Re: Bipedal Orrorin?
From: J Moore (anthrosciguy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: J Moore: "Re: What is the Aquatic theory?"
- Previous message: John: "Re: oldest American skull found!"
- In reply to: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Bipedal Orrorin?"
- Next in thread: firstjois: "Re: Bipedal Orrorin?"
- Reply: firstjois: "Re: Bipedal Orrorin?"
- Reply: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Bipedal Orrorin?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:12:32 GMT
Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0409210436.2c8ee792@posting.google.com...
> "J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<_TO3d.60887$%S.36352@pd7tw2no>...
> > Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > news:77a70442.0409190644.270e6785@posting.google.com...
> > > "J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Ra83d.450459$M95.308235@pd7tw1no>...
>
> [..]
> > > > You made the statement., the statement is simply completely false
and is
> > not
> > > > out of context, but yes, I know, your editor did it, the dog ate
your
> > > > qualifiers, you're old, whatever Why don't you just try not saying
> > things
> > > > which are not true? A novel approach for AAT/H proponents, I know,
but
> > you
> > > > could try to start a trend. You'd be swimming upstream, so to
speak,
> > but
> > > > it's worth a shot, isn't it?
> > >
> > > Yes I made the statement. Just like you made these statements:
> > >
> > > Moore False Facts:
> > >
> > > 1) "You won't find those problems here" Jim Moore (www.aquaticape.org)
> > > complaining about AAHer techniques like not citing references ("they
> > > often don't give a reference for a statement or quote at all; when
> > > they do the reference is often incomplete (just a name with no clue as
> > > to what publication or year the info is supposedly from; sometimes
> > > even a wrong name)") - but then two pages later on the page
> > > (http://www.aquaticape.org/leaflist.html)dedicated to the infamous
> > > (but unattributed) AAH leaflet you only "assume was written by Elaine
> > > Morgan" but have no citation to back it up (As if this leaflet
> > > amounted to anything). And, of course, two pages further on from that
> > > there's the 'AAT claims and facts' page
> > > (http://www.aquaticape.org/aatclaims.html) where 23 AAH 'claims' are
> > > touted out without a single reference so that anyone can check if any
> > > AAH proponent actually did make such claims, or whether Jim Moore was
> > > just making them up, exaggerating them or editing them, using them out
> > > of context or otherwise twisting them.
> >
> > Speaking of taking things out of context, the bit you just quoted says
this
> > when in context:
> >
> > "Pro-AAT accounts also commonly use quotes which are altered to "say"
> > something the quoted person didn't actually say; they leave out relevant
> > material from the same source which contradicts the AAT position; or
they
> > simply claim the source says the opposite of what that source actually
does
> > say. You won't find those problems here."
> >
> > The "context" you so helpfully supplied is what's called (I may have
coined
> > this, but I doubt it :) "false context" wherein you take some other
material
> > and pretend that this is what the quoted material is talking about when
the
> > actual context shows otherwise.
>
> But hold on. The master twister did it again! Just before that
> sentence he decided to cite was this sentence... "If you try to do the
> same with most pro-AAT accounts, you'll find one of several problems:
> they often don't give a reference for a statement or quote at all;
> when they do the reference is often incomplete (just a name with no
> clue as to what publication or year the info is supposedly from;
> sometimes even a wrong name). On this site, I've tried to tie as many
> of my statements to specific references as I can; at present this is
> still incomplete and will be rectified during my updates."
>
> That was *also* part of the stuff you assured your readers "would not
> find" on your web site. Notice how Jim is trying to imply that all he
> was alluding to was actual misquotations. He was saying more than
> that. He claimed we would not find "those problems" on his web site -
> and he was wrong.
So your complaint is that I clearly said on my opening page that I don't
have my site referenced nearly as well as I'd like.
> The reason I didn't cite the whole lot was to try to keep this
> conversation down to size a bit (some hope!).
Yes, that was your reason, certainly; just as I'm sure you didn't bring all
this up as a way to deflect attention from the fact that you made a
completely false claim and figured shooting at the messenger would be better
than a mea culpa.
> So, Jim, you made the statement "you won't find those problems here"
> [meaning at your web site] but we *DO* find those problems there -
> lot's of them. So, your statement is simply completely false and is
> not out of context.
>
> Was it a lie or just sloppyness?
Reading comprehension 101: if you look at the page, you see me mention
several problems and then I say that in my opinion my site also suffers from
one of these; then I cite several other problems and say in my opinion that
my site doesn't suffer from those problems.
> > > 2) "Again you substitute your '10 my' -- you are not being accurate
> > > about what Hardy said -- you should have read more than the title."
Jim
> > > Moore sap 9-9-04.
> > > This, clearly alluding to Hardy's 1960 paper - as the Title 'Was Man
> > > More Aquatic in the Past?' is something I've often referred to, is
> > > just wrong. In that paper Hardy wrote 10My. But can i get Jim Moore to
> > > admit he made a simple mistake - not on your life.
