Aquatic Ape - when is it proven?

[CEngelbrecht]

What would it actually take for the mainstream science community to officially announce the so-called "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" to be 'proven'? I mean putting it alongside "Earth evolving around the Sun", "Gravity", "Man is a Primate", "Theory of Relativity", "Plate Tectonics", that sort of thing.

I recognize I'm a layman, but with all the stuff that's been written both in here and everywhere else about this hypothesis, it has become part of my personal reality, as much as the above mentioned examples. And having some confidence in my Homo Sapiens intelligence, I do consider this perspective to be based beyond the realm of "Dan Browninitis".

Now, one definition against the hypothesis states: "The AAH is thought by some anthropologists to be accepted readily by popular audiences, students and non-specialist scholars because of its simplicity," unquote. (Wikipedia, "aquatic ape".) I think that definition is insanely wrong, this hypothesis is far from simple, at least not any simpler than the above mentioned examples.

Also from Wikipedia: "[Elaine] Morgan has claimed the AAH was rejected for a variety of reasons unrelated to its explanatory power: old academics were protecting their careers [...]", unquote. If this is the case, it is quite appaling and very unscientific, especially if this hypothesis turns out one day to be 'true'.

But, what would it actually take for the established science community to take this hypothesis to heart? I mean impirically, beyond any 'tribal' issues or 'power games'? What missing pieces could provide the proper ammount of evidence?

 

[wet]

Good questions CEngelbrecht!

 

[Arjen]

But, what would it actually take for the established science community to take this hypothesis to heart? I mean impirically, beyond any 'tribal' issues or 'power games'? What missing pieces could provide the proper ammount of evidence?

First of all, a scientific theory, as opposed to a mathematical theorum, can not be proven as definitely true. It can only be proven false. There can be so much evidence that you could accept it as an absolutely true fact, as in the theory of evolution, but officially you can only say that the theory describes the observed facts and makes testable predictions. A good theory is also very easily falsifiable. To disprove the theory of evolution, we only have to find the fossilized remains of any animal in the wrong geological layer. Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian for example would do the trick. We have never found one single fossil in the wrong layer or order that can not be explained, not one. Theories can also have very large problems, but can still be excepted as the best explanation for the evidence and give workable testable predictions. As for example in the theory of gravity, which false within the general theory of relativity. It has some major issues on an elementary level, which is why CERN is working so hard on the LHC to find the illusive Higgs-boson.

How to get your theory accepted? Peer reviewed scientific studies, published in the appropriate journals of high scientific standard. And it has to provide better answers and raise fewer questions than the hypothesis or the theory than it is going to replace. The only way to do it is to do science. Which is one of the things the AAT/H people are not doing themselves, they only pirate scientific studies of others and use parts of the studies or twist it to fit their hypothesis.

To get your theory generally accepted, can be a long and slow process by the way. To take your example of plate tectonics, Alfred Wegener, the person who was not the first to put forward the theory in 1912, but was the first to marshal significant fossil and paleo-topographical and climatological evidence to support this simple observation, was never taken seriously by many of his contemporary geologists because there was no apparent mechanism for continental drift. When those mechanisms were found after his death his theory was vindicated. Most notably, plate tectonics is a very recent theory. It is only in much of it present form since some major research on the ocean floor in the 1960's, made possible by among others the breakthroughs in WWII on submarine detection and sonar. The mid Atlantic ridge has only been discovered in 1962. The whole theory as we know it is only about 42 years old.

So there is not a single piece or a few pieces of evidence that would clinch it. It is a process that takes time, a lot of hard work and a big fight with a lot of other scientists in the field you are advancing your hypothesis in. Because if you are right, you will probably send a lot of their work directly to the waste paper bin. But if you are right, and do the research to show you are right, you will (mostly within your lifetime) in the end see your hypothesis elevated to theory.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

How to get your theory accepted? Peer reviewed scientific studies, published in the appropriate journals of high scientific standard. And it has to provide better answers and raise fewer questions than the hypothesis or the theory than it is going to replace.

Yeah, but that is exactly what I see the AAH is doing. That it provides much better answers than the traditional savannah theory. Much, much better.

The only way to do it is to do science. Which is one of the things the AAT/H people are not doing themselves, they only pirate scientific studies of others and use parts of the studies or twist it to fit their hypothesis.

