It's basically an "alternative explanation of human evolution which theorizes that the common ancestors of modern humans spent a period of time adapting to life in a partially-aquatic environment."
There is also a wonderful speech about it by Elaine Morgan who ends up saying science has become a priesthood by categorizing it as loony without looking at the evidence, and then she quotes Dawkins by the end of the clip I always love it when the lecturers mention Dawkins.
Dory wrote:It's basically an "alternative explanation of human evolution which theorizes that the common ancestors of modern humans spent a period of time adapting to life in a partially-aquatic environment."
There is also a wonderful speech about it by Elaine Morgan who ends up saying science has become a priesthood by categorizing it as loony without looking at the evidence, and then she quotes Dawkins by the end of the clip I always love it when the lecturers mention Dawkins.
She wrote a book about the aquatic ape hypothesis back in the 1980s. I'm sure it was thoroughly debunked, but I can't remember the details.
Although it may look like a forum, this site is actually a crowd-sourced science project modelling the slow but inexorable heat death of the universe.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
Though from what I've heard, although it is a very nice common-sense explanation, it doesn't compete in terms of detailed and hard-to-understand evidence. But that still doesn't rule out the possibility that some of it might be right.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
Amphibious ape makes some sense, some of our evolutionary traits do seem to have been influenced by an aquatic environment. Maybe the missing link is beachcomber man?
Gawd wrote:»
And those Zumwalts are already useless, they can be taken out with an ICBM.
The world is a thing of utter inordinate complexity and richness and strangeness that is absolutely awesome. I mean the idea that such complexity can arise not only out of such simplicity, but probably absolutely out of nothing, is the most fabulous extraordinary idea. And once you get some kind of inkling of how that might have happened, it's just wonderful. And . . . the opportunity to spend 70 or 80 years of your life in such a universe is time well spent as far as I am concerned.
I always love it when the lecturers mention Dawkins. 
