FAQ
It is currently Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:11 am


Author Message
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 5:27 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
Pong wrote:
Maybe wise to step back and ask "What is this 'utter crap' AHH after all?"

I suggest it's a strawman. For example:
marnixR wrote:
a theory that never amounted to the sum of its parts

...which means at least some parts aren't utter crap. SO we shouldn't dismiss the whole mixed bag dubbed AAH as "roundly and thoroughly debunked". A constructive debate is possible and necessary: we need to consolidate the good from the bad, and coin a new name for our (smaller) set of reasonable theories.


It never was unreasonable. Look, this is what started it all:

Quote:
"My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock [hominoids] 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."
- Sir Alister Hardy (1960). "Was man more aquatic in the past". New Scientist. 7: 642–645.


Anything crazy in this? 19-fucking-60, over half a century ago. And this is very much still the core of the aquatic ideas. No dolphin apes. No mermaids! Just a fucking beach ape. But you terrified little monkeys are very quick to distort and rewrite an idea you don't want to deal with for whatever fucked up human psychological reason. Doesn't matter to you stupid cocksuckers what they actually write, what they actually argue. You ain't gonna look into Galileo's telescope either. Peak of evolution, my ass. You dumb apes can't study yourselves.

Image

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:01 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 397

Offline
Swearing and belittling everyone that is in the thread is helping you make your point how?

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4705
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
I used to have quite a bit of time for the AAH - however, because of the lack of progression as well as verification since it was first conceived it sits too close for comfort with some of the aspects of pseudoscience, in that it retreats into territory that makes it ever harder to verify

in the words of RationalWiki :

"One of the largest problem with the hypothesis is that since the 1960s rather than improving and gathering evidence, the hypothesis has become more nebulous and vague. Rather than some specific aquatic phase modern aquatic ape hypothesis supporters cite anything from fresh water millions of years ago, salt water habitation more recently, several different aquatic phases or a general proximity to water to a greater degree than other apes."

good scientific theories lend themselves to validation - if you retreat from the principle of falsifiability, then you retreat away from proper science

so, in order that we can proceed on a single topic, which is the aquatic ape theory you want to defend, and when is it supposed to have left its mark on the human body ? also does it explain ALL aspects of human physiology better than alternative explanations, or only specificly selected traits ?

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:32 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
marnixR wrote:
I used to have quite a bit of time for the AAH - however, because of the lack of progression as well as verification since it was first conceived it sits too close for comfort with some of the aspects of pseudoscience, in that it retreats into territory that makes it ever harder to verify

in the words of RationalWiki :

"One of the largest problem with the hypothesis is that since the 1960s rather than improving and gathering evidence, the hypothesis has become more nebulous and vague.


That's still wishful thinking. "More nebulous and vague" means that you somehow expect the idea to be psychotic nonsense about us descending from recent sea apes, that a few million years ago lived fully aquatic in the seas on par with whales and dolphins. Somehow, that was for decades the one thing people like you took away from it. Unfortunately, it's not in there. It never was in there. I've gone back and forth through the key sources going back half a century. Ever since that Hardy quote above and all the writings by Elaine Morgan, no one, no one has taken these apes out to sea. So it hasn't become more nebulous and vague, 'cause it never was that distinct and plain. Just like Darwin never said we were chimps, but that was also the only thing ignorant people took away from it.

Now, can we finally talk about what was actually suggested the whole fucking time???

marnixR wrote:
Rather than some specific aquatic phase modern aquatic ape hypothesis supporters cite anything from fresh water millions of years ago, salt water habitation more recently, several different aquatic phases or a general proximity to water to a greater degree than other apes."


Reality, what a concept, huh?

Again, the timeline has no consensus amongst aquatic proponents, just like there's not even a consensus as to when we shed our fur. Of this wet notion, you're demanding certainty you would never subject any of the dry scenarios to. Certainty that is extremely hard to come by, if at all possible. Soft tissues key to these questions almost never fossilize, so we can't acquire certainty. We have to look beyond fossils alone, 'cause they can deliver many, but not all answers. The wet notion is not based on fossils, but on the concept of convergent evolution, on parallels between traits setting humans apart amongst our genetic branch the apes, and similar traits in other aquatic, semiaquatic and recent semiaquatic mammals. What the fossils can tell us is that the Homo brain started to grow heavily circa two million years ago with Homo erectus, and considering that the extant Homo sapiens brain, our brain, need a series of very specific micronutrients for growth and upkeep that includes DHA, EPA and especially iodine, which are de facto impossible to find in large ammounts in purely terrestrial foodchains, but are abundant, abundant in saline aquatic ones, it's impossible to fathom, that erectus could have ever had such a brain spurt if not feeding continously on seafood for deca millenia. And them oysters, one of the few animal foods we still eat raw, full of nutrients that demonstrably help a mammal species to grow a large brain, they're out there in the shallow seas, easy pickings for an ape dexterously able to crack them open with a stone.

