CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Birth-Homo-Marine-Chimpanzee-Becomes/dp/1780664451
Make of it, what you will.
Michael Odent on "Homo, the Marine Chimpanzee"
- Thread starter CEngelbrecht
- Start date
- Status
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Birth-Homo-Marine-Chimpanzee-Becomes/dp/1780664451
Make of it, what you will.
CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
I have never understood this big controversy in perceiving the human being as this old beach ape. Other than arrogant fraternities refusing to relinquish illusory monopoly on the truth of humanity.
CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
That their indoctrinated degrees leave them the only ones capable of adding new knowledge.
CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
Ever dreamt of flying?
I would put it as "EVIDENCE - ie - this is my idea and this is the evidence I put forward to claim this is knowledge"
So what evidence has been put forward to boost this theory into knowledge territory?
What was (is) Darwin's Dangerous Idea please?
Don't believe so
Small Darwin story
A small offshoot of Darwin's is the story about the Madagascan orchid
Darwin noted the storage of the nectar was so deep, 30cm, that it would appear to go against the possibility of it being able to reproduce
Darwin put forward the idea of a moth with a long proboscis as being the mechanism
No such moth was known at the time, 1862
1882 Darwin died
20 years later the Sphinx moth was found with a proboscis long enough to qualify
111 years after Darwin's death, 1993, photographic evidence proved the link between the moth and its ability to act as the reproductive force for the orchid
I doubt very much Darwin had any dangerous ideas but if you think otherwise I am happy to listen
CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
I didn't come up with it. But I do reserve the right to quote those brilliant individuals that did. Especially when they are being unjustly flogged for the impertinence of being right, when they're supposed to be wrong.
Did you know, that Homo erectus skulls have surfer's ear?
No, of course you don't. 'Cause they don't want to tell you. Just like they don't tell you, that the Homo brain has shrunk ~100cc over the last 50,000 years. Which perfectly matches the earliest evidence of terrestrial big game hunting. From at least ~2mya and up untill ~50kya, Homo would've been largely a fishing ape giving birth by the water's edge, growing a larger and larger mammalian brain fueled by key micronutrients (DHA and iodine) found almost exclusively in seafood. As soon as we demonstrably left the shores to hunt big game in Eurasia, the Homo brain started to shrink again. You do the math, sapiens.
All this you're not supposed to be told. Not because that suggestion has severe scientific problems, but because it doesn't.
It's a book by Dan Dennett, I highly recommend it. It's mainly about the sociological hysteria surrounding the legacy of Darwin and Wallace's theory of evolution. Of which this splash-splash idea leaves the hysteria coming from established academics. Not from psychotic religious fractions, but from highly educated people, who should've known better. All it takes is a snivelling peasant having a point, they themselves had overlooked. As much in 2018 as in 1632.
I'm sorry, that just keep pissing me off. 'Cause my schooling taught me the big fat lie, that we couldn't possibly repeat such an atrocity against truly brilliant people. 'Cause now we have the scientific method, they told us. But what good is the scientific method, when it's still freely ignored, whenever something is an inconvenient truth for the ones holding the monopoly?
I know, that's the strength of any scientific idea; it's predictive prowess. So we have Stephen Munro suggesting in the 1990s, that if the hominins had evolved for at least two million years in coastal tropical waters, then fossil specimens would show signs of life-long aquatic activity. For instance in the shape of surfer's ear. Then such exact evidence was found, as soon as people with actual access to the fossils could be bothered to look. After half a century of screaming that there is no fossil evidence to support this ridiculous splash-splash idea from that irritating Welsh peasant.
Last edited:
CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
Thanks for the details about the ear. While I find the theory (evolution over 2 million years in coastal tropical waters - creating swimmer's ear still present today)
I think swimmer's ear to be a very weak hook to hang the theory on. My personal view (that the swimmer's ear) would not be a sufficiently strong enough survival feature.
Point me towards current humans having redundant webbed hands, feet or some other strong survival aquatic feature
Swimmer's ear - curious, compelling for evidence "hominins had evolved for at least two million years in coastal tropical waters" - for me NO
CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
What, apart from being the most furless simian? That walks upright on its hind limbs, perfect for wading through shallow waters? With a large mammalian brain that needs nutrients abundant in saline proteine seafood and nowheres else? Which gives birth to obese young, which are capable of swimming before they can walk? And the hooded nose keeping sea water out of the skull cavities? And all the other aquatic scars of evolution, the very features, that spawned the idea in the first place?
Genetically, it's in there.
