| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » Marc: you have a habitat not a hypothesis
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Claudius Denk |
 Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 5:59 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Quote: Claudius Denk wrote:
If you weren't a half-wit it would be obvious to you that with your comparative techniques
you can "prove" just about any species had an aquatic past.
My little boy, just prove us that giraffes had (semi)aquatic ancestors. Or
monkeys. Or lions. Or mice. Or bats. Or...
Well, sir. We do have elephants don't we. I'm sure you know what I'm
referring to.
The point is that all you have is a habitat, and one that is mistitled
at that. You don't have a real evolutionary hypothesis. You don't
have anything that attempts to explain why the more humanlike members
of the population had a selective advantage (survival/reproductive)
over the less humanlike members of the population.
You also appear to possess and extremely dimwitted understanding of
what it means to be human. There are a number of traits that
distinguish hominids from other species. Lots of animals are
hairless, you idiot. Lots of animals have diving'/swimming abilities
of somekind or another. You have to about have your head up your ass
for this not to be plainly obvious. The traits that most completely
distinguish hominids from other species involves such things as our
communal territorialism, our collective knowledge and linguistic
abilities that enable it, and our cultural/emotional abilities/
behaviors. Even tool usage is relatively insignificant in comparison
to these abilities/behaviors.
Basically, being human has to do with being part of a larger
biological entity, the human community. Other than the obvious fact
that humans need access to potable water there is nothing about your
vague aquatic notions that can possibly tell us anything about how
hominids evolved from chimps into humans. You have a habitat, not a
hypothesis. Get a clue. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 2, 2:19 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Quote: SF thinks that because some non-aq.mammals are hairless, AAT is falsified:
Lots of animals are hairless, you idiot.
My little boy,
Still lusting after little boys, pervert?
Quote: I try again. FYI:
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora.
Liar. Sir Hardy said no such thing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc Verhaegen |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SF thinks that because some non-aq.mammals are hairless, AAT is falsified:
Quote: Lots of animals are hairless, you idiot.
My little boy, apparently you have never heard of statistics or
correlations.
Inform a little bit.
I try again. FYI:
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora.
³Aquatic Ape Theory², contrary to what many PAs still want to believe, is
not about apes, nor about having been aquatic, nor about australopiths.
The physiological, anatomical, behavioural & DNA differences between Homo &
Pan show that our Homo ancestors some time after the Homo/Pan split ~5 Ma
lived at the waterside (coast/lake/river-side).
Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as far as Mojokerto (Java) etc.
AAT says their ancestors after the H/P split got there along shorelines, not
over dry & open plains.
Luckily, leading PAs such as Ph.Tobias
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
& Chr.Stringer
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003982.html
now agree with a "wet" past & shoreline dispersals
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
The combination of furlessness & SC fat is only seen in mammals that spend a
lot of time in water (not vice versa, my little boy!).
This alone might intelligigent people make think that our ancestors evolved
at the waterside, but no, there are still a lot of loons that stubbornly
refuse to consider this possibility. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Claudius Denk |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 5:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 2, 2:19 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Quote: SF thinks that because some non-aq.mammals are hairless, AAT is falsified:
Lots of animals are hairless, you idiot.
My little boy, apparently you have never heard of statistics or
correlations.
You haven't presented any.
Ever heard of natural selection, evolutionary biology?
Quote:
Inform a little bit.
I try again. FYI:
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora.
³Aquatic Ape Theory², contrary to what many PAs still want to believe,
My comments had nothing to do with what PAs do or do not believe. It
had to do with the fact that you seem to think you have a hypothesis
when you don't.
Quote: is
not about apes, nor about having been aquatic, nor about australopiths.
Who cares? Find a new hobby. Science ain't your thing.
Quote: The physiological, anatomical, behavioural & DNA differences between Homo &
Pan show that our Homo ancestors some time after the Homo/Pan split ~5 Ma
lived at the waterside (coast/lake/river-side).
The assertion that they would have resided at locations with access to
drinking water is both obvious and mundane. An evolutionary
hypothesis involves natural selection. You seem to be emotionally
incapable of grasping the gravity of this fact.
Have you read Darwin? I bet you haven't. I bet you read that nitwit
Elaine Morgan and stopped there. You're an ignoramus when it come to
the subject of biological evolution. Every post you submit further
confirms this.
Quote: Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as far as Mojokerto (Java) etc.
AAT says their ancestors after the H/P split got there along shorelines, not
over dry & open plains.
