Michael Odent on "Homo, the Marine Chimpanzee"

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by CEngelbrecht, Jan 22, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    So does a zombie.

    RationalWiki
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    Yep, that's the big kill argument every time: "the hypothesis has become more nebulous and vague".
    In other words, the key criticism is, "Yeah, beach ape, that's nice. What happened to that dolphin ape, you used to talk about?"
    "Yeah, you made that up in your head, mate, because you didn't read the actual litterature. You turned Darwin into a chimp all on your own."

    Let's take it again, 'cause it's clear you can't even be bothered to read these four tiny lines:

    "My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch.
    — Alister Hardy, the original heretic, in 19-F'ing-60!!!

    Anything crazy in this? Anything at all? Any mermaids in there?

    That's what it is. That's what it always was. And still is. Can we talk about what's wrong with the actual suggestion? Instead of the one you distort all on your own, because you need it all to go away?

    Let's take it again: There... is... no... dolphin... ape. No one is taking our ancestors out to the middle of the sea, not untill the inventing of boating. It was always, ALWAYS, a beach ape!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But you're very, very eager to keep talking about them dolphins apes that were never there. It doesn't matter to you what people actually write!!!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 30th March coming up - Well behaved Friday Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,176
    Me thinks thou doust protest to much

    Text yelling does not make any stupid idea any less stupid

    Just as talking louder and slower to a person who doesn't understand your language make the words you utter magically translate into the hearers language

    You are not SPEAKING our language

    DO YOU
    UNDERSTAND?????

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    Do you understand how much piss I have had to take over the years from ignorant people what can't even be bothered to read four fucking lines? I have lost all my patience for human stupidity a long time ago.
     
  8. Michael 345 30th March coming up - Well behaved Friday Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,176
    Thou seems like you are upset for some reason

    I wonder what it could be?

    Oh well I guess I will never know

    Oh hum back to my other forum

    Changes windows tab while shaking head - now where was I before I was rudely interrupted by that mermaid man...?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    You actually said it. MERMAID!

    Not in there. Just not in there. But you don't give a fuck, do you? If the entire concept is sooo crazy, why do you distort the idea? Can't you ridicule the concept without exaggeration? Why talking about something it just doesn't posit?

    Exactly. 'Cause Charles Darwin has to be a chimp, before it fullfills your prejudice. You don't have a case without distortion.




    That's an ape going as deep as a sea otter. Show me a chimp that can do that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  10. Michael 345 30th March coming up - Well behaved Friday Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,176
    Nope

    As soon as I find a stupid chimp I will

    Oh look there's a savannah evolved version from a common ancestor of a chimp in your very own video

    Why are you asking me to provide something you clearly have already?

    Changes windows tab while shaking head - now where was I before I was rudely interrupted by that mermaid man - AGAIN...?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    We didn't evolve on the savannah. That concept is long dead.


    http://www.veoh.com/watch/v6288724SdYwPZTP

    Saying it again: No mermaids. That was a bloody mockumentary on Animal Planet. What, you also think talking about giant dinosaur birds living 100 million years ago means paleontologists are lunatics that believe in fire breathing dragons?

    Why do you need to distort the idea? Can't you laugh at it without it?
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,443
    Yep. The claim that man lived in the water for a long period of time.
    Heck, apes have gone to the moon. Show me a chimp that can do THAT! (And Ham doesn't count.)
     
  13. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    Define long period of time. Sea otters and hippos go back to land, too.

    What exactly is it you think, this idea is suggesting? (Or want it to, more to the point...)

    "My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch.
    — Alister Hardy, the original heretic, in 19-F'ing-60!!!

    Four fucking lines. And you'll be damned, if you'll ever read them!

    'Cause those apes went into space buck naked and evolved traits, I suppose? Is that what you want me to be saying? Why do you distort to suit prepurpose? Isn't that the exact method of creationists?
     
  14. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,443
    Much anger and hate in you, there is.

    Why not find a forum more accepting of woo where people will give you the kudos you so desperately desire?
     
  16. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    I have spent all my patience for human stupidity a long time ago. I'm done being pissed on for the impertinence of not being wrong.
     
  17. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Why do you think that?
     
  18. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    The scientific method.

    "Just 10 years ago, to a large London audience, with a histrionic gesture, I said, “The Savannah Hypothesis is no more! Open that window and throw it out!” At Sterkfontein and other South African sites and East African ones, these early hominids were all accompanied by woodland and forest species of plants and animals. Of course, if savannah is eliminated as a primary cause for selective advantage of going on two legs, then we are back to square one."
    - Phillip ... F'ing ... Tobias in 2005 (fella just dug up half the South African hominin fossil archive, doesn't know what he's talking aboot...)​

    The Savannah Hypothesis and the Mighty Hunter were 19th and 20th century racist and sexist assumptions based on the Eurasian ice age mammoth hunters being the first stone age culture to be studied in detail by paleoanthropology. Those big game hunting cultures are no more representational of human evolution than mountain cultures. Their Russian grassland habitat were just moved to the African continent, when white paleoanthropology was forced to move their research focus to black, black Africa after the rebellion of Raymond Dart.

