Jim Moore's aquaticape.org

Use this section to review web sites, film documentaries, radio programs, podcasts etc.

Jim Moore's aquaticape.org

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:46 am

At last, a chance to openly discuss Jim Moore's "Aquatic Ape, Sink or Swim?" web site.

http://www.aquaticape.org
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: Jim Moore's aquaticape.org

Postby JimMcGinn » Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:58 pm

http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html
Marc Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an AAT/H claim that he doesn't make himself. But then taking umbrage seems to be a specialty with him; his online method tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the sole content of his newsgroup posts, and continually reposting the same, non-responsive, paragraphs (earning him the nickname "macro-man" after the usual technique for doing that), and, starting from his very first online post in 1998, comparing his position to Wegener, Galileo, etc. These methods certainly don't help his argument, instead placing his online newsgroup contributions in the realm of the netloon.

Review of Jim Moore's Anti-AAT Website:

I took a look at this site. It certainly is comprehensive. It squashed AAT (AAH) and completely discredits Elaine Morgan. But it's kind of like, so what. AAT is so inept and always has been that it seems like overkill. The biggest shortcoming of this site is the fact that it glosses over the fact that conventional theory really doesn't offer us any kind of viable alternative. The author, Jim Moore, seems to be less than forthright in this respect. For example, he states the following: "The AAT is a theory which seeks to replace well founded and well argued theoretical views which have been made for many years." What he fails to bring to the reader's attention is that these, "well founded and well argued theoretical views," have not fared any better than AAT when put under the bright light of scientific scrutiny. Or so we are left to assume in that he fails to make any specific mention of what these, "well founded and well argued theoretical views," actually are.

He also glosses over the fact that the consensus in PA has begrudgingly made a dramatic shift to now accept that the original hominids (A'piths, Sahalenthropus, Orrorin) continued to reside in treed habitat for upwards of millions of years. And he is very careful to not draw attention to the fact that one result of this shift has been that the traditional models (might these be the above mentioned, "well founded and well argued theoretical views?") have been discarded. Like a lot of the pretenders on this NG (Rick Wagler take note) he suggests that since it is possible to define a savanna as being, in part, treed that, therefore, the traditional models persist. Ironically, the net effect leaves one with the distinct impression that he is employing the same obfuscation and political tactics that he, rightly, accuses Elaine Morgan of employing.

IMO, if conventional theorists want to be taken seriously and not be dismissed the same way they have dismissed AAT they have to stop employing the Enron-like tactics of pretending not to notice that they currently have no, "well founded and well argued theoretical views," and haven't had any for quite some time now.
JimMcGinn
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:53 pm

Re: Jim Moore's aquaticape.org

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:11 pm

JimMcGinn wrote:http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html
Marc Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an AAT/H claim that he doesn't make himself. But then taking umbrage seems to be a specialty with him; his online method tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the sole content of his newsgroup posts, and continually reposting the same, non-responsive, paragraphs (earning him the nickname "macro-man" after the usual technique for doing that), and, starting from his very first online post in 1998, comparing his position to Wegener, Galileo, etc. These methods certainly don't help his argument, instead placing his online newsgroup contributions in the realm of the netloon.

Review of Jim Moore's Anti-AAT Website:

I took a look at this site. It certainly is comprehensive. It squashed AAT (AAH) and completely discredits Elaine Morgan.



It squashed a very distorted view of the so-called "aquatic ape". It is little more than an attempted character assassination of Elaine Morgan and anyone else who dares to take the idea seriously.

I've written a comprehensive critique of it...

http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm

JimMcGinn wrote:
But it's kind of like, so what. AAT is so inept and always has been that it seems like overkill. The biggest shortcoming of this site is the fact that it glosses over the fact that conventional theory really doesn't offer us any kind of viable alternative. The author, Jim Moore, seems to be less than forthright in this respect. For example, he states the following: "The AAT is a theory which seeks to replace well founded and well argued theoretical views which have been made for many years." What he fails to bring to the reader's attention is that these, "well founded and well argued theoretical views," have not fared any better than AAT when put under the bright light of scientific scrutiny. Or so we are left to assume in that he fails to make any specific mention of what these, "well founded and well argued theoretical views," actually are.



True and to your credit, at least you have offered something in its place.

JimMcGinn wrote:
He also glosses over the fact that the consensus in PA has begrudgingly made a dramatic shift to now accept that the original hominids (A'piths, Sahalenthropus, Orrorin) continued to reside in treed habitat for upwards of millions of years. And he is very careful to not draw attention to the fact that one result of this shift has been that the traditional models (might these be the above mentioned, "well founded and well argued theoretical views?") have been discarded. Like a lot of the pretenders on this NG (Rick Wagler take note) he suggests that since it is possible to define a savanna as being, in part, treed that, therefore, the traditional models persist. Ironically, the net effect leaves one with the distinct impression that he is employing the same obfuscation and political tactics that he, rightly, accuses Elaine Morgan of employing.

IMO, if conventional theorists want to be taken seriously and not be dismissed the same way they have dismissed AAT they have to stop employing the Enron-like tactics of pretending not to notice that they currently have no, "well founded and well argued theoretical views," and haven't had any for quite some time now.


Rick Wagler isn't here (not yet anyway), Jim. Have you just copied this from a sap posting?

Here, I'd like to hear more about why you think Moore's web site "squashes AAT". Do you think distorting arguments like he does is a reasonable tactic?

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


Return to Other Media

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron