Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Aquatic apes are the stuff of creationism, not evolution
66 views
Skip to first unread message
RichTravsky
May 19, 2013, 3:38:18 PM5/19/13
to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-apes-creationism-evolution
...
Hardly a month goes by without my receiving, at my desk at Nature, an
exegesis on the reasons how or why human beings evolved to be this way
or that. They are always nonsense, and for the same reason. They find
some quirk of anatomy, extrapolate that into a grand scheme, and then
cherry-pick attributes that seem to fit that scheme, ignoring any
contrary evidence. Adherence to such schemes become matters of belief,
not evidence. That's not science – that's creationism.
An arcane and eldritch item of fashionable nonsense in the shuddering
slush-pile of human evolutionary rubbish is the "aquatic ape theory".
This has roots that go back to the 1960s, but a meeting on the matter
is being held in London, tomorrow. Indeed, Robin McKie wrote about it
in this very organ. The idea is that there are a large collection of
human attributes that distinguish us from other primates, which
suggest origin or substantial evolution in a watery home. These include
our bipedality, the pattern of hair on our bodies, the distribution of
body fat, our requirement for certain substances abundant in seafood,
and so on.
...
Henry Gee is a senior editor at Nature. His book The Accidental
Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution will be available from
the University of Chicago Press in October, though you can preorder
it now from all the usual places
JTEM
May 19, 2013, 4:06:46 PM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 3:38 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-a...
and mistakenly believes themselves to be
engaging in science.
As I keep pointing out without response (other
than the collective claiming ignorance of any
coastal migration claims), "Aquatic Ape" is
intrinsic, it's Part & Parcel of every "Out of
Africa" scheme -- including for pre modern
species.
It's sheer idiocy that people can't grasp this...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-a...
> ...
> Hardly a month goes by without
ONCE MORE the collective posts an OPINION PIECE
> Hardly a month goes by without
and mistakenly believes themselves to be
engaging in science.
As I keep pointing out without response (other
than the collective claiming ignorance of any
coastal migration claims), "Aquatic Ape" is
intrinsic, it's Part & Parcel of every "Out of
Africa" scheme -- including for pre modern
species.
It's sheer idiocy that people can't grasp this...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Claudius Denk
May 19, 2013, 9:07:02 PM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 12:38 pm, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-a...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-a...
he not mention it here? If not then how is he in any position to
write a book about "Misunderstandings" of human evolution? I mean,
think about it, if you write an article on the misunderstandings of a
subject shouldn't that be written from the perspective of some kind of
prescribed understanding? As is all too typical in this field, it
seems he would have us accept him as an expert. And, apparently, we
are to accept him as an expert based on the fact that he is a senior
editor of Nature. That's like the coach of a sports team putting
himself into the game base on the rationale that he's been around the
game so much.
It was also strange the way this whole article focused on Aquatic Ape
silliness. The first sentence in the article he states: "Hardly a
month goes by without my receiving, at my desk at Nature, an exegesis
on the reasons how or why human beings evolved to be this way or
that." What are these other "exegesis"? And then he spends the rest
on the reasons how or why human beings evolved to be this way or
of the article (follow link to read full article) dragging AAT through
the mud. Who cares? There is no shortage of books and websites on
that notion. Why does he think the world needs another?
I suspect that what happened here is that he noticed the controversy
surrounding the subject and he got seduced into thinking it is a lot
simpler and straightforward than it actually is. He probably found
himself over his head and, in desperation, decided to make the whole
book about how AAT is wrong hoping nobody notices that he really
doesn't have any insight to add to the greater discussion.
RichTravsky
May 26, 2013, 4:04:38 PM5/26/13
to
RichTravsky
Jun 5, 2013, 11:49:16 AM6/5/13
to
m_ver...@skynet.be
Jun 22, 2013, 8:10:31 AM6/22/13
to
Discussions on the so-called "aquatic ape theory" are often outdated, not considering the recent literature on the subject, but what Henry Gee writes about AAT is also uninformed & biased. A shame that such a man is a senior (senile?) editor of Nature. Why doesn't he inform a little bit before writing?
Humans didn't descend from "aquatic apes", of course, although our Pleistocene ancestors were too slow & heavy for regular running over open plains as Gee apparenty still believes (google "econiche Homo" for a demolition of the endurance running nonsense).
Instead, Homo populations during the Ice Ages (with sea-levels often 100 m lower than today) simply followed the coasts & rivers in Africa & Eurasia, eg, 800,000 years ago, they even reached Flores more than 18 km overseas.
- eBook "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" introduction Phillip Tobias http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/9781608052448/index.htm
- guest post at Greg Laden's blog http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/30/common-misconceptions-and-unproven-assumptions-about-the-aquatic-ape-theory
- http://greencomet.org/2013/05/26/aquatic-ape-the-theory-evolves/
- Human Evolution conference London 8-10 May 2013 with David Attenborough, Don Johanson etc. www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/education/education-conference-centre/study-days-conferences/pages/2013-evolution.aspx
- M Verhaegen & S Munro 2011 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods" HOMO - J compar hum Biol 62:237-247
- M Vaneechoutte, S Munro & M Verhaegen 2012 "Reply to John Langdon's review of the eBook: Was Man more aquatic in the past?" HOMO - J compar hum Biol 63:496-503
- for ape & australopith evolution (as opposed to Homo evolution) google "aquarboreal"
Humans didn't descend from "aquatic apes", of course, although our Pleistocene ancestors were too slow & heavy for regular running over open plains as Gee apparenty still believes (google "econiche Homo" for a demolition of the endurance running nonsense).
Instead, Homo populations during the Ice Ages (with sea-levels often 100 m lower than today) simply followed the coasts & rivers in Africa & Eurasia, eg, 800,000 years ago, they even reached Flores more than 18 km overseas.
- eBook "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" introduction Phillip Tobias http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/9781608052448/index.htm
- guest post at Greg Laden's blog http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/30/common-misconceptions-and-unproven-assumptions-about-the-aquatic-ape-theory
- http://greencomet.org/2013/05/26/aquatic-ape-the-theory-evolves/
- Human Evolution conference London 8-10 May 2013 with David Attenborough, Don Johanson etc. www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/education/education-conference-centre/study-days-conferences/pages/2013-evolution.aspx
- M Verhaegen & S Munro 2011 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods" HOMO - J compar hum Biol 62:237-247
- M Vaneechoutte, S Munro & M Verhaegen 2012 "Reply to John Langdon's review of the eBook: Was Man more aquatic in the past?" HOMO - J compar hum Biol 63:496-503
- for ape & australopith evolution (as opposed to Homo evolution) google "aquarboreal"
Claudius Denk
Jun 22, 2013, 2:34:32 PM6/22/13
to
Verhaegen stated:
Homo populations during the Ice Ages (with sea-levels often 100 m lower than today) simply followed the coasts & rivers in Africa & Eurasia, eg, 800,000 years ago, they even reached Flores more than 18 km overseas.
CD:
AAT (AAH) has evaporated. No longer do its adherents make claims beginning with the earliest hominids (starting 7 to 8 mya, up until 2 mya), which is what the theory originally championed. Now we just have inane claims that hominids are aquatic because our most recent ancestors (post 2 mya) travelled within sight of the ocean.
JTEM
Jun 28, 2013, 6:22:25 PM6/28/13
to
m_ver...@skynet.be wrote:
> Humans didn't descend from "aquatic apes", of course,
> although our Pleistocene ancestors were too slow &
> heavy for regular running over open plains as Gee
> apparenty still believes (google "econiche Homo"
> for a demolition of the endurance running nonsense).
