, a shorter omega-3 fatty acid manufactured by plants (and also occurring in animal products as obtained from plants). ...."
    Thanks for that very comprehensive summary, Dan. It's extremely informative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    One of the things which bothers me (and probably others), is the idea leaves more questions than it seems to answer. When, for example, did it happen? 4.5 million years ago to explain bipedalism? The probably of course is the largest increase of the brain didn't happen till much later--the AAH doesn't seem so parsimonious.

    The same with hair. Is anyone suggesting that our ancestors were largely hairless for the past 4+ million years? That's a lot of time to evolve back to the hairiness of the rest of our primates. Genetic studies of primate and human lice might soon answer this question.

    Also not sure why misinformation continued to be pushed by AAH proponents.

    Take the idea that only humans of primates have larges amounts of subcutaneous fat. This one is largely specious, since other primates often have the same amounts as humans once sufficient food is available. (e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276972/#!po=31.2500)

    Another example, still pushed even by Morgan as recently as a couple years ago at a TED talk, is the idea that humans are the only primates that can control their breath...even when there's now many examples of other primates doing exactly that:
    Who said apes can't swim? | eNCA
    I'll be more than happy to address all of that, especially about the proposed timelines of both bipedalism, furlessness and the growth of the brain, but I refuse to abide more vituperation of the aquatic ideas by seeing it relocated to the wrong subforum. Calling it pseudoscience at this point is simply continued misguided smearing. I'm gonna have to put my foot down on this, otherwise I can only feel like a rational evolutionist trying to debate on a hysterical creationist forum.

    You're damn right, that the aquatic ideas leaves a lot of unanswered questions. As did any great discovery of scientific history, the heliocentric near universe, evolution, relativity. They still do. That doesn't make any of them pseudoscience. With the aquatic ideas, those questions anthropology still refuses to address, and the only logic I can see is that it is from a purely sociological issue with Morgan and not scientific concern, 'cause the core ideas never was and never will be unreasonable, and the evidence for aquatic pressure in human evolution is already staggering. With anthropology's current level of management of the scientific method versus their gorilla pounding, we'd just as soon give science back to the Holy See.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I was trying to make the point that we don't need the sea for any specific nutritional requirement and it is unlikely we ever did in our evolutionary history.
    I mentioned earlier about how general food sources are more abundant where two types of habitat meet.
    Deep rainforests are difficult because there is not much to eat on the ground, most of the life is up in the canopy.
    Wide prairies are difficult too.
    Mixed forest and meadows are much easier because you have enough plant and animal life within reach to live fairly easily.

    Water and land might be the most fruitful habitat mix, but that only means we would be more likely to be there, on the beach rather than in the water or up in the trees.

    We evolved as generalists, not specialists.
    We run, but not remarkably fast.
    We climb, but not remakably well.
    We swim, but not remakably fast, or deep.
    We fly very poorly.

    Animals that are adapted to any specific habitat tend to be much more specialized and are less able to survive in different habitats.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    From wikipedia:
    ".... Some animals with access to seafood make very little DHA through metabolism, but obtain it in the diet. However, in strict herbivores, and carnivores that do not eat seafood, DHA is manufactured internally from α-linolenic acid, a shorter omega-3 fatty acid manufactured by plants (and also occurring in animal products as obtained from plants). ...."

    From Dieticians of Canada:
    Iodine Content of Some Common Foods



    • The best natural occurring source of iodine is saltwater seafood. Freshwater seafood also contains iodine.
    • Iodine is added to all table salt in Canada. 1 teaspoon of table salt contains 380 mcg of iodine.
    • Kosher, pickling and sea salt are a source of natural iodine but do not contain as much as iodized table salt.


    Food Serving Size Iodine (mcg)
    Vegetables and Fruits
    Lima beans, cooked 125 mL (1/2 cup) 8
    Corn, cooked 125 mL (1/2 cup) 7
    Green peas, cooked 125 mL (1/2 cup) 3-4
    Grain Products
    Cereal (check product label for serving size)
    Crisped rice 30 g 20
    Oat, o-shaped 30 g 14
    Shredded wheat 30 g 8
    Raisin bran 30 g 6
    Other
    Soda crackers 10 crackers 44
    Bread (rye, whole wheat, white) 1 slice (35g) 17-32
    Tortilla ½ tortilla (35g) 26
    Pasta, egg noodles, enriched, cooked 125 mL (1/2 cup) 9
    Rice, white, cooked 125 mL (1/2 cup) 4
    Milk and Alternatives
    Cottage cheese 250 mL (1 cup) 65
    Milk (3.3% homo, 2%, skim, chocolate, buttermilk) 250 mL (1 cup) 52-62
    Yogurt, plain 175 g (3/4 cup) 58
    Yogurt, fruit 175 g (3/4 cup) 35
    Hard cheese, cheddar 50 g (1 ½ oz) 22

