Re: What is the Aquatic theory?

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 09/02/04 

Date: 2 Sep 2004 02:22:28 -0700

"Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<q7dZc.291163$gE.117190@pd7tw3no>...
> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.0408301904.62fda4e9@posting.google.com...
> > "Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message
[..]
> > > > 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.

The point was to try to get people to think about it, to discuss it
and to investigate it. I'm doing that. I'm doing it because,
apparently every professional paleoanthropology departmental gead just
knew it was a load of crap and wasn't worth looking at, even though -
truth be known - they couldn't even tell you what it was. The fact
that I'm doing what Elaine Morgan has expected PAs to do is hardly a
damning criticism of her contribution. I admire her more than most
people who have written about human evolution.
 
> 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.

The "very poor research" is , what exactly? The four tiny errors on
Jim Moore's masquerading one-sided web site? Four tiny errors out of
hundreds of citations and claims. You could find as many errors in any
popular science book if you were obsessed enough to try to find them.
Do you have any others?

'No substantive position?' - really, Rick - it must be you who's been
abducted by aliens. The very substantive positon is the beauty at
which a whole host of ape-human differences are explained away with
consumate ease - we moved through water more than they did.
  
> 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

'Ample evidence' - FOUR FRIGGING TWISTS OF TINY ERRORS?

So... the Darwin misquote - oh yeah, really terrible that.
The The Elsner & Gooden Misquote was the worst but even that hardly
deflected her general point.
The Negus quote - from a newgroups chat-line.
The Denton quote - where it's Moore, not Morgan, doing the twisting.

See http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/Quotes.htm for
details

And this is your ample evidence from her five books - wow. You're just
making it up or, actually, following the pied piper Jim Moore.
 
> 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.
 
Desmond Morris' Naked Ape is worse than Morgan's worst, and so are
several others. Craig Stanford's 'Upright' is also pretty poor except
from a point of view of historical commentary on the subject.
 
> 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.

The basic arguments were very sound - if one or two examples (like
ventro-ventro copulation and salt tears) were over extended or not
checked thoroughly enough. She made a few tiny errors that would have
been picked up if it was a PhD thesis. That is, obviously, the point I
was making.

> > 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?

Jim was quoting from his Zenith article, I think. He likes to do that
because it contains the weakest Hardy arguments.

I've spoken to his son about this and he informs me that he was very
serious about it. He really though that the fossil evidence was about
to prove him right. I agree that it a real shame that he didn't write
that book he had promised.
 
> > > 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....

Hardy said 'More aquatic' right? He said 'not as aquatic as an otter',
right? Morgan made many similar comments which made it clear that she
wasn't talking about 'full-on aquatics' - it's just the imaginings of
some people that pushed and extended the arguments to such a point
that they could be easily ridiculed and dismissed - what do we call
this... tactic is the word... it's a strsaw man argument.
 
[Elaine Morgan]
> > 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

Jim twists and exaggerates - anyone could do that with any argument.

> > 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.

Then I think you misunderstood her, or misrepresent her. She might
have been guilty of over-enthusiasm on ocassion but that is all.
 
> > > 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.

You dodged the question - what is *ONE* competing theory which more
satisfactorily and parsimoniously explains our nakedness, bipedality,
sc fat, ability to swim, etc etc.
 
> > 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 dodged the question again - I wonder why.
 
> > 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.....

If it's inept, tell me in simple, clear terms what the current
orthodox paradigm actually *IS* then.
 
> > 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.

If it's not savanna - it's miniscule change. Which is it?
 
> > "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?

You know Rick.... hominins left the trees and, for some reason, went
out onto the savanna and began moving bipedally because it gave them a
more flexible response to the new challenges ahead. Funny how you seem
to have some kind of amnesia about this idea - how convenient for you.

Others are not so fuzzy minded though.

"As the competing savanna hypothesis is no longer tenable since I
presented much evidence against it in my Daryll Forde Lecture at
University college London in 1995, I believe that scientists have a
duty to re-examine these claims, much as Langdon (1997) has done."
Tobias (2002)

Tobias, Phillip V (2002). Some aspects of the multifaceted dependence
of early humanity on water. Nutrition and Health Vol:16 Pages:13-17

Or how about this...

"Although the savanna hypothesis has gained recent support, it has
also been strongly contested. Some authorities advocate a
contradictory model—the woodland/ forest hypothesis—which argues for
the importance of closed vegetation in early hominin evolution. Early
australopiths, according to some interpretations, were closely
associated with wooded environments, exhibited significant arboreal
activity, and should be considered adapted to closed habitats (Clarke
and Tobias, 1995; Berger and Tobias, 1996)." Potts 1998

Potts, Richard (1998). Environmental Hypotheses of Hominin Evolution.
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology Vol:41 Pages:93-136
 
How many more quotes do you want? I've got an ever growing database of
them.

Don't tell me... it was all invented by Elaine Morgan, right, Rick -
keep takling the pills.

> > 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.

She made a huge critique of the existing paradigm - that's exactly
what she did. Have you ever read any of her books? She never defined
the AAH, because she just wanted to get it in the public arena.

If you are not saying that water played no role in discriminating
between apes and humans then what are you arguing about? But, of
course, you *are* arguing against that, aren't you - otherwise what's
your problem with wading leading to bipedalism and swimming and
dip/sweat cooling leading to nakedness etc?

Hypocrite!

> > 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.

AAH: The hypothesis that water acted as an agency of selection in
human evolution more than the evolution of the apes. Yes I am.
 
> > 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...

Just mock personal incredulity then - and no science.
 
> > 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....

I try not to use the seals and the whales, Rick, haven't you noticed?
I tend to concentrate on apes and humans.
 
> 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.

Why should I? I've read all of her books - that's what counts. She's
made her case there and she's absolutely right on most of her points.

Algis Kuliukas

Quantcast