I just finished reading an interesting article on AAT and found it an
interesting idea. I found it appealing mainly because I'm an aquatic
ape.

Riverbanks, lakes, marshes, and sea shores have food and water. And
prey animals gather to drink water too where there is water. Some
people who like the AAT idea point out that today's humans live near
water, swim, fish, boat and raft, bath, and drink lots of water.
Modren humans aren't that big on grasslands.

Did not in North American around 1400 CE were not most humans living
in forests near a large supply of water, fished, and boated? And
humans were not living on the grasslands much at all.

The Savanna idea has it's points, but doesn't explain as well modern
human prefereneces at all, zip: I'm I right that savanna ideaers don't
know why humans live near water and are so active with water?

Does Savanna idea describe the Nile River Valley at 5,000 BCE? Or does
AAT? AAT would look to be evident today and that is why I like it
better. John Freck

Does Savanna idea describe the Nile River Valley at 5,000 BCE? Or does
AAT? AAT would look to be evident today and that is why I like it
better.

John Freck
Tigers love to swim and are very active near the water. However, I

I don't generally go
for the aquatic primate hypothesis in human evolution.

Does Savanna idea describe the Nile River Valley at 5,000 BCE? Or does
AAT? AAT would look to be evident today and that is why I like it
better.
John Freck

Tigers love to swim and are very active near the water. However, I
wouldn't call them aquatic cats. Domestic cats hate water because they
are descended from desert animals, but they love fish. The fact that
domestic cats love fish doesn't make them aquatic animals. I don't
think evolution can quite keep up with all the faster fluctuations in
environment. Therefore, one has to be careful about making conclusions
about evolution based on a few behavioral anomolies that may have to
do with a short-lived environmental fluctuation. I don't generally go
for the aquatic primate hypothesis in human evolution.

v1313w@gmail.com>:

I just finished reading an interesting article on AAT and
found it an interesting idea. I found it appealing mainly
because I'm an aquatic ape.
Riverbanks, lakes, marshes, and sea shores have food
and water. And prey animals gather to drink water too
where there is water. Some people who like the AAT idea
point out that today's humans live near water, swim, fish,
boat and raft, bath, and drink lots of water. Modren humans
aren't that big on grasslands. Did not in North American
around 1400 CE were not most humans living in forests
near a large supply of water, fished, and boated? And
humans were not living on the grasslands much at all.
The Savanna idea has it's points, but doesn't explain as
well modern human prefereneces at all, zip: I'm I right
that savanna ideaers don't know why humans live near
water and are so active with water?
Does Savanna idea describe the Nile River Valley at
5,000 BCE? Or does AAT? AAT would look to be evident
today and that is why I like it better. John Freck

Hi, John.
Nile River Vally at 5,000 BCE has almost as much with our past as
living in today's skyscreapers. In paleoanthropological terms 5,000 years is
alsmost nothing. Yet, we do have a bathroom in today's skyscreapers, and
consume a lot of water. If you want to know more about AAT you can visit a
Yahoo! group called AAT at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/
It is the place where people which like the same idea, gather.
-- Mario

drosen0000@yahoo.com wrote:

Can either the Savanna idea or the Aquatic idea be described as more
than grounded speculation?

Mario Petrinovich:
v1313w@gmail.com>:
I just finished reading an interesting article on AAT and
found it an interesting idea. I found it appealing mainly
because I'm an aquatic ape.
Riverbanks, lakes, marshes, and sea shores have food
and water. And prey animals gather to drink water too
where there is water. Some people who like the AAT idea
point out that today's humans live near water, swim, fish,
boat and raft, bath, and drink lots of water. Modren humans
aren't that big on grasslands. Did not in North American
around 1400 CE were not most humans living in forests
near a large supply of water, fished, and boated? And
humans were not living on the grasslands much at all.
The Savanna idea has it's points, but doesn't explain as
well modern human prefereneces at all, zip: I'm I right
that savanna ideaers don't know why humans live near
water and are so active with water?
Does Savanna idea describe the Nile River Valley at
5,000 BCE? Or does AAT? AAT would look to be evident
today and that is why I like it better. John Freck

Hi, John.
Nile River Vally at 5,000 BCE has almost as much with our past as
living in today's skyscreapers. In paleoanthropological terms 5,000 years
is
alsmost nothing. Yet, we do have a bathroom in today's skyscreapers, and
consume a lot of water. If you want to know more about AAT you can visit
a Yahoo! group called AAT at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/
It is the place where people which like the same idea, gather.

Hi Mario,

You are quite wrong, sorry. I must be blunt; it is from my upbringing.
Today's humans, humans from 5,000 BCE and humans from 1,500 CE all
have to do with paleoanthropological analysis, or should. Natural
studies have nature. We already know things. When we study animals
from 5,000,000 millions years ago that are thought possibly to have
evolved into modern humans we need modern humans as well as the
5,000,000 year old evidense to evaluate trajectories of evolution. We
know are present state well. We do, and did recently, live at or very
near waters' edge.

Today<-------------Yesterday. It is true that today can be
understood from looking at yesterday. It is true too that yesterday
can be understood by looking at today and working backwards. We are in
fact a waters' edge animal. AAT does sound like an exaggeration, but
if recast might have better broadcasting. John Freck

When I read the AAT theory on wikipedia, I immediately thougth that it
was an over-extended idea. And I thought that it should be called an
idea, and not a hypothesis or theory. It remided me that American
english should become more rigorous. More experts, more readers, more
writers need to use a well defined usage. We don't need more dwarf
planets not being planets.

Can either the Savanna idea or the Aquatic idea be described as more
than grounded speculation? John Freck

v1313w@gmail.com>:
Can either the Savanna idea or the Aquatic idea be described as more
than grounded speculation?

Both can be described as bad and
unscientific speculations. Taxa do NOT
switch habitat -- except over tens or
hundreds of millions of years (covering
one or more catastrophic extinction
events) and then their older forms (in
the old habitat) do not go extinct merely
to suit the convenience of the theorists.

The kind of 'thinking' underlying these
theories pre-dates the concept of niche.
Somehow the concept of promiscuous
niche-swapping remained acceptable in
PA -- even if it would be inconceivable
anywhere in the rest of biology. The
Aquatic Ape theory is hugely unscientific,
but it has one excuse -- it is no worse than
what passes for 'standard science'. Paul.

When I read the AAT theory on wikipedia, I immediately thougth that it
was an over-extended idea. And I thought that it should be called an
idea, and not a hypothesis or theory. It remided me that American
english should become more rigorous. More experts, more readers, more
writers need to use a well defined usage. We don't need more dwarf
planets not being planets.
Can either the Savanna idea or the Aquatic idea be described as more
than grounded speculation? John Freck

Take a look at Wikipedia for words "hypothesis" and "theory". AAT
comfortably accommodate both terms. Saying that AAT isn't a "theory" or a
"hypothesis", is just a "speculation".
BTW, Savanna theory is dead for some *years* now (or even *decades*,
as claim the very people who were supporting Savanna idea until just
*yesterday*; welcome to the world of paleoanthropology, : )). There is
nothing valuable left except AAT. Some people try to fiddle with the
"Mosaic" hypothesis (now, THIS is actually the real speculation; compared to
the Mosaic, AAT is space science) which relativise absolutely *everything*,
so typical for people who know *nothing*, so they don't have a clear idea,
so everything is murky, everything is relative to them.
So, today's prevailing theory is Mosaic. Now, compare that to AAT,
and you'll very fastly see that AAT is the real theory, and that Mosaic is
just a BS. Calling Mosaic a theory (or hypothesis), and AAT speculation is
simply ridiculous. It is like putting the whole world upside-down, and
walking on ceiling, with your head down. -- Mario

When I read the AAT theory on wikipedia, I immediately thougth that it
was an over-extended idea. And I thought that it should be called an
idea, and not a hypothesis or theory. It remided me that American
english should become more rigorous. More experts, more readers, more
writers need to use a well defined usage. We don't need more dwarf
planets not being planets.
Can either the Savanna idea or the Aquatic idea be described as more
than grounded speculation? John Freck

"Savanna idea" = nonsense: not 1 good argument in favor of it. One must be
crazy to run over the savanna for whatever reason, whereas there's plenty
of
food for humans at the waterside. (Note AAT is not about apiths, but only
about human ancestors.)

John, if by "aquatic idea" you mean the theory that human ancestors
throughout their evolution were waterside, it's clearly a fact.

For serious information on AAT, there's only 1 place:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT (eg, files).

--Marc

v1313w@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174629273.782589.153240@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
drosen0000@yahoo.com wrote:

Can either the Savanna idea or the Aquatic idea be described as more
than grounded speculation?

[Pureed Bullshit]

The
Aquatic Ape theory is hugely unscientific,
but it has one excuse -- it is no worse than
what passes for 'standard science'.

Paul.

"Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhaegen@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:C22AF35A.8F2%m_verhaegen@skynet.be...

When I read the AAT theory on wikipedia, I immediately thougth that it
was an over-extended idea. And I thought that it should be called an
idea, and not a hypothesis or theory. It remided me that American
english should become more rigorous. More experts, more readers, more
writers need to use a well defined usage. We don't need more dwarf
planets not being planets.
Can either the Savanna idea or the Aquatic idea be described as more
than grounded speculation? John Freck

"Savanna idea" = nonsense: not 1 good argument in favor of it. One must be
crazy to run over the savanna for whatever reason, whereas there's plenty
of
food for humans at the waterside. (Note AAT is not about apiths, but only
about human ancestors.)
John, if by "aquatic idea" you mean the theory that human ancestors
throughout their evolution were waterside, it's clearly a fact.

Jesus. Our resident whack job must have gotten a new email address.

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message

news:jiSMh.18677$j7.369115@news.indigo.ie...> <v13...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174629273.782589.153240@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
drosen0...@yahoo.com wrote:

Can either the Savanna idea or the Aquatic idea be described as more
than grounded speculation?

[Pureed Bullshit]

The
Aquatic Ape theory is hugely unscientific,
but it has one excuse -- it is no worse than
what passes for 'standard science'.

What the hell would you know about "standard science",
Pauly? You've admitted that you don't read standard
publications, have never once critically reviewed anything
posted here, and cannot recite a single anthropological fact.
Yet somehow, all of PA is suspect on your say so. A bit
strange, wouldn't you say?

Paul.

--
"For whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly
hath neither job nor hobby." II Mumbleonians 4:19