London May conference - how did it go?

Discussions about Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution or any other topic related to human evolution.

Moderator: CEngelbrecht

Re: London May conference - how did it go?

Postby CEngelbrecht » Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:47 pm

AlgisKuliukas wrote:
CEngelbrecht wrote:http://play.streamingvideoprovider.com/popapp.php?l=&w=965&h=665&p=aea59def46ac9156f0e42a3a3f2d6cf3&title=Human+Evolution+Conference&bgcolor1=%23FFFFFF&bgcolor2=%23DDDDDD&uk=BqvI0ZNf8k4Ppimge6PTXy#clip=665752&time=

Donald Johanson's outburst during the session 1 discussion puzzles me. Algis, are you aware of what "version" of AAH he's been told? I mean, he's the man who's dug out his fair share of the human fossil archive (Lucy, for crying out loud), so it doesn't make sense that he's so outraged against this idea, based on everything being presented now (the whole clergy issue with Morgan notwithstanding). But his outburst would make sense, if he's been watching too much Animal Planet and thinks that AAH is about the mermaid nonsense.

You didn't get a chance to ask him about that, did you? It seems to be a wide spread misinformation, so why the hell not Johanson too?


I didn't get the chance to ask him about it, no. I would have asked him exactly the point you're making - what does he think the "aquatic ape hypothesis" is?


Is it possible for you to converse with him about it, e.g. via E-mail? There are too many misconceptions about these ideas. If people are to critisize it, at least they'd do it with what's actually being said and written by Elaine etc., and not Animal Planet or Jim Moore or whatever.
I don't dare to contact him, why would he listen to me?
User avatar
CEngelbrecht
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:10 pm
Location: Scania, Sweden

Re: London May conference - how did it go?

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:44 am

CEngelbrecht wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote:
CEngelbrecht wrote:http://play.streamingvideoprovider.com/popapp.php?l=&w=965&h=665&p=aea59def46ac9156f0e42a3a3f2d6cf3&title=Human+Evolution+Conference&bgcolor1=%23FFFFFF&bgcolor2=%23DDDDDD&uk=BqvI0ZNf8k4Ppimge6PTXy#clip=665752&time=

Donald Johanson's outburst during the session 1 discussion puzzles me. Algis, are you aware of what "version" of AAH he's been told? I mean, he's the man who's dug out his fair share of the human fossil archive (Lucy, for crying out loud), so it doesn't make sense that he's so outraged against this idea, based on everything being presented now (the whole clergy issue with Morgan notwithstanding). But his outburst would make sense, if he's been watching too much Animal Planet and thinks that AAH is about the mermaid nonsense.

You didn't get a chance to ask him about that, did you? It seems to be a wide spread misinformation, so why the hell not Johanson too?


I didn't get the chance to ask him about it, no. I would have asked him exactly the point you're making - what does he think the "aquatic ape hypothesis" is?


Is it possible for you to converse with him about it, e.g. via E-mail? There are too many misconceptions about these ideas. If people are to critisize it, at least they'd do it with what's actually being said and written by Elaine etc., and not Animal Planet or Jim Moore or whatever.
I don't dare to contact him, why would he listen to me?


I don't think there'd be much point.

a) I doubt he'd reply, and
b) His mind is clearly made up already.

Bigotted is the word that comes to mind.

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: London May conference - how did it go?

Postby CEngelbrecht » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:03 am

Yeah, but my point is, that if somebody like Johanson is convinced that somehow the AAH consensus is about "dolphin apes", something fully aquatic on par with whales and seals, then he's actually justified in thinking it's nuts. That misunderstanding still seems widely common, I have encountered it among both academics and laypeople, face to face and in cyberspace. And yes, Animal Planet doesn't exactly help, either.

For instance, I had a conversation about aquatic apes with a friend of mine who's a biochemist, and I made the case, that anatomically modern humans showing up in Australia before China and Europe would support them following a Southern route out of Africa as aquatically enclined apes, rather than across landmass Asia as fully terrestrial apes. I must've worded it wrong, 'cause he laughed in my face, saying that he didn't buy into "humans swimming across the Indian Ocean to Australia". Somehow it hadn't hit me, that that's what people hear in "aquatic ape". Personally, I've always interpreted it as that damn beach ape. And this is a man of high education and intelligence, and even an active freediver, and somehow that was the impression he had about aquatic apes. So if somebody like him, why not Johanson and the lot? 'Cause it's likely that they can't even be bothered to read the damn sources from e.g. Elaine, even though Tobias probably did (and that's the big difference, ain't it?).

It's just, that if this debate is to get anywhere, I think it would be prudent to ensure, that the opposition are at least properly informed about what the hell this boohah is actually about (including the differences of opinion, you, Marc, what ever). Otherwise it's like debating evolution with people that think Darwin somehow argued, that we have to slaughter each other (I have encountered those types too).
User avatar
CEngelbrecht
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:10 pm
Location: Scania, Sweden

Re: London May conference - how did it go?

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:20 am

CEngelbrecht wrote:Yeah, but my point is, that if somebody like Johanson is convinced that somehow the AAH consensus is about "dolphin apes", something fully aquatic on par with whales and seals, then he's actually justified in thinking it's nuts. That misunderstanding still seems widely common, I have encountered it among both academics and laypeople, face to face and in cyberspace. And yes, Animal Planet doesn't exactly help, either.

For instance, I had a conversation about aquatic apes with a friend of mine who's a biochemist, and I made the case, that anatomically modern humans showing up in Australia before China and Europe would support them following a Southern route out of Africa as aquatically enclined apes, rather than across landmass Asia as fully terrestrial apes. I must've worded it wrong, 'cause he laughed in my face, saying that he didn't buy into "humans swimming across the Indian Ocean to Australia". Somehow it hadn't hit me, that that's what people hear in "aquatic ape". Personally, I've always interpreted it as that damn beach ape. And this is a man of high education and intelligence, and even an active freediver, and somehow that was the impression he had about aquatic apes. So if somebody like him, why not Johanson and the lot? 'Cause it's likely that they can't even be bothered to read the damn sources from e.g. Elaine, even though Tobias probably did (and that's the big difference, ain't it?).

It's just, that if this debate is to get anywhere, I think it would be prudent to ensure, that the opposition are at least properly informed about what the hell this boohah is actually about (including the differences of opinion, you, Marc, what ever). Otherwise it's like debating evolution with people that think Darwin somehow argued, that we have to slaughter each other (I have encountered those types too).


I hear you, Chris.

I've been banging on about this for ten years at least - the "aquatic ape" label is meant to be ironic but it has flown over the heads of so many otherwise intelligent people, it should not be used.

W A T E R S I D E . . . H Y P O T H E S E S . . . O F . . . H U M A N . . . E V O L U T I O N

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

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron