Google "WHATtalk"

______

Dear One and All

Please consider yourself invited to the 20th WHAT Talk meeting which is scheduled for a week tomorrow (Sunday, 11th June) starting at 9 pm West Australian Time. To join the meeting please just click the link at the end of this email 10-15minutes before
the start. Feel free to copy this to anyone you think might also be interested in these fascinating ideas.

Please check your local time, perhaps using this link.





This month, Algis Kuliukas will talk about his attempt to apply the hypothetico-deductive (or, more simply, “scientific”) method to the problem of hominid bipedal origins and other waterside hypotheses of human evolution.





Having read all of Elaine Morgan’s books on the so-called “aquatic ape hypothesis” by 1997, he was puzzled by why such simple, plausible and evidence-based ideas were still all but ignored by academia so, encouraged by his wife Lesley, he returned
to academia himself to try to find out. 25 years later, he’s learned that there are no good reasons for this, only very bad ones. Perhaps the only excuse worth bothering about, he decided, was the criticism that, technically, Elaine had not applied the
scientific method to her work. True, she’d made many observations about the human form and she’d come up with sensible, water-based explanations for all of them. What was lacking, perhaps, was the use of the scientific algorithm – hypothesis
testing. This is where you phrase an hypothesis in the form of a series of testable predictions, and then you set out to test them in such a way that they might be falsified. This (Popperian) method was one of the first things Algis learned about when he
started his Masters degree at University College London and he decided to base his MSc thesis very strictly on this principle. He was awarded a distinction for it and, encouraged, decided to continue his studies by emigrating “down under” to do a PhD
at the University of Western Australia. He applied the same methodology to his PhD thesis too. In this talk, Algis will describe the hypothetico-deductive method and how he applied to the wading hypothesis of hominid bipedal origins. He’ll also suggest
how so many other waterside hypotheses of human evolution still await similar testing.



Remember all talks are recorded and put on line at our web site www.whattalks.com and the associated YouTube Channel .



Note also, that some improvements have recently been made to the web site making it easier to find previous talks…


Google "WHATtalk




This will be the 20th talk in the WHAT Talks series.

Below is the full schedule so far. Please get in touch if you can suggest any other guest who you think might be interested in participating.





--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Google "WHATtalk"

I'm in NYC. Got to bed at like 6am. Will have to catch it on Youtube.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719822321821548544

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Google "WHATtalk"

______

Dear One and All

Please consider yourself invited to the 20th WHAT Talk meeting which is scheduled for a week tomorrow (Sunday, 11th June) starting at 9 pm West Australian Time. To join the meeting please just click the link at the end of this email 10-15minutes before

the start. Feel free to copy this to anyone you think might also be interested in these fascinating ideas.

Please check your local time, perhaps using this link.

This month, Algis Kuliukas will talk about his attempt to apply the hypothetico-deductive (or, more simply, “scientific”) method to the problem of hominid bipedal origins and other waterside hypotheses of human evolution.

Having read all of Elaine Morgan’s books on the so-called “aquatic ape hypothesis” by 1997, he was puzzled by why such simple, plausible and evidence-based ideas were still all but ignored by academia so, encouraged by

She wrote science fiction for tv. She did no research whatsoever.

his wife Lesley, he returned to academia himself to try to find out. 25
years later, he’s learned that there are no good reasons for this, only
very bad ones. Perhaps the only excuse worth bothering about, he
decided, was the criticism that, technically, Elaine had not applied the scientific method to her work. True, she’d made many observations about
the human form and she’d come up with sensible, water-based explanations
for all of

Nonsense like breasts are meant to float? :=}}}}


them. What was lacking, perhaps, was the use of the scientific algorithm
– hypothesis testing. This is where you phrase an hypothesis in the form
of a series of testable predictions, and then you set out to test them
in such a way that they might be falsified. This (Popperian) method was
one of the first things Algis learned about when he started his Masters
degree at University College London and he decided to base his MSc
thesis very strictly on this principle. He was awarded a distinction for
it and, encouraged, decided to continue his studies by emigrating “down under” to do a PhD at the University of Western Australia. He applied
the same methodology to his PhD thesis too. In this talk, Algis will
describe the hypothetico-deductive method and how he applied to the
wading hypothesis of hominid bipedal origins. He’ll also suggest how so
many other waterside hypotheses of human evolution still await similar
testing.