    We're an old fishing ape, move on. THAT's what's supported by the evidence. The grassland scenario never was.

     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,443
    Apparently you enjoy those golden showers, because you keep posting here. Whatever floats your boat.
     
  20. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    I'm not letting you go quietly into that night. We're on the brink of the next world war, and you're telling me to leave you to your pigheaded ignorance???

    Give me a straight answer. Why is it such nonsense that we should've been that old beach ape? Considering that we still are.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Vertical bipedalism, women not tearing when giving birth in water, big ass mammalian brain needing DHA and iodine only found in adequate quantities in seafood, sporting damn good breath control allowing a fat ape to speak and dive longer than a sea otter, having lost almost all its fur and grown a hooded nose that can't smell worth a damn but keeps water out of the cranial cavities, all while it's sweating and crying salty tears.

    And y'all keep chanting that there's no evidence. Look into a god damned mirror.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  21. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Why are you so invested in your pet theory being accepted regardless of the shaky and circumstantial evidence? It's like you really really need this hypothesis to be accepted as The One True Truth (tm).

    Is it really so bad if the aquatic ape hypothesis is inaccurate, or dare I say it... mistaken?
     
  22. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    When was the first time you understood that we're standing on a giant ball hurling through an everlasting cold and dark void? Or why there are earthquakes and volcanos and tsunamis? You ever scratched the back of your head, not understanding how people could've been spurned or even burned just for discovering such things?

    How the fuck can you expect me to keep my mouth shut about this knowledge? Especially when witnessing this grotesque slandering of its discoverers. All over again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    None of you can tell me why this splash-splash ape is wrong. 'Cause it most likely isn't. All you give me every bloody time are them fuckin' mermaids, running away screaming from the actual argument. 'Cause you don't have a case against the actual argument, even though you desperately want one.

     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,443
    Posting pictures of nude women, hoping to bolster your case, is a pretty sad strategy. You claim that talking about "tits" (which you brought up) is a poor debating strategy, then you post pictures of naked women. Foolish of me to expect anything more, I guess.

    In any case, some quotes from an article by Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin: (sorry, no nudie pictures)
    ===============
    All the suggested anatomical and physiological adaptations [ascribed to the aquatic ape theory] can be explained by other hypotheses, which fit much better with what we actually know about the ecology of ancient hominins. Hairlessness, for instance, is only a feature of fully aquatic mammals such as whales and dolphins. Semi-aquatic mammals such as otters and water voles are extremely furry. Sexual selection and adaptations to heat loss better explain our pattern of body hair. Sexual selection may also explain our body fat distribution, which differs between the sexes. Voluntary breath control is more likely to be related to speech than to diving.
    . . .
    Compared with other animals, we are not actually that good at swimming, and our skin leaks as well, letting in water so that our fingers become prune-like after a long bath.

    What about walking on two legs? That’s something all apes do a bit of – while wading in water, certainly, but also while reaching for fruit, performing aggressive displays or simply moving around in trees. If we evolved from ancestors who already stood up in trees, we don’t need an extraordinary explanation for why we ended up standing on the ground rather than running around on all fours.

    . . . .there is absolutely no trace of a hominin ancestor as aquatic as that described by Hardy and Morgan.

    We also have evidence our ancestors had to survive periods of extremely dry climate with little or no aquatic resources. Coping with these highly variable, patchwork environments required behavioural flexibility and co-operation, and our large brains and ultra-social nature likely emerged as a result. This flexibility ultimately led to the invention of culture and technology.

    The original idea, and certainly Elaine Morgan’s elaboration of it, became an umbrella hypothesis or a “Theory of Everything”; both far too extravagant and too simple an explanation. It attempts to provide a single rationale for a huge range of adaptations - which we know arose at different times in the course of human evolution. Traits such as habitual bipedalism, big brains and language didn’t all appear at once – instead, their emergence is spread over millions of years. It’s nonsense to lump them all together as if they require a single explanation.

    Despite the evidence stacked up against the theory, it is strangely tenacious. It has become very elastic, and its proponents will seize hold of any mentions of water, fish or shellfish in human evolution, and any archaeological sites found near coasts, rivers and lakes as supporting evidence. But we must always build our hypotheses on, and test them against, the hard evidence: the fossils, comparative anatomy and physiology, and genetics. In that test, the aquatic ape has failed – again and again.
    ================
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page