>
> Instead, Homo populations during the Ice Ages
> (with sea-levels often 100 m lower than today)
> simply followed the coasts & rivers in Africa &
> Eurasia, eg, 800,000 years ago, they even
> reached Flores more than 18 km overseas.
Two points:
> Humans didn't descend from "aquatic apes", of course,
> although our Pleistocene ancestors were too slow &
> heavy for regular running over open plains as Gee
> apparenty still believes (google "econiche Homo"
> for a demolition of the endurance running nonsense).
>
> Instead, Homo populations during the Ice Ages
> (with sea-levels often 100 m lower than today)
> simply followed the coasts & rivers in Africa &
> Eurasia, eg, 800,000 years ago, they even
> reached Flores more than 18 km overseas.
#1. You're insisting that Aquatic Ape is true.
See, they couldn't have been following the coast
unless they were living off of it. Following the
coast, as you (and everybody else) insists requires
"Aquatic Ape." It requires our ancestors to be
living off of, adapting (evolving to) the aquatic
environment.
#2. They were following the cost LONG before
800,000 years ago.
Homo erectus georgicus, found well aside of
Africa, is conventionally dated to about 1.8
million years ago and appears to be descended
from Homo habilis. But it's also no older than
(and perhaps younger than) Java man!
So, at the very bottom minimum you have our
ancestors treking the coasts -- aquatic ape --
more than a million years earlier than you
first suggested, with the strong possibility
of it's roots lying in Homo habilis, conventionally
dated to about 2.3 million years ago!
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
JTEM
Jun 29, 2013, 3:36:43 PM6/29/13
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> AAT (AAH) has evaporated.
You don't know what it is.
> No longer do its adherents make claims
> beginning with the earliest hominids
> (starting 7 to 8 mya, up until 2 mya),
> which is what the theory originally championed.
The dating was never an issue. Dating was never
a basis for any Aquatic Ape theory. But, it does
so happen that this 7 to 8 million YBP that you
chose closely matches what the DNA-Centrics give
for the Human/Chimp split...
Coincidence?
Personally, i would suspect that the first Aquatic
Ape would have to date PRIOR TO the LCA for humans
and Chimps. That, Chimps are descended from the
human line, that they split off and reverted to the
forests/trees while their parent species continued
along the bipedal course...
Yes, if I had to guess I would say that the LCA was
bipedal, that Chimps evolved away their upright
posture, their bipedal locomotion when their line
re-adapted to the trees.
> Now we just have inane claims that hominids are
> aquatic because our most recent ancestors
> (post 2 mya) travelled within sight of the ocean.
Nobody is claiming that they traveled within sight
of the ocean. What everyone claims -- and this
includes the people insanely arguing AGAINST
aquatic ape -- is that they traveled along the coast
and even ACROSS the ocean, to places like Australia.
"Coastal Migration" __Requires__ aquatic ape. You
can't have coastal migrations without it, and everybody
and their uncle posits a coastal route.
The didn't have maps. Homo habilis wasn't looking
for a Denny's that was open. They weren't going
anywhere. If they were on the coast then that's
where they were living. They were eating & breeding
there. They exhausted their supply of easy pickings
(probably shellfish, maybe even seaweed) and then
moved on.
This is what every theory is based on, including all
the theories which deny it.
Just google "coastal migration" for a few kicks....
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
> AAT (AAH) has evaporated.
You don't know what it is.
> No longer do its adherents make claims
> beginning with the earliest hominids
> (starting 7 to 8 mya, up until 2 mya),
> which is what the theory originally championed.
a basis for any Aquatic Ape theory. But, it does
so happen that this 7 to 8 million YBP that you
chose closely matches what the DNA-Centrics give
for the Human/Chimp split...
Coincidence?
Personally, i would suspect that the first Aquatic
Ape would have to date PRIOR TO the LCA for humans
and Chimps. That, Chimps are descended from the
human line, that they split off and reverted to the
forests/trees while their parent species continued
along the bipedal course...
Yes, if I had to guess I would say that the LCA was
bipedal, that Chimps evolved away their upright
posture, their bipedal locomotion when their line
re-adapted to the trees.
> Now we just have inane claims that hominids are
> aquatic because our most recent ancestors
> (post 2 mya) travelled within sight of the ocean.
of the ocean. What everyone claims -- and this
includes the people insanely arguing AGAINST
aquatic ape -- is that they traveled along the coast
and even ACROSS the ocean, to places like Australia.
"Coastal Migration" __Requires__ aquatic ape. You
can't have coastal migrations without it, and everybody
and their uncle posits a coastal route.
The didn't have maps. Homo habilis wasn't looking
for a Denny's that was open. They weren't going
anywhere. If they were on the coast then that's
where they were living. They were eating & breeding
there. They exhausted their supply of easy pickings
(probably shellfish, maybe even seaweed) and then
moved on.
This is what every theory is based on, including all
the theories which deny it.
Just google "coastal migration" for a few kicks....
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Claudius Denk
Jun 30, 2013, 10:07:55 AM6/30/13
to
On Saturday, June 29, 2013 12:36:43 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > AAT (AAH) has evaporated.
>
>
>
> You don't know what it is.
>
>
>
> > No longer do its adherents make claims
>
> > beginning with the earliest hominids
>
> > (starting 7 to 8 mya, up until 2 mya),
>
> > which is what the theory originally championed.
>
>
>
> The dating was never an issue.
Dating is always and issue for all theories.
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > AAT (AAH) has evaporated.
>
>
>
> You don't know what it is.
>
>
>
> > No longer do its adherents make claims
>
> > beginning with the earliest hominids
>
> > (starting 7 to 8 mya, up until 2 mya),
>
> > which is what the theory originally championed.
>
>
>
> The dating was never an issue.
>
>
>
> The didn't have maps. Homo habilis wasn't looking
>
> for a Denny's that was open. They weren't going
>
> anywhere. If they were on the coast then that's
>
> where they were living. They were eating & breeding
>
> there. They exhausted their supply of easy pickings
>
> (probably shellfish, maybe even seaweed) and then
>
> moved on.
>
>
>
> This is what every theory is based on, including all
>
> the theories which deny it.
>
>
>
> Just google "coastal migration" for a few kicks....
JTEM
Jun 30, 2013, 3:13:55 PM6/30/13
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > The dating was never an issue.
> Dating is always and issue for all theories.
No. You're mistaken.
Dating is an issue if the theory is dependent
on a specific date or time range. Aquatic Ape
never required a specific date or period.
> > "Coastal Migration" __Requires__ aquatic ape. You
> > can't have coastal migrations without it, and everybody
> > and their uncle posits a coastal route.
> Who cares?
Everyone interested in human origins/evolution,
without exception.
If you don't then you're in the wrong group.
> > Just google "coastal migration" for a few kicks....
> Waste of time
You spent *Years* arguing nonsense and offering
baseless conjecture, and then you scoff at real
science...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
> JTEM wrote:
> > The dating was never an issue.
> Dating is always and issue for all theories.
Dating is an issue if the theory is dependent
on a specific date or time range. Aquatic Ape
never required a specific date or period.
> > "Coastal Migration" __Requires__ aquatic ape. You
> > can't have coastal migrations without it, and everybody
> > and their uncle posits a coastal route.
> Who cares?
without exception.
If you don't then you're in the wrong group.
> > Just google "coastal migration" for a few kicks....
> Waste of time
baseless conjecture, and then you scoff at real
science...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Claudius Denk
Jun 30, 2013, 4:35:19 PM6/30/13
to
On Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:13:55 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > JTEM wrote:
>
> > > The dating was never an issue.
>
>
>
> > Dating is always and issue for all theories.
>
>
>
> No. You're mistaken.
