A fish is not a fish: Aquatic food may have had implications for hominin evolution

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by CEngelbrecht, Oct 8, 2014.

  1. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    You've got a point there, Humperdinck, but maybe if you didn't insist on having such bottom-heavy posts with your two signature quotes stressing what a rebel you are, and that cheesy cartoon, people might take you more seriously.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    360
    I'm not in this for being a "rebel". I don't desire to support pseudoscience. But I sincerely fail to see, how this is it.

    Those three quotes are there, because I'm desperately trying to cope with seeing trained academics abandon their own scientific method, simply because an idea is irritating them personally. It is so dastardly frustrating to wittness, that humanity hasn't moved a single step since Copernicus. To see that Thrasymachus was right.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    You asked that we read Prof Hardy's four-page article. I did, and commented on it and some other things you've said, back in post 19. If you want to be taken seriously, maybe a good place to begin would be in responding to posts like mine. In other words, you talk quite a lot, but you don't listen or respond much.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    360
    No, I'm not gonna do it under a false designation. This is not an "alternative" concept, it is the logical progression of Charles Darwin's discovery of the mechanism of evolution. It is the continued attempt to put the human being in its correct biological category, and aparently that will always instill nothing but hysteria. Allow this topic to be discussed freely and without prejudice, and I'll be happy to address all of those points. I'm sick and tired of this half a century old persecution of great contemporary thinkers on par with how the Holy See persecuted Galileo. It only reminds me, that if even trained academics can't wield their own standards, how can we not expect half the general US population to question evolution???
     
  8. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    No!? You asked that I read your original source material. I did, I have a few questions and comments, and you will not respond!? Fine, I guess this is where we part ways.
     
  9. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    360
    So be it, let's part ways. At this point in time, with all those profound observations that has been presented (the OT nutritional angle is just one aspect of all this), I have to put my foot down. You cannot have a rational debate about such a complex matter under the gun of gross prejudice, it is detrimental to the entire debate about our origin as a species. Then better to leave the auditorium untill the house is ready to put out the bonfires and store away the pitchforks.
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
  11. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    360
    See? This is how this topic is granted carte blanche to be treated. Which is exactly the same psychology as this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I... am intrigued by that. It seems less a diagram of "past" evolutionary traits, and more a plan for future "guided genetic design"... fascinating
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What of iodine ?

    Which is in all sea living forms
     

Share This Page