Swimmer's ear doesn't build without the simian individual being in water for hours at a time over an extended time, ie. years. That's why it's called surfer's ear, 'cause mainly surfers and swimmers grow them. They wouldn't have grown in Homo erectus, if they hadn't spend just as much time in the water. Ie. much more than anything we observe in the other apes today. So, they had to have been aquatic for that growth to even be observed in the fossils. Is there anything about that you don't understand? This is the smoking gun on human aquaticism. Apart from all the others, obviously, like, "Where the hell is our fur?"
This is what it's like trying to have a rational conversation with creationists.
"There is no evidence."
"Here is the evidence."
"There is no evidence."
"I just gave you the bloody evidence!"
"Nope, there is no evidence."
"Look into the god damned telescope, already!"
"There is no evidence. Burn the heretic."
What's the problem being that old beach ape? There are all these irrefutable observations that would suggest it, yet you keep on treating it as if it's akin to talking about Bigfoot.
Last edited:
Observations - irrefutable yes ✓
Suggest - yes ✓
Prove - no ✓
Other stuff mentioned have plausible explanations ✓
CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
No, they're not more plausible, not when not a single one of the many suggested terrestrial scenarios can be supported by convergent evolution. No mammalian species in either jungle or grasslands remotely evolve the selection of traits, that set Homo sapiens apart from all other simians, whereas aquatic ones do. The whole aquatic scenario only exists from employing convergent evolution. If you're rejecting the aquatic scenario, you have to reject the entire theory of evolution, 'cause it's founded on the exact same type of observation. Without convergent evolution, you don't have Darwin's finches. You cannot reject an observation like human skin being largely furless coupled with blubber-like skinfat for insulation in lieu of fur, without also rejecting Darwin's finches.
The conventional explanations for human origin are not more plausible, on the contrary, they are complete nonsense by comparison. The world doesn't become flat by keep repeating it like a mantra.
If you consider that to be the case ie conventional explanations vs aquatic ones may I suggest you construct a large chart
Have in the centre a diagram of the human body
Circle the area of focus. Have lines going out either side
In the vertical margins either side detail on one side aquatic explanations - other side - conventional explanations
Submit your project for evaluation to a suitable publication
PS I did say
Other stuff mentioned have plausible explanations ✓
I did not say - The conventional explanations for human origin are not more plausible (my highlight)
CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
Not impressed
What you have provided is a list of end results
What I require is
If you consider that to be the case ie conventional explanations vs aquatic ones may I suggest you construct a large chart
Have in the centre a diagram of the human body
Circle the area of focus. Have lines going out either side
In the vertical margins either side detail on one side aquatic explanations - other side -conventional explanations
With particular emphasis on explanations. How the focus area / structure evolved the way it did. Why it could NOT have happened the other way
What survival advantage did it provide?
CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
http://aquatic-human-ancestor.org/
Again, they have already done all that. And have been for fifty years. You just refuse to hear them out.
Have you ever tried talking to a creationist? They don't really want to hear you out either.
So what about mammals such as otters, beavers, pigs, or elephants?All that's already been done, mate. Years ago.
CEngelbrecht
Registered Senior Member
Otters and beavers have retained their fur because of two factors: They are smaller beings that largely inhabit temperate climates. The larger the mammal species adapting to water to whatever degree and the warmer its climate, the more fur it sheds; and vice versa, if smaller and colder, it keeps the fur. Hippos are large and tropical and therefore furless, while small temperate otters have the densest fur in the entire mammalian clade.
Elephants' semiaquatic ancestry has been pretty thoroughly mapped by paleontology by now. To the point, where BBC put one of their earliest ancestors in one of their pop science computer shows. Why do you think elephants are just as fond of bathing as we are?
And in addition, you got mapped semiaquatic ancestry of rhinos, tapirs, suids and shrews as well. No problem for paleontologists addressing past aquaticism for these mammalian taxa. As soon as someone suggests exactly the same for an oddly furless ape sporting some kind of insulating proto-blubber beneath its dermis, paleoanthropologists start screaming in panic. Simply because we can't study ourselves without stampeding straight into collective hysteria no matter what our intentions or degrees.
If you take the suid group called babirusas living in archipelago Indonesia, you get a beautiful illustration of the energy threshold for when aquatic mammals shed their fur or not. There are three main species of babirusas, where two are furless, while the third still has a thin layer of yellowish fur (the golden babirusa). And that's the smallest one. So it has kept its fur, while its larger cousins has shed it completely.
Golden babirusa, smallest.
Togian babirusa, largest.
Thank you for asking.
Last edited:
- Status