Thank you Michael. The project of a new forum is still in development, and I
have still to ask some other proponents of the "classical aquatic hypothesis" if
they want to participate at all and which should be the criteria for the
admission in this forum. I will let you know.
Renato

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Gerard Michael Burns" <595982402587@...> wrote:
>
> bender_renato <bender_renato@...> wrote:
> > Nicole and I are thinking in starting a new forum for the "split-AH".
> > What is split-AH? This is the "classic AH", focusing on hominin
> > features possible developed in an semiaquatic environment in the time
> > around and after the split hominins / hominids. Some of the known
> > proponents of this split-AH were and are, as far as we know: Alister
> > Hardy, Elaine Morgan, Michael Crawford, Stephen Cunnane, Erika
> > Schagatay, Renato Bender, Nicole Bender-Oser and perhaps Algis
> > Kuliukas and Carsten Niemitz.
> >
> > The already existing AAT forum is since many years dominated by
> > pre-split people, who are absolutely convinced about air sacs, back
> > floating and taillessness as aqua-adaptations in pre-hominins.
> [snip]
> > A new forum would also allow us to invite some good scientists to
> > participate in the discussion. Until now we did not dare to invite
> > them because the (in our view) poor scientific level of the
> > discussions and specially because the dogmatic undertone of the
> > arguments of the pre-split people. (And we know: for the pre-split
> > people we are the dogmatic ones.)
> >
> > We think that this differentiation of paradigms should also be clear
> > in the publications. We decided therefore not to participate in the
> > planed e-book (we will tell Mario). We would like to be very
> > consequent in the future in this point, as we think that mixing the
> > paradigms is very harmful for the reception of the aquatic
> > hypothesis.
> >
> > Renato Bender and Nicole Bender-Oser
>
> Hi Renato,
>
> I would certainly be happy to be permitted to join the proposed forum, but
> may I suggest that the line I would wish to draw is not precisely between
> post-split differences and the plethora of ideas (many poorly supported, if
> at all) that have come to dominate on this list. I specifically, for
> example, am very interested in the fact that bipedalism appears to long
> pre-date the hominid-pan split, and that AAT-related factors are realistic
> candidates for explaining bipedalism. I do not post often on that subject
> though, because I generally wait for relevant information or responsible
> opinion to re-open conversation on the matter.
>
> Even if you do decide to limit the group to post-split discussion however, I
> would greatly like to be allowed to belong. The sheer volume of posts on
> this forum make it a chore to read, and I most often find that the posts are
> mere distractions from actual learning.
>
> Thank you for proposing a much-needed idea.
>
>
> Michael Burns
>