Image
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16828044

Anything crazy in that? Will you accept the words of experts from the field of bio chemistry, who aren't terrified of debating beyond fossils?

That's just one date, the date for human brain growth. That at least can be seen on fossils (provided we haven't miscategorized hominid fossils as hominin). Hominin loss of fur, can't be seen on fossils. Hominin skinfat, can't be seen on fossils. It's a whole seperate issue with the other dates, and many of those dates are de facto impossible to pinpoint, wet or dry. Even a thing like bipedalism is in the wind, 'cause neither has any of the dry scenarios a consensus right now as to when hominins became bipedal, it keeps getting pushed back. One says five million years ago, another 22 million years ago! And yes, some see everything from gorillas to baboons wade bipedally through shallow water and detect an aquatic connection between human habitual bipedalism and shallow water. What Algis Kuliukas suggested several years back is that hominin aquaticism started in fresh water and continued in sea water. Whales took a similar route starting 55 million years ago, we just haven't made it biologically off the beach (we have culturally with boating, but that's different).

Image
Image

marnixR wrote:
good scientific theories lend themselves to validation - if you retreat from the principle of falsifiability, then you retreat away from proper science


They're out there, for fuck's sake! All the testable predictions are out there for people to test, they're just too terrified to do it! 'Cause heaven forbid they might confirm this splash-splash nonsense that is their inconvenient truth! Then their career'd be over! If they smack down on Attenborough for stating the obvious, what the fuck do you think they'd do with traitors in their midst?

Test readiness for ape and monkey species to wade vertically bipedally through shallow water. Test human secretion of salt versus that of other apes. Stephen Munro made the prediction in the nineties that surfer's ear should be present in Homo erectus fossils, and guess what? They fucking were! Those erectus specimens could only have evolved ear exostoses from a lifetime of being in water for hours a day, like we see it in human swimmers and surfers today.

Image
http://aquatic-human-ancestor.org/anato ... tosis.html

But go right ahead! Ignore that too! You ignore everything else, 'cause you'll be damned if you'll EVER give any concession to that irritating amateur Morgan! No matter what new knowledge it will give us about ourselves. What the fuck's knowledge have to do with it???

marnixR wrote:
so, in order that we can proceed on a single topic, which is the aquatic ape theory you want to defend, and when is it supposed to have left its mark on the human body ? also does it explain ALL aspects of human physiology better than alternative explanations, or only specificly selected traits ?


Short answer to that ... yes. Water would have had to have played a key role in the evolutionary shaping of our body, otherwise the bloody creationists would have a better case than contemporary paleoanthropology.

Image
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ations.png

This idea won't go away. 'Cause it's probably true. Unfortunately, that seems to have nothing to do with it. We haven't moved a single step since fucking Copernicus.

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:19 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
paleoichneum wrote:
Swearing and belittling everyone that is in the thread is helping you make your point how?


As if it makes a fucking difference. "Oh, I would give this splash-splash stuff a chance, if this guy would only stick to the Queen's English!"

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:37 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4705
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
you see, that's the problem with the AAH : there's nowhere near consensus amongst its adherents, in fact as time has gone on, and certain parts of the initial hypothesis have been refuted, there's been a multitude of alternative of explanations, none of which feel like they have more meat on them than the original

so in the end it's a bit like debating creationists : you feel like fighting shadows because every time you knock down one argument another, equally fascetious one, pops up - in the end you feel you don't have the time or inclination to maintain the debate

that's why I'm asking you which version of the AAH you're proposing to defend, otherwise we'll see moving goal posts everywhere, and I really don't feel that I want a conversation like that

as for eating shellfish: yes, there's nothing controversial about that, and yes, it might explain one part of the growth in brain size - but as far as being aquatic ? it's a bit like AAH light, isn't it ? you only have to wet your feet a bit, something that many primates do, without anyone calling them aquatic

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:17 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 189
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
Ugg, that same stupid AAP poster full of half-truths, speculations and completely untruths or deliberately misleading factoids such as the diving instant shared by all mammals.

And still no coherent timeline or enough detail to be supported by observational evidence of past primates--just a mishmash. The whole thing makes me want to join my brothers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRY7pUj8FI0

Who's with me !


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:33 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
marnixR wrote:
you see, that's the problem with the AAH : there's nowhere near consensus amongst its adherents, in fact as time has gone on, and certain parts of the initial hypothesis have been refuted, there's been a multitude of alternative of explanations, none of which feel like they have more meat on them than the original


Urban VIII: You say the heavenly bodies move in perfect circles, Galileo. But they tell me, that the observed movements of the wandering stars don't add up to a perfect circle around the Sun. See, the whole thing is wrong, we can go back to sleep.
Kepler: No, hang on. They move in ellipses. See? Now all the movements match, Your Worship.
Urban VIII: Heretic!

Quote:
"When the great innovation appears, it will almost certainly be in a muddled, incomplete and confusing form. To the discoverer, it will only be half understood; to every one else, it will be a mystery. For any speculation which does not at first glance look crazy, there is no hope."
- Freeman Dyson


marnixR wrote:
so in the end it's a bit like debating creationists : you feel like fighting shadows because every time you knock down one argument another, equally fascetious one, pops up - in the end you feel you don't have the time or inclination to maintain the debate


Over the years, Elaine Morgan adapted her theories when precented with valid criticism (when few and far between, most of it was just rabies barking). Isn't that what good science is supposed to do? Isn't that what all the giants have done???

Quote:
"I would not advise anybody to lay their careers on the line over this issue. If it is sound, it will prevail anyway. And if it is not sound, it doesn't deserve to."
- Elaine Morgan, 1997


Maybe that's what's happening now, huh? 'Cause the thing was never unreasonable at all. And it's probably true.

marnixR wrote:
that's why I'm asking you which version of the AAH you're proposing to defend, otherwise we'll see moving goal posts everywhere, and I really don't feel that I want a conversation like that


I don't have a set version of it, like everyone else I don't have enough data to conclude from. And it's the ones capable of acquiring that data, the ones with access to the proper items and tools that still won't dare touching it. They're not exactly gonna let me into a primatology department, will they?

But there's a good summary here, though:
http://aquatic-human-ancestor.org/curre ... ories.html

I'm currently trying to read about whether aquaticism already began to play a role for even the early Dryopithecus-type apes living around the dwindling Tethys Sea and the Mediterrenean 12-9mya (after evolving from Proconsul in Africa 25mya), when these regions were filled with tropical jungles, prior to these apes migrating back into Africa 9-7mya (and Pongo migrating into SE Asia). Ergo that aquaticism has also impacted the other apes, though they abandoned the wet much earlier to become the dry knuckle walkers of today. But much of that is very uncertain. Much more certain is that by the time of Homo erectus 2mya, they had to have been living a semiaquatic life, moving from fresh water to salt water as Kuliukas has suggested, otherwise erectus couldn't have grown that large brain we're so bloody proud of, and they certainly wouldn't have gotten surfer's ear as Munro has pointed out. Homo sapiens wouldn't have left the wet untill 50kya with the first signs of extensive big game hunting in Eurasia. Which is also the date for when our brain size capped. We have been losing our brain for 50,000 years, 'cause that's as late we stopped being largely seafood fed cultures and became more and more terrestrially fed cultures, peaking with agriculture 10kya.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2X14000900
So a long gradual on-and-off process of aquaticism for both hominoids and hominins. That's where I'm personally leaning at the moment. But like everything else, it's based on preciously few data.

Image

marnixR wrote:
as for eating shellfish: yes, there's nothing controversial about that, and yes, it might explain one part of the growth in brain size - but as far as being aquatic ? it's a bit like AAH light, isn't it ? you only have to wet your feet a bit, something that many primates do, without anyone calling them aquatic


See? You're still doing it. What "AAH light"? There never was that "AAH full rich". Stop inventing it, already! There never was any "dolphin ape" out there! This is like talking to school children! When the aquatic ape mongers change the wording to "waterside", that's what they've been fucking talking about all along! Read that Alister Hardy quote up there, that's what it always was, that's what it still is! 'Cause you're right, it is fucking nuts to think we were ever swimming around in the open oceans like dolphins 24-7-365, not since we were fish 390mya, but that has never been part of this argumentation!!!
"Aquatic ape" was not even coined as a term by either Hardy or Morgan, it was coined by Desmond Morris as a bloody afterthought in "The Naked Ape" in 1967, which was then used by Morgan. Aparently those two tiny words leaves all you ignorants seeing mermaids everywhere, and then you don't think you have to read the sources. I'm not even sure if "semiaquatic" existed as a term in zoology in 1967, which would be why Morris didn't use it then.
Yes, we're not fully aquatic apes on par with whales and dolphins, and with all likelihood, we never were in recent million years. If we swim into the open ocean today, we die. But so would a hippo, and that critter is still fucking aquatic!

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:39 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Ugg, that same stupid AAP poster full of half-truths, speculations and completely untruths or deliberately misleading factoids such as the diving instant shared by all mammals.

And still no coherent timeline or enough detail to be supported by observational evidence of past primates--just a mishmash.


Okay, then you tell me: When did we lose our fur on the Savannah?

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:52 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 397

Offline
CEngelbrecht wrote:
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Ugg, that same stupid AAP poster full of half-truths, speculations and completely untruths or deliberately misleading factoids such as the diving instant shared by all mammals.

And still no coherent timeline or enough detail to be supported by observational evidence of past primates--just a mishmash.


Okay, then you tell me: When did we lose our fur on the Savannah?


Irrelevent to the topic, there is no data that shows fur loos happening at EITHER the savanna or riverside. but the fossils are not found by the ocean.

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:56 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
paleoichneum wrote:
CEngelbrecht wrote:
Okay, then you tell me: When did we lose our fur on the Savannah?


