CEngelbrecht

Fuck you too. And fuck you too.

Two and a half. I have been looking for the kill argument since day one. No one have been able to supply one yet. All I get every time is the same snorting arrogance based on not even bothering to read up on the increasing amount of relevant litterature. How can I possibly see the error of my ways, when you keep pretending that it's an obvious pile of drivel, that just ain't that obvious?

And Alister Hardy is Copernicus in this bitch.

What fucking racism??? We're all subjected to endemic cretinism!!! For forty thousand fucking years!!! It's right there on the god damned skulls!!! Aaand there goes the theory of evolution. That sure as hell is an umbrella hypothesis in equal measure. Well done. You just gave creationists their best weapon ever. AAH must be wrong 'cause it's umbrella hypothesis trying to explain way too many seemingly unrelated phenomena. Then a buck load of other umbrella hypotheses must be wrong too. The theory of the heliocentric near-universe. The theory of gravity. The theories of relativity. Of plate tectonics. Of evolution by natural selection. How much are you willing to sacrifice to finally shut that Welsh grandma up?

One more time for Prince Knut: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16828044/ Surfer's ear, a clear marker for lifetime aquatic activity, is prevalent in both erectus and Neanderthal fossils from 2mya and until the extinction of the Neanderthals 40kya. For that very long period of time, the hominin brain was on a constant increase, until it peaked around 1500cc in Neanderthals. Couple surfer's ear with these biochemical needs of the hominin brain, hominins couldn't have kept evolving a larger and larger brain without vital access to such nutrients, with saltwater seafood being by far the most parsimonous source. With sapiens moving in to dominate Eurasia, surfer's ear disappears from the fossils. And this happens alongside a now gradual loss of sapiens brain volume all the way to modern times. You do the math.

Piss on William of Ockham...

It doesn't matter what you believe. Science stays true whether we believe in it or not. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16828044/ I didn't back away, I'm gonna explain it again. The chain ends with EPA and DHA. Which is plentiful in salt water fauna seafood, and nowhere else. You brain needs DHA for its growth and upkeep. And you have lost 100cc of sapiens brain over the last 40 millenia, because the 40ky old mutated gene now synthesizing ALA and other terrestrial PUFAs towards EPA and DHA is inefficient. You haven't been able to upkeep your brain in full since that date. There is only one likely explanation for why you're in short supply of DHA today: Because you no longer eat the original diet that built your brain across at least two million years. Because you switched from seafood to big game. Terrestrial big game has the benefit of a much higher calory count, though short in the brain-specific building blocks. Your hunt for more calories is gradually costing you your brain. Ongoing. Do you now understand? Do you understand just how fucking important this discovery is? And do you understand how bleeding stupid it is to keep rejecting such a discovery just because it is an inconvenient truth for some fucking fraternity?

You're missing 100cc of brain because of it, sapiens. And today we're draining the world oceans of the brain food. Endemic cretinism will only increase, if we even survive the next century, what with climate change, fission war and whatnot. This is all based on the already known fossil archive along with comparative analysis straight out of Darwinian tradition and sound biochemical observation. Uhuh. Do you even know what this idea is actually suggesting? Do you even give a fuck? That's nice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98 No one ever succeeded in proving it false. As little as the cardinals proved Galileo wrong. So why add it to your kitchen salt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency A quarter of the world's sapienses don't get enough iodine. Are you gonna believe the WHO? There is only one general food source plentiful in iodine, as well as the other brain selective micronutrients. And that is seafood. You're denying irrefutable evidence for no other reason than that of Elaine Morgan being an irritating armchair scientist that is not supposed to have a point. You're all acting out of sociological bullshit, not scientic enquiry. And it needs to stop, 'cause her studies have over time revealed why we have been losing our brain for 40 millenia, and why it will only continue for any foreseeable future. Without Morgan, we would simply not know this. Stop pissing on your own giant already!!!

The biochemical building blocks still aren't there unless you use them tools to crack open a handful of oysters couple times a week. For hundreds of thousands of years. Do that for two million years, what you get? Bigger and bigger brain. Without salt water fauna seafood, an ape just won't evolve it. The Earth is not the center of the universe. What can you do?

Exactly. Because bipedalism evolved +5mya in the hinterland of Africa, in freshwater lakes and streams. Vertical bipedalism is what happens when all simian species wade through shallow water, as illustrated above. We see that as bipedalism in the early hominin fossils, because they became a semiaquatic ape first in African jungles, evolving from even earlier canopy dwelling apes. Conversely, the growing brain needs salt water biomes. Both terrestrial and fresh water foodchains simply do not contain the micronutrients necessary for a mammal species to evolve that large brain across cento millenia. It needs specifically EPA and DHA fatty acids and most crucially iodine to do it. That's why an ocean dolphin have five times the brain of a savannah zebra. 'Cause lo and behold, salt water foodchains have those exact building blocks in quantity. That's why the hominin brain grew exponentially long after the birth of hominin bipedalism, because a strand of australopithecines made the transition from fresh water to salt water in East Africa ~2mya, giving birth to the Homo family. A then flooded Afar Triangle was the perfect tropical cradle towards the beach ape that you all still are. There is no terrestrial scenario that can thus explain that difference in dates for bipedalism and growing brain, respectively. The aquatic one can.

Which is why all other simians and mammals also needing access to fresh water doesn't evolve surfer's ear, obviously. Neanderthals and erectus before them. At least two million years of hominin evolution is accompanied by surfer's ear. Right from the explosive brain growth of the Homo family. You do the math. I know, he's one of the heretics. He says what you don't want to hear: That this inconvenient truth is long since proven using your own scientific method. You need all this to be nuts for deeply complex sociological reasons, and it just refuses to be, it's disgusting. Then to hell with your own scientific method.

It was always semiaquatic. From before zoology coined the term "semiaquatic". I'm not responsible for WHAT YOU WISH THIS IDEA WAS SUGGESTING!!! Four lines of text, over sixty years old. And you all still refuse to read them!!! 'CAUSE THERE IS NOTHING NEW TO LEARN!!! THE EARTH IS STILL THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!! Still no mermaids in there. They were never there in the first place. Still nothing crazy. 'Cause it was never crazy. You arrogant fools have pissed on your own giant long enough. The continents of the Earth move!!! You know how old the genes coding for the ALA-to-DHA enzymes are? 40,000 years. The exact same date as the beginning of sapiens' brain atrophy. What a coincidence. Almost as if your ancestors had to evolve that function to try and keep synthetic access to DHA from other fatty acids when evolving away from being a fishing ape and towards of big game hunting ape. Which is clearly being done insufficiantly, 'cause your brain has been shrinking ever since. But how could you possibly know that? You're not allowed to read these banned volumes. In paleoanthropology, you're only allowed to take their word for it. Are you also gonna deny that your master race sapiens brain has been shrinking since the genocide of the fishing Neanderthals?

"During the last few years, when I have found myself in the company of distinguished biologists, evolutionary theorists, paleoanthropologists and other experts, I have often asked them to tell me, please, exactly why Elaine Morgan must be wrong about the aquatic theory. I haven’t yet had a reply worth mentioning, aside from those who admit, with a twinkle in their eyes, that they have also wondered the same thing." - Dan Dennett, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (1995)

There are 8 billion semiaquatic apes living on Planet Earth today. Is that clear enough for you? And you're not even acknowledging the existence of the relevant litterature. You don't even click the link.

I am. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5696936/ But you're burning these banned volumes. 'Cause we already know everything. Nullius in Verba doesn't apply. Only Might Makes Right.

