The aquatic ape hypothesis was never crazy

[CEngelbrecht]

None of you have taken apart seeing water in human loss of fur coupled with blubberesque skinfat. Fully from all those annoying analogies seen in other mammal species in the tree of life who evolved exactly the same traits for that exact wet reason, or all those that didn't for dry reasons. Without all those analogies straight from the ever dwindling natural world, the aquatic ape theory would not exist. And that lack of fur + skinfat is just Hardy's very first observation from 1929.

How am I to see the error of my ways? You keep claiming this one is so damn easy to pick apart, without any of you actually doing it. While you also keep demanding that I take their word for it. That's not science as I learned it.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: 247 posts have been split to a separate thread, here:

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

So... where's the discussion topic? What is the hypothesis and what do you want to say about it that we can discuss? All I see is a nice epistemological homily and an illustration. Do you actually want me to answer? Or will you just demand my ban all over again when I do and you can't shoot...

www.sciforums.com

If there's anybody who would like to discuss the aquatic ape hypothesis, as opposed to entertaining CEngelbrecht's persecution complex and his uncivil insults can do so here. Most of CEnelbrecht's focus, however, seem to be on the latter rather than the former, so if that sort of thing captures your interest please use the thread linked here.

 

[James R]

Current tally is: 181 posts vaguely on arguments for and against the aquatic ape hypothesis, and 247 posts in which CEngelbrecht compares himself to Galileo, complains about a conspiracy in the scientific community to persecute True Believers in the aquatic faith and mostly whines about how unfair it all is that people no longer take him seriously. Anyway, see the other thread for that stuff from now on.