Irrelevent to the topic, there is no data that shows fur loos happening at EITHER the savanna or riverside. but the fossils are not found by the ocean.


Uhuh. 'Cause the sea levels don't change throughout geological time.




(1995...)

They all died by the water's edge. Otherwise the critters don't fossilize.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/los ... sil-record

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:02 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 397

Offline
CEngelbrecht wrote:
paleoichneum wrote:
CEngelbrecht wrote:
Okay, then you tell me: When did we lose our fur on the Savannah?


Irrelevent to the topic, there is no data that shows fur loos happening at EITHER the savanna or riverside. but the fossils are not found by the ocean.


Uhuh. 'Cause the sea levels don't change throughout geological time.

(1995...)

The sea level did not change to the degree that would have been needed to bring the ocean to the fossil sites where proto-homonids are found in central and southern Africa in the Miocene and Pliocene. Geology and lithology shows those sites are not ocean deposits

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:27 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
paleoichneum wrote:
CEngelbrecht wrote:
Uhuh. 'Cause the sea levels don't change throughout geological time.

(1995...)

The sea level did not change to the degree that would have been needed to bring the ocean to the fossil sites where proto-homonids are found in central and southern Africa in the Miocene and Pliocene. Geology and lithology shows those sites are not ocean deposits


Which is why the Pleistocene (we're talking Pleistocene with erectus) specimens with the largest brains aren't found in Africa, but in the Caucasus and Indonesia. Life migrates along with the best feeding grounds, get with it.

Image
(2mya, source, Univ. of Arizona)
Image
Image

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4705
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
CEngelbrecht wrote:
Okay, then you tell me: When did we lose our fur on the Savannah?


the loss of body hair is one of the central pieces of evidence brought forward to validate the AAH, so yes, for the AAH the timing if this hair loss matters since it places the aquatic phase in time - especially since we don't have fossil evidence for the AAH
hair loss is not a central feature of the savannah alternative, hence the timing is immaterial - besides we DO have fossils to place early hominids in a savannah environment

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:32 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 397

Offline
CEngelbrecht wrote:
paleoichneum wrote:
CEngelbrecht wrote:
Uhuh. 'Cause the sea levels don't change throughout geological time.

(1995...)

The sea level did not change to the degree that would have been needed to bring the ocean to the fossil sites where proto-homonids are found in central and southern Africa in the Miocene and Pliocene. Geology and lithology shows those sites are not ocean deposits


Which is why the Pleistocene (we're talking Pleistocene with erectus) specimens with the largest brains aren't found in Africa, but in the Caucasus and Indonesia. Life migrates along with the best feeding grounds, get with it.


Correlation is not causation though, as you have been told. And vegetation/fruits ALSO provide the levels of nutrients that can support brain size increases, as you have been told multiple times over multiple forums.

AA"H" does not have any coherent or cohesive theme that makes it viable.

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:44 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
paleoichneum wrote:
And vegetation/fruits ALSO provide the levels of nutrients that can support brain size increases, as you have been told multiple times over multiple forums.


Are you channeling Donald Trump right now?

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA): Not available in terrestrial vegetables or fruits.
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA: Not available in terrestrial vegetables or fruits.
Iodine: Definitely not available in terrestrial vegetables or fruits!

Darling, listen to me: These nutrients just aren't there. We have evolved to synthesize some of it from other lipids, but only the last few deca millenia. And we have been losing that big brain of ours the last 50,000 years as a consequence.

Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096495902000027
Brain-specific lipids from marine, lacustrine, or terrestrial food resources: potential impact on early African Homo sapiens
C.Leigh Broadhurst, Yiqun Wang, Michael A. Crawford, Stephen C. Cunnane, John E. Parkington, Walter F. Schmidt
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Volume 131, Issue 4, April 2002, Pages 653–673

"Homo sapiens is unlikely to have evolved a large, complex, metabolically expensive brain in an environment which did not provide abundant dietary LC-PUFA. Conversion of 18-carbon PUFA from vegetation to AA and DHA is considered quantitatively insufficient due to a combination of high rates of PUFA oxidation for energy, inefficient and rate limited enzymatic conversion and substrate recycling. The littoral marine and lacustrine food chains provide consistently greater amounts of pre-formed LC-PUFA than the terrestrial food chain. Dietary levels of DHA are 2.5–100 fold higher for equivalent weights of marine fish or shellfish vs. lean or fat terrestrial meats. Mammalian brain tissue and bird egg yolks, especially from marine birds, are the richest terrestrial sources of LC-PUFA. However, land animal adipose fats have been linked to vascular disease and mental ill-health, whereas marine lipids have been demonstrated to be protective. At South African Capesites, large shell middens and fish remains are associated with evidence for some of the earliest modern humans. Cape sites dating from 100 to 18 kya cluster within 200 km of the present coast. Evidence of early H. sapiens is also found around the Rift Valley lakes and up the Nile Corridor into the Middle East; in some cases there is an association with the use of littoral resources. Exploitation of river, estuarine, stranded and spawning fish, shellfish and sea bird nestlings and eggs by Homo could have provided essential dietary LC-PUFA for men, women, and children without requiring organized hunting/fishing, or sophisticated social behavior. It is however, predictable from the present evidence that exploitation of this food resource would have provided the advantage in multi-generational brain development which would have made possible the advent of H. sapiens. Restriction to land based foods as postulated by the savannah and other hypotheses would have led to degeneration of the brain and vascular system as happened without exception in all other land based apes and mammals as they evolved larger bodies."