>
>
>
> Dating is an issue if the theory is dependent
>
> on a specific date or time range. Aquatic Ape
>
> never required a specific date or period.
Because AAT really is nothing but an allegory.
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > JTEM wrote:
>
> > > The dating was never an issue.
>
>
>
> > Dating is always and issue for all theories.
>
>
>
> No. You're mistaken.
>
>
>
> Dating is an issue if the theory is dependent
>
> on a specific date or time range. Aquatic Ape
>
> never required a specific date or period.
>
>
>
> > > "Coastal Migration" __Requires__ aquatic ape. You
>
> > > can't have coastal migrations without it, and everybody
>
> > > and their uncle posits a coastal route.
>
>
>
> > Who cares?
>
>
>
> Everyone interested in human origins/evolution,
>
> without exception.
>
>
>
> If you don't then you're in the wrong group.
>
>
>
> > > Just google "coastal migration" for a few kicks....
>
>
>
> > Waste of time
>
>
>
> You spent *Years* arguing nonsense and offering
>
> baseless conjecture, and then you scoff at real
>
> science...
> -- --
>
>
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com
JTEM
Jul 1, 2013, 12:16:31 AM7/1/13
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> Because AAT really is nothing but an allegory.
All that means is that you haven't the faintest
> Because AAT really is nothing but an allegory.
clue what the word "Allegory" means...
Aquatic Ape is required. It's like if you're in
your living room and heading for the supermarket,
leaving your home is a required step. It's necessary.
You can't get from your living room to the
supermarket without leaving your home. And in the
very same sense every last theory on Human origins
requires Aquatic Ape. It has are pre modern
ancestors traveling along the coast and even across
the water.
This requires aquatic ape. Aquatic Ape is absolutely
necessary. It's the only way you can place our
ancestors on the coast.
They had no maps. They didn't have a destination in
mind. They were "Hunter Gatherers." They fed on
the seafood and when their population got too big
or they exhausted the available supply they moved
on... eventually spreading across the globe.
Again, they did not have maps. Nobody had mailed
them invitations to come visit Java on their Spring
Break. They were living on the coast, off of the
marine environment. Period.
It's inescapable.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Claudius Denk
Jul 1, 2013, 1:50:31 AM7/1/13
to
On Sunday, June 30, 2013 9:16:31 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Because AAT really is nothing but an allegory.
>
>
>
> All that means is that you haven't the faintest
>
> clue what the word "Allegory" means...
>
>
>
> Aquatic Ape is required.
Required? That's your argument?
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Because AAT really is nothing but an allegory.
>
>
>
> All that means is that you haven't the faintest
>
> clue what the word "Allegory" means...
>
>
>
> Aquatic Ape is required.
> It's like if you're in
>
> your living room and heading for the supermarket,
>
> leaving your home is a required step. It's necessary.
>
> You can't get from your living room to the
>
> supermarket without leaving your home.
> And in the
>
> very same sense every last theory on Human origins
>
> requires Aquatic Ape. It has are pre modern
>
> ancestors traveling along the coast and even across
>
> the water.
>
>
>
> This requires aquatic ape. Aquatic Ape is absolutely
>
> necessary. It's the only way you can place our
>
> ancestors on the coast.
>
>
>
> They had no maps. They didn't have a destination in
>
> mind. They were "Hunter Gatherers." They fed on
>
> the seafood and when their population got too big
>
> or they exhausted the available supply they moved
>
> on... eventually spreading across the globe.
>
>
>
> Again, they did not have maps. Nobody had mailed
>
> them invitations to come visit Java on their Spring
>
> Break. They were living on the coast, off of the
>
> marine environment. Period.
>
>
>
> It's inescapable.
inescapable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
>
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com
JTEM
Jul 1, 2013, 2:31:39 AM7/1/13
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > Aquatic Ape is required.
> Required? That's your argument?
One does not argue the screaming obvious,
> Required? That's your argument?
one merely states it with confidence that
those with the intellectual capacity to
take part in an exchange will recognize it
for what it is.
And, yes, I am fully confident that you if
you had possessed the intellect you would
have grasped it...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Claudius Denk
Jul 1, 2013, 6:23:17 PM7/1/13
to
On Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:31:39 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > JTEM wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Aquatic Ape is required.
>
>
>
> > Required? That's your argument?
>
>
>
> One does not argue the screaming obvious,
>
> one merely states it with confidence that
>
> those with the intellectual capacity to
>
> take part in an exchange will recognize it
>
> for what it is.
You got nohting!!!
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > JTEM wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Aquatic Ape is required.
>
>
>
> > Required? That's your argument?
>
>
>
> One does not argue the screaming obvious,
>
> one merely states it with confidence that
>
> those with the intellectual capacity to
>
> take part in an exchange will recognize it
>
> for what it is.
JTEM
Jul 1, 2013, 7:45:07 PM7/1/13
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> You got nohting!!!
If you mean to say that it's not about me,
that Aquatic Ape is the inescapable conclusion
to every last theory on dispersal from Africa,
you are correct. Otherwise, you're bat shit
crazy.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
> You got nohting!!!
If you mean to say that it's not about me,
that Aquatic Ape is the inescapable conclusion
to every last theory on dispersal from Africa,
you are correct. Otherwise, you're bat shit
crazy.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Claudius Denk
Jul 1, 2013, 9:32:30 PM7/1/13
to
On Monday, July 1, 2013 4:45:07 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > You got nohting!!!
>
>
>
> If you mean to say that it's not about me,
>
> that Aquatic Ape is the inescapable conclusion
>
> to every last theory on dispersal from Africa,
>
> you are correct. Otherwise, you're bat shit
>
> crazy.
Can you provide us any details at all to counter my insinuation that you are delusional. Do you have anything remotely resembling a hypothesis on how and when hominid evolved starting from a chimpanzee-like animal? Anything? Even links to other peoples thinking. Provide details. Provide dates. Address specific issues like origins of bipedalism. Tool usage. Speech. Anything.
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > You got nohting!!!
>
>
>
> If you mean to say that it's not about me,
>
> that Aquatic Ape is the inescapable conclusion
>
> to every last theory on dispersal from Africa,
>
> you are correct. Otherwise, you're bat shit
>
> crazy.
It seems reasonable to assume that if it was all as obvious as you claim that you should be eager to provide us details. Right?
m have no hypothesis on hominid origins whatsoever
JTEM
Jul 2, 2013, 1:44:56 AM7/2/13
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> Can you provide us any details at all to
> counter my insinuation that you are delusional.
Well there's the screaming obvious fact that you
> Can you provide us any details at all to
> counter my insinuation that you are delusional.
somehow think this is about me, when the coastal
route out of Africa is accepted by nearly everyone.
In fact, it is and pretty much always has been the
explanation for pre-modern ancestors arriving in
places like Java about 2 million years ago...
> Do you have anything remotely resembling a
> hypothesis on how and when hominid evolved
> starting from a chimpanzee-like animal?
from a Chimpanzee-like animal.
But, anyway, as I've already pointed out in this
thread and others too many times to count, this
has nothing to do with me. Aquatic Ape is a necessary
even if almost always unspoken component of every
theory on human origins.
"Coastal Migration" or "Coastal Route."
...it all hinges on Aquatic Ape.
If you weren't bat shit crazy you'd be able to
Claudius Denk
Jul 2, 2013, 2:07:55 AM7/2/13
to
On Monday, July 1, 2013 10:44:56 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Can you provide us any details at all to
>
> > counter my insinuation that you are delusional.
>
>
>
> Well there's the screaming obvious fact that you
>
> somehow think this is about me, when the coastal
>
> route out of Africa is accepted by nearly everyone.
This is why I'm so positive you are delusional. You are obsessed with what is, undeniably, a very, very small part of hominid evolution.
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Can you provide us any details at all to
>
> > counter my insinuation that you are delusional.
>
>
>
> Well there's the screaming obvious fact that you
>
> somehow think this is about me, when the coastal
>
> route out of Africa is accepted by nearly everyone.
>
>
>
> In fact, it is and pretty much always has been the
>
> explanation for pre-modern ancestors arriving in
>
> places like Java about 2 million years ago...
>
>
>
> > Do you have anything remotely resembling a
>
> > hypothesis on how and when hominid evolved
>
> > starting from a chimpanzee-like animal?
>
>
>
> You're way off base there. We didn't "Start"
>
> from a Chimpanzee-like animal.
>
>
>
> But, anyway, as I've already pointed out in this
>
> thread and others too many times to count, this
>
> has nothing to do with me. Aquatic Ape is a necessary
>
> even if almost always unspoken component of every
>
> theory on human origins.
Is it a secret? Please tell us your secret.
>
>
>
> "Coastal Migration" or "Coastal Route."
>
>
>
> ...it all hinges on Aquatic Ape.
I guess you think if you just repeat the same inanity over and over again that people will join in? Like a chant.
>
>
>
> If you weren't bat shit crazy you'd be able to
>
> grasp this...
JTEM
Jul 2, 2013, 3:10:42 AM7/2/13
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> > Well there's the screaming obvious fact that you
> > somehow think this is about me, when the coastal
> > route out of Africa is accepted by nearly everyone.
> This is why I'm so positive you are delusional. You
> are obsessed with what is, undeniably, a very, very
> small part of hominid evolution.
#1. It's not a small part at all, it's critical, and
> > Well there's the screaming obvious fact that you
> > somehow think this is about me, when the coastal
> > route out of Africa is accepted by nearly everyone.
> This is why I'm so positive you are delusional. You
> are obsessed with what is, undeniably, a very, very
> small part of hominid evolution.
#2. it could not have happened, according to everyone,
without Aquatic Ape.
We need Aquatic Ape in order for it to happen. Period.
Thus, Aquatic Ape has to be. You now want to get around
the obvious by pretending that, true or not, it can't
be significant. Which is idiotic.
At the very least, Aquatic Ape was necessary for everything
and everyone one starting with Homo erectus. That's the
absolute minimum. The most primitive erectus remains we
find are outside of Africa, suggesting that they could have
evolved outside of Africa, which in turn would require our
Aquatic Ape to begin even earlier than that...
Evolution is a chain. You can't pull out some links
and say "These are important, those are not." They're
all important. And in this case, Aquatic Ape, we are
talking about the point in evolution when our ancestors
began speaking, when culture was born... AT AN ABSOLUTE
MINIMUM.
Honestly, stop being a waste product and try thinking
before you respond next time...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Claudius Denk
Jul 2, 2013, 3:49:52 AM7/2/13
to
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 12:10:42 AM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Well there's the screaming obvious fact that you
>
> > > somehow think this is about me, when the coastal
>
> > > route out of Africa is accepted by nearly everyone.
>
>
>
> > This is why I'm so positive you are delusional. You
>
> > are obsessed with what is, undeniably, a very, very
>
> > small part of hominid evolution.
>
>
>
> #1. It's not a small part at all, it's critical, and
Tell us why, you loon.
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Well there's the screaming obvious fact that you
>
> > > somehow think this is about me, when the coastal
>
> > > route out of Africa is accepted by nearly everyone.
>
>
>
> > This is why I'm so positive you are delusional. You
>
> > are obsessed with what is, undeniably, a very, very
>
> > small part of hominid evolution.
>
>
>
> #1. It's not a small part at all, it's critical, and
>
> #2. it could not have happened, according to everyone,
>
> without Aquatic Ape.
>
>
>
> We need Aquatic Ape in order for it to happen. Period.
>
>
>
> Thus, Aquatic Ape has to be. You now want to get around
>
> the obvious by pretending that, true or not, it can't
>
> be significant. Which is idiotic.
>
>
>
> At the very least, Aquatic Ape was necessary for everything
>
> and everyone one starting with Homo erectus.
That's the
>
> absolute minimum.
WTF are talking about? you are just a loon who has nothing to say. You hardly have a point.
The most primitive erectus remains we
>
> find are outside of Africa, suggesting that they could have
>
> evolved outside of Africa, which in turn would require our
>
> Aquatic Ape to begin even earlier than that...
>
>
>
> Evolution is a chain. You can't pull out some links
>
> and say "These are important, those are not." They're
>
> all important. And in this case, Aquatic Ape, we are
>
> talking about the point in evolution when our ancestors
>
> began speaking, when culture was born... AT AN ABSOLUTE
>
> MINIMUM.
>
>
>
> Honestly, stop being a waste product and try thinking
>
> before you respond next time...
JTEM
Jul 2, 2013, 9:28:47 PM7/2/13
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> Tell us why, you loon.
Look, make this easy for us, you psychotic
> Tell us why, you loon.
freak. Tell us what you think "Aquatic Ape"
means and what you believe my position is.
Paraphrase what I've said. You can even cheat
by doing something clever like, oh, READING THE
GODDAMN THREAD and seeing for yourself what I've
said.
We both know that even that much is beyond you,
that you're too fucked up to accomplish even that.
Enjoy the buzzing in your head, freak.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Claudius Denk
Jul 2, 2013, 10:28:28 PM7/2/13
to
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 6:28:47 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tell us why, you loon.
>
>
>
> Look, make this easy for us, you psychotic
>
> freak. Tell us what you think "Aquatic Ape"
>
> means and what you believe my position is.
You have no position at all, AFAICT.
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tell us why, you loon.
>
>
>
> Look, make this easy for us, you psychotic
>
> freak. Tell us what you think "Aquatic Ape"
>
> means and what you believe my position is.
>
>
>
> Paraphrase what I've said. You can even cheat
>
> by doing something clever like, oh, READING THE
>
> GODDAMN THREAD and seeing for yourself what I've
>
> said.
JTEM
Jul 3, 2013, 1:19:14 AM7/3/13
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> You have no position at all, AFAICT.
You have all the observational skills of a
> You have no position at all, AFAICT.
dead Mole Rat. It couples well with your
appallingly low I.Q. and mental disorders.
Congratulations.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Claudius Denk
Jul 3, 2013, 2:48:26 AM7/3/13
to
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 10:19:14 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > You have no position at all, AFAICT.
>
>
>
> You have all the observational skills of a
>
> dead Mole Rat. It couples well with your
>
> appallingly low I.Q. and mental disorders.
It hardly seems you are capable of having a point.
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > You have no position at all, AFAICT.
>
>
>
> You have all the observational skills of a
>
> dead Mole Rat. It couples well with your
>
> appallingly low I.Q. and mental disorders.
JTEM
Jul 4, 2013, 8:10:07 PM7/4/13
to
Claudius Denk wrote:
> It hardly seems you are capable of having a point.
So your best critique of Aquatic Ape is that you
> It hardly seems you are capable of having a point.
don't like me, and you think this passes for a
scholarly argument.
I'm quite certain that you're impressing yourself
here, which is what I find so entertaining...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Claudius Denk
Jul 4, 2013, 8:55:09 PM7/4/13
to
On Thursday, July 4, 2013 5:10:07 PM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > It hardly seems you are capable of having a point.
>
>
>
> So your best critique of Aquatic Ape is that you
>
> don't like me, and you think this passes for a
>
> scholarly argument.
Is it a secret?
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > It hardly seems you are capable of having a point.
>
>
>
> So your best critique of Aquatic Ape is that you
>
> don't like me, and you think this passes for a
>
> scholarly argument.
0 new messages