Re: aquatic humans...

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: cass@yvax.byu.edu: "Religious origins of money"
• Previous message: Gaston Salamanca Gutierrez: "about gypsy"
• Maybe in reply to: Justin Case: "aquatic humans..."
• Next in thread: Patrick Powers: "Re: aquatic humans..."

In article <3fub7c$r72@status>, Daniel Rosenblatt <danr@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
>A few points:
>1] Elaine Morgan has more recent books (_Scars of Evolution_ is one title.)
>2] Popularizations are all there is, it is *only* a popular theory.
>3] There is a newsgroup devoted to it: sci.anthropology.paleo (and
>Elaine Morgan posts there.)

Then I should probably go to s.a.paleo, but as long as I'm here, I
wonder if anyone can tell me whether there exists any particularly
damning counterargument to the Aquatic Ape theory, some major flaw in
the theory, or is it simply dismissed for lack of fossil evidence. In
other words, is the theory generally considered by workers in the field
to be reasonable but unsupported speculation, or is it considered
demonstrably wrong? All I know about the theory comes from Elaine
Morgan's books, and she certainly makes it seem reasonable.

-- 

John Brock

jbrock@panix.com

• Next message: cass@yvax.byu.edu: "Religious origins of money"
• Previous message: Gaston Salamanca Gutierrez: "about gypsy"
• Maybe in reply to: Justin Case: "aquatic humans..."
• Next in thread: Patrick Powers: "Re: aquatic humans..."