The problem is that flowers aren't significant here. They're not what matters. Intentional burials matter.
The flowers were only noteworthy as evidence for intentional burials.
But there's plenty of other evidence.
WHAT'S EVEN MORE TELLING:
With plenty of other evidence they attack intentional burials in
Eurasia, and throwing spears, but have fury cave monkeys in Africa
conducting intentional burials AND even marking their tomb with
writing or at least symbols...
A tad lopsided here, isn't it?
But, like I've pointed out many times, paleo anthropology is the
furthest thing from science. It has an agenda, and whatever
advances Out of Africa purity gets in print, and whatever doesn't
gets denied or relabeled.
It's always been this way -- top down, religious edicts. It started
from the very beginning, with Darwin. He's still deified even
now. Piltdown man? How long did it take before that one was
finally put to rest?
There was a professor in Australia who contradicted the claim that
Gwobull Warbling was killing off the reefs. He was attacked, people
called for him to be fired (I believe he actually was fired) and he
was "Debunked" with strong evidence that agricultural runoff was
killing the reefs.
Thanks, JTEM, I only hope that, before I'll die, human waterside evltion
will be generally accepted...
[email protected] wrote:
Thanks, JTEM, I only hope that, before I'll die, human waterside evolution will be generally accepted...
I'm absolutely certain that it already is.
It's just that academia honestly
is tightly controlled. You don't pull in the big bucks AND contradict the status quo.
There was a professor in Australia who contradicted the claim that
Gwobull Warbling was killing off the reefs. He was attacked, people
called for him to be fired (I believe he actually was fired) and he
was "Debunked" with strong evidence that agricultural runoff was
killing the reefs.
Agricultural runoff.
AND NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY stopped and said, "Wait! We
just proved him right! There's no heat doing this, it's our waste
water!"
What I'm saying is that it's academia. The problem isn't limited to
Aquatic Ape. Nobody is allowed to step out of line.
But, this does not mean they can't see the truth. It just means that
they're not allowed to say anything, at least not yet.
Of course, different AATers said & still say +-different things, but
the great lines are obvious: we were waterside.
I can only compare this to the initial non-acceptance of plate
tectonics by geologists?
[email protected] wrote:
Of course, different AATers said & still say +-different things, but
the great lines are obvious: we were waterside.
Where you & I split are..
#1. I despise linear models. I try to speak in terms of populations,
not species, such as in the example of Australopithecus: There
was interbreeding right up to the very moment when they couldn't.
I think gene flow was mostly asymmetrical, flowing mostly from the
waterside to the inland, but there was DNA working back to the
waterside population...
#2. I am more interested in environment than location.
I agree that Eurasia makes a lot of sense, and I really love your island
talk -- it makes so much sense -- but I kind of see a genetic "Fertile Crescent" running from the Horn of Africa (or a little south) to
Melanesia, and where precisely "we" began is not so important as the
fact that it was waterside, exploiting marine resources.
I can only compare this to the initial non-acceptance of plate
tectonics by geologists?
It's a sickness that's permeating all of science these days, at least
any science that lacks an direct military or industrial (economic)
value.
[email protected] wrote:
Thanks, JTEM, I only hope that, before I'll die, human waterside evltion
will be generally accepted...
I'm absolutely certain that it already is.
And your
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:43:27 |
| Calls: | 12,103 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,073 |