    Meat and Alternatives
    Turkey, light, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 30
    Deli meat (salami, bologna) 75 g (2 ½ oz) ou 3 trances 16-21
    Beef, various cuts, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 11-14
    Chicken, light or dark, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 11-13
    Pork, various cuts, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 5-9
    Lamb chop, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 8
    Organ Meats
    Liver, beef, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 32
    Fish and Seafood
    Cod, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 87
    Haddock, cooked 75 g (2 ½ oz) 87
    Tuna, canned 75 g (2 ½ oz) 15
    Meat Alternatives
    Soynuts 60 mL (1/4 cup) 60
    Beans (navy, black-eyed), cooked 175 mL (3/4 cup) 46-53
    Egg, cooked 2 large 48-52
    Beans (pinto, kidney), cooked 175 mL (3/4 cup) 19-28

    Source: Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington: The National Academies Press;2006 and Pennington, J. and Douglass, J. Bowes and Church's Food Values of Portions Commonly Used, 18 E. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2005.
    That list is unfortunately misguiding, 'cause the ammount of Iodine is artificially pumped up industrially, being added to the feed of livestock, for instance to dairy cows so it ends up in the milk. In a discussion about dietary access to Iodine in human evolution, we wouldn't have gotten it from oxen or similar game, 'cause they don't produce it naturally. Iodine is only added through agriculture because we need it. It's the same with DHA enriched chicken eggs, that is only added through their feed. Sadly, our DHA chiefly has to come from fishing industries at the moment, and we are depleating the oceans.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    [
    That list is unfortunately misguiding, 'cause the ammount of Iodine is artificially pumped up industrially, being added to the feed of livestock, for instance to dairy cows so it ends up in the milk. In a discussion about dietary access to Iodine in human evolution, we wouldn't have gotten it from oxen or similar game, 'cause they don't produce it naturally. Iodine is only added through agriculture because we need it. It's the same with DHA enriched chicken eggs, that is only added through their feed. Sadly, our DHA chiefly has to come from fishing industries at the moment, and we are depleating the oceans.
    You missed something.
    We and all other animals with brains are quite capable of synthesizing our own DHA.
    Iodine is only deficient in certain areas of the world and they are usually undiversified habitats too.

    From Chapter 20 The Iodine Deficiency Disorders - Thyroid Disease ManagerThyroid Disease Manager

    Etiology


    Iodine (atomic weight 126.9 g/atom) is an essential component of the hormones produced by the thyroid gland. Thyroid hormones, and therefore iodine, are essential for mammalian life. Iodine (as iodide) is widely but unevenly distributed in the earth’s environment. Most iodide is found in the oceans (≈50 μg/L), and iodide ions in seawater are oxidized to elemental iodine, which volatilizes into the atmosphere and is returned to the soil by rain, completing the cycle. However, iodine cycling in many regions is slow and incomplete, and soils and ground water become deficient in iodine. Crops grown in these soils will be low in iodine, and humans and animals consuming food grown in these soils become iodine deficient (1). In plant foods grown in deficient soils, iodine concentration may be as low as 10 μg/kg dry weight, compared to ≈1 mg/kg in plants from iodine-sufficient soils. Iodine deficient soils are most common in inland regions, mountainous areas and areas of frequent flooding, but can also occur in island states and coastal regions (2). This arises from the distant past through glaciation, compounded by the leaching effects of snow, water and heavy rainfall, which removes iodine from the soil. The mountainous regions of Europe, the Northern Indian Subcontinent, the extensive mountain ranges of China, the Andean region in South America and the lesser ranges of Africa are all iodine deficient. Also, the Ganges Valley in India, the Irawaddy Valley in Burma, and the Songkala Valley in Northern China are also areas of endemic iodine deficiency. Iodine deficiency in populations residing in these areas will persist until iodine enters the food chain through addition of iodine to foods (e.g. iodization of salt) or dietary diversification introduces foods produced in iodine-sufficient areas."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    To hell with it, at least you need to understand my perspective on all this. The reason I fly off at the mislabel pseudoscience in this debate, is because the aquatic ideas has unearthed a severe crisis in humanity: The risk of pandemic cretinism.
    What is the evidence for this looming pandemic? It says here that cretinism has been largely eliminated in the developed world.
    Cretinism historical perspective - wikidoc
    Biochemical study has disclosed, that the brain of extant Homo sapiens is dependant on a key series of brain selective nutritions, in particular docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and Iodine ions, and also elements like Iron, Zinc and others. This is old news, and irrefutable scientific fact. And we could only have been subjected to this need from eon long selective pressure with daily exposure to a diet, that contained these elements. And it is irrefutable, that DHA and Iodine is almost impossible to garner in adequate measures from purely terrestrial food groups, while it is easily achieved from what? A seafood diet. Fish, shellfish, seaweed, sedges and the like. These are by far the best sources for these brain selective nutrients. By far. It is parsimonous nonsense to claim, that they could've come from anything terrestrial steadily for hundreds of thousands of years, supporting the buildup of a larger and larger brain generation after generation.

    Michael Crawford's key point during his segment in the London '13 conference (link containing his slides from that presentation) was that we cannot survive as an intellectual species without adequate access to these nutrients. Without them, we become creatins. Hell, many of us probably already are, being exposed to terrestrial agriculture for upwards of 10.000 years. This is the consequence of our recent semiaquatic evolution; the water gave us our brain, and it is in the process of taking it away again. Crawford relayed numbers from Indonesia, where 800,000 school children had been declared certifiable cretins, and not one of them living in fishing villages. On the advice of Crawford, the Indonesian government initiated the crowth of large coastal kelp farms to produce dietary additives for schools, and in a few years, the number of certifiable cretins in the same age group ... had halfed. Just from that one initiative.
    Crawford's closing statement in London was quite simple: We have to farm the oceans. Not simply gather from the oceans, 'cause we are already draining them, but farming from them, creating artificial reefs and the like to harvest from, so as to make sure that a DHA and Iodine-rich diet reach the entire world human population of 7 billion, which will surpass 8 in 2023 and 9 in 2050. That is the lesson of the aquatic ape hypothesis. This we only know today because of the life's work of Elaine Morgan. As with Darwin, without her, we would still be in the dark. Regardless of her being a bloody armchair scientist selling books.
    Without the aquatic ape hypothesis we wouldn't know about the need for iodine and DHA in our diet? That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?
    Those are the irrefutable facts at this point in the aquatic debate. And when the moderators of a site such as this claiming to support a free scientific debate for the benefit of general intellectualism are still falling back to their old misguided custom of mislabelling any and all of the aquatic ideas as insulting "pseudoscience", whereby people will not seek out proper information on this complex topic, then these moderators are exhibiting scientific negligence bordering on criminal! Then their hypocrisy and refusal to accept facts put them in cahoots with both creationists refusing to accept the conclusions of Charles Darwin because of an old pissing contest between the religious institutions and free natural science, and the coal and oil barons currently bribing specialists to lie to politicians and the general public about the human causing of global warming, so they can keep peddling their goods!

    There is only one reason that the aquatic ideas today is not part of the academic consensus so we can get cracking on solving this global human crisis, and that is that Morgan pissed off the academic aristocracy!
    So the AAH is the solution to global warming?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Those are the irrefutable facts at this point in the aquatic debate. And when the moderators of a site such as this claiming to support a free scientific debate for the benefit of general intellectualism are still falling back to their old misguided custom of mislabelling any and all of the aquatic ideas as insulting "pseudoscience", whereby people will not seek out proper information on this complex topic, then these moderators are exhibiting scientific negligence bordering on criminal! Then their hypocrisy and refusal to accept facts put them in cahoots with both creationists refusing to accept the conclusions of Charles Darwin because of an old pissing contest between the religious institutions and free natural science, and the coal and oil barons currently bribing specialists to lie to politicians and the general public about the human causing of global warming, so they can keep peddling their goods!

    There is only one reason that the aquatic ideas today is not part of the academic consensus so we can get cracking on solving this global human crisis, and that is that Morgan pissed off the academic aristocracy!
    So the AAH is the solution to global warming?
    I'm gonna leave that as is so people can ponder over the current level of criticism against the aquatic ideas. You're truly a champion of scientific discourse, my liege. And you're actually a moderator here.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Those are the irrefutable facts at this point in the aquatic debate. And when the moderators of a site such as this claiming to support a free scientific debate for the benefit of general intellectualism are still falling back to their old misguided custom of mislabelling any and all of the aquatic ideas as insulting "pseudoscience", whereby people will not seek out proper information on this complex topic, then these moderators are exhibiting scientific negligence bordering on criminal! Then their hypocrisy and refusal to accept facts put them in cahoots with both creationists refusing to accept the conclusions of Charles Darwin because of an old pissing contest between the religious institutions and free natural science, and the coal and oil barons currently bribing specialists to lie to politicians and the general public about the human causing of global warming, so they can keep peddling their goods!

