Lee Olsen
Mon, Mar-24-08, 17:17
Message-ID: <b8561m$iek$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu> Jason Eshleman:
"Greater evidence that we're not the children of an aquatic
hominid is that we simply don't bear real resemblances to
aquatics. What gets paraded out as evidence of aquaticism is a
hodge podge of poorly constructed arguments (e.g. "abundant
sweating in seals," ignoring that this is demonstrated by a
single severed flipper; accumulation of subcutaneous fat,
ignoring that the distribution isn't consistent with an
aquatic but is consistent with an animal storing fat as fuel
for lean times; a "linear" build, ignoring that we're not all
that streamlined in the water and the long limbs don't in any
way resemble real aquatic adaptations).
Hardy's aquatic hypothesis was quackery. Whatever he might
have contributed to marine biology, his hypotheses didn't and
don't fit the evidence. That's why for 43 years only fringers
have paid any attention to them. That's why only delusional
nutcases like Verhaegen or writers of popular fiction like
Morgan bother with the stuff. It's not real science. The
aquatics retort that this is all some sort of conspiracy or
prejudice designed to keep the status quo in business. This of
course ignores that over the 43 years, there's not been a
single status quo as indeed scientists do evaluate evidence
and reformulate ideas. If you can get your hands on a text
book from even a decade ago, you'll notice that things change
rather dramatically, quite in contrast to any notion that
there's some elite force from the ivory towers that tries to
suppress progress.
The problem is that the evidence for an aquatic human
ancestor is crap, and has been for the 43 years since Hardy
wrote it up."
"Greater evidence that we're not the children of an aquatic
hominid is that we simply don't bear real resemblances to
aquatics. What gets paraded out as evidence of aquaticism is a
hodge podge of poorly constructed arguments (e.g. "abundant
sweating in seals," ignoring that this is demonstrated by a
single severed flipper; accumulation of subcutaneous fat,
ignoring that the distribution isn't consistent with an
aquatic but is consistent with an animal storing fat as fuel
for lean times; a "linear" build, ignoring that we're not all
that streamlined in the water and the long limbs don't in any
way resemble real aquatic adaptations).
Hardy's aquatic hypothesis was quackery. Whatever he might
have contributed to marine biology, his hypotheses didn't and
don't fit the evidence. That's why for 43 years only fringers
have paid any attention to them. That's why only delusional
nutcases like Verhaegen or writers of popular fiction like
Morgan bother with the stuff. It's not real science. The
aquatics retort that this is all some sort of conspiracy or
prejudice designed to keep the status quo in business. This of
course ignores that over the 43 years, there's not been a
single status quo as indeed scientists do evaluate evidence
and reformulate ideas. If you can get your hands on a text
book from even a decade ago, you'll notice that things change
rather dramatically, quite in contrast to any notion that
there's some elite force from the ivory towers that tries to
suppress progress.
The problem is that the evidence for an aquatic human
ancestor is crap, and has been for the 43 years since Hardy
wrote it up."