What the fuck's it gonna take???

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:54 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 397

Offline
CEngelbrecht wrote:
paleoichneum wrote:
And vegetation/fruits ALSO provide the levels of nutrients that can support brain size increases, as you have been told multiple times over multiple forums.


Are you channeling Donald Trump right now?

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA): Not available in terrestrial vegetables or fruits.
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA: Not available in terrestrial vegetables or fruits.
Iodine: Definitely not available in terrestrial vegetables or fruits!

Darling, listen to me: These nutrients just aren't there. We have evolved to synthesize some of it from other lipids, but only the last few deca millenia. And we have been losing that big brain of ours the last 50,000 years as a consequence.

Quote:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096495902000027
Brain-specific lipids from marine, lacustrine, or terrestrial food resources: potential impact on early African Homo sapiens
C.Leigh Broadhurst, Yiqun Wang, Michael A. Crawford, Stephen C. Cunnane, John E. Parkington, Walter F. Schmidt
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Volume 131, Issue 4, April 2002, Pages 653–673

"Homo sapiens is unlikely to have evolved a large, complex, metabolically expensive brain in an environment which did not provide abundant dietary LC-PUFA. Conversion of 18-carbon PUFA from vegetation to AA and DHA is considered quantitatively insufficient due to a combination of high rates of PUFA oxidation for energy, inefficient and rate limited enzymatic conversion and substrate recycling. The littoral marine and lacustrine food chains provide consistently greater amounts of pre-formed LC-PUFA than the terrestrial food chain. Dietary levels of DHA are 2.5–100 fold higher for equivalent weights of marine fish or shellfish vs. lean or fat terrestrial meats. Mammalian brain tissue and bird egg yolks, especially from marine birds, are the richest terrestrial sources of LC-PUFA. However, land animal adipose fats have been linked to vascular disease and mental ill-health, whereas marine lipids have been demonstrated to be protective. At South African Capesites, large shell middens and fish remains are associated with evidence for some of the earliest modern humans. Cape sites dating from 100 to 18 kya cluster within 200 km of the present coast. Evidence of early H. sapiens is also found around the Rift Valley lakes and up the Nile Corridor into the Middle East; in some cases there is an association with the use of littoral resources. Exploitation of river, estuarine, stranded and spawning fish, shellfish and sea bird nestlings and eggs by Homo could have provided essential dietary LC-PUFA for men, women, and children without requiring organized hunting/fishing, or sophisticated social behavior. It is however, predictable from the present evidence that exploitation of this food resource would have provided the advantage in multi-generational brain development which would have made possible the advent of H. sapiens. Restriction to land based foods as postulated by the savannah and other hypotheses would have led to degeneration of the brain and vascular system as happened without exception in all other land based apes and mammals as they evolved larger bodies."


What the fuck's it gonna take???


Hmmm, and now we are back on the Savannah, though YOU just said we needed to be in the Caucusses and Indonesia.

What is your source for the assertion that long chain fatty acids are NOT present in high enough levels in the vegetation of protohomonids?

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:59 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
marnixR wrote:
the loss of body hair is one of the central pieces of evidence brought forward to validate the AAH, so yes, for the AAH the timing if this hair loss matters since it places the aquatic phase in time - especially since we don't have fossil evidence for the AAH


Apart from fucking surfer's ear on erectus specimens. You really are just ignoring it.

Quote:
"It is remarkably frequent in the frontal squama of H. erectus and Neanderthal skulls (Sangiran-2, Shanidar-5, and especially Gibraltar-1) but is absent from the Trinil specimen [10]. - Auditory exostoses are local hyperostoses or bony outgrowths in the ear canals of human divers and surfers after years of chronic maceration and irritation by cold water and wind in marine or freshwater milieus [11,12] . They are often found, usually bilaterally, in older H. heidelbergensis-and H. erectuslike and especially Neanderthal skulls [13, 14]."
http://aquatic-human-ancestor.org/files ... o_Heav.pdf


marnixR wrote:
hair loss is not a central feature of the savannah alternative, hence the timing is immaterial


Seriously??? What the fuck kinda science is that? "We don't need to answer that."

marnixR wrote:
besides we DO have fossils to place early hominids in a savannah environment


Nope. We don't. The African Savannah is only one million years old and the erectus brain spurt is a million years older than that. The African Savannah cannot have been the selective origin of our peculiar features amongst the apes.

Quote:
"Just 10 years ago, to a large London audience, with a histrionic gesture, I said, 'The Savannah Hypothesis is no more! Open that window and throw it out!' At Sterkfontein and other South African sites and East African ones, these early hominids were all accompanied by woodland and forest species of plants and animals. Of course, if savannah is eliminated as a primary cause for selective advantage of going on two legs, then we are back to square one."
- Phillip Tobias, 2005
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/sca ... tion.shtml

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Last edited by CEngelbrecht on Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:05 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
paleoichneum wrote:
Hmmm, and now we are back on the Savannah, though YOU just said we needed to be in the Caucusses and Indonesia.


That's where the erectus fossils with the largest brains are.

paleoichneum wrote:
What is your source for the assertion that long chain fatty acids are NOT present in high enough levels in the vegetation of protohomonids?


See how you're distorting what I say? I'm not saying that long chain fatty acids aren't present in terrestrial vegetation, am I? I'm saying the few long chain fatty acids that are essential for evolving a large hominin brain aren't present in terrestrial vegetation. And my source for that is the field of biochemistry, sweetie.

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:11 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 189
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
Still can't decide where it happened, or when.

And still going with what seem to be deliberately misleading statements such as:



"Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA): Not available in terrestrial vegetables or fruits." Which is true, except ignored that it's also found in meats, eggs and can be made from Linolenic acid is available in many of the most common vegetables (e.g. Morogo,) still eaten by human African populations that have survived for thousands of years without an aquatic diet of any kind. But damn the facts.....right?


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:01 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Still can't decide where it happened, or when.


The growth of the hominin brain happened in Africa, Asia and Europe starting two million years ago. You know anyone that can pinpoint it more precise than that?

Lynx_Fox wrote:
"Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA): Not available in terrestrial vegetables or fruits." Which is true, except ignored that it's also found in meats, eggs and can be made from Linolenic acid is available in many of the most common vegetables (e.g. Morogo,) still eaten by human African populations that have survived for thousands of years without an aquatic diet of any kind. But damn the facts.....right?


You do know why DHA's in meats and eggs, right? 'Cause we add it industrially to the feed of our livestock. Not because the cows and hens need it, but because we need it. That's a 20th century thing, not exactly an option available to Homo erectus two million years ago.

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:34 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 189
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
CEngelbrecht wrote:
You do know why DHA's in meats and eggs, right? 'Cause we add it industrially to the feed of our livestock. Not because the cows and hens need it, but because we need it. That's a 20th century thing, not exactly an option available to Homo erectus two million years ago.


You've actually got that exactly wrong. Modern industrial chickens, for example, are lower than free range chicken in DHA because much more of their diet is composed of corn. Free range ones eat much more grasses and have much higher DHA in their meat and eggs. But you don't have to take my word for it, you can read several good summary studies that show the same thing as well as confirming other studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846864/

You also completely missed the point, that if modern humans live all over without sea food diets or even aquatic ones (hell the Abrahamic religions almost forbid it), then it stands to reason that those same diets weren't a requirement for modern evolution.

--

Also your snarky personal attacks and swearing make you appear as not interested in actually arguing your position. It frustrating you continue to trot out the same old and refuted arguments rather than refine your views... but that's often my impression of AAH and makes it look more like pseudoscience than serious science-- like a dung beetle it just gets rolled around a lot collecting more dung dirt, rather than being honed into predictive outcomes that can be compared to observations.


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:23 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
if modern humans live all over without sea food diets or even aquatic ones (hell the Abrahamic religions almost forbid it), then it stands to reason that those same diets weren't a requirement for modern evolution.


You didn't read the stuff above, did ya? The sapiens brain has been on the retreat for 50,000 years, 'cause by then we started to leave the shorelines and the diet that gave us that bloody brain. Let's take it again:

Quote:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X14000900
Doing with less: hominin brain atrophy
Robert G Bednarik 2014
doi 10.1016/j.jchb.2014.06.001
HOMO Journal of Comparative Human Biology
online 19.9.14

In contrast to hominin encephalization, the final Pleistocene and Holocene reduction in cranial volume
[Say what ...?] has attracted very little attention and remains unexplained. Here it is examined in the light of current neuroscientific and archaeological understanding, and it is shown that the most parsimonious explanation is via the domestication hypothesis of recent humans. Accordingly, rapid atrophy of the brain is partly explained by the culturally-based process of sexual selection, first detectable in late robust Homo sapiens perhaps 40,000 years ago. Furthermore it is suggested that this deleterious process of neotenization and brain atrophy was compensated for by the concurrent development of exograms, i.e. means of storing memory outside the brain. Consequently most of human memory and cultural information is now stored external to the brain, which has altered that organ significantly and facilitated a cultural complexity that would be impossible to maintain by biological memory alone. The escalating use of exograms, neotenization and reduction in cranial volume all appear to co-occur with numerous other changes to the human genome.


And it's not just 50,000 years ago, this is visible right here, right now.

