Re: What is the Aquatic theory?

From: Marc Verhaegen (fa204466_at_skynet.be)
Date: 09/13/04 

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:15:35 +0200

"J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4cO0d.396323$gE.286961@pd7tw3no...

> > So, again, you're just wrong. Compared to apes we ARE naked and
> > compared to all primates we're fat. How could that be, Jim? What's
> > your ecological scenario for explaining that? Is it the
> >
>
slightly-less-wooded-than-chimp-habitats-but-slightly-more-wooded-than-might
> -be-labelled-savannahs-because-that-was-a-straw-man-invented-by-Elaine-Mor
ga
> n
> > habitat? And if it is why did it have such a drammatic effect?
>
> Both features are quite obviously sexually selected, and in amount of fat
I
> agree with Pond that this is something one expects to see in an animal
which
> hasn't had to deal with much predation (for quite some time now) just as
you
> see with other animals. Again, if it were an aquatic trait, then you are
> comparing us to seals, whales, and sirenia, plus you would see an
incredibly
> different pattern of differences between the sexes and during the
lifespan.
>
> > > well, maybe you don't, but there you go -- are traits "shared" with
> seals,
> > > whales, and sirenia. And of course those traits aren't really the
same
> in
> > > humans as in those other mammals, so that's another problem for the
> AAT/H
> > > (and esp. it's claim of parsimony). And of course when we look at
> > > bipedalism, aquatic anything isn't where it's at, but other primates
> are.
> >
> > Blaa blaa - still banging on about seals and whales. Jim, we've moved
> > on.
>
> If you've moved on, why are you still using as evidence features found
only
> in seals, whales, and sirenia and claiming theose features are similar to
> humans?
>
> > > > If hominids waded through water more than ape ancestors they would
be
> > > > more likely to move bipedally. That's not vague.
> > > >
> > > > If hominids swam through water more than ape ancestors they would be
> > > > more likely to gain buoyancy through increased adipocity. That's not
> > > > vague.
> > > >
> > > > If hominids lived in hot tropical water-side habitats they would be
> > > > more likely to go for dips to keep cool than ape ancestors and
evolve
> > > > sweat cooling mechanisms to supplement it. That's not vague.
> > >
> > > It's vague when it doesn't give any sort of time needed to affect
these
> > > changes -- of course, since the features in question are those of
> virtually
> > > or completely aquatic mammals which have been aquatic for between
25-50
> > > million years, there's a really good reason to be vague on your part.
> >
> > Yes it does - time since the LCA of course. We don't actually know how
> > long that was but if it was 5.5 Ma or 13Ma, increased selection from
> > moving through water is going to have some effect isn't it?
> >
> > I mean your position is either saying:
> >
> > a) Our ancestors did not move through water more than the ancestors of
> > chimps since the LCA. (Not backed up by the fossil record and not by
> > comparative anatomy either)
> >
> > b) If they did move through water more, then no significant selection
> > took place. (Illogical since an increased terrestriality has certainly
> > had traits selected for.)
>
> Since you are using as evidence features found only in seals, whales, and
> sirenia I don't think the idea seems very sensible, especially since the
> featrues in humans are dramatically different in differences between the
> sexes and during the lifespan, indicating that they are sexually selected
> rather than due to convergence.
>
> > [..]
> > > > I want you to do that, Jim. I want you to cite references to the
> > > > claims you make. That's what you criticse Elaine Morgan for not
doing
> > > > but you rarely do it yourself..
> > >
> > > You read that page and you still can't tell where Hardy said what I
> > > reported? Wow.
> >
> > You still don't get it, Jim. I can read your page and I have. But I
> > want you to get into the habit of writing a claim and putting a
> > reference next to it. The technique goes something like this...
> >
> > Hardy claimed that the aquatic phase occurred in the fossil gap that
> > was apparent in 1960. He wrote "It is interesting to note that the
> > Miocene fossil Proconsul, which may perhaps reprsent approximately the
> > kind of ape giving rise to the human stock, has an arm and a hand of
> > very unspecialised form: much more human than that of the modern ape.
> > It is in the gap of some ten million years or more, between Proconsul
> > and Australopithecus that I suppose Man to have been cradled by the
> > sea." Hardy (1960:645)
> >
> > Hardy, Alister (1960). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?. New
> > Scientist Vol:7 Pages:642-645
> >
> > See? It's easy. Now you try...
>
> Check out his later statement then -- what did he say then? Did he mean
> what he said then, or not? If so, you have a statement that it was 20
plus
> million years, far longer than hominids have existed; if not, you're stuck
> now saying that he was so incompetent that he couldn't even remember or
read
> what he'd said previously. Either one is damning, yet on the basis of
that
> you think he should have been taken seriously.
>
> > [..]
> > > > I know that New Scientist is not peer reviewed but it's a more
serious
> > > > and important journal than Zenith.
> > >
> > > How non-serious need one get before they're allowed to spout nonsense
> and
> > > have it accepted as acurate science? I say that any science writing,
> > > especially that which purports to be trying to get a new idea
accepted,
> > > should be accurate, no matter where it's published -- you obviously
> > > disagree, so again, just how non-serious does one have to get in
choice
> of
> > > publishing venue before one's work gets accepted uncritically in
> science?
> >
> > Ideally every single statement one reads should be absolutely truthful
> > and fully referenced but, unlike you apparently, I'm not living in
> > fantasy land.
>
> How many untruthful things are you allowed to have uncritically accepted
in
> science? Does it vary by venue, or age, or whether one has grandchildren,
> as many AAT/H proponents over the years have insisted in newsgroups? I'm
> getting on now, I have a grandchild -- can I now write up something in an
> appropriately unserious venue and have it uncritically accepted as
> scientific fact, as you suggest?
>
> > When you claimed that I'd said that Hardy and Morgan's work was
> > 'absolute trash' I was appauled but, hey, it's only a newsgroup and I
> > expect you'd had a few - so no probs. If you'd have written the same
> > thing in the local edition of the Cleveland Telegraph, I'd have been a
> > little more pissed off - but journalism doesn't have such high
> > standards either. If it had been in New Scientist I'd have written a
> > letter of complaint. Of course such a silly statement would never have
> > got past the editor of such a journal and if it had arrived at a
> > scholarly journal like AJPA they wouldn't have even opened the
> > envelope.
> >
> > Elaine Morgan made errors but so does everyone, even you.
>
> I'm not insisting that scientists accept my radical new theory -- and I've
> got a grandkid! Where do I apply for "my I'm an old grandpa get into
> science free" card?
>
> > [..]
> > > > "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)
> > > >
> > > > "Nobody has suggested that they turned into mermen and mermaids.
They
> > > > would have been water-adapted apes in the same sense that an otter
is
> > > > a water-adapted mustelid. If we knew nothing of the otter except
what
> > > > we can deduce from its bare bones, it would take a clever scientist
to
> > > > detect that it was any more aquatic than its cousins the stoats and
> > > > the polecats." Morgan (1997:31)
> > > >
> > > > "In an environment which combined trees and water ( a flooded forest
> > > > or an offshore island dwindling as the sea level rose) the more
> > > > dominant males would have had first call on the diminished reserves
of
> > > > the traditional food source and would have continued to confine
> > > > themselves to it. In any society, long-established dominance tends
to
> > > > lead to conservatism. The hungrier females could have been driven to
> > > > seek for less familiar things to eat and would have found them in
> > > > water." Morgan (1997:100)
> > >
> > > Yes, they can say that, but look at the features they say we got as a
> > > result, and what other creatures have them, and you see that these
> > > statements you've quoted are disingenuous.
> >
> > Well yes, let's look at those features and those creatures...
> >
> > Apes wade bipedally ... and we walk bipedally on land.
> > Apes don't swim as well as we do ... and they're less buoyant.
> > Shaving body hair reduces drag in water and helps sweat cooling... we
> > are more naked than apes.
>
> If you wish to have the AAT/H simply be one of many entries in a long list
> of things that hominids did when bipedal, you would have no argument and,
> incidentally, no hypothesis -- just one item in a long list. But that's
not
> really the AAT/H, is it? And look at the hair reduction business -- a)
from
> the presumed ancestral condition, it seems from the evidence that we could
> have done well to either become more hairy or completely non-hairy -- we
did
> neither. Swimmers use two methods when it comes to hair -- they remove
it,
> which shows that the condition we find ourselves in is not good for
swimming
> fast, and nowadays they often use bodysuits which mimic the boundary layer
> effects seen in dolphin's dermal riges or seals' hairy skin. The one
thing
> they don't do is to leave us as we are -- and don't even look at head hair
> and swimming speed. (But then AAT/H proponents don't, do they?)
>
> > [..]
> > > > In the New Scientist paper he cites 10 My. In the Zenith paper he
> > > > cites twenty. This tells us something about a) the relative quality
of
> > > > the editors, b) how much Hardy had declined in another 17 years
after
> > > > his retirement and c) the determination of Jim Moore to give the
worst
> > > > possible slant on anything to do with this idea.
> > >
> > > Ah yes, it's the editors' fault, not Hardy's -- poor fellow. Just as
> you
> > > suggested that Morgan's problems with leaving words out of quotes
> without
> > > any indication of their absence is her editors' fault... which would
> mean,
> > > of course, that her editors also crept into her home or office and
> altered
> > > newsgroup posts before she sent them along. Wow -- these editors have
a
> lot
> > > of power, and the poor author. Well, Algis, let me respectfully
submit
> that
> > > that theory is bull***.
> >
> > You missed out points b and c. Editors are supposed to check the copy
> > before putting it in to print. I'd have thought that any decent
> > scientist reading Hardy's 'twenty million year' reference in Zenith
> > would have known better, wouldn't you? Hardy was 81 at the time, I
> > think your miserliness of spirit is appauling.
>
> Again, where do I apply for my "my I'm an old grandpa get into science
free"
> card? I am not an ageist as you are, Algis, when you attempt to excuse
> errors by Hardy and/or Morgan by referring to their age.
>
> > > > [..]
> > > > > > But is it uninformed and inaccurate? When he wrote that in 1960
> 10Ma
> > > > > > could have seemed reasonable. Heck, it even seems reasonable
today
> if
> > > > > > you take the scepticism about the molecular clock calibration
and
> > > > > > assume Pan-Homo split 10-13Ma.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As usual, you're just scraping the barrel for any bit of dirt
you
> can
> > > > > > gather against this AAH but, as usual, when you examine it
closely
> the
> > > > > > only dirt is on Jim Moore himself.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again you substitute your "10 my" -- you are not being accurate
> about
> > > what
> > > > > Hardy said -- you should have read more than the title.
> > > >
> > > > Look, I'll make it easy for you...
> > > >
> > > > Click this link http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Hardy/HardyPage4.htm
> > > >
> > > > Scroll down the third column, last but one para, last sentence.
> > > >
> > > > Now if I'd made an error like that, or Elaine or any AAH proponent,
it
> > > > would find it's way on Jim Moore's 'Can AATer Research be Trusted?'
> > > > page.
> > > >
> > > > See http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html for the original twists
> > > >
> > > > and http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/Quotes.htm for
the
> > > > expose.
> >
> > Nothing to say there, Jim?
> >
> > See that? He's very quick to pounce on the slightest error any AAH
> > proponent makes but when you show that he's just as prone to making
> > errors (or are they deceptions?) - oops, he just tries to slip away
> > into the mist.
>
> I haven't looked at your site's critiques yet, Algis, and as I've said
> before, I don't want to assume they are all so facile and ridiculous as
your
> complaints about my URL. On the contrary, I hope that some might be the
> sort of valid criticsm that does me a favor, as the Carl Sagan quote on my
> opening page puts it. Of course, having seen you claim that I found only
"4
> tiny errors" makes me wonder if I will be disappointed in your efforts --
> but I'll keep my hopes up; I'm an optimist by nature.
>
> > [..]
> > > > > Now you're saying it isn't "boringly obvious"? -- that was a quote
> from
> > > you,
> > > > > you know.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Jim. When you quote someone you really should quote more than
two
> > > > words. What was the context of it, do you remember?
> > >
> > > It was one of the many times you insisted that all should read only
> Hardy's
> > > 1960 title and ignore all the words that followed, a technique I do
not
> > > endorse. ("the question Hardy posed was merely 'was man more aquatic
in
> the
> > > past?' It is people like you who refuse to consider it in the modest,
> > > boringly obvious, sense - because then you'd have to concede that
there
> can
> > > be no serious objection to it at all.")
> >
> > So are you conceding that I didn't actually claim that Hardy's paper
> > per se was 'mild and borringly obvious' as you tried to twist?
> >
> > But see, here's another Moore twist. You know I think I'm going to
> > start a page of 'Mooreish deceptions' myself.
> >
> > 1. "And what, I wonder, given the above, did Elaine say when you said
> > that her
> > work, and Hardy's, was all just incomptetent trash?" Moore
> > (2004-Aug-30 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory?')
> >
> > 2. "It was one of the many times you *insisted* [my emphasis] that all
> > should read only Hardy's title and ignore all the words that
> > followed..." Moore (2004-sep-10 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory?')
> >
> > 3. "I disagree with your idea that one should stop reading after the
> > title." Moore (2004-sep-03 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory?')
> >
> > Keep 'em coming, Jim.
> >
> > [..]
> > > > I'm saying that when you consider the AAH merely as meaning that
'Man
> > > > was more aquatic in the past' and by definition therefore more
aquatic
> > > > than ape ancestors, it becomes boringly obvious. That's why you have
> > > > to take words out of context and twist them into a claim that wasn't
> > > > made. This is all you do.
> > >
> > > Asking us all to ignore everything written by AAT/H proponents except
> for
> > > the title of Hardy's 1960 article isn't really sensible, yet if you do
> read
> > > more than that it rapidly becomes way less than "obvious" -- not
boring
> > > either, at first, but that feeling creeps up on us after a few
exchanges
> > > from AAT/H proponents denying facts and blaming all the idea's
problems
> on
> > > editors.
> >
> > Moore twists. I've quoted many times from the Hardy text. Here's some
> > more...
> >
> > "On March 5th [1960] I was asked to address a conference of the
> > British Sub-Aqua Club at Brighton and chose as my theme "Aquatic Man:
> > Past, Present and Future"... I ventured to suggest a new hypothesis of
> > Man's origins from more aquatic ape-like ancestors and then went on to
> > discuss possible developments of the future" (Hardy 1960:642)
> >
> > "I have been toying with this concept of Man's evolution for many
> > years, but until this moment, which suddenly appeared an appropriate
> > one, I had hesitated because it had seemed perhaps too fantastic; yet
> > the more I reflected upon it, the more I came to believe it to be
> > possible, or even likely." (Hardy 1960:642)
> >
> > "... This history of the emancipation of animal life from the sea is
> > very well known. I repeat it only because it forms the the background
> > to another story, one that is not quite so familiar to those who are
> > not trained as zoologists. .. We see . ... Again and again ...
> > Over-population resulting in some members being forced back into the
> > water to make a living because there was not enough food for them on
> > the land." Hardy (1960:642)
> >
> > "The suggestion I am about to make may at first seem far-fetched, yet
> > I think it may best explain the striking physical differences that
> > separate Man's immediate ancestors (the Hominoidae) from the more
> > ape-like forms (Pongidae) which have each diverged from a common stock
> > of more primitive ape-like creatures which had clearly developed for a
> > time as tree-living forms.
> > My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by
> > competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to
> > hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off
> > the coast.
> > I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen
> > happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining
> > this happenning in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas
> > where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods,
> > that is, several hours at a stretch. I imagine him wading, at first
> > perhaps still crouching almost on all fours groping about in the
> > water, digging for shell fish, but becoming gradually more adept at
> > swimming. Then, in time, I see him becoming more and more of an
> > aquatic animal going farther out from the shore: I see him diving for
> > shell fish, prising out worms, burrowing crabs and bivalves from the
> > sands at the bottom of shallow seas, and breaking open sea-urchins,
> > and then, with increasing skill, capturing fish with his hands." Hardy
> > (1960:642)
> >
> >
> > "Let us now consider a number of points which such a conception might
> > explain. First and foremost, perhaps, is the exceptional ability of
> > Man to swim, to swim like a frog, and his great endurance at it. The
> > fact that some men can swim the English Channel (albeit with
> > training), indeed that they race across it, indicates to my mind that
> > there must have been a long period of natural selection improving
> > man's qualities for such feats. Many animals can swim at the surface
> > but few terrestrial mammals can rival Man in swimming below the
> > surface and gracefully turning this way and that in search of what he
> > may be looking for." Hardy 1960:643)
> >
> > "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 (1960:642)
> >
> > "Whilst not invariably so, the loss of hair is a characteristic of a
> > number of aquatic mamals; for example, the whales, the sirenia and the
> > hippoptamus. Aquatic mammals which come out of water in cold and
> > temperate climates have retained their fur for warmth on land, as have
> > the seals, otters, beavers etc. Man has lost his hair all except on
> > the head, that part of him sticking out of the water as he swims: such
> > hair is possibly retained as a guard against the rays of the tropical
> > sun. Hair, under water, naturally loses its original function...
> > [keeping body warm by trapping air close to skin] ... The unborn
> > chimpanzee has hair on its head like man, but little on its body.@
> > Hardy (1960:643)
> >
> > "The idea of an aquatic past might also help to solve another puzzle
> > which Professor Wood Jones stressed so forcibly, that of understanding
> > how Man obtained his erect posture, and also kept his hands in the
> > primitive, unspecialised, vertebrate condition. . . . Wading about, at
> > first paddling... He would naturally have to return to the beach to
> > sleep and to get water to drink; actually I imagine him to have spent
> > at least half of his time on the land." Hardy (1960:644)
> >
> > "Man's hand has all the characteristics of a sensitive, exploring
> > device, continually feeling with its tentacle-like fingers over the
> > sea bed; using them to clutch hold of crabs and other crustaceans, to
> > prize out bivalves from the sand and to break them open, to turn over
> > stones to find the worms and other creatures sheltering underneath."
> > Hardy (1960:645)
> >
> > "Man, no doubt first saw the possibilities of using stones, lying
> > readiy at hand on the beach, to crack open the enshelled "packages" of
> > food which were otherwise tantalizingly out of reach; so in far off
> > days he smashed the shells of the sea urchins and crushed lobsters'
> > claws to get out the delicacies that we so enjoy today. From the use
> > of such natural stones it was but a step to split flints to make
> > fires, perhaps with dried seaweed, on the sea-shore." Hardy (1960:645)
> >
> > "Man, now erect and a fast runner, was equipped for the conquest of
> > the continents, the vast open spaces with the herds of grazing game.
> > Whilst he became a great hunter, we know from the shell middens of
> > mesolithic Man that shell fish for long remained a favourite food."
> > Hardy (1960:645)
> >
> > "In such a brief treatment I cannot deal wit all the aspects of the
> > subject: I shall do so at greater length and in more detail in a
> > full-scale study of the problem. I will just here mention one more
> > point. The students of the fossil record have for so long been
> > perturbed by the apparent sudden appearance of Man. Where are the
> > fossils that linked the Hominoidae with their more ape-like ancestors?
> > ... The gap... Is it possible that the gap is due to the period when
> > Man struggled and died in the sea?" Hardy (1960:645)
> >
> > "It is interesting to note that the Miocene fossil Proconsul, which
> > may perhaps reprsent approximately the kind of ape giving rise to the
> > human stock, has an arm and a hand of very unspecialised form: much
> > more human than that of the modern ape. It is in the gap of some ten
> > million years or more, between Proconsul and Australopithecus that I
> > suppose Man to have been cradled by the sea." Hardy (1960:645) - note,
> > Jim, TEN million years.
> >
> > "My thesis is, of course, only a speculation - an hypothesis to be
> > discussed and tested against further lines of evidence. Such ideas are
> > useful only if they stimulate fresh inquiries which may bring us
> > nearer the truth." Hardy (1960:645) - note the modesty of the man.
> > He's requesting that scientists take an interest in the idea, that's
> > all. That nobody did is a shocking indictment on the intellectual
> > independence of a whole generation of paleoanthropologists. It was
> > left to Elaine Morgan to try expose the stupidity of such ignorance
> > but even today Jim Moore still can't see it.
>
> Here the assumption is that scientists didn't take a look at it; the ones
I
> knew in the field did, and they didn't find it to be sensible -- you can
> take a look at all sorts of claims and not feel they're worth the time to
> painstakingly dissect them in print -- it's far easier to spout
speculations
> backed up by "false facts" than it is to take them apart.
>
> > [..]
> > > > Yes, poor souls indeed. Jim expects you to read his whole gigantic,
> > > > one-sided, masquerading web site to find these extra (extra to the
ONE
> > > > he reports on his 'Can AATer research be trusted' page) errors
because
> > > > he's just not tellin'.
> > >
> > > I had to create a web site to list them all, I can't see cutting and
> pasting
> > > the whole thing in a newsgroup -- it's far better to offer the link.
I
> know
> > > it's not the way you're used to seeing things done by, say, Marc, but
> then
> > > that's how he got the nickname "macroman". I think that sort of thing
> is
> > > bad newsgroup manners.
> >
> > But you don't give references to the 'errors' except on four ocassions
> > and even those are just pathetic. If you say there are more... let's
> > have them - WITH FULL CITATIONS! Can you do that?
> >
> > [..]
> > > By all means. There have long been a great many uncritically pro-AAT
> web
> > > sites -- literally dozens by now, I think, and having one that takes a
> more
> > > critical view (required in science, after all) never seemed so bad to
> me.
> > > You disagree, of course, but hey, no one said you have to like
science.
> >
> > I thought two wrongs don't make a right, but then that was Jason's
> > argument, not yours. It's intersting how people like JE are so silent
> > about the qualities or otherwise of your web site. Can't quite bring
> > himself to comment on that, I note. It would put him in a very
> > difficult position.
> >
> > [..]
> > > > While you're there, check how many of his claims have references so
> > > > you can check them out.
> > >
> > > I forgot to mention the business about Algis claiming Morgan deserves
> praise
> > > because she tried so hard for so long, even though her tries were
> blunders
> > > filled with falsehoods and distortions. In the States we'd call that
> grade
> > > an "E for effort", and it isn't a compliment.
> >
> > Morgan's works were "blunders filled with falsehoods and distortions"
> > - Jim Moore (2004-sep-10 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory')
> >
> > ... that's one opinion.
> >
> > "I see Elaine Morgan, through her series of superbly written books,
> > presenting a challenge to the scientists to take an interest in this
> > thing, to look at the evidence dispassionately. Not to avert your gaze
> > as though it were something you that you hadn't ought to hear about or
> > hadn't ought to see. And those that are honest with themselves are
> > going to dispassionately examine the evidence. We've got to if we are
> > going to be true to our calling as scientists. Phillip Tobias 1998
> > ("BBC Documentary 'The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis'").
> >
> > ... there's another. Take your pick.
> >
> > Algis Kuliukas
>
>
> Then why do you and Marc and Elaine complain so when someone does take a
> look at the evidence?
> --
> JMoore
> __
> For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to
> www.aquaticape.org
>
>