Our skin delaminates upon prolonged exposure to water. How can we possibly be adapted to an aquatic life? The water was where we found food, and we happened to be smart enough to exploit it from the shore or in boats, or in short swims.
What about if it were called "the riverside ape hypothesis" instead?
Our skin delaminates upon prolonged exposure to water. How can we possibly be adapted to an aquatic life? The water was where we found food, and we happened to be smart enough to exploit it from the shore or in boats, or in short swims.
Ooh, you sure don't know a lot.Again, there goes the theory of evolution. Or the theory of plate tectonics. Sometimes these ideas pop up. Monocausality doesn't make at concept right or wrong in and of themselves.
Ooh, you sure don't know a lot.
Rainforests are also wet.Uhuh. Do that for at least two million years, possibly double or triple that, why wouldn't this ape evolve the exact traits of an otherwise aquatic nature we're yelling about in here?
https://www.nature.com/news/science-gets-a-grip-on-wrinkly-fingers-1.12175
Show me why you think that.Because what? The theory of evolution is wrong? That's monocausal, init?
Rainforests are also wet.
Show me why you think that.
Ah. So you are one of those people who think that just because climate change is a "popularity consensus" among scientists, that it is not reasoned from evidence in good faith? Sorry, not a fan of such semantic tricks.Exactly. Its dismissal is a popularity consensus among scientists, not reasoned from evidence in good faith. That's what's disturbing about it.
Because CEngelbrecht is treating it like a political issue - saying "his way or the highway", ridiculing anyone who dares object, blaming "the system" etc.Why are you treating this as a political issue, with sides and so forth? Who is in charge of this "letting"? Are my posts irrational? Am I on a "side"?
And there is no hard evidence that requires the evolution of all those traits in an aquatic environment. None.There is no evidence of the early evolution of bipedalism and its major physiological modifications, breath control, the subcutaneous fat layer, smaller canines, opposable thumbs, dietary proclivities, probably fire and tool mastery, etc, in a savannah environment. None.
There are even more people who use cocaine. That is not an argument that cocaine shaped our evolution.I have myself seen Greenlandic children bathe in the ocean during their short summers.
Ah. So you are one of those people who think that just because climate change is a "popularity consensus" among scientists, that it is not reasoned from evidence in good faith? Sorry, not a fan of such semantic tricks.
And there is no hard evidence that requires the evolution of all those traits in an aquatic environment. None.
There is good evidence, however, that most of those traits evolved on land, in response to changes brought about by the increase in intelligence in humans.
There are even more people who use cocaine. That is not an argument that cocaine shaped our evolution.
So you can't. Well spotted.Oh, go fuck yourself.
Huh? That is not in the ocean. That is a thermal pool. Why are you lying and deliberately being misleading?I have myself seen Greenlandic children bathe in the ocean during their short summers. So yeah. That's how strong the aquatic drive is in any human group.
![]()
But the inuits have only been in the arctic for a few millenia. We're talking human aquaticism for two million years at least (or up to as much as 20, according to some).
And with that you are done.Okay, enough. Go fuck yourself. You couldn't give a rats ass about true science. I'll leave you to stare yourself blind at your cave shadows.