How did the conference in London earlier this month pan out?
Will there be anything published from this symposium?
CEngelbrecht wrote:Found blog entries here:
CEngelbrecht wrote:Marc et al's view on pachyosteosclerosis and erectus being "more aquatic" than sapiens, I'm willing to reserve judgement on that. I'm also reserving judgement on his notion, that australos may be closer to chimps than to humans (and I don't know if paranthr are then closer to gorillas or something), pending more data and/or argumentation.
These are challenging views, and certainly far beyond the anthropological consensus. But so AAH/WHHE is already, so why not consider the full spectrum? Marc is asking a lot of leniancy, but if that should turn out being the path out of Plato's cave, then so be it. (On the flipside, I don't want to sprint out of that damn cave, either, it does have a very narrow opening, and I don't want bang my head on the ceiling on the way out.)
fceska wrote:My two cents worth - which probably aren't even worth that... I don't think Marc has the most eloquent way of stating his views, and often it may be detrimental to his ideas, but so far, I've found his hypothesis the most compelling, and I am more inclined to believe that man was much more aquatic in the past than now, and that Homo Erectus was far more closely adapted to diving than to walking on land due to spending much more time in water than on land.
fceska wrote:I don't believe our flat paddle-like feet, or webbing between toes evolved for walking on beaches or wading twice a day in shallow water, but for swimming and diving. If we did a U-turn, it was after that and then we adapted to a terrestrial existence and forced our bones to take more weight than they were used to; reasons why we still have so many back problems today.
I know that most skeptics scorn and deride any notion that we may have done more than paddled our feet in the water once or twice a day, and I know Algis is doing a great job in pulling in scientists to consider the more palatable aspects of the theory, but I would hate to think that we are compromising the truth behind the theory just to make John Langdon, et al, take it seriously. If the truth is there, let's go after it in all it's shocking and incredible glory! The day will come when they will look just as ridiculous for knocking it as those who knocked Darwin, Wegener, etc.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with Marc answering: "I don't know" to your question above. It strikes me as perhaps one of the most honest answers that any scientist could come up with. There are still so many things we don't know.
CEngelbrecht wrote:All right, so Marc may have a point about hominin aquaticism originating in flooded woodland, but you can't agree with his reasons for concluding, that He was "more aquatic" than Hs. Is that a fair summarization?
I'm just trying to put things in perspective. We can't agree on everything, but we can't disagree on everything, either.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests