Re: AAT:A method to falsify

David L Burkhead (r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu)
9 Oct 1995 04:13:47 GMT

In article <hubey.813092519@pegasus.montclair.edu> hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey) writes:
>r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu (David L Burkhead ) writes:
>
>> A) Waters, even tropical waters, never reach 98.6 for any
>>extended period except when volcanically heated, but volcanically
>>heated waters tend to be in small pockets--too small for escaping land
>>predators and so irrelevant to your claim.
>
>So what? Look at Easter Island.

What _about_ Easter Island? What are the water temperatures there?

>Maybe what AAT needs is somekind of an ideal location for something
>as unique as human evolution. Besides, that was a more general
>comment only a part of which applied to the problem at hand.

An "ideal location for something as unique as human evolution"?
How about the gene labs of 47 Ophiuchi III? Makes as much sense as
hypothesizing mythical aquatic environments that are free from
predators, warm enough for hominids to not get hypothermic, large
enough to provide refuge from land-based predators, and with enough
life to provide food for hungry apelings.

>> B) According to the geology professors at the University of
>>Akron, waters so warm have not existed since at least the Cretaceous,
>>and maybe not since the Cambrian.
>
>OK. I asked about how they know the temperatures at another
>post. I'd like to know.

Primarily isotope ratios in oxygen (which can be determined from
samples). This has been both theoretically and experimentally to be
tied to global temperatures.

>
>
>>>1) we aren't talking about 1995
>
>> We're talking about anytime in the last 65 million years, at least.
>
>
>Sometimes. And sometimes we're only talking about the last 2-5 Mya.

If it has never happened in the last 65 million years then it's
never happened in the last 2-5 million years. When talking about
water temperatures not being where they need to be for your theory,
then they've never been there anytime in the last 65 million years.

>>>2) you can switch back and forth rapidly enough to spend many hours
>>>in water and yet keep the body temperature constant.
>
>> Incorrect. The effect is _cumulative_. When you are in the water
>>you expend a great deal of energy just to keep warm.
>
>YOu come out when you cool down. Where does it say that you
>have to stay there until you're ready to freeze.

Sorry, but that just doesn't work. As I said, the effect is
cumulative. One immersion of an hour, or six of ten minutes each is
all the same as far as your body is concerned. For AAH to work you
have to spend six-eight _hours_ largely immersed in water _every day_.
It doesn't matter if you do it in ten minute dashes or all at once.

> It takes _time_
>>to recover that energy. Switching back and forth causes a downward
>>spiral that leaves you able to spend less and less time in the water
>>with each repetition.
>
>We're discussing two different things. If you are forced to live
>in the water for durations beyond your control, you're right.
>If all you wanted was to stay cool, you can choose your duration
>and keep a steady state.

Yes, you can get a "steady state" while spending enough time in
the water to drive the kinds of changes postulated by AAH (if those
changes are even _possible_ from an aquatic existence--there is no
evidence that that is the case). That state is called "hypothermia"
and would soon make this the Aquatic Corpse Theory.

>>>3) Even cattle know enough to find high ground around noon to get
>>>breeze to keep cool. I've seen it.
>
>> Um, so? Relevance?
>
>Humanoids would have been able to keep a steady-state temperature.

And to keep a steady state temperature at survivable levels, they
would have to stay almost entirely _out_ of the water. Thus, your
"cattle" argument is _against_ you.

David L. Burkhead
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu
d.l.burk@ix.netcom.com

-- 

          Spacecub  -  The Artemis Project  -  Artemis Magazine



                             Box 831

                      Akron,  OH  44309-0831