Re: What is the Aquatic theory?

From: Rick Wagler (taxidea3_at_shaw.ca)
Date: 09/01/04 

Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 05:29:58 GMT

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0408301904.62fda4e9@posting.google.com...
> "Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<sVyXc.227949$gE.119379@pd7tw3no>...
> > "J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:hx5Xc.205283$M95.52577@pd7tw1no...
> > > Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > > news:77a70442.0408241739.52548370@posting.google.com...
> > > > Defining the AAH in a simple, easy-to-understand way, is a rather
good
> > > > idea if anyone is going to be able to discuss it's plausibility in a
> > > > meaningful way. Unfortunately, and rather amazingly, this had not
been
> > > > done until quite recently.
> > > >
> > > > The fault lies with the chief propoponents to some degree. Neither
> > > > Hardy or Morgan ever defined it as such and Verhaegen et al,
although,
> > > > providing very detailed scenarios and timescales for their AAH-type
> > > > models, never - as far as I know - attempted to *define* the AAH in
a
> > > > single, simple statement.
> > > >
> > > > To be fair to Hardy and Morgan they weren't really even at the stage
> > > > to be able to define the hypothesis. Hardy's request for comments
> > > > merely asked 'Was Man more Aquatic in the Past?' and Morgan's five
> > > > books on the subject essentially repeated the question in a much
more
> > > > detailed and ellaborate way but from slightly different angles.
> > > >
> > > > Most AAH proponents have never considered this a problem because
they
> > > > took Hardy's question on face value and understood that what the
> > > > hypothesis was proposing was merely that our ancestors had been more
> > > > aquatic in the past - not that they were ever very much aquatic.
After
> > > > all, Hardy spelled it out in black an white: "otters .... [were] ...
> > > > more aquatic than man" Hardy (1960:643). Hence, no defintion has
been
> > > > forthcoming.
> > > <snipped>
> > >
> > > So Morgan, even after nearly 30 years of writing about it, wasn't
"really
> > > even at the stage to be able to define the hypothesis"?! That's
> > astounding.
>
> I agree. But if you read her books you'll see that she does never
> actually define it.

Then what's the point?? And especially given Elaine's endless
claims to have a 'theory' that deserved equal consideration with
the work of genuine scientists this observation of yours is the most
damning criticism of EM work that I've seen.

Her works are merely all about trying to get
> people with open minds (a very rare phenomenon in paleoanthropology
> when it comes to the outrageous idea that our ancestors might have
> actuially gone in the water sometimes, it seems) interested in this
> thing.

A chatty 'critique' with very poor research and no substantive
position to put forth? I'm sorry, Algis, either you were abducted
by space aliens or you weren't. What's the point of timid half
measures like this.

That's why it's not as rigorously researched as Jim Moore would
> like.

Nonsense. It's not rigorously researched because she couldn't
do it. Jim's website contains ample evidence of this. This doesn't
make Elaine a bad person but if you are going to make the demands
she did for a hearing from the field you have to put on a better
show than this

They're a series of popular science think pieces, not PhD
> theses.

More guff. Popular science pieces are incredibly difficult
to write. You have to have a familiarity with the field and
be able to write about it without dumbing it down. Walker's
"The Wisdom of the Bones" is an escellent example.

This is where Jim's being disingenuous when he claims that
> he's 'doing as Morgan asks - taking the AAH seriously'. Really, he's
> taking a popular science book - like Desmond Morris' 'The Naked Ape'
> and scrutinising it like it was a PhD thesis - with the specific
> intent of detecting every (all four of them, Jim?) tiny flaw and
> blowing them out of all proportion into shock-horror deceptions so
> that people might be deluded into thinking that this is *all* the AAH
> proponents can do.
>
And what is "scrutinising it like a PhD thesis" supposed to mean?
You may find out that scrutinzing a PhD thesis involves checking
the candidates work for consistency of argument and knowledge
of the field. Popular science books - the good ones at any rate - pass
this test. Do you think pop science means you don't have to make
a sound argument, be careful with sources and understand the concepts
they are trying to explain? Pop science that doesn't do this is justifiably
scorned.

that claims to be
> > > And of course Hardy, to his credit, did offer an explantion of how
> > aquatic
> > > he thought our ancestors were. He said it was perhaps half their
waking
> > > hours, "five or six hours in the water at a time" for "twenty million
> > years
> > > or more", living in large island colonies "like those of seals or
> > penguins".
>
> Quoting from the student rag again, Jim?
>
The 'New Scientist"? Hardy had a bundle of connections and
a big reputation. He could have given this thing a real good
push by putting a decent attempt at a comprehensive argument
together. He would have had absolutely no problem finding a
publisher. Is the fact that he chose not to an indication of how serious
he was about this stuff?

> > This statement of Algis' is truly astonishing. I don't think
> > he would get Elaine Morgan to agree with his characterization
> > of the situation.
>
> I think she did, actually. This is what she wrote to me recently on
> this subject:
>
> "I have never spelled it out. I think I made it clear that the
> mermaid-ish vision some people were attacking was very wide of the
> mark.

What mark? She never spelled it out. It was left to her
critics to try and figure out what the f*** she's talking
about???? Well MV employs similar....tactics is not the
word....

My own personal view is that we were more than slightly more
> likely to move through water.
That might explain the hair loss and the
> erect posture but I think the breathing differences cannot be
> explained by wading.
> BUT: The point is this: You don't have to agree with that. You can
> disagree with it. Firmly. I hope you will. And give your reasons for
> disagreeing with it. It will increase the chances that they will
> listen to you, and then form their own opinions about where on the
> spectrum they might place their own guess. I have not staked my
> reputation on any point.

Oh yeah.....

All I wanted to do was to say: "These are the
> data that need explaining. Here are some facts about Homo and about
> other animals. And this is where it all falls apart as jim ably
demonstrates

Here is my guess about their possible significance."
> It's a starting-off point for discussion. I am not an authority, and
> AAT is not a dogma." Morgan (pers. corr. 2004)
>

Given the demands she continuously made about the status her
"theory" should have in the field this statemnet is, as I said,
astonishing.

> > One of the claims she endlessly repeated
> > on this ng is that the AAT - specifically her version - was
> > the only theory "on offer" and that conventional PA had
> > nothing to offer as a competing theory. Leave aside that
> > the claim was utter nonsense since PA is full of scenarios
> > that are more than a match for what EM was putting forth.
>
> Oh yeah, like which?
>
Start with Aiello and go through to Zihlman.

> Her point there, which is absolutely right, is that if the official
> savanna paradigm is now being backed away from (some would even deny
> that it ever existed) what the hell is it that replaces it?
>
A theory who's major proponent now airily admits was never
fleshed out and argued in any serious way perhaps?

> You mean the 'Hominids evolved in a mosaic of slightly more open
> habitats than chimps live in today but not quite as open as might be
> characterised as savannah because that's a straw man argument'
> hypothesis?
>
Your ineptitude is showing again.....

> How does this miniscule change explain all the differences between
> humans and chimps and gorillas?

Miniscule change? You really need to get to grips with some basic
ecology. Try looking into the work of Robert Foley for one.

It just doesn't. It's just wishful
> thinking. The point is, which Morgan made so elloquently, is that even
> a very mild form of the AAH still proposes something different
> *enough* to explain the bifurcation in anatomy between ape and human.
>
> "The original savannah model - though it did not stand the test of
> time - was argued in strong and clear terms. We are different from
> apes, it stated, because they lived in the forest and our ancestors
> lived on the plains.
> The new watered-down version suggests that we are different from the
> apes because their ancestors, perhaps, lived in a different part of
> the mosaic. Say what you will, it does not have the same ring to it."
> Morgan (1997:17)
>
It would be nice if EM had actually made a critique of the 'savannah
theory' then we'd actually know what she is arguing against. So go
ahead, Algis, what's a savannah theory and where can I get some?

> So yes, Elaine was right to say that the AAH was the 'only game in
> town' but even that was not defining what the AAH was exactly.
> Essentially she was saying that water must have played some role.
> Essentially the opposition say: 'no, it didn't'.

So that's it. She made no critique, offered no competing hypothesis
but its the only game in town? Ain't science easy! As for what the
opposition said no one ever said water played no role. We only try
to deal with the arguments of people who say that it did. Stuff like
hairlessness. Pointing out that there is absolutely no reason to
suppose that living an aquatic lifestyle of some sort should result
in hair loss brings out the seals and the whales. And it is the
proponents who do this.
>
> I put it to you that this opposition view is totally untenable. The
> fact that we swim better than chimps is proof enough of that.
>
Proof of what? It's obvious that modern humans have more
facility in the water than modern apes but that's not the guts
of the case you're trying to make.

> My point is that in order to debate the AAH in any meaningful way we
> had better define it first. This is what I have tried to do.
>
> > To be fair Algis wasn't around when Elaine was and may not
> > know that this was a major claim of hers. But Algis has
> > read her stuff and realizes that EM never actually fleshed
> > out a scenario much less a theory.
>
> That's what I'm saying and she would agree. (see above) So what are
> you arguing against?
>
A body of arguments made for four decades by AAT proponents.
You know bipedal wading, cork-headed infants, tossing coconuts
at nesting crocodiles and on and on...

> > What I find astonishing
> > is that Algis would, in effect, expose EM's claims as
> > shameless braggadoccio. Whether MV would agree that
> > his whimsies don't represent a valid hypothesis that is at least
> > as substantial as the rather vapid definition of AAT that
> > Algis came up with would, I think, be open to question.
>
> "Shameless braggadoccio?!" - Hardly. I'm saying (what she says
> herself) that she never defined it. Hardy never defined it either.
> Verhaegen *did* define it, but 'it', in his case, was perhaps in so
> much specific detail as to exclude all other forms of the AAH other
> than the one he supports. The bottom line is: we need to define what
> the AAH means, broadly.
>
And given the claims and demands that Elaine was making
her statement above exposes it as shameless braggadoccio.

> Morgan's contribution was massive. When people involved in human
> evolution had failed to see the significance that humans could swim
> better than chimps, or that we were the only naked primate or that
> water is the perfect place for bipedalism to evolve - and, worse, had
> ignored highly visible calls from a FRS to look into the thing - she
> did everything within her power to bring it to the attention of
> everyone. In my humble opinion, more than anyone else in the history
> of paleoanthropology, she deserves an honourary degree - but will they
> give her one?
>
On the basis of her work? No

> > So decades after Hardy's timid efforts to get the idea
> > up and running Algis thinks its high time for somebody
> > to actually state what it is. 'Bout bloody time, I should say....
>
> > Rick Wagler
>
> Well I'm glad that you agree with me there, Rick.
>
> So what say you on my definition?:
>
> The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH):
> The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the
> evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape
> cousins and that, as a result, many of the major physical differences
> between humans and the other apes may be explained, at least in part,
> as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better
> through various aquatic media.
>
> Elaine Morgan said: "I'll drink to that!"
>
Good for her. Well make your arguments. Oh ***..
here come the seals and the whales....

And spend an afternoon in the Google archive
and see what a load of nonsense is Elaine's claim
to have only been timidly and modestly venturing
a few mild questions re PA. She was hunting bigger
game than that. It's not our fault she went hunting
elephants with a slingshot.

Rick Wagler

Loading