    There is only one reason that the aquatic ideas today is not part of the academic consensus so we can get cracking on solving this global human crisis, and that is that Morgan pissed off the academic aristocracy!
    So the AAH is the solution to global warming?
    I'm gonna leave that as is so people can ponder over the current level of criticism against the aquatic ideas. You're truly a champion of scientific discourse, my liege. And you're actually a moderator here.
    One good non sequitur deserves another, Chris. This is a thread about aquatic ape hypothesis, but you want to talk about creationists, oil barons, and global warming. Try to focus on the topic at hand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post



    Thank you for the offer, I might take it up too if I can get the time. I've a busy week at work but next week if the thread is still going I'll look into it.
    I don't think I have the figure wrong when I say, despite your busy week, you have found the time to send in 17 other posts since you posted the above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post



    Thank you for the offer, I might take it up too if I can get the time. I've a busy week at work but next week if the thread is still going I'll look into it.
    I don't think I have the figure wrong when I say, despite your busy week, you have found the time to send in 17 other posts since you posted the above.
    Let's stop the personal discussions and try to get back to discussing aquatic ape hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Those are the irrefutable facts at this point in the aquatic debate. And when the moderators of a site such as this claiming to support a free scientific debate for the benefit of general intellectualism are still falling back to their old misguided custom of mislabelling any and all of the aquatic ideas as insulting "pseudoscience", whereby people will not seek out proper information on this complex topic, then these moderators are exhibiting scientific negligence bordering on criminal! Then their hypocrisy and refusal to accept facts put them in cahoots with both creationists refusing to accept the conclusions of Charles Darwin because of an old pissing contest between the religious institutions and free natural science, and the coal and oil barons currently bribing specialists to lie to politicians and the general public about the human causing of global warming, so they can keep peddling their goods!

    There is only one reason that the aquatic ideas today is not part of the academic consensus so we can get cracking on solving this global human crisis, and that is that Morgan pissed off the academic aristocracy!
    So the AAH is the solution to global warming?
    I'm gonna leave that as is so people can ponder over the current level of criticism against the aquatic ideas. You're truly a champion of scientific discourse, my liege. And you're actually a moderator here.
    One good non sequitur deserves another, Chris. This is a thread about aquatic ape hypothesis, but you want to talk about creationists, oil barons, and global warming. Try to focus on the topic at hand.
    Not non sequiteur at all, babe. Just pointing out that this half century old, reflectory rejection of any and all of the aquatic ideas are in the same category as the half assed rejections of evolution and global warming. The core of the rejection is not scientific concern, there is a different subconscious agenda at work. The paradox is, that the aquatic ideas presents the last middle finger to the creationists, 'cause now they have nothing left. Humans being old beach apes answers the last questions left over from Darwin and now creationists really don't have a pot to piss in. And that infuriates them too. The most joy I've ever had in cyberspace is facing creationists trying to sniff out, if somehow Morgan would discredit Darwin, now that she was a rebel scientist, and when you tell them, "Nope, can't help you there, these ideas are thoroughly Darwinian", they snap too and call you an asshole. Unfortunately, Academia actually spoons with creationists on this issue, which I guess is another reason why creationism is winning the cultural pissing contest now. The powers that be in Academia really isn't any different from creationists, they too forget all about the scientific method, when push comes to shove on an inconvenient truth, that makes them look bad. It's actually true, that Academia only ever rejected Morgan, because the bitch wasn't part of their own clergy. We haven't changed one bit since Copernicus. Sorry, that's the only way, I can interpret all this mess. Otherwise, humans being beach apes is a DHA no brainer at this point.

    And the reason I'm gloating like crazy now, is because all you naysayers are proven more and more nitwits with every passing day. (And that's most likely the wrong tactics, but y'all have been really stupid and unreasonable along the way.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Let's stop the personal discussions and try to get back to discussing aquatic ape hypothesis.
    When the house is ready to allow it debated under the correct label, more than happy to.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Not non sequiteur at all, babe. Just pointing out that this half century old, reflectory rejection of any and all of the aquatic ideas are in the same category as the half assed rejections of evolution and global warming. The core of the rejection is not scientific concern, there is a different subconscious agenda at work. The paradox is, that the aquatic ideas presents the last middle finger to the creationists, 'cause now they have nothing left. Humans being old beach apes answers the last questions left over from Darwin and now creationists really don't have a pot to piss in. And that infuriates them too. The most joy I've ever had in cyberspace is facing creationists trying to sniff out, if somehow Morgan would discredit Darwin, now that she was a rebel scientist, and when you tell them, "Nope, can't help you there, these ideas are thoroughly Darwinian", they snap too and call you an asshole. Unfortunately, Academia actually spoons with creationists on this issue, which I guess is another reason why creationism is winning the cultural pissing contest now. The powers that be in Academia really isn't any different from creationists, they too forget all about the scientific method, when push comes to shove on an inconvenient truth, that makes them look bad. It's actually true, that Academia only ever rejected Morgan, because the bitch wasn't part of their own clergy. We haven't changed one bit since Copernicus. Sorry, that's the only way, I can interpret all this mess. Otherwise, humans being beach apes is a DHA no brainer at this point.

    And the reason I'm gloating like crazy now, is because all you naysayers are proven more and more nitwits with every passing day. (And that's most likely the wrong tactics, but y'all have been really stupid and unreasonable along the way.)
    None of this really addresses the questions that have been put to you. All you are doing is complaining. That's not a way to advance the discussion or get the topic moved out of the pseudo bin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    None of this really addresses the questions that have been put to you. All you are doing is complaining. That's not a way to advance the discussion or get the topic moved out of the pseudo bin.
    And I'm not gonna answer them under a derogatory label, it's a sham at this point to keep calling it pseudo. So we're at an impasse, aren't we?
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    ...
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Not non sequiteur at all, babe. Just pointing out that this half century old, reflectory rejection of any and all of the aquatic ideas are in the same category as the half assed rejections of evolution and global warming. The core of the rejection is not scientific concern, there is a different subconscious agenda at work. The paradox is, that the aquatic ideas presents the last middle finger to the creationists, 'cause now they have nothing left. Humans being old beach apes answers the last questions left over from Darwin and now creationists really don't have a pot to piss in. And that infuriates them too. The most joy I've ever had in cyberspace is facing creationists trying to sniff out, if somehow Morgan would discredit Darwin, now that she was a rebel scientist, and when you tell them, "Nope, can't help you there, these ideas are thoroughly Darwinian", they snap too and call you an asshole. Unfortunately, Academia actually spoons with creationists on this issue, which I guess is another reason why creationism is winning the cultural pissing contest now. The powers that be in Academia really isn't any different from creationists, they too forget all about the scientific method, when push comes to shove on an inconvenient truth, that makes them look bad. It's actually true, that Academia only ever rejected Morgan, because the bitch wasn't part of their own clergy. We haven't changed one bit since Copernicus. Sorry, that's the only way, I can interpret all this mess. Otherwise, humans being beach apes is a DHA no brainer at this point.

    And the reason I'm gloating like crazy now, is because all you naysayers are proven more and more nitwits with every passing day. (And that's most likely the wrong tactics, but y'all have been really stupid and unreasonable along the way.)
    None of this really addresses the questions that have been put to you. All you are doing is complaining. That's not a way to advance the discussion or get the topic moved out of the pseudo bin.
    Can I just say "Please".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,394
    As in "please let me carry on making irrelevant posts" it seems that is all you are good for...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    As in "please let me carry on making irrelevant posts" it seems that is all you are good for...
    Have you expressly said whether you are for or against the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    If Humans were birds, the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis seems to be regarding Humanity to have evolved like the Penguin, whereas it's probably more like the Kingfisher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    If Humans were birds, the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis seems to be regarding Humanity to have evolved like the Penguin, whereas it's probably more like the Kingfisher.
    ...and your reasoning?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Given the 'open nature' of many hypothesis in the realms of Anthropology, I have frequently run into vigorous and extremely hostile debate in these topics relating to contrary viewpoints that pursue the scientific argument from different perspectives. The major assumptions associated with theories in Anthropology are far 'looser' than say harder sciences that are more able to validate theories against empirical observations. In my experience, given my previous involvement in the fields of geology and anthropology that argument seems to be frequently won by the purported 'authorities' in the field or those that 'shout loudest' at the expense of scientific rigour. Anthropology given it's derivation from a broad reach of sciences at least in my direct eperience appears to be more open to abuse by those with an agenda.

    I would tend to agree that this thread would better fit in another category such as Personal Ideas and Alternate Ideas as opposed to the 'stigma' associated with the relegation of this interesting argument to the 'Pseudoscience category'. Is there any chance it could be re-classified in the interests of continuing the debate?
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Given the 'open nature' of many hypothesis in the realms of Anthropology, I have frequently run into vigorous and extremely hostile debate in these topics relating to contrary viewpoints that pursue the scientific argument from different perspectives. The major assumptions associated with theories in Anthropology are far 'looser' than say harder sciences that are more able to validate theories against empirical observations. In my experience, given my previous involvement in the fields of geology and anthropology that argument seems to be frequently won by the purported 'authorities' in the field or those that 'shout loudest' at the expense of scientific rigour. Anthropology given it's derivation from a broad reach of sciences at least in my direct eperience appears to be more open to abuse by those with an agenda.

    I would tend to agree that this thread would better fit in another category such as Personal Ideas and Alternate Ideas as opposed to the 'stigma' associated with the relegation of this interesting argument to the 'Pseudoscience category'. Is there any chance it could be re-classified in the interests of continuing the debate?
    I'm sure that if some science based arguments were put forth, nobody would object to moving it back to anthropology. That hasn't happened yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm sure that if some science based arguments were put forth, nobody would object to moving it back to anthropology. That hasn't happened yet.
    A stinging riposte....touche Harold :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm sure that if some science based arguments were put forth, nobody would object to moving it back to anthropology. That hasn't happened yet.
    A stinging riposte....touche Harold :-))
    I hope that didn't come across as a smartass reply. Lynx moved the thread when the OP claimed that the homo sapiens who migrated to Australia were aquatic apes. Chris made a couple of points which he didn't stick around to defend. Robittybob said he liked AAH but couldn't say why. That's pretty much been it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I hope that didn't come across as a smartass reply.
    No Harold. You made a very valid point and I agree with it :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    If the AAH states that humans ancestors evolved for a period where they spent 100% of their time in water, i.e. slept in the water as well, I wouldn't want to agree with that. If the evolution of man had times where the environment was like the habitat of the Proboscis Monkey, and probably even more so, one where swinging from tree to tree became a thing of the past, maybe I would go along with that.
    So later with the advent of tools there came nets, ropes, spears and stone knives for removing and digging and then smashing the shells open.
    But as climates changed they were also adapted to walking and running on Savannah.
    So does this make me a true AAH supporter or not?

    That seems to align with Alister Hardy's concept:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
    Hardy's ideas, which he countered by explaining them more fully in an article in New Scientist on 17 March 1960.[7] Hardy defined his idea:
    My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock {hominoids} was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch.[8]
    Which seems to be a softening of the original idea of Max Westenhöfer who stated something like:
    he argued that a number of traits in modern humans derived from a fully aquatic existence in the open seas, and that humans only in recent times returned to land.
    What did he mean by "fully aquatic"?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; July 29th, 2014 at 10:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    ...
    Another example, still pushed even by Morgan as recently as a couple years ago at a TED talk, is the idea that humans are the only primates that can control their breath...even when there's now many examples of other primates doing exactly that:
    Who said apes can't swim? | eNCA
    Looking at that video clips you wouldn't say "apes are great swimmers". OK they can swim, and that was necessary if the AAH has any possibility of being true. With these apes over many generations they could bred even better swimmers if there was the right evolutionary pressure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    What about mammals like Beavers or Otters? Obviously they're not aquatic to the extent of Seals or Dolphins, but they do spend prolonged periods of time in water.

    If AAH had any validity, perhaps it would be with slightly more subtle physiological similarity to semi-aquatic mammals than fully aquatic ones?

    Perhaps a "semi-aquatic ape hypothesis" is a little more plausible, if at all?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    What about mammals like Beavers or Otters? Obviously they're not aquatic to the extent of Seals or Dolphins, but they do spend prolonged periods of time in water.

    If AAH had any validity, perhaps it would be with slightly more subtle physiological similarity to semi-aquatic mammals than fully aquatic ones?

    Perhaps a "semi-aquatic ape hypothesis" is a little more plausible, if at all?
    [The following is just a cursory concept, I've typed it up so I'll post it, but if there is a strong objection I'll remove it, but I have yet to confirm the ideas I've introduced as questions.]
    Assuming our ancestors spent a proportion of their day asleep, I think you'd have to agree that sleeping took place on the land, and probably in a shelter or cave or something and hence that would be a little further back off the shoreline (for warmth and dryness). That implies a semi-aquatic lifestyle doesn't it? Maybe 8 hours in the water, 2 times 4 hours morning and evening preparing for the day and night, and eight hours resting, huddled up together for warmth and protection. They would have to revolve their day around tides so in a 12 hour period they would get at least one low tide, so they didn't have a set pattern, but one that was dominated by the tides.
    Could it be that the full moon and new moon low tides occurring in the morning and in the evening, there is possibly a time when it was easier to get out of the influence of the dominant male? Did the female menstrual cycle evolve to be influenced by the tides (Moon)?

    A savanna lifestyle would not have the tidal influence as much for it would be just that you could get food during the day and sleep at night. You just didn't have such a great dependency on the Moon.

    If the human reproductive cycle was somehow linked to the tides could this be a proof of human evolution during a period of semi-aquatic lifestyle?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; July 30th, 2014 at 12:55 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    If the human reproductive cycle was somehow linked to the tides could this be a proof of human evolution during a period of semi-aquatic lifestyle?

    No. And it depends what you mean by linked. There is a correlation between human menstrual cycle 28 +- a couple days and the length of the lunar one...but quite a few studies have found no other other relationships, suggesting it's probably just a coincidence. There's also a positive correlation between how many times the Black Forest cuckoo clock that hangs in my living room is right and the tidal cycle...unfortunately one of the chains came off a cog nearly ten years ago and its hands haven't moved since.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Lynx moved the thread when the OP claimed that the homo sapiens who migrated to Australia were aquatic apes.
    This is what I mean. How in the hell is that in any shape or form pseudoscience??? For crying out loud, it's being confirmed now archeologically, that modern Homo sapiens when leaving Africa primarily followed a coastal route across first Southern Arabia, then India and then onwards to Australia. Along the coastal rim of the Indian ocean. This is to be anticipated within the confines of the aquatic ape hypothesis, if those modern human beings were semiaquatic waders and occasional swimmers. That they would have been prone to stick with coastal regions, and not be prone to traverse across an inland route. This is why Hs shows up in Australia at least 50kya, a full 10k before China or Europe. Because they were beach jumpers. This coastal route was predicted already in the 1990's (by Carsten Niemitz, I think) and now archeologists are actually confirming it. That's a testable prediction confirmed. Will you stop with the prejudices already? You're rejecting vital new discoveries about our species' history for all the wrong reasons in the book.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    If the human reproductive cycle was somehow linked to the tides could this be a proof of human evolution during a period of semi-aquatic lifestyle?

    No. And it depends what you mean by linked. There is a correlation between human menstrual cycle 28 +- a couple days and the length of the lunar one...but quite a few studies have found no other other relationships, suggesting it's probably just a coincidence. There's also a positive correlation between how many times the Black Forest cuckoo clock that hangs in my living room is right and the tidal cycle...unfortunately one of the chains came off a cog nearly ten years ago and its hands haven't moved since.
    I had a recollection of a study that showed more women ovulate at the time of the full moon, hence I was trying to find a paper that might support this. This abstract seems to suggest there is but I can't understand the science in the second paragraph.
    Does anyone know what it is about?
    The regulation of menstrual cycle ... [Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986] - PubMed - NCBI
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65(1):45-8.The regulation of menstrual cycle and its relationship to the moon.

    Law SP.
    Abstract

    A synchronous relationship between the menstrual cycle and lunar rhythm was confirmed by: Investigative data: Among the 826 female volunteers with a normal menstrual cycle, aged between 16 and 25 years, a large proportion of menstruations occurred around the new moon (28.3%), while at other times during the lunar month the proportion of menstruations occurring ranged between 8.5-12.6%; the difference was significant (p less than 0.01).
    LABORATORY FINDINGS:


    The 6-hydroxymelatonin levels in the urina sanguinis of 3 female volunteers reached their zenith prior to and during menstruation, gradually declining to their nadir during ovulation. The difference in 6-hydroxymelatonin between menstruation and ovulation was significant (p less than 0.01). Two of these three volunteers had their zenith in the period of the new moon and nadir 3-4 days prior to the full moon respectively. Clinical experience: The lunar-menses-regulatory therapy in treatment of Nephropenic secondary amenorrhea revealed 4 clinical cure, 5 marked effect, 8 menogogue and 3 ineffect out of 20 cases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    To hell with it, at least you need to understand my perspective on all this. The reason I fly off at the mislabel pseudoscience in this debate, is because the aquatic ideas has unearthed a severe crisis in humanity: The risk of pandemic cretinism.
    What is the evidence for this looming pandemic? It says here that cretinism has been largely eliminated in the developed world.
    Cretinism historical perspective - wikidoc
    Biochemical study has disclosed, that the brain of extant Homo sapiens is dependant on a key series of brain selective nutritions, in particular docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and Iodine ions, and also elements like Iron, Zinc and others. This is old news, and irrefutable scientific fact. And we could only have been subjected to this need from eon long selective pressure with daily exposure to a diet, that contained these elements. And it is irrefutable, that DHA and Iodine is almost impossible to garner in adequate measures from purely terrestrial food groups, while it is easily achieved from what? A seafood diet. Fish, shellfish, seaweed, sedges and the like. These are by far the best sources for these brain selective nutrients. By far. It is parsimonous nonsense to claim, that they could've come from anything terrestrial steadily for hundreds of thousands of years, supporting the buildup of a larger and larger brain generation after generation.

    Michael Crawford's key point during his segment in the London '13 conference (link containing his slides from that presentation) was that we cannot survive as an intellectual species without adequate access to these nutrients. Without them, we become creatins. Hell, many of us probably already are, being exposed to terrestrial agriculture for upwards of 10.000 years. This is the consequence of our recent semiaquatic evolution; the water gave us our brain, and it is in the process of taking it away again. Crawford relayed numbers from Indonesia, where 800,000 school children had been declared certifiable cretins, and not one of them living in fishing villages. On the advice of Crawford, the Indonesian government initiated the crowth of large coastal kelp farms to produce dietary additives for schools, and in a few years, the number of certifiable cretins in the same age group ... had halfed. Just from that one initiative.
    Crawford's closing statement in London was quite simple: We have to farm the oceans. Not simply gather from the oceans, 'cause we are already draining them, but farming from them, creating artificial reefs and the like to harvest from, so as to make sure that a DHA and Iodine-rich diet reach the entire world human population of 7 billion, which will surpass 8 in 2023 and 9 in 2050. That is the lesson of the aquatic ape hypothesis. This we only know today because of the life's work of Elaine Morgan. As with Darwin, without her, we would still be in the dark. Regardless of her being a bloody armchair scientist selling books.
    Without the aquatic ape hypothesis we wouldn't know about the need for iodine and DHA in our diet? That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?
    Those are the irrefutable facts at this point in the aquatic debate. And when the moderators of a site such as this claiming to support a free scientific debate for the benefit of general intellectualism are still falling back to their old misguided custom of mislabelling any and all of the aquatic ideas as insulting "pseudoscience", whereby people will not seek out proper information on this complex topic, then these moderators are exhibiting scientific negligence bordering on criminal! Then their hypocrisy and refusal to accept facts put them in cahoots with both creationists refusing to accept the conclusions of Charles Darwin because of an old pissing contest between the religious institutions and free natural science, and the coal and oil barons currently bribing specialists to lie to politicians and the general public about the human causing of global warming, so they can keep peddling their goods!

    There is only one reason that the aquatic ideas today is not part of the academic consensus so we can get cracking on solving this global human crisis, and that is that Morgan pissed off the academic aristocracy!
    So the AAH is the solution to global warming?
    Crawford does seem to be exaggerating there, but yes severe iodine deficiency during pregnancy can cause cretinism in the child. It has to be a severe shortage of iodine though.

    I would like to mention iodine deficiencies are not just from low soil availability of iodine either.
    There exist chemicals quite capable of blocking our absorbtion and use of iodine.
    These chemicals are called goitrogens and they exist in many foods.
    Goitrogen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    If you look at the list of goitrogenic foods you might notice they are almost all plants traditionally cultivated in areas with high traditional rates of cretinism, goitre and general iodine deficiencies.

    The situation with DHA synthesis is not so clear.
    Is Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) Essential? Lessons from DHA Status Regulation, Our Ancient Diet, Epidemiology and Randomized Controlled Trials
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Apes and Men
    By Heliopolis in forum Biology
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: October 10th, 2012, 12:33 AM
  2. Replies: 124
    Last Post: October 9th, 2012, 06:25 PM
  3. Apes to Humans - clues in starch
    By jimell in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 1st, 2012, 04:00 PM
  4. We're bipedal because of (semi)aquatic ancestors? [Aquatic Ape Theory]
    By Supervixen in forum Anthropology, Archaeology and Palaeontology
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: August 21st, 2012, 10:44 PM
  5. morality in apes
    By captaincaveman in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 18th, 2007, 09:16 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •