The Science of Nature
I’m obsessed with nature documentaries done by the BBC. I used my Halloween prize at Amazon this past year to get the Planet Earth box set, and I’ve also acquired the Blue Planet series as well. I love Sir David Attenborough.
I had this dream the other night that I was in this library in the future, and any subject you were interested in was searchable on computers to this video database that David Attenborough had created. So you would type in: Intersexed sea creatures, and Sir Attenborough would pop up and explain what this was all about and how it relates to humanity.
In lieu of my dream database actually existing, I’m going to try and collect everything possible he has made. The next collection will be Life of Mammals, I saw the Meat Eaters episode and it was awesome.
Here’s my amazon wish list, if you’re wondering what to get me for my birthday.
David Attenborough’s #1 moment – an amazing Lyre Bird that can imitate all sorts of sounds, natural and man made:
My online documentary watching pastime took a giant kick in the balls last week with the end of Stage6. Stage6 was my go-to source for streaming movies, shows and docs. But like all things to good to be true, it’s over. Now it’s crappy Google video or youtube I guess. Veoh might take over some of the need, I was using it when I started using Stage 6 originally, but the benefits of streaming won me over and I abandoned Veoh. In truth, it doesn’t take that long to download and I think they are supporting divX now.
I did find a great documentary about the Aquatic Ape hypothesis on youtube last night. The quality is poor but watchable.
Aquatic Ape Part 1
Super interesting ideas, great argument and potential. Anthropologists are haters, and it would be great if they did the science to either prove or dismiss the idea; that humans might have spent some time in the water during our evolutionary history.
And of course, here it is presented by Sir David Attenborough, I recommend part 2:
Scars of Evolution.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I generally also like David Attenborough’s work; he does, I hear from experts on subjects he’s handled, sometimes mess up on the odd fact but usually in a minor way. But he falls down badly when he gets to the aquatic ape idea. Maybe he’s seduced by a good story, which it is, even though it has the failing (for science) of being contrary to the facts. Interesting idea, of course, but contrary to the facts; cleverly argued certainly, but an argument made — by all its principal proponents — by dishonestly presenting falsehoods as evidence, and such tactics as altering quotes and claiming researchers say the opposite of what they do say.
“Anthropologists are haters”? Because they reject an idea which was contradicted by the evidence even when it was first put forward, and contradicted by additional evidence found since then? Because they rejected an idea that was put forth so poorly? I think that makes them good scientists; in science you can’t accept a good story, no matter how much it appeals to you, based on that kind of presentation and evidence.
My background for saying this is a lot of study (15 plus years now) on the subject, and if you’re interested in the facts surrounding the idea you could visit my web site, Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim?. I also have a page on that site dealing specifically with Sir David’s BBC Radio 4 show on the subject and the unfortunately many errors he made in it (Notes on BBC Radio 4 program). I’ve been doing this checking for 10 years now and have had a version of my site up since 1996. My site has been used as a reference by The Straight Dope (22 Jan 2002) and The Fortean Times (Oct 2003), as well as the Talk Origins Archive and several college courses, plus of course just plain folks interested in facts. I’ve also written an entry on the subject for the (unfortunately outrageously expensive) Sage Encyclopedia of Anthropology. If you have any questions feel free to email me; I have a contact mailto on each page of my site.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Hey anthrosciguy,
Thanks so much for the info, I will definitely take time to check out your links. I don’t really mean that anthros are haters, I’m just whimsical and love it when my imagination gets sparked by something – fantasy or whatever. I’m certainly not a scientist so my opinion doesn’t really count, but I appreciate the feedback though. But I’m still rooting for the Aquatic ape! I will read your stuff and let you know what I think.
Later
March 6th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
You might be interested in my Nancy Tanner’s 1981 book on human evolution, On Becoming Human. An actual groundbreaker, and accurate. BTW, as far as imagination goes, anthropologists are some of the best academics to go to for that, IMO. We used to go to the Contact conference, a scifi/anthro conference, that combined anthro with scifi, with lots of input from pros in both fields. Thier contact scenarios were always interesting; two teams met seperately to develop their side: one a human “contact” team, the other the aliens who made up an entire alien culture and physiology, along with the world. Then they’d meet, and we’d see how the humans did at a meet and greet with an alien lifeform. The results most times were not good for the humans, showing we had/have a lot to learn.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Hi Nicole, I see you got a visit from “qrazyqat” aka “q” aka “anthrosciguy”. Anyone who mentions ‘aquatic ape’ gets a special visit from him, telling them they don’t grasp reality as well as he does. Now I see he’s added David Attenborough to his list of those poor unfortunates that have been ignorantly fooled into thinking our human ancestors once lived at waterside, foraging along seashores.
If you check the Sage encyclopedia referenced above, you’ll read the false “fact” that the only terrestrial mammal bipeds are human, apparently anthrosciguy has never heard of the kangaroo. (See for yourself for free at their website, download the Aa-Az chapter and find “Aquatic Ape Hypothesis” portion of the Sage Encyclopedia of Anthropology, edited by David Birx).
Keep your respect and appreciation for Attenborough, it is not misplaced.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:30 am
Hi Nicole, I have to back up DDen here and say that I’ve been embarking on a Masters looking studying the Aquatic Ape Theory and it’s true whoever dares to mention this theory gets a visit from this kook. I’ve never understood why he’s so militantly against the idea accept of course if he’s a covert ID guy hee hee.
Anyway such behavior only makes me think there’s more to the Aquatic Ape Theory than most people know.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:39 am
Hey DDen, is anthrosciguy Jim Moore?
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 am
This is fucking awesome! There’s totally a government conspiracy to hide the Aquatic Apes from the people. Rise Up!
No, seriously, that’s cool. But DDeden, how does the marsupial classification of the Kangaroo factor in? Are they still considered regular mammals?
One of the aspects that hits home so hard for me, is water-births. That just seems very odd. Why would it feel like a natural, good thing to do – if it’s not a natural, good thing?
Also, Anthropologists aren’t haters. I am.
cheers
August 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
BTW, on DDeden’s complaint about the entry in the Sage Encyclopedia of Anthropology, he’s complained about that before, and here’s what I wrote about it then:
The sentence regarding bipedalism in the Sage Encyclopedia (an article which I wrote) is:
AAT/H proponents concede that bipedalism is not found in any aquatic or semi-aquatic mammal. They use a double standard here, as they commonly argue that the idea that hominids evolved bipedality in a terrestrial setting is badly damaged by the fact that no non-human terrestrial mammal is predominantly bipedal, yet the fact that no aquatic mammal is bipedal is brushed off as irrelevant.
Yes, I think I should have worded that differently, although it’s talking about the AAT/H proponent-generated idea that humans are the only terrestrial bipedal mammals and that this can only be explained by aquaticism. In fact the existence of other bipedal mammals does also cut into their belief, but the method of locomotion of those other mammals is really too different from that of humans to be explained by environment, as the AAT/H propoenents insisted must be for that trait. But the sentence as written, which is similar to what I have on my site, does suggest that I agree with their silly supposition that no non-human mammals are predominantly bipedal. I’ll have to change that on my site; I’m afraid the encyclopedia article is ink and out of my hands as of a couple years ago.
As for Seekingtrth’s query, if that’s Algis then he knows who I am, as does anyone who reads the first page of my site. If it isn’t Algis, ST could find out by reading that page. Anyone who hasn’t had the “pleasure” of reading “aquatic ape” proponents and so doesn’t know who Algis is, there’s a page about his work on my site as well.