|
|
Re: Polar Bear Challenge for AAH opponents
Kevyn Loren Winkless (umwinkl0@cc.umanitoba.ca)
8 Dec 1994 08:22:06 GMT
In <3c2g5q$7l6@newsbf01.news.aol.com> sircpu@aol.com (Sir CPU) writes:
I beg(quite emphatically, I might add) to differ. Under no
circumstances is the burden of proof on the side of the opponents
of a theory; it is not possible to prove anything wrong, only to
say that there is insufficient evidence to accept it as true. As
yet, I have seen nothing more than circumstantial evidence (which
has been adequately explained without the AAH) to point to the
past "aquaticness" of the human ape. Don't get me wrong - The
idea of humans or near human ancestors being habitual waders
appeals to me, and might very well succeed in explaining
something here or there (all the stone "tool-using" mammals I know
of have shellfish as a major constituent of their diets) - but
since there is not substantive evidence to support AAH, it is
nothing more than a curiosity in the fringe anthropological
literature. Give us something we can't explain as easily or more
easily another way, or maybe some physical evidence (though the
gods of academia only know what that would be), and we will be
able to take the idea more seriously. The minute you say "this is
how it is - prove me wrong." it sounds a little too much like
religious dogma.
"...I drank WHAT!!?" - Socrates umwinkl0@cc.umanitoba.ca
>Therfore,
it is virtually impossible to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
>that humans have never been aquatic, because it really only takes a
>relatively SMALL number of adaptations to be aquatic. In this case, the
>burden of proof is really on the AAH opponents.
>Troy Kelley
|