Surfer's ear does not evolve in cold winds and rain. I'm gonna repeat that: Surfer's ear does not evolve in cold winds and rain. You have to be in water for hours a week for years. Hence the name. All I know is that today, Homo sapiens match the freediving capacity of sea otters and hippos.

And then there is reality. Jim Moore is this debate's Dan Brown. We are an old beach ape. Of course we are. Nothing else makes any damn sense, if we truly are a result of the mechanisms of evolution as put forth by Darwin and Wallace. And you're stuck in thinking the Earth is still the center of the universe, and that you don't have to read these banned volumes. The Waterside Ape | BBC R4

Funny how screenplay writer Elaine Morgan to this day is poo-poo'ed for being an amateur speaking up in proper company, but you just looove to listen to car mechanic Jim Moore, an amateur in equal measure. I know. You're still the master race. The peak of evolution causing your own extinction. Of course you're much smarter than the inferior Neanderthals. We all know the Earth is the center of the universe. Except for FUCKING SURFER'S EAR IN THE DAMN SKULLS!!! GO TAKE A FUCKING LOOK YOURSELF!!! THIS IS FULL ON DENYING IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE!!! YOU'RE DOING NOTHING DIFFERENT FROM CREATIONISTS!!! 'Cause baboons are smart enough to recognize the same thing, sure. Hippos aren't bipedal in water, because they don't descend from brachiating simians +25mya. Except when you pick aquatic foods for five million years.

Science is a strange culprit, it stays true whether you believe in it or not. What you're all feeling right now is the sensation of the cardinals in 1632 in Rome.

Uhuh. Except that Homo sapiens have lost about 100cc of brain volume over the last 40,000 years. Doing with less: hominin brain atrophy I am just gonna repeat that: Homo sapiens have lost about 100cc of brain volume over the last 40,000 years. Which does coincide with the earliest true archeological evidence of big game hunting in Eurasia, of mammoths, etc. Suggesting that maybe as late as 40kya is when hominins started to let go of a chiefly aquatic diet rich in brain beneficial nutrients, in favor of a more calorific terrestrial diet lacking is such nutrients. Which is slowly costing us that big brain we're so bloody proud of. And sapiens 40kya is not even the hominin with the largest brain ever. That was the Neanderthals that they genocided. That's right. That's not being said out loud that often either. Them dumb-as-pig-shit Neanderthals that you have all been taught was subhuman had a bigger average brain than you and your direct ancestors. They were likely smarter than you and your ancestry too. In the 1990s, Peter Rhys-Evans made the testable suggestion that surfer's ear would be detectable in hominin fossils, if they had really been largely fishing apes. And OH MY!: Aural exostoses (surfer’s ear) provide vital fossil evidence of an aquatic phase in Man’s early evolution Neanderthals also got 'surfer's ear,' suggesting they liked to fish AS SOON AS SOMEONE GOT THEIR HEAD OUT THEIR ARSE AND ACTUALLY STARTED TO LOOK AT THE ALREADY EXISTING FOSSIL ARCHIVE!!! BUT GO ON ABOUT HOW THERE IS NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR THE AQUATIC APE HYPOTHESIS!!! A journalist once told Albert Einstein about the publication of a book titled, "100 Authors Against Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity". His reply was: "Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." No sjit. That is a helluva thing: Every single ape and monkey species becomes vertically bipedal when wading through shallow water. But of course that can't possibly support the heretic notion that that's how hominin habitual bipedalism began in hinterland lakes and streams in Africa. That's because you don't read up. 'Cause you think you don't have to [Survival of the fattest: the key to human brain evolution] These have become banned volumes and Nullius in Verba somehow don't apply.

I don't see anybody aquatically inclined questioning that DNA consensus at all. Yes, Homo sapiens with extreme likelyhood emerged in Africa, as other hominoids and hominins before it. The waterside concept just entails, that sapiens (and erectus two million years prior) would've migrated out of Africa following coastlines of Asia, not across land masses. Which seems confirmed by archeological evidence showing early sapiens migration routes out of Africa along the Yemen coasts, as opposed to across a land bridge through e.g. the Levant. Which also goes to explain why sapiens is evident in coastal Australia before riperian China or Europe. It was the shorter route along the coasts of Southern Asia. Because ethologically, they would've been beach combers, not grassland trekkers or even woodland dwellers. I sense you (like many seem to do) misunderstand these ideas completely and think they somehow argue, that humans would've had a recent origin frolicking in the open seas 24-7-365, on par with cetaceans or sirenia. I don't see that argued anywhere in the key sources, from e.g. Alister Hardy, Elaine Morgan, Carsten Nimitz, Philip Tobias, Marc Verhaegen (posting above), Stephen Munro, Algis Kuliukas, Stephen Cunnane, Leigh Broadhurst, Nicole and Renato Bender, Erika Schagatay, Michel Odent, to name a few off the top of my head. Primarily because, no, that doesn't make a farthing sense what so ever. Not since we were fish 390 million years ago, were we fully aquatic, but it's not being argued, either. Nobody informed is arguing for the existence of mermaids or Aquaman or any such hogwash. Those few that have done this, don't know what they're talking about, either. This phrasing started the whole thing in 1960: This is still at the core of the waterside consensus, as posited by the above people. Anything crazy in this? So we'd be ol' beach apes, so what? Hell, Hardy's idea may somehow be wrong or at the last not the full story, but it doesn't have the scientific problems, the majority for some damned reason assume it has. What it does have is a sociological problem, that leaves is stigmatized.

I'd like to see a chimp or a gorilla manage even a fraction of this:

I'm not really in favor of that criticism of the role of selection, I think maybe the authors focus too much on rival mechanisms like genetic drift, that would otherwise supplement selection, not replace it. (Plus, I always see wolves in the pope's clothing whenever people critizise Darwin.) Just understand, that AAH is not contrary to natural selection. I have seen detractors of AAH claim such, and for the like of me I can't see how.

I've experienced a flood of misunderstanding and prejudice about this topic, which I have to say still baffles me. English is not my native language, but aparently the nomer "aquatic" would give off a notion about a being with as high a water existence as that of e.g. cetaceans. I've read a lot of the sources on this topic, and I never got any other impression than what was being posited being that of a "beach ape" of sorts. The latter in my opinion is the one likely scenario that could've served as a selective pressure over 2-7 million years of evolution for those traits in modern humans, that defer substantiously from our ape cousins, especially when you couple it with our behavioral traits, e.g. afinity for bathing. The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH) suffers from focusing much on soft tissue features, e.g. lack of fur cover, which is hard to make testable via e.g. the hominin fossil archive. Debating more or less entirely from the physical bones is very much the standard in the traditional anthropological debate, so much so that trying to debate human origin from a strict comparative analysis of physiology (which is conversely very much the standard in evolutionary biology) is traditionally frowned upon amongst anthropologists. Or at least so it seems to me. AAH also suffers heavily from having been proponed for some forty years by an amateur writer, Elaine Morgan who died recently, which in my opinion was eligible for the Darwin-Wallace medal despite her true academic shortcomings. Her being an amateur I sense exacurbated a range of prejudices from professional anthropologists, which made them stigmatize the entire topic around water and human evolution. I have to say, and this is obviously my complete personal opinion, that some aquatic pressure during recent human evolution is the one remaining notion that makes any sense in terms of best explaining our unique origin as a species, if envisioning us being indeed a result largely of selective pressure, as laid out by e.g. Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Neither the savannah or the jungles can explain the traits that make us stand out amongst the apes, at least nowhere near as well as the watersides. In my opinion. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272598 A comment on the idea's reception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis This article has a series of problems, but it goes to show the level of the debate. At least it presents some of the many arguments posited in this debate. This is the range of aquatic arguments illustrated. Some arguments are better than others. Click on image for access to higher resolution: