The idea about human evolution that stumps creationists

[CEngelbrecht]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98
http://aquatic-human-ancestor.org/

This is the idea, that answers all questions about human evolution left over from Darwin and Wallace, leaving creationist cultists with nothing. So sad, that by the will of the collective field of paleoanthropology, you're still not supposed to know about it. Because it was the wrong person that made the headway.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Is this about aquatic apes or something?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Weird how much panic can be triggered by people looking into a telescope.

 

[exchemist]

ZZZzzzzz.........

oh wait I'm supposzzzzzed.............

.......to be panickingzzz..........

 

[origin]

Weird how much panic can be triggered by people looking into a telescope.

What are you talking about? Why would there be 'much panic' from looking into a telescope???
Have you been drinking?

Edit:
That's right you go on about the aquatic ape thing. Don't you have an old thread still open on this.

Edit: .
I see that thread was closed like this one will be before long.

 

[Yazata]

The idea about human evolution that stumps creationists

This is the idea, that answers all questions about human evolution left over from Darwin and Wallace, leaving creationist cultists with nothing.

That looks like hyperbole.

"Stumps creationists" and "leaves creationists with nothing" how? It seems to me that creationists can and have used any highly-complex functionally-adapted biological system, or for that matter the supposed 'fine-tuning' of the universe's physical constants in their arguments. "Answers all questions about human evolution left over from Darwin and Wallace"? The evolution of language, social evolution and stuff like that?

So sad, that by the will of the collective field of paleoanthropology, you're still not supposed to know about it. Because it was the wrong person that made the headway.

So biologists' and physical anthropologists' slowness to embrace this very speculative hypothesis is all the result of a conspiracy motivated by "panic"? Why would the idea of aquatic apes induce panic? You obviously think that it's hugely important and feel very strongly about it. Why is that?

As for me, I'm just not convinced. I think that human beings show more adaptation for bipedal locomotion on land than for swimming. We aren't strong swimmers. We can't close our noses the way seals can and our ability to hold our breaths is very limited. We just don't compare well with dolphins.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

That's right you go on about the aquatic ape thing.

Yes, them beach apes refuse go away. What a world.

I see that thread was closed like this one will be before long.

I'm sure it will be. There is no debate.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

That looks like hyperbole.

"Stumps creationists" and "leaves creationists with nothing" how? It seems to me that creationists can and have used any highly-complex functionally-adapted biological system, or for that matter the supposed 'fine-tuning' of the universe's physical constants in their arguments. "Answers all questions about human evolution left over from Darwin and Wallace"? The evolution of language, social evolution and stuff like that?

To put it mildly, yes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8583974

So biologists' and physical anthropologists' slowness to embrace this very speculative hypothesis is all the result of a conspiracy motivated by "panic"?

It is no more speculative than the theory of evolution. It is founded in the theory of evolution, using its tools.

Why are creationists winning? 'Cause in science might makes right, and creationists are out in force. Our only weapon against their hysteria dragging the West back to the dark age was the scientific method. And the voices of free science also freely ignore their own method, whenever they feel like it.

Why would the idea of aquatic apes induce panic? You obviously think that it's hugely important and feel very strongly about it. Why is that?

Oh, I'm sorry, I was taught that science was about gathering knowledge. I guess the nature of human origin doesn't really matter, we already know everything.

Or maybe I'm just disgusted about being taught about the mistreatment of Galileo in 1632 by religious dogma, while seeing the exact same thing today against Morgan, an equally provocative armchair scientist, this time committed by voices of free science, who should bloody well know better.

As for me, I'm just not convinced. I think that human beings show more adaptation for bipedal locomotion on land than for swimming. We aren't strong swimmers. We can't close our noses the way seals can and our ability to hold our breaths is very limited.

Uhuh.

We just don't compare well with dolphins.

We're not compared with dolphins, are we? They have had 55 million years of aquatic evolution, we have had about a tenth of that. But we manage the same active dive times as hippos (5 minutes) and the same max depths as sea otters (100 meters).

There's nothing unreasonable about the idea of Homo sapiens descending from old beach apes. And that's its biggest crime. It's supposed to be nuts. Just look at how you compare us with seals and dolphins, which isn't being suggested. Anything can be ridiculed and easily rejected, if you're allowed to freely distort what it's talking about. That's exactly what creationists do to Darwin all the time.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

"My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch."
- Hardy, Alister (17 March 1960). "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?". New Scientist. 7 (174): 642–45.

"Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan."
- Kuliukas, Algis V.; Morgan, Elaine (2011). "Aquatic Scenarios in the Thinking on Human Evolution: What are they and How do they Compare?": 106–119. Retrieved 4 February 2017.

Sixty years later, you all still talk about them dolphin apes. That's still always the first reply: "You believe we're as aquatic as dolphins, twat!" You still reject something, that has never been suggested. Why do you do that? It's almost as if you can't reject what's actually on the table, but by the virtue of fraternity pressure, you're still expected to, so you don't even have to read the bleedin' sources.

And you're still expecting me to not say anything to this. Just to go away. How in the hell is that science?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

*** Crickets ***

*** Crickets ***

*** Crickets ***



I didn't think so.

 

[Write4U]

Sixty years later, you all still talk about them dolphin apes. That's still always the first reply: "You believe we're as aquatic as dolphins, twat!" You still reject something, that has never been suggested. Why do you do that? It's almost as if you can't reject what's actually on the table, but by the virtue of fraternity pressure, you're still expected to, so you don't even have to read the bleedin' sources.

And you're still expecting me to not say anything to this. Just to go away. How in the hell is that science?

Not really dolphin people, but definitely fishermen.
At the southern tip of Africa there are several caves by the shore with remains of a very early human occupation who lived on shellfish, because of the evidence of large deposits of discarded shells and more importantly, artifacts of very fine tools, designed to pry open shellfish and spear fishing along the coast.

Hominids began to diverge from chimpanzees about seven million years ago. In the Cradle, the oldest-known species is Australopithecus africanus. The four-foot-tall hominid with long arms for tree climbing lived in the region 3.3 million to 2.1 million years ago, when the area was partly forested. As the climate became drier, the forests gave way to more open grasslands, and new hominids evolved.

Paranthropus robustus— famous for its massive jaw and giant molars, which allowed the species to chew tough plants—inhabited the area 1.8 million to 1.2 million years ago. It lived alongside the taller, more modern-looking Homo erectus, which also came onto the scene about 1.8 million years ago before disappearing from Africa 500,000 years ago.

Farther afield from the Cradle, spread out along South Africa’s southern coast, cave sites such as Blombos Cave, Pinnacle Point and the Klasies River Caves record key evidence of early complex behavior in our own species. Homo sapiens began using red pigments, making blades and eating seafood as early as 164,000 years ago.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts...the-cradle-of-humankind-south-africa-5940184/

Pinnacle Point a small promontory immediately south of Mossel Bay, a town on the southern coast of South Africa. Excavations since the year 2000 of a series of caves at Pinnacle Point have revealed occupation by Middle Stone Age people between 170,000 and 40,000 years ago.

The focus of excavations has been at Cave 13B (PP13B), where the earliest[vague] evidence for the systematic exploitation of marine resources (shellfish) and symbolic behaviour has been documented,[1] and at Pinnacle Point Cave 5–6 (PP5–6), where the oldest[vague] evidence for the heat treatment of rock to make stone tools has been documented. The only human remains have been recovered from younger deposits at PP13B which are c. 100,000 years old

After debating for decades, paleoanthropologists now agree there is enough genetic and fossil evidence to suggest that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa c. 200,000 – c. 160,000 years ago. At that time, the world was in an ice age, and Africa was dry and arid. As archaeological sites dating to that time period are rare in Africa, palaeontologist Curtis Marean analysed geologic formations, sea currents, and climate data to pinpoint likely archaeological sites; one such was Pinnacle Point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Point

Blombos Cave

Klasies River Mouth Cave entrance
Google

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

*** Crickets ***

*** Crickets ***

*** Crickets ***



I didn't think so.

Not really.

I think everyone is just sick of your trolling.

Because this dance is always the same.

You start these threads, then you start trolling your own thread because heaven forbid people question anything about this (for example, you post the same kind of response and images in each of these threads. It follows the exact same pattern. You then start acting as though you have won. And then you will start posting insults. That has been the pattern. Each time.

It is boring and predictable. You have no intention of discussing this with anyone.