Looks like he made zero impact.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op maandag 12 juni 2023 om 06:50:24 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Google "WHATtalk"
______
Dear One and All
Please consider yourself invited to the 20th WHAT Talk meeting which is scheduled for a week tomorrow (Sunday, 11th June) starting at 9 pm West Australian Time. To join the meeting please just click the link at the end of this email 10-15minutes

before the start. Feel free to copy this to anyone you think might also be interested in these fascinating ideas.

Please check your local time, perhaps using this link.
This month, Algis Kuliukas will talk about his attempt to apply the hypothetico-deductive (or, more simply, “scientific”) method to the problem of hominid bipedal origins and other waterside hypotheses of human evolution.
Having read all of Elaine Morgan’s books on the so-called “aquatic ape hypothesis” by 1997, he was puzzled by why such simple, plausible and evidence-based ideas were still all but ignored by academia so, encouraged by

She wrote science fiction for tv. She did no research whatsoever.

Elaine did, my boy, she did: why don't you inform a *little* bit before trying to say something??
And what "research" did you do, my boy?? :-D

...

Nonsense like breasts are meant to float? :=}}}}

??
That's not what she said, my boy:
lies are the only "argument" of savanna runners.

Only incredible imbeciles like you still believe your ancestors ran after antelopes over savannas... :-DDD

Human evolution schematically, for fanatic kudu runners:
-Pliocene Homo, google "aquarboreal": wading+climbing,
-early-Pleistocene archaic Homo: wading+diving,
-late-Pleistocene H.sapiens: wading+walking.

Not so difficult, is it?
Google "gondwanatalks verhaegen english".
:-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

She wrote science fiction for tv. She did no research whatsoever.

Darwin was a geologist who was personally responsible for setting
back science in the English speaking world for 20 years, by
becoming the face of naturalism and marginalizing Mendel. He
also did not actually believe in evolution. He used the word, eventually,
and probably thought he meant "Evolution" but what he believed and
wrote about was pretty much identical to the ideas of those who
REJECTED evolution. In other words, Darwin is a complete fraud and
John Hawks is on record REPEATEDLY fellating Darwin.

So mainstream paleo athropology propagates the Darwin myth, and
you're upset because some writer made a fool out of paleo anthropology
by recognizing the sense in Aquatic Ape...

Nonsense like breasts are meant to float? :=}}}}

Who cares?

Aquatic Ape makes sense with or without floating breasts.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719879056031612929

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 9:50:24 PM UTC-7, Primum Sapienti

She wrote science fiction for tv. She did no research whatsoever.
Elaine had not applied the
scientific method to her work. True, she’d made many observations about the human form and she’d come up with sensible, water-based explanations for all of
Nonsense like breasts are meant to float? :=}}}}

And this is just the most obvious of her nonsense. She also said that the linear posture of hominids/humans came from swimming.

She made reference to the fact that human babies seem adapted to a fluid environment, completely ignoring the fact that they had so recently been ensconced in amniotic fluid.

them. What was lacking, perhaps, was the use of the scientific algorithm
– hypothesis testing. This is where you phrase an hypothesis in the form of a series of testable predictions, and then you set out to test them
in such a way that they might be falsified.

In historical sciences this is just misguided. If you don't have a background in comparative anatomy you have no foundation from which to reason from.

This (Popperian) method was

one of the first things Algis learned about when he started his Masters degree at University College London

Again, without comparative anatomy one can come to just about any conclusion they want--which seems to be exactly what he proceeded to do.

and he decided to base his MSc

thesis very strictly on this principle. He was awarded a distinction for
it and, encouraged, decided to continue his studies by emigrating “down under” to do a PhD at the University of Western Australia. He applied
the same methodology to his PhD thesis too. In this talk, Algis will describe the hypothetico-deductive method and how he applied to the
wading hypothesis of hominid bipedal origins. He’ll also suggest how so many other waterside hypotheses of human evolution still await similar testing.
Looks like he made zero impact.

Water is the source of a lot of pseudo-scientific meanderings. In meteorology they believe that it defies it's known boiling temperature/pressure becoming gaseous at low temperatures that have never been detected in a laboratory. And this is currently
accepted by academia!

Many in academia still believe that tool usage is the engine of human intellect. In reality the engine of human intellect is the fact that culture and story-telling are so adaptive toward the achievement of maintaining communal stability despite huge
swings in economic factors. This caused hominid cultural and story-telling adaptations to evolve to elaborate complexity that could only be accommodated by encephalization, with reason and logic as tools that anchored these increasing complex
capabilities, tieing them to universal understanding.

Claudius Denk / Humane Revolution

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Savanna runner on Elaine Morgan:

She made reference to the fact that human babies seem adapted to a fluid environment, completely ignoring the fact that they had so recently been ensconced in amniotic fluid

My little boy, all mammals "had so recently been ensconced in amniotic fluid". Sigh. Grow up!
Google "baby swimming" & "calf swimming".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 5:21:19 AM UTC-7, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Savanna runner on Elaine Morgan:

She made reference to the fact that human babies seem adapted to a fluid environment, completely ignoring the fact that they had so recently been ensconced in amniotic fluid

My little boy, all mammals "had so recently been ensconced in amniotic fluid".
Sigh. Grow up!
Google "baby swimming" & "calf swimming".

You just made my point for me, moron.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

snorkel nose wrote:

Savanna runner on Elaine Morgan:

She made reference to the fact that human babies seem adapted to a fluid environment, completely ignoring the fact that they had so recently been ensconced in amniotic fluid

My little boy, all mammals "had so recently been ensconced in amniotic fluid".

mv thinks all mammals are aquatic.

Sigh. Grow up!
Google "baby swimming" & "calf swimming".

google puppies diving...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Primum Sapienti wrote:

She wrote science fiction for tv. She did no research whatsoever.

Darwin was a geologist who was personally responsible for setting

You have to go back to the 1800s! BTW, geology was more that
morgan ever had. Or you.

Nonsense like breasts are meant to float? :=}}}}

Who cares?

Aquatic Ape makes sense with or without floating breasts.

AA depends on nonsense like floating breasts. It shows how
comical and grasping it is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

some idiot lies:

AA depends on nonsense like floating breasts.

:-DDD
This shows how ridiculous, false-hearted, childish & idiotic the savanna believers are.
Disgusting idiots: lying = their only argument.

Inform a *little*bit, my little boy, e.g. google "Bonne gondwanatalks english":

Our ancestors lived in aquatic habitats according to the controversial but highly plausible Waterside hypothesis, formerly known as the Aquatic Ape Theory. Frequent wading in water led, among other things, to our most striking feature: walking upright on
two legs. However, many paleoanthropologists still believe that bipedalism is the result of our supposed move from jungle to savannah, an idea that sprang from the now largely obsolete savannah hypothesis. In this article we rely on the insights of
Belgian physician Marc Verhaegen, an authority on human evolution. His new findings from anatomy and comparative biology have greatly refined our current knowledge.
This article is the first part of a series on our ancestors and their extended family, their way of life, kinships, landscapes in which they lived, and migrations (not only in Africa but also in Eurasia), all based on the work of Dr. Marc Verhaegen,
author of the book "Human Evolution: why we walk upright and can speak" (2022, currently only in Dutch).
By challenging dogmatic theories such as the Savannah Hypothesis, we hope to open the debate and better understand, with an open mind and without self-righteous afro- and anthropocentrism, how we are today. The evolution of humans and primates is indeed
quite fascinating.
The Waterside Hypothesis has been under attack for decades. It's been derided, taken out of context, ignored by 'serious paleoanthropologists' and labeled pseudoscience (even Wikipedia is not neutral). But the scientific arguments, from anatomy and
comparative biology of both living and fossil humans as well as great apes, are overwhelming and certainly cannot be ignored. The opposition comes from the adherents of the savannah hypothesis and related theories in turn based on dogmas from the
Victorian era.
Man running around on the savannah?
During the Miocene, the epoch that lasted from 23.03 to 5.33 million years ago, the climate was more tropical than today and dense rainforests were widespread. Toward the end of the Miocene (starting about 8 million years ago) it gradually became drier
and rainforests gave way to more open landscapes, such as savannas (although rainforest were still abundant). The "classical" savannah hypothesis holds that man's ancestors descended from the trees and moved to the savannah to run around upright, on two
legs, and become hunters. This transition would explain man's unique anatomy: bipedalism, upright, no fur, large brain, ...
But these assumptions don't actually hold water. Walking upright on two legs is not at all a good adaptation to a dangerous open habitat such as the savanna. Moreover, early great apes walked upright long before savannas became widespread, as is becoming
increasingly clear from biological evidence. Yet many paleoanthropologists continue to adhere to the savannah hypothesis because it fits the entrenched anthropocentric, even macho-like picture of 'fast clever man hunting wild animals in the savannah',
distancing himself in any sense from the lame dumb ape sitting in a tree chewing on a piece of fruit'. This "ideal" image grew in the days when Victorian gentlemen regarded man as the pinnacle of evolution.
...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op vrijdag 23 juni 2023 om 16:55:24 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:

some idiot lies:

AA depends on nonsense like floating breasts.

:-DDD
This shows how ridiculous, false-hearted, childish & idiotic the savanna believers are.
Disgusting idiots: lying = their only argument.
Inform a *little*bit, my little boy, e.g. google "Bonne gondwanatalks english":

https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Our ancestors lived in aquatic habitats according to the controversial but highly plausible Waterside hypothesis, formerly known as the Aquatic Ape Theory. Frequent wading in water led, among other things, to our most striking feature: walking upright

on two legs. However, many paleoanthropologists still believe that bipedalism is the result of our supposed move from jungle to savannah, an idea that sprang from the now largely obsolete savannah hypothesis. In this article we rely on the insights of
Belgian physician Marc Verhaegen, an authority on human evolution. His new findings from anatomy and comparative biology have greatly refined our current knowledge.

This article is the first part of a series on our ancestors and their extended family, their way of life, kinships, landscapes in which they lived, and migrations (not only in Africa but also in Eurasia), all based on the work of Dr. Marc Verhaegen,

author of the book "Human Evolution: why we walk upright and can speak" (2022, currently only in Dutch).

By challenging dogmatic theories such as the Savannah Hypothesis, we hope to open the debate and better understand, with an open mind and without self-righteous afro- and anthropocentrism, how we are today. The evolution of humans and primates is

indeed quite fascinating.

The Waterside Hypothesis has been under attack for decades. It's been derided, taken out of context, ignored by 'serious paleoanthropologists' and labeled pseudoscience (even Wikipedia is not neutral). But the scientific arguments, from anatomy and

comparative biology of both living and fossil humans as well as great apes, are overwhelming and certainly cannot be ignored. The opposition comes from the adherents of the savannah hypothesis and related theories in turn based on dogmas from the
Victorian era.

Man running around on the savannah?
During the Miocene, the epoch that lasted from 23.03 to 5.33 million years ago, the climate was more tropical than today and dense rainforests were widespread. Toward the end of the Miocene (starting about 8 million years ago) it gradually became drier

and rainforests gave way to more open landscapes, such as savannas (although rainforest were still abundant). The "classical" savannah hypothesis holds that man's ancestors descended from the trees and moved to the savannah to run around upright, on two
legs, and become hunters. This transition would explain man's unique anatomy: bipedalism, upright, no fur, large brain, ...

But these assumptions don't actually hold water. Walking upright on two legs is not at all a good adaptation to a dangerous open habitat such as the savanna. Moreover, early great apes walked upright long before savannas became widespread, as is

becoming increasingly clear from biological evidence. Yet many paleoanthropologists continue to adhere to the savannah hypothesis because it fits the entrenched anthropocentric, even macho-like picture of 'fast clever man hunting wild animals in the
savannah', distancing himself in any sense from the lame dumb ape sitting in a tree chewing on a piece of fruit'. This "ideal" image grew in the days when Victorian gentlemen regarded man as the pinnacle of evolution.

...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

You have to go back to the 1800s!

Wait. You're claiming that the error is corrected? The racist,
elitist plagiarist who didn't actually believe in evolution &
set back science in the English speaking world an entire
generation is now REJECTED by society for the worthless,
underachieving fraud that he was?

Or is it still relevant, and your powerful narcissistic personality
disorder showing again?

Because here on my planet, Darwin isn't the 1800s. His myth
persists even now, and is taught even now. A fantasy is being
taught as science and history. Now. Right now. Darwin still
pollutes education and science itself.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720724355194273792

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

some idiot lies:

AA depends on nonsense like floating breasts.

:-DDD
This shows how ridiculous, false-hearted, childish & idiotic the savanna believers are.

Recognize THIS poster?

https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg

"large floating breasts help feeding while immersed"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Primum Sapienti wrote:

You have to go back to the 1800s! BTW, geology was more that
morgan ever had. Or you.