Quote:
"In Corella [in the Philippines] the school children, 60 percent of them, are Iodine deficient. I saw exactly the same in Indonesia when I was there for the World Health Organization. 60 percent of the school children, the same number, had palpable goiter. When we got to the fishing villages, not one. So this movement inland, which has happened as a consequence of population expansion, has brought about some serious degenerative disorders."
- Michael Crawford, 2005
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/sca ... tion.shtml


All 'cause we stopped eating oysters and started hunting mammoths. But go ahead, ignore that too. Now that it's so fucking inconvenient to admit, you may have been wrong all along.

(And since when has the organized faiths been the yardstick for human intelligence?)

Lynx_Fox wrote:
Also your snarky personal attacks and swearing make you appear as not interested in actually arguing your position. It frustrating you continue to trot out the same old and refuted arguments rather than refine your views... but that's often my impression of AAH and makes it look more like pseudoscience than serious science-- like a dung beetle it just gets rolled around a lot collecting more dung dirt, rather than being honed into predictive outcomes that can be compared to observations.


Ever tried to be right, when everyone else is desperate for you to be wrong? Do you have any idea just how piss ass frustrating that is? Being civil doesn't make a fucking difference with you twits. You're just pissed off, that you can't win the argument. You don't really give a fuck about science and shit, this is all gorilla dominance behavior. But you're out in force, so... Thrasymochus wins. Which of course means that the creationists are bound to win too, 'cause they're out in even bigger force. And if you boneheads ignore the scientific method just 'cause you fucking feel like it, we lose our one and only weapon against the creationists wanting to pull us back to the dark ages 'cause of gorilla bullshit. Congratulations, you arrogant fucks.

Quote:
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature."
- Michael Faraday, 1849

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:39 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
Nullius in verba. Don't take my word for it, I'm still just some bozo on the Internet, go see it for yourself. The testable predictions are already out there, whether you acknowledge their existence or not. We have already had confirmed surfer's ear growth in Homo erectus, so who knows what else you guys don't wanna find out?

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:56 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 189
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
CEngelbrecht wrote:
Lynx_Fox wrote:
if modern humans live all over without sea food diets or even aquatic ones (hell the Abrahamic religions almost forbid it), then it stands to reason that those same diets weren't a requirement for modern evolution.


You didn't read the stuff above, did ya? The sapiens brain has been on the retreat for 50,000 years, 'cause by then we started to leave the shorelines and the diet that gave us that bloody brain. Let's take it again:

I did read your stuff. It carries the huge assumptions that you don't seem to be considering, among them: 1)that a bigger brain is automatically "better" as in more intelligent; 2) diffuses the predictability of AAH hypothesis even further, because those larger brains don't come from Africa, 3) assumes those particular genes somehow did reverse migration back into Africa, 4) that those groups outside of Africa had more available DHA from aquatic sources--something which given your simple misstatement about sources seems to be something you know almost nothing about, nor have researched to any extent, 5) it's the opposite of parsimonious and adds additional complications that seem to work directly against evolution in the Rift valley.


You further continue to collect dirt on your dung ball by not offering any coherent or observationally predicable hypothesis about where and when AAH took place.


Quote:
Now that it's so fucking inconvenient to admit, you may have been wrong all along.

You mad bro?
You are your own worst proponent of AAH--you realize that?

--
Recommend this thread tossed into pseudo, or just trashed for the incivility of its main contributor.


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:47 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
It carries the huge assumptions that you don't seem to be considering, among them: 1)that a bigger brain is automatically "better" as in more intelligent; 2) diffuses the predictability of AAH hypothesis even further, because those larger brains don't come from Africa, 3) assumes those particular genes somehow did reverse migration back into Africa, 4) that those groups outside of Africa had more available DHA from aquatic sources--something which given your simple misstatement about sources seems to be something you know almost nothing about, nor have researched to any extent, 5) it's the opposite of parsimonious and adds additional complications that seem to work directly against evolution in the Rift valley.


I'm sorry, have Homo erectus fossils suddenly not been found from South Africa to England to China to Java? We're not exclusively African. Life migrates.

Lynx_Fox wrote:
You further continue to collect dirt on your dung ball by not offering any coherent or observationally predicable hypothesis about where and when AAH took place.


Oh, sorry, I thought I already said at a minimum since Homo erectus two million years ago across Africa, Asia and Europe.

Lynx_Fox wrote:
You are your own worst proponent of AAH--you realize that?


I have spent all my patience for human stupidity a long time ago.

Lynx_Fox wrote:
Recommend this thread tossed into pseudo, or just trashed for the incivility of its main contributor.


So just more censorship? Only method to make this irritating idea go away. Donald would be proud.

What is the one argument that kills the entire possibility, that we're two million year old beach apes? You still don't have it. 'Cause it just isn't out there. It has never been an unreasonable idea, 57 years on. It takes any first year art student five seconds to explain to a toddler, why Dan Brown is full of shit. You have never been able to do that with Elaine Morgan. 'Cause she wasn't.

Quote:
"One of the reasons, I think, for an early hostility to it, was purely a feeling that, 'Well, why didn’t one of us come up with that? If it was true, one of us would have come up with it first.' It was a kind of incredulity almost, that this outsider could produce this theory which seemed to pull so many threads together. But there was also a feeling that they were all glancing around the room, feeling, 'Well, I can’t personally think of the knock down argument, but surely one of you can.' And there was the thing that, 'Which one of us is it that has got the knock down argument?' And it gradually became apparent that none of them had the knock down argument! And so they resorted to this kind of rhetoric about, 'Oh, she’s cobbled together a kind of collage of different facts and figures...' Which is exactly what scientific theory’s supposed to do. Why was Newton’s theory of gravity so important? Because it integrated everything from why the moon went round the earth to why apples fall. That is the key thing of a good scientific theory, that it does this linking job on a lot of phenomena, that were hitherto thought to be totally unrelated. And whatever the long term merits of the theory are judged to be, it certainly did that."
- Graham Richards, 2005


Stop doing this. It is unworthy of scientific discourse. You're not one inkling better than the ones wanting to burn Galileo Galilei alive 400 years ago just to shut him the fuck up. There is no bigger sin than to be right when the establishment is wrong. How dare Attenborough point out their folly?

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:43 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
What the hell's it gonna take? You got Phillip Tobias, who dug up half the South African hominin fossil archive, saying this idea is valid. You got Demond Morris saying it's valid. Dan Dennett says it. David Attenborough with his 60+ years in narrating service of science says it. And what's your knee jerk response every fucking time? "I'm surprised at you, David." You demand at people like me that I admit defeat. Would you ever bloody do that yourselves?

Hell, thing may still somehow be wrong (in some parallel universe where convergent evolution in some magic fashion doesn't apply to Homo sapiens). Maybe somehow water never had any selective influence on the Homo family. But it was never, ever that psychotically unreasonable suggestion on par with Loch Ness monsters and Bigfoots, which is what you all assume it is, or at least was at some point before it was "watered" down, even though that's not there in the sources you feel it's beneath you to even fucking read.

Can you even imagine how much that fucks you up, when you inadvertantly made the unforgiveable sin to keep an open mind and read banned volumes and has to take years of ignorant piss down your back??? While never once getting a clear answer as to what the fuck is wrong with this idea???

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:16 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 189
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
Quote:
Oh, sorry, I thought I already said at a minimum since Homo erectus two million years ago across Africa, Asia and Europe.

More obscuration without evidence (sigh) and added complexity which make the hypothesis all the less likely. You might as well say "anywhere." It's sure as heck not a way to do science--or pretend to.


CEngelbrecht wrote:
Stop doing this. It is unworthy of scientific discourse. You're not one inkling better than the ones wanting to burn Galileo Galilei alive 400 years ago just to shut him the fuck up. There is no bigger sin than to be right when the establishment is wrong. How dare Attenborough point out their folly?


And there is the shrill comparison to other people, a common tactic when power of evidence fails to persuade others it turns into a fault of science, narrow-mindedness or conspiracy-- all adding up to yet another indicator of pseudoscience at best and crackpottery at worst. Perhaps you should review why your ambiguous answers don't satisfy others during these discussions. Concede points as facts present themselves such as your ignorant statements about DHA rather than attacking the messenger--are you trying to look intellectually dishonest on purpose? And please learn a few manners in the meantime.....it would move theses discussions a bit at least.


Top
CEngelbrecht
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:54 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:38 am
Posts: 76

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
And there is the shrill comparison to other people, a common tactic when power of evidence fails to persuade others it turns into a fault of science, narrow-mindedness or conspiracy-- all adding up to yet another indicator of pseudoscience at best and crackpottery at worst. Perhaps you should review why your ambiguous answers don't satisfy others during these discussions. Concede points as facts present themselves such as your ignorant statements about DHA rather than attacking the messenger--are you trying to look intellectually dishonest on purpose?


You can't do it. You can't give me a single sentence answer as to why the waterside ape is so obviously pseudoscience. If you could do that, I'd happily admit defeat. But you can't. 'Cause it isn't.

Lynx_Fox wrote:
And please learn a few manners in the meantime.....it would move theses discussions a bit at least.


Go fuck yourself, sir. I'm done taking piss from arrogant twits that deep down know they're in the wrong. And chose to take it out on those that dare to represent thoughts closer to the truth.

_________________
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. Accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and fundamental insights can arise from most unexpected sources."
- Carl Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: David Attenborough and the AAH  |  Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:06 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4705
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
CEngelbrecht wrote:
Go fuck yourself, sir. I'm done taking piss from arrogant twits that deep down know they're in the wrong. And chose to take it out on those that represent thoughts closer to the truth.


Final warning: clean up your language and be prepared to debate the issues without personal remarks, or you're out

in the meantime, I'll lock this thread so as to let things cool down

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy