Re: Aquatic Ape: Titanic Effect
5121 Student 09 (cm315c09@nova.umd.edu)
2 May 1994 15:49:57 -0400
Melanie L Chang <mlchang@mail.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Am I the only one who thinks the level of maturity on this group has taken
>a nosedive?
I looked back over the last month's posts and I must say I am
embarrassed to see the level to which I sank. I appologize if
I have offended anyone. I will try to maintain a more civil
tongue from here on.
In my defense I want to present my original post from about a
month ago>
I want to talk about the aquatic ape theory. Would someone
care to have meaningful discussion on this topic?
This post was greated with a great deal of sarcasm and ridicule.
When I complained about the sarcasm this is the response I got>
In such circumstances, sarcasm (which was not at all heavy in the post)
is often welcome, though not usually by wet-behind-the-ear targets.
After many more emotional responses I posted this>
Why is it necessary to argue against the
AAT with emotion, ridicule, and character assassination? Should
it not be sufficient to simply point out corrections and leave
it at that? What happened to scientific objectivity? As soon
as someone presents high emotion to me I become wary and wonder
why they are so defensive over such a trivial matter.
So, while I agree the maturity level is low, I do not think it
is a recent development. I also sank to a low level, but it was
only after I was led to believe it was acceptable by the lack of
reprimand to responses like these>
talk.origins is the appropriate place for the Once Hollow Earth
Theory, which the Aquatic (really Chthonic) Ape Theory fits into nicely.
we went through all this AAT crap a while ago.
Ok. DALTON WAS WRONG! EINSTEIN WAS WRONG!
IT IS ALL CONTROLLED BY BIOALPHA-BETICS!
How about alt.sci.kill.aquatic.apes?
This is so simple that only one committed to "clever" speculation as if
scientific investigation were somehow always matched to the romantic
idea of a rejected genius finally triumphing could think much of AAH.
You may be hairless, indulge in v-v mating & have non-grasping feet but
I'm not!
I hate to say I told you so, but ...
The AAT, being made up (literally!) of
bits of bull____, is a whole lot easier to read and argue for.
Cool!Can you also post some info about the flying giraffe theory? or the
levitating elephant theory? or even the brillient and amazing
polar-camel theory???
The aquatic ape theory only impresses those
who don't know better.
The AAT is hogwash.
that rediculous Homonid-backstroke Theory.
(1) Humans are fascinated by flight.
(2) People often have flying dreams.
(3) Lack of body hair is aerodynamically sound design.
(4) I once saw a batch of flying monkeys carry off a little girl in a
movie. Q.E.D.
My point, oh dense one, is that...
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.
Some of these are quite funny, and I took them in good humor
because it is, after all, a pretty trivial matter. I am a bit
surprised that my own similar posts were not met with good
humor. I don't understand why this is such an emotional issue for
so many people. I sincerely expected a few clearly deliniated
arguements. Thus, the barrage I received instead, caught me off
guard.
I think many people assume that I am a proponent of A.Hardy's
Aquatic Ape Theory. I have denied this on several occasions.
Early in this discussion I posted the following>
I disagree with E.Morgan for the most part. But her inaccuracies
do not change the fact (imho) that aquatic life is far from absolutely
improbable. (especially considering the fact that it currently exists).
I still maintain that AAT, taken as a whole, as presented by
E.Morgan, is riddled with fallacies. I also maintain that we
should not throw out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak :-)).
Aquatic influences should not be dismissed out of hand. Most
of the arguments posted here against AAT can be used just as
effectively against the savannah theory.
>So, Phil, Dave, can we stop this? If you want to call each other names,
>please do it through private e-mail. I know what a kill file is; I just
>think it's a waste of bandwidth.
While I admit my posts were rude, I don't think I called anyone any
names. I will stop being so rude, but I will not stop posting my ideas
about human evolution. Several people have e-mailed me in support of
my point of view. Others have simply reported that they find the
discussion illuminating. Considering the amount of heat I have
sustained, I believe some others may be reluctant to post their
support publicly on the net.
I appreciate your desire to conserve bandwidth, but I strongly believe
this discussion belongs here.
>Then I think you are a prime candidate to read about this stuff in
>scientific journals. I wouldn't mind hearing what you think. Try
>
> Current Anthropology
> American Journal of Physical Anthropology
> Journal of Human Evolution
> American Anthropologist
> Scientific American
> Nature
Thank you. Others have also suggested reading material, and for
this I am grateful. I will add these journals to my list of 5
or 6 books, and I will certainly let you know what I think.
I would like to repeat here a plea I posted earlier>
Show me all the facts and arguments on both sides (with a
minimum of emotion) and let me decide for myself.
My [appropriately corrected] 2 cents.
David Greene
cm315c09@nova.umd.edu
|