Wait. You're claiming that the error is corrected?

You mean you and Morgan actually got an education? Doubtful.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

You mean you and Morgan actually got an education? Doubtful.

Let's make one thing crystal clear: You are NOT educated.

I have no idea if you attended some diploma mill but you are not
educated. You could be trained, like a dog trained to give it's
paw on demand, but you're not educated. You can't follow threads.
You have no reading comprehension nor retention. You don't
understand the materials you quote, much less what you're
reacting towards. And, you certainly have no clue as to how to
deconstruct problems, approach them rationally.

How long have we been asking you to account for DHA? Just
that; DHA. You can't even deal with that one little piece of the
puzzle.

"Eew! Eew! Elephants & stuff."

You're shooting blanks here.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721666107169292289

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

Recognize THIS poster?

https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg

Remember how I asked you to explain everything it mentions,
using your savanna idiocy?

Of course you don't.

Well here's your opportunity to do that, right now.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721666107169292289

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

some idiot lies:

AA depends on nonsense like floating breasts.

:-DDD This shows how ridiculous, false-hearted, childish & idiotic the savanna believers are.

kudu runner:

Recognize THIS poster? https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg
"large floating breasts help feeding while immersed"

Not mine AFAIR, but excellent I'd think:
a few people still life like that AFAICS! :-)

The savanna-running fools don't even know the meaning of the word "depends". :-DDD
The Sta-Savanna fantasy is the most ridiculous nonsense you can imagine: pachyosteosclerotic H.erectus running after antelopes... :-DDD

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Primum Sapienti wrote:

Recognize THIS poster?

https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg

Remember how I asked you to explain everything it mentions,
using your savanna idiocy?

Of course you don't.

Well here's your opportunity to do that, right now.

You mean you really believe that female breasts are for floating
babies to nurse???? The absurd crap in that poster is self
defeating.

Oh, I forgot; you're retarded.

Why are you here? You demonstrate ZERO interest in these topics, you
post random, irrelevant "cites" you never read and couldn't understand
anyway AND you engage in infantile behavior.

Go away.


We're always so kind to you, so polite, despite your many obvious
flaws... your many, many flaws... many, many, many, many flaws...

Anyhow, we're always so cordial, pretending not to notice the
drool, never asking about the stains on the front of your pants,
and yet you return our charity with such rudeness! Did they teach
you nothing at that trailer park?

You don't make a good parrot, bird brain.

The gravity of the situation, vis a vis your mental health, is
troubling to say the least.

Look. You're an idiot. There's no denying that.

Lord knows you're not bright, and you're unaware of this fact (despite
the constant reminders).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Primum Sapienti wrote:

You mean you and Morgan actually got an education? Doubtful.

Oh, I forgot; you're retarded.

Why are you here? You demonstrate ZERO interest in these topics, you
post random, irrelevant "cites" you never read and couldn't understand
anyway AND you engage in infantile behavior.

Go away.


We're always so kind to you, so polite, despite your many obvious
flaws... your many, many flaws... many, many, many, many flaws...

Anyhow, we're always so cordial, pretending not to notice the
drool, never asking about the stains on the front of your pants,
and yet you return our charity with such rudeness! Did they teach
you nothing at that trailer park?

You don't make a good parrot, bird brain.

The gravity of the situation, vis a vis your mental health, is
troubling to say the least.

Look. You're an idiot. There's no denying that.

Lord knows you're not bright, and you're unaware of this fact (despite
the constant reminders).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

[...]

You're as original as you are bright.

Congratulations. Your parents must be proud, assuming they
had other children.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723706649198690304

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg

Remember how I asked you to explain everything it mentions,
using your savanna idiocy?

Of course you don't.

Well here's your opportunity to do that, right now.

You mean

You're a troll. you're an idiot. You can't grasp a word of this but Aquatic
Ape is the single best answer. You can attack the graphic, everything
it explains, but you can't explain anything yourself.

As unsatisfactory as you find the answers in that graphic, they are
way better than any answer you would dare try to offer.

And it's a straw man anyway. Nobody says that aquatic ape is
dependent upon 100% agreement with anyone.

You've confused science for church.

And, like I said, you're an idiot and a troll.

You constantly embarrass yourself like this.

You just want attention, and negative attention is, for you, far
better than no attention.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723706649198690304

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)