I believe in the aquatic ape hypothesis and people persecute me for it.

[CEngelbrecht]

There’s often no real “kill” argument in science, and in this case it seems to be more a question of what the preponderance of evidence suggests, as in so many cases. Plenty of people argue for minority hypotheses in science, e.g. MOND instead of Dark Matter.

Piltdown Man. That kill argument was always there. "That jaw is from a bloody orangutan!" "Shut up, Nathaniel, we're clearly the master race!"
The cardinals did not care. Not until 24 years later when it became a massive embarrassment paleoanthropolgy have never really recovered from.

But it is actually far from clear what hypothesis exactly you claim to be defending. Is it just apes living by rivers or seas? If so, that doesn’t necessarily imply a great deal of swimming. Even if there were a lot of swimming it is far from clear that losing body hair would be an evolutionary advantage.

I have my own personal consensus. Others that I debate this with via cyberspace would disagree with some of them and agree on others. A few of those people I perceive as abject morons too. My own perspectives fluctuates to new relevant data, but I just can't drop the water. I can't go back to Plato's shadows.

Or is it the full monty, with babies swimming and even breast feeding underwater, as suggested by some of the images you have posted? If so, what is the evidence for that?

Personally, no. Humans evolved them fleshy tits so the areola still float above the surface. No under water nursing for the infants needed.

Breastfeeding at a Swimming Pool

You don’t argue coherently, that’s the problem. Reading your posts is like listening to a tirade from an angry drunk just before closing time. And you seem to have been obsessed with this stuff for around a decade now,

Thirty years.

without improving your arguments or the evidence you present. Most of the pictures you post are the same ones as a decade ago.

Because they still apply. Hardy's 64 year old four lines of text still applies. But you know he believed in mermaids, and you will not hear any different either. You just love to watch the shadows play too much.

I’m afraid I have come to the conclusion that you are mad: a psychiatric case. Monomania, or idée fixe. I just don’t think there is any point in engaging you on the science.

The Martha Mitchell smackdown. Well done.

26 "Crazy" People Who Were Vindicated in Death

Ignaz Semmelwies, beaten to death in an insane asylum after the scientific community ridiculed him and locked him up.
He suggested that washing hands before delivering babies might be a good idea. (At the time it was known gentlemen didn't have dirty hands)

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Who said there is a kill argument?

All of you.

Who said it is obviously crazy?

All. of. you.

You're being told by multiple people why you're not being taken seriously. Why would anybody choose to engage in this kind of rambling, low signal-to-noise-ratio, curse-filled abuse?

First day on the internet?

 

[Pinball1970]

Piltdown Man. That kill argument was always there. "That jaw is from a bloody orangutan!" "Shut up, Nathaniel, we're clearly the master race!"
The cardinals did not care. Not until 24 years later when it became a massive embarrassment paleoanthropolgy have never really recovered from

Nope. Scientists make mistakes and can be dishonest too, they are human. The scientific method weeds these mistakes out over time and there was concerns regarding the piltdown man from the off.
The advances in paleoanthropology since then then have come on leaps and bounds.

 

[Pinball1970]

All. of. you.

No I said unsupported or just pseudoscience.

 

[Pinball1970]

First day on the internet?

This is a science forum not a teenager Facebook site. If you have nothing but puerile insults to offer try there instead.

 

[Pinball1970]

I have my own personal consensus

Which is at odds with the scientific consensus.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Nope. Scientists make mistakes and can be dishonest too, they are human. The scientific method weeds these mistakes out over time

That's right.

and there was concerns regarding the piltdown man from the off.

Which Le Gros Clark preferred to ignorethenaledinow.

The advances in paleoanthropology since then then have come on leaps and bounds.

Including Phillip Tobias announcing the death of the savannah hypotheses in 1995. Keep up!

 

[CEngelbrecht]

No I said unsupported or just pseudoscience.

Which are both still wrong.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Which is at odds with the scientific consensus.

So was Raymond Dart.

I hope all this is because of academic herd stupidity, and not deliberate malicious effort.

 

[TheVat]

Humans evolved them fleshy tits so the areola still float above the surface.

Pseudoscience is not without its entertainment value.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Pseudoscience is not without its entertainment value.

"Ha, ha! Tits! Me good at sciensees!"

 

[TheVat]

Yawn

 

[Pinball1970]

So was Raymond Dart.

I hope all this is because of academic herd stupidity, and not deliberate malicious effort.

Not at all, human biology and applied biology are something I have studied.
Paleoanthropology is something I am interested in now and have been for some years.

Which are both still wrong.

Not according to the scientific community.

Which Le Gros Clark preferred to ignorethenaledinow.

Homo naledi IS where there is some actual conjecture. Read my thread on it.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Not according to the scientific community.

"Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein".

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Yawn

 

[James R]

CEngelbrecht:

It's all very well to be upset when your strongly-held opinions are not widely accepted. However, ranting about the injustice of it all, or inventing conspiracies in which you are being persecuted isn't the best way to go about trying to change minds. A better approach is to bring the best evidence you have that supports your position. Present that, and people will make of it what they will. Ultimately, that's all you can do. You shouldn't hope to bully people into accepting your position; that never works.

Another hint: crying that "they all laughed at Einstein and Galileo, too!" does nothing to help make the case that your views are correct. They all laughed at Bozo the Clown, too.

If you're inclined to put the structure of female breasts down to the ability to feed infants in swimming pools, you also need to deal with obvious objections to your thesis. After all, there are many conceivable reasons that human breasts are the way they are. There's an argument about sexual selection, for instance. Have you considered that? How do you respond?

Note: I'm not particular inspired to engage in this particular debate, again, so I'm putting this to you merely as an example of the kind of thing you'll need to do if you actually care to persuade anybody around to your point of view on aquatic apes. Perhaps you don't care. Perhaps you just want to spread propaganda for the cause, or raise consciousness of what is, for whatever reason, an important issue in your life. Or maybe you just want to vent at people who don't share your opinions, because you can't understand why everybody doesn't agree with you all the time about everything. Anyway, I just thought that a heads-up on why you haven't made much progress in your crusade over a period of 30 years might be useful.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

A better approach is to bring the best evidence you have that supports your position.

Oh yeah, that works.

You shouldn't hope to bully people into accepting your position; that never works.

It most definitely do.

If you're inclined to put the structure of female breasts down to the ability to feed infants in swimming pools,

Oh yeah, swimming pools two million years ago, that was my argument. You can't help yourself either.

After all, there are many conceivable reasons that human breasts are the way they are. There's an argument about sexual selection, for instance. Have you considered that? How do you respond?

I personally weigh mechanical function over sexual selection. It becomes a sexual selection because of its mechanical function, as much as wider hips do.

Note: I'm not particular inspired to engage in this particular debate, again, so I'm putting this to you merely as an example of the kind of thing you'll need to do if you actually care to persuade anybody around to your point of view on aquatic apes. Perhaps you don't care. Perhaps you just want to spread propaganda for the cause, or raise consciousness of what is, for whatever reason, an important issue in your life. Or maybe you just want to vent at people who don't share your opinions, because you can't understand why everybody doesn't agree with you all the time about everything. Anyway, I just thought that a heads-up on why you haven't made much progress in your crusade over a period of 30 years might be useful.

I do this with creationists too. They respond exactly the same way: Facts are stupid things.

And yeah, I'm really angry at humanity these days. 'Cause this idea was spot on in 1929, when Hardy came up with it, and was immediately told he couldn't share it without destroying his burgeoning career. Somehow, that's its biggest crime, actually getting it right. You all have a deep rooted subconscious fear of actually finding out these truths, 'cause you go hysterical every time a big idea pops up through history. You prefer the shadows in that damn cave.

 

[exchemist]

Piltdown Man. That kill argument was always there. "That jaw is from a bloody orangutan!" "Shut up, Nathaniel, we're clearly the master race!"
The cardinals did not care. Not until 24 years later when it became a massive embarrassment paleoanthropolgy have never really recovered from.



I have my own personal consensus. Others that I debate this with via cyberspace would disagree with some of them and agree on others. A few of those people I perceive as abject morons too. My own perspectives fluctuates to new relevant data, but I just can't drop the water. I can't go back to Plato's shadows.



Personally, no. Humans evolved them fleshy tits so the areola still float above the surface. No under water nursing for the infants needed.

Breastfeeding at a Swimming Pool



Thirty years.



Because they still apply. Hardy's 64 year old four lines of text still applies. But you know he believed in mermaids, and you will not hear any different either. You just love to watch the shadows play too much.



The Martha Mitchell smackdown. Well done.

26 "Crazy" People Who Were Vindicated in Death

"I have my own personal consensus........" :-

consensus /kən-sĕn′səs/

noun​

1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
2. General agreement or accord.
   "government by consensus."
3. Agreement; accord; consent.
   Similar: agreement

So you are agreeing with yourself? That must be a comfort.

But seriously, you are a white coats job. Enough of this tomfoolery.

........[click].........

 

[CEngelbrecht]

"I have my own personal consensus........" :-

consensus /kən-sĕn′səs/

noun​

1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
2. General agreement or accord.
   "government by consensus."
3. Agreement; accord; consent.
   Similar: agreement

So you are agreeing with yourself? That must be a comfort.

But seriously, you are a white coats job. Enough of this tomfoolery.

........[click].........

What else is it called in the king's, then?

 

[Pinball1970]

What else is it called in the king's, then?

opinion