Here I fear a big issue is that Alister Hardy was laughed out of the room. A guy with the title 'Sir' had his career ruined by proposing it. And since then no serious scholar dares to really dig down into the issue, if only to bring clarity. From fear only. I'm seeing martyrdom in this, I'm seeing Hardy categorised with Copernicus and Wegener, and it appals me.

Granted, this is all based on me already having accepted this hypothesis as biological reality. And no, I am no peer, I'm not one off the initiated. It all appear to me to be about tribes and power games, and not about seeking impirical truth. That is truly frustrating.

---
Question:
Is there some magical method to extract biological material from the bones of the million year old hominids, eg. 'Lucy' etc.? Or at least some fossilised 'shadow image' that could be used to disclose what kind of food might have been predominant for the indivudual's life span? I know that this have been done with bones from stone age tombs in Scandinavia in order to see if those people lived off the land or the sea. Of course, those people were not fossilised...

 

[wet]

Good questions CEngelbrecht!

 

[efattah]

I agree with Arjen.

And, since human skeletons have been found in the wrong layer of sediment, dating them to hundreds of thousands or even millions years, that is the nail in the coffin for the current models of human evolution.

Not to mention fossilized human footprints dating to millions of years, some of which show that the user was wearing sandals! One of the more famous of these are the totally ignored laetoli footprints:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli_footprints]Laetoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

J.H. Brennan, an interesting author of alternative theories, makes a different explanation. His claim is:
- If a human skeleton is found in sediment 1,000,000+ years old, it means either
A) current models of human evolution are wrong
or
B) current models are correct, and someone time traveled into the past

Take your pick.

 

[Arjen]

Yeah, but that is exactly what I see the AAH is doing. That it provides much better answers than the traditional savannah theory. Much, much better.

Than it has to answer these five simple questions. If it can not it fails one of the most basic tests: It has to explain the evidence better and raise less questions than the hypothesis it is going to replace.

These are five real aquatic traits, traits shared by virtually all aquatic mammals, even those which are not closely related. Why don't humans exhibit these actual aquatic adaptations?
1. Why don't humans have really small ears (or no external ears) like virtually all aquatic mammals?

2. Aquatic mammals have shorter legs, or no legs, relative to land-based animals, including their land-based relatives. Early hominids had legs similar in length to our relatives. According to the AAT/H, there was enormous selection pressures that produced massive changes to our skeletons for an aquatic life, and according to the AAT/H, this was due to convergent evolution. Why were our legs, unlike those of other aquatic animals, exempt from convergent evolution?

3. Humans have young that are born less developed than our relatives, and they develop more slowly as well. Aquatic mammals have young that are quite advanced compared to similar terrestrial mammals, including their terrestrial relatives (for example, seals as opposed to land-based carnivores), or which grow very quickly, or both. Why did the purported aquatic hominids change in the opposite direction from other aquatic mammals?

4. All marine mammals produce milk that is extremely rich in fat and protein, and very low in lactose (milk sugar). It ranges from a low of 20-25% fat for sea otters to 30-60% for pinnipeds and whales; protein ranges from 5-15% or more; lactose is virtually non-existent. By contrast, human milk and cow's milk are about 2-4% fat and 1-3% protein; lactose in the milk of terrestrial mammals is typically 3-5%. The lactose content of human milk is as high as 6-8 percent. Why are humans so unlike all marine mammals and so like terrestrial mammals?

5. One AAT/H claim is that we evolved in saltwater and therefore adapted in the same manner as aquatic animals, with convergent evolution supposedly evolving a salt excretion system like that seen in sea birds and crocodiles (and many terrestrial reptiles and birds). Why didn't we adapt as all marine mammals have done, via a change to our pre-adapted kidneys -- which are the regulated salt excretion system used by all mammals -- developing better hormonal control over rate of urine formation and concentration via the kidneys, as has repeatedly happened, due to convergent and/or parallel evolution, in cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sea otters?

 

[Arjen]

Granted, this is all based on me already having accepted this hypothesis as biological reality. And no, I am no peer, I'm not one off the initiated. It all appear to me to be about tribes and power games, and not about seeking impirical truth. That is truly frustrating.

You do not have to be initiated, you just have to read the studies. It is out there on the net for everyone who cares to look for it. And if you would start to look you would find that no one of the AAT/H persons is doing actual research. That should give you a clue. And on what evidence have you based your conclusion? I agree that there are some major issues with the current hypothesis, but a lot of research is currently done. There are a number of different hypothesis out there within the savannah hypothesis, and those scientists are very fierce about their research, but they are actually doing research and they will provide the answer in time.

Question:
Is there some magical method to extract biological material from the bones of the million year old hominids, eg. 'Lucy' etc.? Or at least some fossilised 'shadow image' that could be used to disclose what kind of food might have been predominant for the indivudual's life span? I know that this have been done with bones from stone age tombs in Scandinavia in order to see if those people lived off the land or the sea. Of course, those people were not fossilised...

I think you do not understand the process of fossilisation. There are a few fossils where you can see the stomach content of the last meal, but those are very very rare. The recent "Ida" fossil is one of the latest and best examples. It would be an amazing find, when we would find a complete fossilised hominoid, complete with an imprint of skin and stomach content. That would probably be instantaneously the most important fossil we can ever find.

 

[Arjen]

And, since human skeletons have been found in the wrong layer of sediment, dating them to hundreds of thousands or even millions years, that is the nail in the coffin for the current models of human evolution.

Or it could mean that the individual was buried.

Not to mention fossilized human footprints dating to millions of years, some of which show that the user was wearing sandals! One of the more famous of these are the totally ignored laetoli footprints:
Laetoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those foorprints are not ignored. If you would read the bottom of the wiki page, you would see references to studies and publications on those footprints. Both in support and those who cast doubt.

J.H. Brennan, an interesting author of alternative theories, makes a different explanation. His claim is:
- If a human skeleton is found in sediment 1,000,000+ years old, it means either
A) current models of human evolution are wrong
or
B) current models are correct, and someone time traveled into the past

Take your pick.

Does this J.H. Brennan does actual research or is he just formulating theories from behind his desk? And is this the infamous James Herbert Brennan who is highly influential in the Occult and New Age communities? (If yes rofl) If he is your leading source of information on hominid evolution and sceptic thinking I am going to piss my pants from laughing.

If you want your hypothesis to become the leading theory, the onus is on you to show you are right. You have the burden of proof. And as I have already said, there is an option C: Burial.

 

[chrismar]

D: The geological model showing the sediment is 1,000,000+ years old is flawed

E: Geological activity has altered the sediment layers

Chris - What makes you sure about the AAT? The investigation I've done both into it and its major proponents has raised significant doubt in my mind. It seems clear and elegant on the surface, but for many of the suggested adaptions I fail to see the evolutionary imperative, importance or mechanism.

 

[trux]

Perhaps not in this individual case (though, who knows), but generally I would defiinitely not exclude also:

F: FRAUD - unfortunately scientists are not better humans than the others are, and you can find numerous cases of fraudulent claims and discoveries, which were done by scientist for personal profit

G: JOKE - you might be surprised how many people spend a lot of time and big financial means for fooling scientists and the public with creating faked artifacts just for fun

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Chris - What makes you sure about the AAT? The investigation I've done both into it and its major proponents has raised significant doubt in my mind.

Mostly my conviction is based on both physiology and behavior of modern people. Both all the various arguments of physiology (bipedalism, hairlessness, speech, what ever), but just as much modern human behavior.
Look at our choice of habitat, the most expensive homes are always on the sea shore (are there any slums located by the sea?). Any civilised person wants access to taking a shower every day. Hell, even our wish to sleep with a blanket over us could be a memory of being covered by water. The ultimate luxury for a modern human being is to have his/her own tropical island with miles of beach.
Ok, granted, the one big 'if' in this kind of argument are ski resorts. Snowy mountains seem to have an attraction to modern humans, that crams the real estate prizes upwards as well. When I do doubt the AAH, I'm wondering about this one.

It seems clear and elegant on the surface, but for many of the suggested adaptions I fail to see the evolutionary imperative, importance or mechanism.

The trigger would be the same as for the savannah theory, that the formation of the Great Rift Valley cleared much of Africa's jungle and forced the Pan apes to evolve to new habitat. Now I find references to findings that bipedalism was evident in hominids before the creation of the African savannah , so even the establishment now announces they are back to square one. And then when they state that, "that doesn't mean the water theory is correct", that just makes me shake my head. "Yeah, but the water thing already answers so many of the questions about physiology and behavior that the savannah theory never could. Come on, Human." And then I see academic power games all over.
Q: Are there any studies about whether or not the Great Rift Valley region was flooded by sea water some 5-10 million years ago?


And what, the ultimate breakthrough for an AAH would be to find a mint condition archeopteryx-like fossil of an early African hominid... with a fossilised clam in its belly?

 

[trux]

Look at our choice of habitat, the most expensive homes are always on the sea shore (are there any slums located by the sea?). Any civilised person wants access to taking a shower every day.

Hmm, in that case, humans just some 2-3 generations ago did not evolve from the same ancestors as we did. Beaches were deserted places still a few decades ago. Daily showers were definitely not the rule. In Middle Age, washing and bathing was even considered dangerous for health. So the choice today is purely cultural, and a matter of fashion.

Do not take me wrong, emotionally I also tend to like the AAT, and find there are indeed some interesting aspects in it. But rationally, when I look at it closer, there are far too many problems, and far too many wild speculations, with no evidence whatsoever. And I think that the most damaging for the AAT are exaggerated baseless claims without any evidence, that we unfortunately see far too often.

So yes, I believe AAT protagonists still have a lot of work in front of them before their ideas form into a theory that can be taken seriously. And for getting there, they have to stop playing victims, and throwing absurd claims without evidence on us (like the hominids using hydrogen for buoyancy control at infants, underwater communication and sonar-like use, and much more) - that does not belong into serious science, but to fantasy literature.

And yes, I'd love if they succeeded, but have to admit that so far they did not persuade me - neither with the facts, nor with their behaviour.

 

[Arjen]

"Yeah, but the water thing already answers so many of the questions about physiology and behavior that the savannah theory never could. Come on, Human." And then I see academic power games all over.

What answers? Show me the scientific studies! You have still not answered the questions I posted again in this thread that the AAT/H should answer if it wants itself to be taken seriously to begin with.

Q: Are there any studies about whether or not the Great Rift Valley region was flooded by sea water some 5-10 million years ago?

I do not know, why don't you find out?

And what, the ultimate breakthrough for an AAH would be to find a mint condition archeopteryx-like fossil of an early African hominid... with a fossilised clam in its belly?

Nope, that would only be evidence that a particular hominid ate a clam and that it can pe accepted as a foodsource for hominids. I also think that our ancestors would not eat the shell itself, only the meat inside.

If the AAT/H wants to be accepted it has to be the best explanation for the known facts and make testable predictions. It has been shown again and again that it can not do that, its proponents don't do any scientific studies themselves and do not publish in any leading scientific journals. It has been properly debunked. It is the hypothesis that will not die! And as I already said, there are problems with the savannah theory [ST], but actual scientists are trying to find the answers by doing actual research. They will find the answer in time. To just insert the AAT/H because there are some problems within the ST is not how science works. It has first to provide better answers itself.

Now answer my questions!

PS: The argument of beauty is a non argument. It does not prove anything. If that is a big part of your basis for accepting a scientific statement, I can hereby scratch you from my list of persons I should take seriously. Especially as you undermine it so beautifully yourself. To quote someone else: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

[wet]

Good questions CEngelbrecht!

 

[TimoP]

Perhaps not in this individual case (though, who knows), but generally I would defiinitely not exclude also:
...
G: JOKE - you might be surprised how many people spend a lot of time and big financial means for fooling scientists and the public with creating faked artifacts just for fun

One case relating to diving:

Swedes were in 1980's lifting their national treasure big Royal Wasa ship from sea bottom where it had been laying for over 350 years.
Finns and Swedes have a special realitionship, with sport battles etc, like neighbours used to have. Some Finnish students have to do once a year a joke - it must be something unusual. Some of them (divers) had an idea. So they dived there just before the ship was lifted and put there on the deck a small statue of Finnish multiple Olympic (1930's) winner Paavo Nurmi.
We have fun (but maybe not Swedes) when thinking that it was the first artifact Swedes saw when the long waited lifting happend....and later Swedish scientists looking that statue and thinking who important Swede of the early 1600's that might have been...until they realise that is an famous athlete from Finland. And they saying in Swedish, probably just in these words:
"Nej men sjutton! Den är en Finne!?! Från 1930-talet! "
Btw. Sjutton means 'seventeen' (number) in Swedish, meaning also a little like mild F**k
rofl

----
About Aquatic Ape....a nice "story" especially for freedivers, but there is too much lack of hard scientific facts...so far. Doubt is very, very important in science. You can have ideas, hypothesis and or even theories, but you must doubt them and test them. If we believe as a fact everything that somebody has got in his/her mind (like "It might have been so...hmm it MUST have been so!"), we would be in the middle of nonsense, not science, I'm afraid.

 

[chrismar]

Good questions CEngelbrecht!

Good to see you contributing in such a meaningful way.

Arjen is right. What AAT needs if it is to be taken seriously is actual research and real science. Beauty, elegance and 'common sense' simply don't do the job in the world of science. I'm sure many of us here find the AAT hypothesis compelling emotionally, but under the scrutiny of peer review there are serious flaws in reasoning, evidence and behaviour.

AAT needs research and at least some of its proponents to act like real scientists before it can even be discussed seriously in the community. Does that answer your question, Chris?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Arjen is right. What AAT needs if it is to be taken seriously is actual research and real science. Beauty, elegance and 'common sense' simply don't do the job in the world of science. I'm sure many of us here find the AAT hypothesis compelling emotionally, but under the scrutiny of peer review there are serious flaws in reasoning, evidence and behaviour.

AAT needs research and at least some of its proponents to act like real scientists before it can even be discussed seriously in the community. Does that answer your question, Chris?

Please define 'actual research' and 'real science' for me, 'cause I really can't see that e.g. the 40 years of work by Elaine Morgan is anything but that.

And Arjen, I have already given my best shot at your five questions several months ago in another thread. All five bear the mocking interpretation that the AAH claims that humans are 'dolphins apes' or 'ocean apes', that is still not the correct understanding of its content. It's about a 'beach ape', a 'hippopotamus ape', something like that. If you look at a hippo as an aquatic cow, then homo sapiens is an aquatic chimpanzee.

Let me repeat myself:
1. Why don't humans have small ears like aquatic mammals?

- But they do, when compared to other man apes. They are smaller and cling to the skull, unlike the chimp's 'MAD Magazine' ears. This can be read as aquatic adaptation.

2. Why are our legs, unlike those of other aquatic animals, long?

- The best suggestion is related to the wading behavior that the AAH traditionally suggests. Longer legs allows the body to reach deeper waters with the head still above water. Also, the most cost-effective swimming is traditionally the breaststroke style, using the 'frog legs'.

3. Humans have young that are born less developed than our relatives, and they develop more slowly as well. Aquatic mammals have young that are quite advanced compared to similar terrestrial mammals, including their terrestrial relatives, or which grow very quickly, or both. Why did the purported aquatic hominids change in the opposite direction from other aquatic mammals?

- This is still pre-conclusive. Who the heck says that human infants are born "less developed"? Aparently, they can swim from birth, that is quite advanced, is it not? And besides, how would one explain the exact same question with e.g. the savannah theory? A giraf cub is pooted out and walks within an hour, a human infant doesn't walk untill 6-9 months.


4. All marine mammals produce milk that is extremely rich in fat and protein, and very low in lactose (milk sugar). It ranges from a low of 20-25% fat for sea otters to 30-60% for pinnipeds and whales; protein ranges from 5-15% or more; lactose is virtually non-existent. By contrast, human milk and cow's milk are about 2-4% fat and 1-3% protein; lactose in the milk of terrestrial mammals is typically 3-5%. The lactose content of human milk is as high as 6-8 percent. Why are humans so unlike all marine mammals and so like terrestrial mammals?

- Again, you are assuming the AAH states the homo sapiens to be an ocean ape, that's not the case, it's a beach ape thing.
But now you made go through nutrition values of a number of species, and it seems that human breast milk follow a trend from primates that at a glance have little to do with habitat. The numbers are close to identical for chimps (forest), orangutans (forest, swims on occasion), baboon (savannah) and human (?). Based on that, humans can be anything from a forest dweller to a savannah walker. My best defense for the AAH here would be that radical milk change was not a crucial factor in a tropical environment. But granted, it isn't one of the strong 'wet' arguments.

mass % Protein Fat Carbohydrates
Human 1,1 4,2 7,5
Chimpanzee 1,18 3,64 6,89
Baboon 1,6 5 7,46
Orangutan 1,5 3,5 6
Lemur, comm. brown 1,3 0,9 8,5
Hippopotamus 5,3 3,5 4,3
Beaver, European 11,25 19,1 1,71
Manatee 7,5 15,5 1
Elephant, African 4,36 7,16 4,53
Otter, River 10,98 24,02 0,11
Otter, Sea 9,39 19,57 0,78
Okapi 6,9 2 5,11
http://weans.net/uploads/Maternal_Milk.pdf
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_milk]Breast milk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


5. One AAT/H claim is that we evolved in saltwater and therefore adapted in the same manner as aquatic animals, with convergent evolution supposedly evolving a salt excretion system like that seen in sea birds and crocodiles (and many terrestrial reptiles and birds). Why didn't we adapt as all marine mammals have done, via a change to our pre-adapted kidneys -- which are the regulated salt excretion system used by all mammals -- developing better hormonal control over rate of urine formation and concentration via the kidneys, as has repeatedly happened, due to convergent and/or parallel evolution, in cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sea otters?

- All I can see is this: Why don't chimps cry?

This is the best shot of a layman on those five. I still hold them up against 'no fur', 'speech', 'choice of habitat', 'bipedalism', 'nasal hood', 'swimming babies', 'skin fat', ' healthy sea diet', 'sweat', all that stuff, and then those five keep looking miniscule.

No, the AAH doesn't go away. Especially not as long as there's an academic establishment acting like the church against Gallileo. People are inviting to a feeling of martyrdom for the non-initiated. I shouldn't rule out that I'm being unfair, but one keeps getting the impression of an academic terryfying fear of new super conclusions. I keep seeing Copernicus and Wegener.

 

[chrismar]

Actual research - Peer reviewed, properly cited, academic-quality research papers. They don't have to be in Nature, but something with more credibility than 'Quack Letters' would be good. Popular books aimed at the layman don't count.

Real science - Following the Scientific Method would be a good start. That means collecting measurable data and testing hypotheses. Objectivity, specifically avoiding biased interpretations of results, is a key tenet that AAT proponents should take special note of. Full disclosure would be nice. Take a look at the reasonably robust article on the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"]Scientifc Method[/ame] on wikipedia. While you're there, take a look at [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience"]Psudoscience[/ame] and maybe have a think about what category AAT would fall under currently.

 

[Arjen]

This is the best shot of a layman on those five.

I thought about a long answer, but I'm not going to bother and settle for a short one.

There was no reference to any peer reviewed article or publication. So: What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I still hold them up against 'no fur', 'speech', 'choice of habitat', 'bipedalism', 'nasal hood', 'swimming babies', 'skin fat', ' healthy sea diet', 'sweat', all that stuff, and then those five keep looking miniscule.

Those have been debunked again and again by others and myself. I'm not going to do it again. For every claim, please post references to peer reviewed articles or publications. Otherwise: What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

No, the AAH doesn't go away. Especially not as long as there's an academic establishment acting like the church against Gallileo. People are inviting to a feeling of martyrdom for the non-initiated. I shouldn't rule out that I'm being unfair, but one keeps getting the impression of an academic terryfying fear of new super conclusions. I keep seeing Copernicus and Wegener.

I am a layman myself, but at least I take the time and the energy to read all the evidence and weigh it accordingly. There is no need to be initiated, the scientific method is open to everyone and a big part of it is that all research has to be publicised and be accessible in the public domain. I am a big fan of the scientific method. There may be flaws in it, but it is the fairest and best system we have and which is used in all disciplines of research. It may be a fierce and highly competitive environment, but it will assure that in the end only the valid and healthy theories will survive.

As a last cynical note I would also like to add that at least Copernicus and Wegener did their own research, made the right conclusions and did not use special pleading. Because of this, and because they were right, it was accepted. Scientists (and sceptics) may have one dogma, you adhere to the scientific method or you will be chewed up and spit out.