Re: Bipedalism in different substrates

From: J Moore (anthrosciguy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/15/04 

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:28:46 GMT

Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0406150508.50d05254@posting.google.com...
> "J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<u_rzc.719687$Pk3.499502@pd7tw1no>...
> > Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > news:77a70442.0406140353.30337070@posting.google.com...
> > > "Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:<_C5zc.712811$Pk3.398537@pd7tw1no>...
> > > > "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:77a70442.0406121045.e7bb44e@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Look. I do not know what was actually in Alister Hardy's mind when he
> > > made his speech to the Brighton Sub-Aqua club in February 1960. All we
> > > have to go on is what little he wrote about it and, most significantly
> > > what he wrote in the New Scientist article. In that he does say, quite
> > > explicitly, that he did not envisage this 'more aquatic' ancestor was
> > > ever as aquatic as an otter. Now, you do accept that, right? I mean
> > > it's not me making it up. It's not even open to interpretation. He
> > > wrote...
> > >
> > > "It may be objected that children have to be taught to swim; but the
> > > same is true of young otters, and I should regard them as more aquatic
> > > than Man has been." Hardy (1960:643)
> > >
> > > See that? He's *not* talking about whales or doplhins is he? He's
> > > making a comparison with otters and, even then, he's saying that his
> > > hypothetical *more* aquatic man was *less* aquatic than an otter.
>
> He's not talking about seals and dolphins *there*, and never in the
> context of suggesting that man was ever anywhere near that aquatic.
>
> > The features he says we gained from this, such as fat and loss of body
hair,
> > are features found only in seals, serinia, and whales among aquatic
mammals,
> > so yes, he IS talking about "whales or dolphins", and seals, too.
> > He even said he was first drawn to come up with the idea in an explicit
> > comparison with seals, so yes again, he was talking about them --
>
> Yes he was talking about them generally in the paper. This was in the
> context that it was the speculation in Wood Jones' book about the sc
> layer in man (and not monkeys, and perhaps also not apes) when he knew
> that aquatic mammals had them that led him to the *idea*.
>
> He clearly states that he's not suggesting that man was even as
> aquatic as an otter (something, icidentally, you somehow forget to
> mention on your masquerading web site) so 'talking about them' is nopt
> suggesting we were ever like that.

He did say one the one hand that his specualtive hominids were less aquatic
than otters, but when it came to the features they evolved, the features are
those seen only in seals and whales -- that does not make his argument more
sensible, it makes it less sensible, because on top of its other errors it's
also internally inconsistent. This feature of the AAT (its internal
inconsistency) has followed it throughout the years, through many authors.
Perhaps it's contagious.

> > why do you
> > continually deny this and attempt to recast what he said into some more
> > palatable (and sensible) form?
>
> Because I think the idea, in a mild form, has great potential
> explanatory power. Rather than take his paper and look for errors with
> my 'dirt comb' like you have done, I've stepped back a little and
> thought 'well, clearly the stone tool details were wrong, and perhaps
> he should have stressed that the aquatic mammal comparisons were only
> analogies... and perhaps he should have stressed more the comparisons
> with apes... but, generally he makes some very good points - we
> clearly *are* good swimmers compared to apes, wading through shallow
> water is the obvious place for hominid bipedalism to have begun,
> nakedness does reduce drag in water and having more fat would make us
> more bouyant.'
>
> I throw the question back at you: Why do you always have to twist this
> hypothesis to make it look worse? Why are you looking only for the
> dirt and never the strongest arguments?

The so-called "mild" form is also its most internally inconsistent, which of
course also means its not a "mild" version at all -- if anything, the more
internally inconsistent a theory is, the more radical it is, and the less
scientific and sensible. Science works by building on strengths and ripping
weaknesses -- there are plenty of people trying to build on the AAT/H, and
few attacking the weaknesses, which is a fundamental requirement in science.
I'm doing you all a favor, or would be if your theory had a reasonable
strength to weakness ratio -- unfortunately for the AAT/H, once you tear
apart the weaknesses, there's virtually nothing there.

> > Yet these seal/whale features were, he
> > claimed, gotten by a mammal which was less aquatic than an otter, which
> > doesn't make sense. It doesn't make any more sense than saying our
> > ancestors were aquatic for 2-3 times longer than hominids have existed.
>
> Who says they don't make sense? Why? If shaving body hair of a male
> competitive swimmer can reduce drag why is it so ludicrous that hair
> reduction in an ape might help a hominid swim better? If fat floats,
> why is it so ridiculous that selection would have favoured humans
> ancestors that swam a little more than their ape cousins did?

But they only waded in shallow water, or so people like you and Marc are at
pains to imply whenever you invoke the "mild" AAT/H.

> And about this twenty million year thing... First of all the quote
> you're refering to was in a "light-hearted" article in a student
> magazine (as was the streamlined like a boat reference). I notice you
> didn't state that part - or even help with a page reference to it. It
> was an error, of course but, come on give the man a break. In the
> article that counts, the New Scientist article in 1960, he says quite
> clearly he imagines this 'phase' happening in the (as known at the
> time) 10 my gap between procunsul and a'piths - Don't want to mention
> that, though, do you?

You're telling me that after thinking on the subject for decades, and some
17 years after he first published on it, he simply made an error of that
magnitude? That tells me, along with his other errors (tools, diving
reflex -- which should after all have been within his area of expertise --
"swimming" babies, etc.) shows me he simply didn't so much as crack a book
on the subject before wanting to sweep the discipline aside in favor of his
theory. That is the mark of someone who should not be taken seriously.

> You just trawl through all the text you can pick out the juciest dirt
> and stitch them altogether to make it look as bad as possible.
> Nowhere, ever, do you look for the strongest parts of the argument and
> take those on. Nowhere, ever, on your web site do you provide a link
> to an alternative view. Nowhere ever do you cite a quotation from
> someone who has commented even in the mildest positive way about the
> AAH model or the work of its proponents like Chris Stringer, Philip
> Tobias, Colin Groves or David Attenborough. No, that might raise an
> ounce of doubt in the mind of someone reading your web site that there
> might be a grain of truth in it. For the self-proclaimed guardian of
> scientific rigour when it comes to the AAH (author, no less, of
> www.aquaticape.org) it doesn't impress me with much confidence in your
> objectivity.
>
> Algis Kuliukas

Having many times now seen your methods in debate, and your acceptance of
dubious (at best) scholarship in aid of your pet theory, I can only say that
your stamp of approval on my work would not offer me any happiness.

JMoore
__
For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to
www.aquaticape.org

Relevant Pages

  • Re: D3/NT 7.5.3 has been releasedf
    ... Shouldn't the loss of business be enough pressure to improve quality? ... I'm suggesting that people who disagree and still do business ... products to customers that it really doesn't seem to care very much ... interface, heavy security, or any of the other features that seem to ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • USB device security? (data leakage)
    ... It looks nice and the features look nice too, however, in my company, its mostly a Linux environment. ... Suggesting getting all the requirements for this product will most likely result in a big NO from management. ... transmission. ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: Cardinal vowels
    ... French-speaking abilities. ... But you are suggesting that ... if I were to switch not only these well known phonetic ... features, but this additional ineffable quality of ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Browser Comparison Chart for JS version
    ... I'm looking at using features in JS 1.5 and would like to know which ... browser/versions support 1.5. ... Is there a reference table somewhere? ... Suggesting doing it by code is obvious and not any help. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: A public key authentication scheme based only on hash functions
    ... They do not have similar weaknesses. ... those additional features, but they are features supported by ... An SKEY key is only useful for one pair of prover and ... public-key cryptography, a public key is usable my many ...
    (sci.crypt)