Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Encyclopedia

Expand Messages
  • christianengelbrecht
    Marc, just remember, that bipedalism seen as aquatic is based on observing extant apes and monkeys being bipedal in shallow water. In such case, it would be a
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Marc, just remember, that bipedalism seen as aquatic is based on observing extant apes and monkeys being bipedal in shallow water. In such case, it would be a specific aquatic trait for simians. I don't think it's a mistake to mention bipedalism as an aquatic argument, even if it should be wrong.

      http://www.shahrogersphotography.com/gallery/281-0-BONOBO.html



      --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thanks, Cecile.
      > The website repeats the Wiki site "aquatic ape hypothesis", and
      > unfortunately makes the same mistakes, eg, bipedalism is no "aquatic"
      > feature: AAT is based on comparative biology, but aquatic mammals are not
      > bipedal.
      >
      > --marc
    • Marc Verhaegen
      Marc, just remember, that bipedalism seen as aquatic is based on observing extant apes and monkeys being bipedal in shallow water. In such case, it would be a
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Marc, just remember, that bipedalism seen as aquatic is based on observing
        extant apes and monkeys being bipedal in shallow water. In such case, it
        would be a specific aquatic trait for simians. I don't think it's a mistake
        to mention bipedalism as an aquatic argument, even if it should be wrong.

        An argument, yes, but a wrong argument IMO:
        - birds & humans are bipedal on land & if possible also in the water,
        - hippos, tigers, antelopes etc are QP on land & also pronograde in the
        water,
        - apes & monkeys wade on 4 legs in very shallow water, wade bipedally in
        deeper water & swim in still deeper water,
        - sloths don't walk on land & don't walk in the water, but swim if
        necessary.

        AATers should make the distinction between
        - probably-aquatic traits (poor olfaction, fur loss, SC white fat,
        head-spine-leg in 1 line, etc. = comparative biology) &
        - just-so "arguments": dolphins have laryngeal ascent, not descent, penguins
        are bipedal on land, but not in the waterŠ - no aquatic animal is bipedal.

        We do have the example of proboscis monkeys Nasalis, who sometimes walk as
        well as wade bipedally between mangrove trees, but this is only very
        occasionally, they more often swim (but most of all try to stay in the
        trees).

        You know my view:
        gradual & mosaic-like evolution:
        - early primates: QP, pronograde in trees,
        - early catarhhini, eg, Saadanius: + pronograde surface-swimming?
        - early hominoids, eg, Morotopithecus until australopiths:
        vertical=orthograde climbers/surface-swimmers + central instead of dorsal
        spine, google aquarboreal,
        - Pleistocene archaic Homo: coastal dispersal: initially predom.littoral
        slow divers for shellfish (& seaweeds?) = AAT s.s.
        - early sapiens (< 200 ka?): + wading bipedally in freshwater, less diving:
        longer legs, basi-cranial flexion, loss of platycephaly, loss of
        pachyostosis etc.
        - later sapiens: regular walking & sometimes running bipedally on land.

        --marc

        http://www.shahrogersphotography.com/gallery/281-0-BONOBO.html


        > Thanks, Cecile.
        > The website repeats the Wiki site "aquatic ape hypothesis", and
        > unfortunately makes the same mistakes, eg, bipedalism is no "aquatic"
        > feature: AAT is based on comparative biology, but aquatic mammals are not
        > bipedal. --marc





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Algis
        ... These counter points are even more wrong, in my opinion, and have been answered many times before. Remember phylogeny. We are of the great ape clade, not
        Message 3 of 26 , Jul 18, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:
          >
          > Marc, just remember, that bipedalism seen as aquatic is based on observing
          > extant apes and monkeys being bipedal in shallow water. In such case, it
          > would be a specific aquatic trait for simians. I don't think it's a mistake
          > to mention bipedalism as an aquatic argument, even if it should be wrong.
          >
          > An argument, yes, but a wrong argument IMO:
          > - birds & humans are bipedal on land & if possible also in the water,
          > - hippos, tigers, antelopes etc are QP on land & also pronograde in the
          > water,
          > - apes & monkeys wade on 4 legs in very shallow water, wade bipedally in
          > deeper water & swim in still deeper water,
          > - sloths don't walk on land & don't walk in the water, but swim if
          > necessary.

          These counter points are even more wrong, in my opinion, and have been answered many times before.

          Remember phylogeny. We are of the great ape clade, not birds, hippos, tigers etc.

          It is the differences between humans and the rest of the apes that is key.

          The one place on the planet where all otherwise quadrupedal large primates will switch to bipedalism is in waist/chest deep water. This is the most pertinent piece of evidence possible pertaining to the possible selection pressures involved in the evolution of hominin bipedlaism. Quadrupedalism, in waist/chest deep water, would kill!

          I continue to be amazed (and very disappointed) that some of us are denial over such blatantly obvious evidence.

          ...

          On the encyclopedia/web site topic...

          I agree with the view that this has to be a collaboration. It is too much for one person to do alone. But, as we see clearly here, there is unlikely to ever be any unanimity of opinion between us so I think it is futile to try to have a web site that tries to describe the "aquatic ape hypothesis" - or whatever people like to call their own slant on it - as some kind of consensus.

          This is why I keep banging on about the use of an umbrella term "waterside hypotheses of human evolution". It is an umbrella term in the sense that it broadly encompasses all the various ideas that people have about this.

          It attempts to unite them under a simple, broad but clear definition:

          "Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan." p118

          Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (eds.), (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? (eBook). Blackwell Science (Basel)

          It unites them, but it does not dictate to them.

          Marc's more diving orientated "AAT" can exist under this broad definition, as much as my own "River Apes ... Coastal People" model, Niemitz's Amphibische Generalistheorie or Tobias' "Water and Human Evolution". It's "vague" only in the sense that it is all encompassing.

          In my opinion the web site should reflect this kind of approach.

          A broad heading stressing the things these ideas have in common, seperating them from the mainstream view (whatever that is) with scope for individual ideas/hypotheses/models to be laid out in detail by the individuals who promote them.

          Francesca and Chris's points about countering Jim Moore's "distort to discredit" web site by trying to reclaim the "aquatic ape" label are good and worth considering but I think this is an opportunity to move away from that label altogether. We should not be forced to continue to use that label ourselves, but be aware than most people will probably keep using it.

          ---

          What's happenned to Chak's web site anyway? I've written to him several times and had no reply.

          I've set up a private discussion forum (http://waterside-hypotheses.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=226) specifically to discuss this and no-one (apart from one post each from Francesca and Chris) has chipped in.

          The term "herd of cats" springs to mind!

          Algis
        • Francesca Mansfield
          I agree that we need to keep a broad definition of what the water influence has been in order to encompass everybody s views, but we should avoid petty
          Message 4 of 26 , Jul 19, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree that we need to keep a broad definition of what the water influence
            has been in order to encompass everybody's views, but we should avoid petty
            bickering over the details too openly in order not to look like a group of
            amateurs playing with a vague and inconsistent hypothesis. My only argument
            for sticking to the term 'aquatic ape theory', as I've previously stated, is
            from a SEO (search engine optimisation) perspective. The reason why people
            are not finding websites or articles on "littoral" or "waterside" hypotheses
            is probably because they don't know they should be searching for them. What
            they do know is "aquatic ape". If the copy on the website is not optimised
            for this term, Jim Moore and Wikipedia will continue to draw in the people
            who are searching for it.

            Once you've landed all the fish in the boat with the right hook, you can gut
            and fillet them any way you like.

            I think our website can then point to relevant pages on 'waterside' theory,
            'littoral' theory, etc. under the even more umbrella term of AAT, each
            written or edited by the people with the most knowledge in that field. If
            Marc wants to elaborate on the diving aspect of Homo erectus, and Algis
            wants to elaborate about wading along rivers and coasts, there's no reason
            why they can't be seen as 'current variations in the theory of how water has
            played a role in shaping our evolution.'

            Francesca

            Ps - I tend to think that the people reading your waterside discussion
            group, Algis are all on this list anyway? Or are there others in that group
            who are not here? If so, perhaps we can just copy each post in both places.

            From: AAT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AAT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Algis
            Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 8:08 AM
            To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [AAT] Re: Encyclopedia


            --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:
            >
            > Marc, just remember, that bipedalism seen as aquatic is based on observing
            > extant apes and monkeys being bipedal in shallow water. In such case, it
            > would be a specific aquatic trait for simians. I don't think it's a
            mistake
            > to mention bipedalism as an aquatic argument, even if it should be wrong.
            >
            > An argument, yes, but a wrong argument IMO:
            > - birds & humans are bipedal on land & if possible also in the water,
            > - hippos, tigers, antelopes etc are QP on land & also pronograde in the
            > water,
            > - apes & monkeys wade on 4 legs in very shallow water, wade bipedally in
            > deeper water & swim in still deeper water,
            > - sloths don't walk on land & don't walk in the water, but swim if
            > necessary.

            These counter points are even more wrong, in my opinion, and have been
            answered many times before.

            Remember phylogeny. We are of the great ape clade, not birds, hippos, tigers
            etc.

            It is the differences between humans and the rest of the apes that is key.

            The one place on the planet where all otherwise quadrupedal large primates
            will switch to bipedalism is in waist/chest deep water. This is the most
            pertinent piece of evidence possible pertaining to the possible selection
            pressures involved in the evolution of hominin bipedlaism. Quadrupedalism,
            in waist/chest deep water, would kill!

            I continue to be amazed (and very disappointed) that some of us are denial
            over such blatantly obvious evidence.

            ...

            On the encyclopedia/web site topic...

            I agree with the view that this has to be a collaboration. It is too much
            for one person to do alone. But, as we see clearly here, there is unlikely
            to ever be any unanimity of opinion between us so I think it is futile to
            try to have a web site that tries to describe the "aquatic ape hypothesis" -
            or whatever people like to call their own slant on it - as some kind of
            consensus.

            This is why I keep banging on about the use of an umbrella term "waterside
            hypotheses of human evolution". It is an umbrella term in the sense that it
            broadly encompasses all the various ideas that people have about this.

            It attempts to unite them under a simple, broad but clear definition:

            "Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading,
            swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have
            significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens
            as distinct from that leading to Pan." p118

            Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human
            evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M.,
            Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (eds.), (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the
            Past? (eBook). Blackwell Science (Basel)

            It unites them, but it does not dictate to them.

            Marc's more diving orientated "AAT" can exist under this broad definition,
            as much as my own "River Apes ... Coastal People" model, Niemitz's
            Amphibische Generalistheorie or Tobias' "Water and Human Evolution". It's
            "vague" only in the sense that it is all encompassing.

            In my opinion the web site should reflect this kind of approach.

            A broad heading stressing the things these ideas have in common, seperating
            them from the mainstream view (whatever that is) with scope for individual
            ideas/hypotheses/models to be laid out in detail by the individuals who
            promote them.

            Francesca and Chris's points about countering Jim Moore's "distort to
            discredit" web site by trying to reclaim the "aquatic ape" label are good
            and worth considering but I think this is an opportunity to move away from
            that label altogether. We should not be forced to continue to use that label
            ourselves, but be aware than most people will probably keep using it.

            ---

            What's happenned to Chak's web site anyway? I've written to him several
            times and had no reply.

            I've set up a private discussion forum
            (http://waterside-hypotheses.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=226) specifically to
            discuss this and no-one (apart from one post each from Francesca and Chris)
            has chipped in.

            The term "herd of cats" springs to mind!

            Algis
          • Marc Verhaegen
            Yes, people will continue to google aquatic ape , but we can provide as often as possible correct information & refer to our papers, eBook, websites etc. I
            Message 5 of 26 , Jul 19, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, people will continue to google "aquatic ape", but we can provide as
              often as possible correct information & refer to our papers, eBook,
              websites etc.
              I often send something like this:

              Many discussions on the so-called "aquatic ape theory" are irrelevant &
              outdated, not considering the recent literature on the subject.
              Humans didn't descend from "aquatic apes", of course, although our
              Pleistocene ancestors were too slow & heavy for regular running over open
              plains as some anthropologists still believe.
              Instead, Homo populations during the Ice Ages (with sea-levels often 100 m
              lower than today) followed the coasts & rivers in Africa & Eurasia.
              800,000 years ago, they even reached Flores more than 18 km overseas.
              Some recent info:
              - google "econiche Homo"
              - eBook "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" introduction Phillip Tobias
              http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/9781608052448/index.htm
              - guest post at Greg Laden's blog
              http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/30/common-misconceptions-and-unpr
              oven-assumptions-about-the-aquatic-ape-theory
              http://greencomet.org/2013/05/26/aquatic-ape-the-theory-evolves/
              - Human Evolution conference London 8­10 May 2013 with David Attenborough,
              Don Johanson etc.
              htt://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/education/education-conference-centre/study-d
              ays-conferences/pages/2013-evolution.aspx
              - M Verhaegen & S Munro 2011 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo
              frequently collected sessile littoral foods" HOMO J compar hum Biol
              62:237-247
              - M Vaneechoutte, S Munro & M Verhaegen 2012 "Reply to John Langdon's
              review of the eBook: Was Man more aquatic in the past?" HOMO J compar hum
              Biol 63:496-503
              - for ape & australopith evolution google "aquarboreal"
              marc verhaegen tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT



              >I agree that we need to keep a broad definition of what the water
              >influence
              >has been in order to encompass everybody's views, but we should avoid
              >petty
              >bickering over the details too openly in order not to look like a group of
              >amateurs playing with a vague and inconsistent hypothesis. My only
              >argument
              >for sticking to the term 'aquatic ape theory', as I've previously stated,
              >is
              >from a SEO (search engine optimisation) perspective. The reason why people
              >are not finding websites or articles on "littoral" or "waterside"
              >hypotheses
              >is probably because they don't know they should be searching for them.
              >What
              >they do know is "aquatic ape". If the copy on the website is not optimised
              >for this term, Jim Moore and Wikipedia will continue to draw in the people
              >who are searching for it.
              >Once you've landed all the fish in the boat with the right hook, you can
              >gut
              >and fillet them any way you like.
              >I think our website can then point to relevant pages on 'waterside'
              >theory,
              >'littoral' theory, etc. under the even more umbrella term of AAT, each
              >written or edited by the people with the most knowledge in that field. If
              >Marc wants to elaborate on the diving aspect of Homo erectus, and Algis
              >wants to elaborate about wading along rivers and coasts, there's no reason
              >why they can't be seen as 'current variations in the theory of how water
              >has
              >played a role in shaping our evolution.'
              >Francesca
            • Greg Last NameJones
              I m with you Francesca. Let s focus people:  lets make this thread about setting up this Encyclopedia site and hold the other discussions separately. It
              Message 6 of 26 , Jul 19, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm with you Francesca.

                Let's focus people:  lets make this thread about setting up this Encyclopedia site and hold the other discussions separately.

                It sounds like we have agreed on four things.  PLEASE say so if you don't agree with any of them!

                    1)    We will use Christopher's site.
                    2)    There will be no fee for access.
                    3)    We will use the name Aquatic Ape Theory.
                    4)    We will have some system of filtering submissions so crazy or destructive comments are excluded.


                Christopher, are you offering to be the one who will have posting authority?

                We need to agree on how we will filter submissions.

                I know I have no right to act like I am in charge here (and I am not) but I think we need to move this discussion forwards.

                And please keep in mind that some people are not able to check this site every day, and sometimes may have long absences.  We all have lives and real jobs!

                Greg

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Greg Last NameJones
                Maybe this comment by Marc (or something close to it) would be good to have first on our home page, followed by some details supporting the position. Greg
                Message 7 of 26 , Jul 20, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Maybe this comment by Marc (or something close to it) would be good to have first on our home page, followed by some details supporting the position.

                  Greg

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Algis
                  Hi Francesca As far as I know there is no contradiction between having a page on the web site with the heading Aquatic Ape Hypothesis , a hundred references
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jul 20, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Francesca

                    As far as I know there is no contradiction between having a page on the web site with the heading "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis", a hundred references to it, and any number of SEO tricks embedded within it to attract the "AAH seeking fish" - but still having the overall web site, and the ideas it contains, labelled something else - something a little closer to the truth.

                    I don't know why people prefer an unstructured, linear discussion group like this one to one that's carefully laid out and is more feature rich. Each to their own. I'm only trying to help.

                    Algis

                    --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Francesca Mansfield" <f-ceska@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I agree that we need to keep a broad definition of what the water influence
                    > has been in order to encompass everybody's views, but we should avoid petty
                    > bickering over the details too openly in order not to look like a group of
                    > amateurs playing with a vague and inconsistent hypothesis. My only argument
                    > for sticking to the term 'aquatic ape theory', as I've previously stated, is
                    > from a SEO (search engine optimisation) perspective. The reason why people
                    > are not finding websites or articles on "littoral" or "waterside" hypotheses
                    > is probably because they don't know they should be searching for them. What
                    > they do know is "aquatic ape". If the copy on the website is not optimised
                    > for this term, Jim Moore and Wikipedia will continue to draw in the people
                    > who are searching for it.
                    >
                    > Once you've landed all the fish in the boat with the right hook, you can gut
                    > and fillet them any way you like.
                    >
                    > I think our website can then point to relevant pages on 'waterside' theory,
                    > 'littoral' theory, etc. under the even more umbrella term of AAT, each
                    > written or edited by the people with the most knowledge in that field. If
                    > Marc wants to elaborate on the diving aspect of Homo erectus, and Algis
                    > wants to elaborate about wading along rivers and coasts, there's no reason
                    > why they can't be seen as 'current variations in the theory of how water has
                    > played a role in shaping our evolution.'
                    >
                    > Francesca
                    >
                    > Ps - I tend to think that the people reading your waterside discussion
                    > group, Algis are all on this list anyway? Or are there others in that group
                    > who are not here? If so, perhaps we can just copy each post in both places.
                    >
                    > From: AAT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AAT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Algis
                    > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 8:08 AM
                    > To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [AAT] Re: Encyclopedia
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Marc, just remember, that bipedalism seen as aquatic is based on observing
                    > > extant apes and monkeys being bipedal in shallow water. In such case, it
                    > > would be a specific aquatic trait for simians. I don't think it's a
                    > mistake
                    > > to mention bipedalism as an aquatic argument, even if it should be wrong.
                    > >
                    > > An argument, yes, but a wrong argument IMO:
                    > > - birds & humans are bipedal on land & if possible also in the water,
                    > > - hippos, tigers, antelopes etc are QP on land & also pronograde in the
                    > > water,
                    > > - apes & monkeys wade on 4 legs in very shallow water, wade bipedally in
                    > > deeper water & swim in still deeper water,
                    > > - sloths don't walk on land & don't walk in the water, but swim if
                    > > necessary.
                    >
                    > These counter points are even more wrong, in my opinion, and have been
                    > answered many times before.
                    >
                    > Remember phylogeny. We are of the great ape clade, not birds, hippos, tigers
                    > etc.
                    >
                    > It is the differences between humans and the rest of the apes that is key.
                    >
                    > The one place on the planet where all otherwise quadrupedal large primates
                    > will switch to bipedalism is in waist/chest deep water. This is the most
                    > pertinent piece of evidence possible pertaining to the possible selection
                    > pressures involved in the evolution of hominin bipedlaism. Quadrupedalism,
                    > in waist/chest deep water, would kill!
                    >
                    > I continue to be amazed (and very disappointed) that some of us are denial
                    > over such blatantly obvious evidence.
                    >
                    > ...
                    >
                    > On the encyclopedia/web site topic...
                    >
                    > I agree with the view that this has to be a collaboration. It is too much
                    > for one person to do alone. But, as we see clearly here, there is unlikely
                    > to ever be any unanimity of opinion between us so I think it is futile to
                    > try to have a web site that tries to describe the "aquatic ape hypothesis" -
                    > or whatever people like to call their own slant on it - as some kind of
                    > consensus.
                    >
                    > This is why I keep banging on about the use of an umbrella term "waterside
                    > hypotheses of human evolution". It is an umbrella term in the sense that it
                    > broadly encompasses all the various ideas that people have about this.
                    >
                    > It attempts to unite them under a simple, broad but clear definition:
                    >
                    > "Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading,
                    > swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have
                    > significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens
                    > as distinct from that leading to Pan." p118
                    >
                    > Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human
                    > evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M.,
                    > Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (eds.), (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the
                    > Past? (eBook). Blackwell Science (Basel)
                    >
                    > It unites them, but it does not dictate to them.
                    >
                    > Marc's more diving orientated "AAT" can exist under this broad definition,
                    > as much as my own "River Apes ... Coastal People" model, Niemitz's
                    > Amphibische Generalistheorie or Tobias' "Water and Human Evolution". It's
                    > "vague" only in the sense that it is all encompassing.
                    >
                    > In my opinion the web site should reflect this kind of approach.
                    >
                    > A broad heading stressing the things these ideas have in common, seperating
                    > them from the mainstream view (whatever that is) with scope for individual
                    > ideas/hypotheses/models to be laid out in detail by the individuals who
                    > promote them.
                    >
                    > Francesca and Chris's points about countering Jim Moore's "distort to
                    > discredit" web site by trying to reclaim the "aquatic ape" label are good
                    > and worth considering but I think this is an opportunity to move away from
                    > that label altogether. We should not be forced to continue to use that label
                    > ourselves, but be aware than most people will probably keep using it.
                    >
                    > ---
                    >
                    > What's happenned to Chak's web site anyway? I've written to him several
                    > times and had no reply.
                    >
                    > I've set up a private discussion forum
                    > (http://waterside-hypotheses.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=226) specifically to
                    > discuss this and no-one (apart from one post each from Francesca and Chris)
                    > has chipped in.
                    >
                    > The term "herd of cats" springs to mind!
                    >
                    > Algis
                    >
                  • Marc Verhaegen
                    Which comment you mean, Greg? I send so (too?) much to the AAT group. Perhaps it s best not to snip too much when answering a postè :-) --marc Van: Greg
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jul 21, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Which comment you mean, Greg? I send so (too?) much to the AAT group.
                      Perhaps it's best not to snip too much when answering a postŠ :-) --marc

                      Van: Greg Last NameJones <gcgiltmead@...>
                      Beantwoorden - Aan: "AAT@yahoogroups.com" <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
                      Datum: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
                      Aan: "AAT@yahoogroups.com" <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
                      Onderwerp: [AAT] Re: Encyclopedia






                      Maybe this comment by Marc (or something close to it) would be good to have
                      first on our home page, followed by some details supporting the position.

                      Greg

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • christianengelbrecht
                      To get the ball rolling, I m trying to find an International web host for this project, rather than my private Danish one. I ve gotten so far as considering
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jul 21, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To get the ball rolling, I'm trying to find an International web host for this project, rather than my private Danish one.

                        I've gotten so far as considering host-ed.net and hosting24.com. Is any of you knowledgable of the cornucopia of web host providers enough to recommend or warn against any of these? I seem to have difficulty finding providers supporting a transfer of a .nu domain, and I'm also looking for a solution that can support a MediaWiki setup (which is the free Wikipedia editing engine, add-free from what I understand).


                        In terms of filtering contributions, I'd prefer to allow for immediate posting, like on Wikipedia (which is why I'm considering MediaWiki), to allow for easy contributions for a wide group of aquatic specialists and interestees. This will be monitored of course and people should be subject to penalties. But I'd like to trust these parties to acknowledge the differences of opinion within the aquatic ideas as well as the opposition to them, and accept the balanced presentation of all this, rather than promote own personal views over others. (And yes, I'm kinda looking at you, Marc.) This is something that I think worked really well with the Bentham volume, so I hope to have a similar culture for this project. I see that as the best possible promotion of this aquatic debate. Whatever the aquatic truth on human evolution was I'm sure will prevail through such a balanced consensus presentation.

                        Which users are given editing rights would be the result of an approval process, I don't mind taking care of that for starters. What the standards should be for that approval, I am not sure of right now. Instinctively, users should have exhibited an academic approach prior to, and I would like very much to avoid the many hecklers out there sneaking in. I am not for disallowing known opponents if they wish to contribute, e.g. John Langdon or Donald Johanson (why not?), but at the same time someone like Jim Moore I'd consider a heckler based on my experience with him.

                        But let's get a system up and running, before we jump into all that.

                        (And my name is Christian, not Christopher, but fair mistake.)



                        --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Greg Last NameJones <gcgiltmead@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I'm with you Francesca.
                        >
                        > Let's focus people:  lets make this thread about setting up this Encyclopedia site and hold the other discussions separately.
                        >
                        > It sounds like we have agreed on four things.  PLEASE say so if you don't agree with any of them!
                        >
                        >     1)    We will use Christopher's site.
                        >     2)    There will be no fee for access.
                        >     3)    We will use the name Aquatic Ape Theory.
                        >     4)    We will have some system of filtering submissions so crazy or destructive comments are excluded.
                        >
                        >
                        > Christopher, are you offering to be the one who will have posting authority?
                        >
                        > We need to agree on how we will filter submissions.
                        >
                        > I know I have no right to act like I am in charge here (and I am not) but I think we need to move this discussion forwards.
                        >
                        > And please keep in mind that some people are not able to check this site every day, and sometimes may have long absences.  We all have lives and real jobs!
                        >
                        > Greg


                        --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@...> wrote:
                        > I don't know why people prefer an unstructured, linear discussion group like this one to one that's carefully laid out and is more feature rich. Each to their own. I'm only trying to help.
                        >
                        > Algis


                        Habit and people's social nature, I reckon.

                        Regards,
                        Chris Engelbrecht
                        Tollarp, Sweden
                      • Algis
                        ... I use Dreamhost. They re pretty good and pretty cheap. I don t know anything about MediaWiki but I suspect it s OpenSource/PhP based so they could probably
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jul 21, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, c.h.engelbrecht@... wrote:
                          >
                          > To get the ball rolling, I'm trying to find an International web host for this project, rather than my private Danish one.
                          >
                          > I've gotten so far as considering host-ed.net and hosting24.com. Is any of you knowledgable of the cornucopia of web host providers enough to recommend or warn against any of these? I seem to have difficulty finding providers supporting a transfer of a .nu domain, and I'm also looking for a solution that can support a MediaWiki setup (which is the free Wikipedia editing engine, add-free from what I understand).

                          I use Dreamhost. They're pretty good and pretty cheap. I don't know anything about MediaWiki but I suspect it's OpenSource/PhP based so they could probably host something like that. I don't think it's suitable for a .Net/ASP host.

                          If you need any detailed help/advice I can ask my son - he is an internet guru.

                          > In terms of filtering contributions, I'd prefer to allow for immediate posting, like on Wikipedia (which is why I'm considering MediaWiki), to allow for easy contributions for a wide group of aquatic specialists and interestees. This will be monitored of course and people should be subject to penalties. But I'd like to trust these parties to acknowledge the differences of opinion within the aquatic ideas as well as the opposition to them, and accept the balanced presentation of all this, rather than promote own personal views over others. (And yes, I'm kinda looking at you, Marc.) This is something that I think worked really well with the Bentham volume, so I hope to have a similar culture for this project. I see that as the best possible promotion of this aquatic debate. Whatever the aquatic truth on human evolution was I'm sure will prevail through such a balanced consensus presentation.
                          >
                          > Which users are given editing rights would be the result of an approval process, I don't mind taking care of that for starters. What the standards should be for that approval, I am not sure of right now. Instinctively, users should have exhibited an academic approach prior to, and I would like very much to avoid the many hecklers out there sneaking in. I am not for disallowing known opponents if they wish to contribute, e.g. John Langdon or Donald Johanson (why not?), but at the same time someone like Jim Moore I'd consider a heckler based on my experience with him.

                          I agree with all of that. Good on ya, Christian!

                          Algis
                        • gcgiltmead
                          This idea from Algis sounds good to me but we need someone with the right technical skills to set it up right. Personally, I believe we need both a structured
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jul 27, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            This idea from Algis sounds good to me but we need someone with the right technical skills to set it up right.

                            Personally, I believe we need both a structured site and this discussion site. They serve different purposes and will appeal to different people.

                            Greg


                            --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Hi Francesca
                            >
                            > As far as I know there is no contradiction between having a page on the web site with the heading "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis", a hundred references to it, and any number of SEO tricks embedded within it to attract the "AAH seeking fish" - but still having the overall web site, and the ideas it contains, labelled something else - something a little closer to the truth.
                            >
                            > I don't know why people prefer an unstructured, linear discussion group like this one to one that's carefully laid out and is more feature rich. Each to their own. I'm only trying to help.
                            >
                            > Algis
                            >
                            > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Francesca Mansfield" <f-ceska@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > I agree that we need to keep a broad definition of what the water influence
                            > > has been in order to encompass everybody's views, but we should avoid petty
                            > > bickering over the details too openly in order not to look like a group of
                            > > amateurs playing with a vague and inconsistent hypothesis. My only argument
                            > > for sticking to the term 'aquatic ape theory', as I've previously stated, is
                            > > from a SEO (search engine optimisation) perspective. The reason why people
                            > > are not finding websites or articles on "littoral" or "waterside" hypotheses
                            > > is probably because they don't know they should be searching for them. What
                            > > they do know is "aquatic ape". If the copy on the website is not optimised
                            > > for this term, Jim Moore and Wikipedia will continue to draw in the people
                            > > who are searching for it.
                            > >
                            > > Once you've landed all the fish in the boat with the right hook, you can gut
                            > > and fillet them any way you like.
                            > >
                            > > I think our website can then point to relevant pages on 'waterside' theory,
                            > > 'littoral' theory, etc. under the even more umbrella term of AAT, each
                            > > written or edited by the people with the most knowledge in that field. If
                            > > Marc wants to elaborate on the diving aspect of Homo erectus, and Algis
                            > > wants to elaborate about wading along rivers and coasts, there's no reason
                            > > why they can't be seen as 'current variations in the theory of how water has
                            > > played a role in shaping our evolution.'
                            > >
                            > > Francesca
                            > >
                            > > Ps - I tend to think that the people reading your waterside discussion
                            > > group, Algis are all on this list anyway? Or are there others in that group
                            > > who are not here? If so, perhaps we can just copy each post in both places.
                            > >
                            > > From: AAT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AAT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Algis
                            > > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 8:08 AM
                            > > To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
                            > > Subject: [AAT] Re: Encyclopedia
                          • gcgiltmead
                            Here is Marc s comment that I thought could be a starting point for writing an introductory message for the home page. This would show right away that we
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jul 27, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Here is Marc's comment that I thought could be a starting point for writing an introductory message for the home page. This would show right away that we aren't a bunch of loons and that the theory today is much more complex than that proposed >50 years ago. It needs editing, etc, but makes an important point.

                              Of course we need to get across the big picture quickly too to hold people's attention, but it is just as valuable to start setting the record straight (vs all the misinformation people see).

                              This note also shows how we can start right off referring readers to other pages on the site for more detailed info.

                              Greg

                              PS: I was using reply to group instead of post to group so the previous message was lost.


                              --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Yes, people will continue to google "aquatic ape", but we can provide as
                              > often as possible correct information & refer to our papers, eBook,
                              > websites etc.
                              > I often send something like this:
                              >
                              > Many discussions on the so-called "aquatic ape theory" are irrelevant &
                              > outdated, not considering the recent literature on the subject.
                              > Humans didn't descend from "aquatic apes", of course, although our
                              > Pleistocene ancestors were too slow & heavy for regular running over open
                              > plains as some anthropologists still believe.
                              > Instead, Homo populations during the Ice Ages (with sea-levels often 100 m
                              > lower than today) followed the coasts & rivers in Africa & Euras
                              ia.
                              > 800,000 years ago, they even reached Flores more than 18 km eoverseas.
                              > Some recent info:
                              > - google "econiche Homo"
                              > - eBook "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" introduction Phillip Tobias
                              > http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/9781608052448/index.htm
                              > - guest post at Greg Laden's blog
                              > http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/30/common-misconceptions-and-unpr
                              > oven-assumptions-about-the-aquatic-ape-theory
                              > http://greencomet.org/2013/05/26/aquatic-ape-the-theory-evolves/
                              > - Human Evolution conference London 8­10 May 2013 with David Attenborough,
                              > Don Johanson etc.
                              > htt://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/education/education-conference-centre/study-d
                              > ays-conferences/pages/2013-evolution.aspx
                              > - M Verhaegen & S Munro 2011 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo
                              > frequently collected sessile littoral foods" HOMO J compar hum Biol
                              > 62:237-247
                              > - M Vaneechoutte, S Munro & M Verhaegen 2012 "Reply to John Langdon's
                              > review of the eBook: Was Man more aquatic in the past?" HOMO J compar hum
                              > Biol 63:496-503
                              > - for ape & australopith evolution google "aquarboreal"
                              > marc verhaegen tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
                              >
                              >
                            • gcgiltmead
                              ... However we do this needs to be a consensus, which is why we are talking about it. My opinion on filtering is: 1) There are jerks out there who who will
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jul 27, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, c.h.engelbrecht@ wrote:
                                > >
                                > > To get the ball rolling, I'm trying to find an International web host for this project, rather than my private Danish one.
                                > >
                                > > I've gotten so far as considering host-ed.net and hosting24.com. Is any of you knowledgable of the cornucopia of web host providers enough to recommend or warn against any of these? I seem to have difficulty finding providers supporting a transfer of a .nu domain, and I'm also looking for a solution that can support a MediaWiki setup (which is the free Wikipedia editing engine, add-free from what I understand).
                                >
                                > I use Dreamhost. They're pretty good and pretty cheap. I don't know anything about MediaWiki but I suspect it's OpenSource/PhP based so they could probably host something like that. I don't think it's suitable for a .Net/ASP host.
                                >
                                > If you need any detailed help/advice I can ask my son - he is an internet guru.
                                >
                                > > In terms of filtering contributions, I'd prefer to allow for immediate posting, like on Wikipedia (which is why I'm considering MediaWiki), to allow for easy contributions for a wide group of aquatic specialists and interestees. This will be monitored of course and people should be subject to penalties. But I'd like to trust these parties to acknowledge the differences of opinion within the aquatic ideas as well as the opposition to them, and accept the balanced presentation of all this, rather than promote own personal views over others. (And yes, I'm kinda looking at you, Marc.) This is something that I think worked really well with the Bentham volume, so I hope to have a similar culture for this project. I see that as the best possible promotion of this aquatic debate. Whatever the aquatic truth on human evolution was I'm sure will prevail through such a balanced consensus presentation.


                                However we do this needs to be a consensus, which is why we are talking about it. My opinion on filtering is:

                                1) There are jerks out there who who will post things intending to tear discredit the AAT. We don't need people espousing creationism or claiming that we believe humans evolved from dolphins. Some kind of filtering is needed to protect our integrity.

                                2) There need to be 2 sites, one as a site that comprehensively presents the AAT info in a thoughtful and scientific way and one for discussion. If this Yahoo site is not the right place for open discussion (after all you have to apply for membership and there is value in limiting deleterious stuff here) lets set up an open discussion site too. That one wouldn't be as hard to set up or monitor, but should have the ability to block people if need be.

                                Greg



                                > >
                                > > Which users are given editing rights would be the result of an approval process, I don't mind taking care of that for starters. What the standards should be for that approval, I am not sure of right now. Instinctively, users should have exhibited an academic approach prior to, and I would like very much to avoid the many hecklers out there sneaking in. I am not for disallowing known opponents if they wish to contribute, e.g. John Langdon or Donald Johanson (why not?), but at the same time someone like Jim Moore I'd consider a heckler based on my experience with him.
                                >
                                > I agree with all of that. Good on ya, Christian!
                                >
                                > Algis
                                >
                              • christianengelbrecht
                                ... I might as well plug Algis www.waterside-hypotheses.com. He has already setup a private forum aimed for such discussions. We could do it in here as well,
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jul 28, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "gcgiltmead" <gcgiltmead@...> wrote:
                                  > 2) There need to be 2 sites, one as a site that comprehensively presents the AAT info in a thoughtful and scientific way and one for discussion. If this Yahoo site is not the right place for open discussion (after all you have to apply for membership and there is value in limiting deleterious stuff here) lets set up an open discussion site too. That one wouldn't be as hard to set up or monitor, but should have the ability to block people if need be.
                                  >
                                  > Greg


                                  I might as well plug Algis' www.waterside-hypotheses.com. He has already setup a private forum aimed for such discussions.
                                  We could do it in here as well, but the Yahoo format has its shortcomings I think for such complex issues, you'd loose track very easy.


                                  I now have a hosting account at Dreamhost for this project. I need to point the aquaticape.nu domain name to their name-servers.
                                  Something very interesting is that Dreamhost has some function to one-click install MediaWiki, which was the solution I was going for.
                                  Bear with me while I figure all this out, then we should be able to get cracking.


                                  Sincerely,
                                  Chris Engelbrecht
                                  Tollarp, Sweden
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.