Welcome

Introduce yourself to everyone. Remain anonymous if you insist but why not be a little more open and tell us who you really are?

Re: Welcome

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:50 am

simoninrio wrote:Hi all,
I was at school with Algis and heard years ago he´d got this theory so I´m here to check it out. Congratulations on getting this up and running. The purpose of all scientific endeavour is to arrive at a more complete version of the truth. I should confess that I am somewhat skeptical of the hypothesis, from my sketchy knowledge of it, although I do know a fair bit about hominid evolution, so I hope I´ll be able to find a decent presentation of the evidence for waterside.


Hey, Simon! Welcome!

I would have thought life on or around Brazilian beaches would have made the idea seem a little more attractive to you by now but I'm sure some of the people here will be able to present some compelling arguments.

My Tip for Now: Just try to dispel any images of mermaids. The idea, for me, is simply more selection from wading, swimming and diving in our lineage than that leading to chimps. "More" needn't be "much more".

Algis
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. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: Welcome

Postby BanmeNow » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:57 pm

AlgisKuliukas wrote: The idea, for me, is simply more selection from wading

Has more selection from wading been demonstrated experimentally by anyone?
BanmeNow
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:18 am

Re: Welcome

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:04 pm

BanmeNow wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote: The idea, for me, is simply more selection from wading

Has more selection from wading been demonstrated experimentally by anyone?


See my avatar and tell me what selective advantage the ape on the right has over the the ape on the left.

It's not a trick question.

Algis
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. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: Welcome

Postby Not RP » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:03 pm

AlgisKuliukas wrote:
BanmeNow wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote: The idea, for me, is simply more selection from wading

Has more selection from wading been demonstrated experimentally by anyone?


See my avatar and tell me what selective advantage the ape on the right has over the the ape on the left.

It's not a trick question.

Algis


There is no selective advantage for bipedality as your own research clearly demonstrated. This has been explained to you over and over again in another place.
Not RP
 

Re: Welcome

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:07 pm

Recursive Prophet wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote:
BanmeNow wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote: The idea, for me, is simply more selection from wading

Has more selection from wading been demonstrated experimentally by anyone?


See my avatar and tell me what selective advantage the ape on the right has over the the ape on the left.

It's not a trick question.

Algis


There is no selective advantage for bipedality as your own research clearly demonstrated. This has been explained to you over and over again in another place.


Well as that "explanation" completely ignores the elephant in the room demonstrated by my avatar, please excuse me if I ignore it.

Wading provides by far the most potential selection of all the 30+ published ideas. It's the only one that would kill a would-be quadruped.

In that "other place", what did you call yourself there? Not "Recursive Prophet", right?

Why don't you stop playing tricks and just be open and honest?

Algis
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. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: Welcome

Postby ThinkingApe » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:14 pm

I like the aquatic ape theory not just because it actually attempts at explaining an evolutionary mechanism that is a bit more detailed than "and then we left the trees and started living on the plains". But that is not to say that I believe it - I just think it has value. It also combines well with my instinctive hunch that a lot of our development from apes to man occurred in corridor forests (on either side of rivers) - which is where wading confers huge advantages over non-waders (chasing prey, foraging, avoiding predators, fishing, competing for mates with less-able-to-waders.)

I hope this forum can remain above all that unsavoury malarkey and I wish it well. I will stay anonymous though - as the arguments can get a little heated and I have my reputation in other areas to consider.

Let's not believe any single theory, let's just enjoy a rational discussion about what could be the strengths and weaknesses of all of them.

Thinking Ape
ThinkingApe
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Welcome

Postby Not RP » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:44 am

AlgisKuliukas wrote:
Recursive Prophet wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote:
BanmeNow wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote: The idea, for me, is simply more selection from wading

Has more selection from wading been demonstrated experimentally by anyone?


See my avatar and tell me what selective advantage the ape on the right has over the the ape on the left.

It's not a trick question.

Algis


There is no selective advantage for bipedality as your own research clearly demonstrated. This has been explained to you over and over again in another place.


Well as that "explanation" completely ignores the elephant in the room demonstrated by my avatar, please excuse me if I ignore it.

Wading provides by far the most potential selection of all the 30+ published ideas. It's the only one that would kill a would-be quadruped.

In that "other place", what did you call yourself there? Not "Recursive Prophet", right?

Why don't you stop playing tricks and just be open and honest?

Algis


Algis, the only dishonest person here is you. Your thesis demonstrates unequivocally that wading does not select for gait morphology. My forum name has no bearing on this fact. That you choose to introduce this is a red herring and given your penchant for this tactic I predict your red herring will evolve into an ad hominem. Not that you have ever understood what constitutes an ad hom.
Not RP
 

Re: Welcome

Postby CEngelbrecht » Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:55 am

Recursive Prophet wrote:Algis, the only dishonest person here is you. Your thesis demonstrates unequivocally that wading does not select for gait morphology. My forum name has no bearing on this fact. That you choose to introduce this is a red herring and given your penchant for this tactic I predict your red herring will evolve into an ad hominem. Not that you have ever understood what constitutes an ad hom.


Whoa, whoa, whoa, what's with the sudden confrontation lingo? I can't see that this is called for with the above statements. Now it sounds like you are prone to abusive ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
User avatar
CEngelbrecht
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:10 pm
Location: Scania, Sweden

Re: Welcome

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:05 am

Recursive Prophet wrote:
Algis, the only dishonest person here is you. Your thesis demonstrates unequivocally that wading does not select for gait morphology. My forum name has no bearing on this fact. That you choose to introduce this is a red herring and given your penchant for this tactic I predict your red herring will evolve into an ad hominem. Not that you have ever understood what constitutes an ad hom.


I am waiting to hear from the person I know, from "TR" as "Recursive Prophet" before I decide if you are using that name as some kine of ploy, but anyway...

Let's discuss the wading paper on the thread specifically for it here: http://www.waterside-hypotheses.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17&p=145#p145

Please, let's keep it civil.

Algis
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. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: Welcome

Postby Recursive Prophet » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:29 am

Welcome Elaine. It is an honor to virtually meet you after discussing your thoughts over what seems like eternity. I'm hoping you will be able to help Algis out in answering some of many questions I and a group of others have about his updated version of your thoughts on the aquatic ape conjecture. Parsimony and bipedalism are two of many issues we believe need to be addressed.

I look forward to reading your posts here, and salute your tenacity.

Algis dont pay any attention to RP. He doesnt care about whether your ideas make sense or not. Hes just a troll that thrives on the drama. That's why he suggested you start a thread where he knew we would tear you apart. What has he ever added to the topic? He may even attack you here to make it look like it was really one of us. Don't take him seriously. He is a liar and really has no interest in where or how we evolved. He just gets off stirring up controversy. While I think you are wrong on many levels, I at least respect that you believe what you say and care about the subject. RP is just a shallow dilettante who couldn't care less about truth. To him its all relative.

Soon as I get some time I will be trying to break down why I think you have arrived at some erroneous conclusions. I want this attempt to communicate to be minus all the baggage of the past which won't be easy. Glad you have a positive attitude. But I don't want to offend ASG and others with my attempt to try and see things as you and Elaine do. I may even decide to vigorously deny its me at TR, if the reaction is too negative. Gives me some wiggle room. I want to try and convince you by examining all your arguments more objectively than I have in the past. A long conversation with a former mentor who is a fan of Elaine's, has made me realize some of your basic propositions are pretty reasonable and deserve another look.
Recursive Prophet
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:38 am

PreviousNext

Return to Greetings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron