Re: One more aquatic ape for the road
5121 Student 09 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
1 May 1994 09:51:01 -0400
NICHOLLS PHILIP A <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Having now raised the charge of censorship, this AAT proponent
>>> has now joined the ranks of those who found Velikofsky, Eric
>>> Von Dannikan and Scientific Creationism compelling alternatives
>>> to conventional science.
>> Having now admitted to censorship, this proponent of...
>> oh, wait, what is he a proponent of again?...
>> oh, right, he believes whatever the dominant paradigm book says today.
>> Where can I get my copy?
>I did not admit to censorship. It would appear that you are now
>practicing another favored tactic of creationists: misquoting your
Didn't mean to misquote you. Maybe I just missunderstood this
statement of yours:
>>> The author is now essentially stating that the
>>> reason no hard evidence exists to support the aquatic ape is that
>>> there is some kind of censorship of young, unestablished scientists
>>> by older ones. Now, to some extent this is true,
Maybe I should have said, _having now admitted so censorship
to some extent_. Would that be more accurate?
>The paradigm to which I subscribe is called evolution. As to a
>theory or hypothesis about the origin of bipedalism, I have done
>nothing more than mention some put forward by various authors I
>have come across. There is no consensus about the origin of
>bipedalism amoung anthropologists. Now while there is no consensus
>about which hypothesis is correct there is a consensus about some
>ideas, including Morgan's Aquatic Ape Theory. You should already
>know what that consensus is by now.
Yes, I know, because I share it. Morgan was incorrect on many
points. But, so are many savannah theorists. I am not interested
in proving Morgan wrong (as I have state repeatedly). I am
interested in knowing how man evolved.
>> At least now I know why this guy has never actually posted
>> his explanation of how man evolved. Just the tireless mantra:
>> read Pete Wheeler, read Pete Wheeler. Come on Mr. Nicholls,
>> an original thought never killed anyone, just a few carreers.
>I have posted my own hypothetical scenerio. However, this thread is
>not about my scenerio. It is about the aquatic ape hypothesis and
>what is wrong with it.
Ah, well, I'll leave you to it then. Let me know when you get
around to proposing an alternative.
>The reason I suggest Wheeler is because he is one of the few who have
>suggested a mechanism to explain sweating, hairloss AND bipedalism.
>Actually, there is no reason to believe that the earliest hominids
>were hairless or that the sweated like modern humans
>As for original thoughts, I would be most happy to listen to any
>original thoughts you may have about human origins. Let me know when
>you have one.
Ok here's one. If man was *so* hot that he lost his hair, stood
upright, and started sweating, I think he may also have gotten
in the water to cool off. Especially since getting in the water
is a know behavioral trait of primates. Especially since he
was so thirsty from all that sweating. Especially since there
is food in the water that he could out-compete for.
It would appear that you are now practicing another favored
tactic of creationists: ridiculing you opponent.
By implying that I have no original thoughts, and by referring to
me as _Oh Dense One_. By continually attempting to refute a
theory by referring to it as psuedo sciene and pop science.
All of these may be true, but they are irrelevant to the issue.