Luckily, leading PAs such as Ph.Tobiashttp://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
& Chr.Stringerhttp://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003982.html
now agree with a "wet" past & shoreline dispersalshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
The combination of furlessness & SC fat is only seen in mammals that spend a
lot of time in water (not vice versa, my little boy!).
This alone might intelligigent people make think that our ancestors evolved
at the waterside, but no, there are still a lot of loons that stubbornly
refuse to consider this possibility.
It's absurd to suggest that furlessness & SC fat are the most
significant hominid traits. You have to about be mentally retarded
for this not to be obvious to you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Claudius Denk |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 6:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 2, 9:09 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Quote: Op 02-05-2008 17:36, in artikel
d49c195a-14e6-491c-9995-a039a1565...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com, Claudius
Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> schreef:
On May 2, 2:19 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
SF thinks that because some non-aq.mammals are hairless, AAT is falsified:
Lots of animals are hairless, you idiot.
My little boy, apparently you have never heard of statistics or
correlations.
You haven't presented any.
Inform, my boy.
I'm informing you that an evolutionary hypothesis is supposed to
involve/address natural selection. You have nothing but vague notions
about where they resided. Your understanding of fundamental concepts
in evolutionary biology is nonexistent.
You need to first obtain an education in evolutionary biology before
you go pretending to solve any of its issues. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Claudius Denk |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 2, 12:50 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Quote: SF:
I'm informing you that an evolutionary hypothesis is supposed to
involve/address natural selection.
Yes, my boy, all furless & fat mammals
This is obviously false.
Quote: spend a lot of time in water.
Only SFs think humans must be an exception.
But even if it was true, so what. Humans, obviously do not. And you
have no explanation for hominid communal adaptations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc Verhaegen |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 11:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: AAT = Homo littoral diaspora.
SF:
Quote: Liar. Sir Hardy said no such thing.
So?
:-D
SFs are stupid stupid stupid. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc Verhaegen |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 11:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Op 02-05-2008 17:36, in artikel
d49c195a-14e6-491c-9995-a039a1565188@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com, Claudius
Denk <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> schreef:
Quote: On May 2, 2:19 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
SF thinks that because some non-aq.mammals are hairless, AAT is falsified:
Lots of animals are hairless, you idiot.
My little boy, apparently you have never heard of statistics or
correlations.
You haven't presented any.
Inform, my boy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc Verhaegen |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 2:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SF:
Quote: I'm informing you that an evolutionary hypothesis is supposed to
involve/address natural selection.
Yes, my boy, all furless & fat mammals spend a lot of time in water.
Only SFs think humans must be an exception. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 3:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc Verhaegen |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Yes, my boy, all furless & fat mammals
spend a lot of time in water.
Only SFs think humans must be an exception.
SF:
Quote: But even if it was true, so what. Humans, obviously do not.
Don't you take off your clothes when you go swimming??
SFs are stupid stupid stupid. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc Verhaegen |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 7:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Don't you take off your clothes when you go swimming??
Olson swims with clothes on:
SFs are stupid stupid stupid. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 2:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 3, 4:48 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Quote: Don't you take off your clothes when you go swimming??
SF:
No answer (as always), only some irrelevant blabla:
They just re-opened the beach at San Diego and look what happened:
http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_9116331
"Here's a point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not learn this
point from some academic overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned
it while trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I
spent several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya, investigating
some of the most important early hominid sites in the world, one of
our overriding concerns -- while swimming, bathing, or catching fish
with a net -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A croc
can be on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and drag you under to
drown before you have time to screech for help.
The fact that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with early
hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not explain what
advantages early humans would have gained by spending time in
crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they could not make
fires, throw stones or sticks, use other tools, or have any hope
whatever of escaping the most common predator. A troop of early
hominids wading in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best be
described as a crocodile banquet.
The cute, feel-good images of babies swimming freely in a pool, shown
in the AAT video, have nothing to do with the real situation of
predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the Dasenich or Turkana people who
live around Lake Turkana: only visiting maniacs swim in that lake."
Cameron M. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 3:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 3, 5:46 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Quote: SF:
"Here's a point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not learn this
point from some academic overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned
it while trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa.
:-D
My little boy,
Still lusting after little boys, pervert?
Quote: what has that tho do with AAT??
Crocodiles have nothing to do with AAT.
Nothing has anything to do with AAT, because it is a figment of
spritual
imagination. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:21 pm
|
|