> >
> > I think you should read what Hardy said -- all of it -- and not just
stop
> > with his 1960 title. This means the rest of his 1960 statements as well
as
> > his 1979 statement, where he reiterated some of his previous mistakes as
> > well as adding others, among them the 20 plus million years idea and his
> > false claim about the diving reflex -- and that bizarre frog jaw stuff.
> > They all show a man who didn't really care to look at the facts before
he
> > put forth his idea.
>
> But, Jim, you did write (did you not?) that I was being inaccurate
> about what Hardy said. So, your statement is simply completely false
> and is not out of context.
>
> Was it a lie or just sloppyness?
You were being mighty selective in insisting that only the numbers you liked
be used and not his later numbers, the numbers he gave after thinking about
it for another 17 years. Would you suggest we judge David Pilbeam's
sensibility by looking at only his pre-1970 ideas about how long ago we
diverged from African apes, or should we use the numbers from after that
when he'd changed his mind? In your method, you'd be castigating Pilbeam
for saying the divergence was 16-18 million years ago as if that were his
latest claim. That's foolish.
> > > 3) "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?') I never said
that.
> >
> > I have several times explained that saying (incorrectly in my opinion)
that
> > neither Morgan or Hardy gave any definition of what they meant by
aquatic
> > despite their having thought about and worked on the theory for some 50
> > years in Hardy's case and nearly 30 in Morgan's case sure sounds like
> > massively incompetent work, since that is a basic bottom line aspect of
> > presenting a new idea like theirs. Of course, unlike you, I don't think
> > they were that remiss -- I think it's quite clear that by looking at
their
> > statements you can indeed see what degree of aqauticness they had to
have
> > been talkign about to get the features they used as evidence -- you
simply
> > don't like that pointed out -- I can't blame you for not liking it, but
> > there you go.
>
> But, Jim, you did specifically write (did you not?) that I "said
> ['said' note, not 'implied'] that her work, and Hardy's, was all just
> incompetent trash." So, your statement is simply completely false and
> is not out of context.
>
> Was it a lie or just sloppyness?
You can use the word implied if you like, but you were pretty emphatic that
they hadn't done this basic requirement of their hypothesis even after 50
years for Hardy and nearly 30 for Morgan -- you may not think that's saying
they're incompetent, but it sure sounds like it.
> > > 4) "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?')
> > > I never said that.
> >
> > When you repeatedly insist that we should take what Hardy said in his
1960
> > title and not what he said after he wrote that phrase, what can we
imagine
> > you mean?
>
> But, Jim, you did write (did you not?) that I "insisted" that all
> should only read the title - even though I'd posted the whole of
> Hardy's original paper on my web site. So, your statement is simply
> completely false and is not out of context.
>
> Was it a lie or just sloppyness?
Anytime I mentioned what Hardy actually said about the features he used as
evidence and what that neccesarily means vis a vis the degree of
aquaticness, you counter with the insistence that he was merely asking "was
man more aquatic in the past".
> > > 5) "I disagree with your idea that one should stop reading after the
> > > title." Moore (2004-sep-03 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory?') It
> > > was never my idea.
> >
> > See above.
>
> But, Jim, you did write (did you not?) that it was "my idea" that one
> should stop reading after the title - even though I'd posted the whole
> of Hardy's original paper on my web site. So, your statement is simply
> completely false and is not out of context.
>
> Was it a lie or just sloppyness?
See above.
> > > 6) "From Morgan's lead-in phrase, "in savannah conditions", you might
> > > reasonably get the idea that Derek Denton had actually said something
> > > about savannahs pertaining to the quoted sentence, but this context
> > > which Morgan provides is in fact a complete fabrication. Denton
> > > neither says it nor implies it." Jim Moore ('Can AATer Research be
> > > trusted?' page (http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html) In his web cite
> > > he quotes extensively from Denton to imply to the reader that he never
> > > mentioned the savannah but in the very next sentence (the one Moore
> > > suddenly stopped citing) Denton wrote this...
> > >
> > > "If the deductions of hunter-gatherer societies based on the Kalahari
> > > bushmen and the Hadza are valid in relation to hominids, then diet may
> > > have also been predominantly vegetarian over the last five million
> > > years, though there was considerable variation in diet according to
> > > the prevailing climate and conditions." (Denton 1982:p70.)
> > >
> > > Denton, Derek. (1982) The Hunger for Salt. Springer-Verlag: Berlin,
> > > Heidelberg, New York
> > >
> > > So, in the very next sentence after the one Moore chose to use as a
> > > citiation to show how Morgan has twisted Denton we see a sentence
> > > showing that it was Moore doing the twisting, not Morgan.
> >
> > Here's Denton's full paragraph, the paragraph that Morgan took her quote
> > from, which you'll note is not the quote Algis chooses to post; Denton,
pg.
> > 70:
> > "The behaviour towards salt of a wide variety of species of wild
herbivorous
> > mammals has been recorded in Chapter 3. The environmental, dietetic and
> > metabolic conditions which determined it could have operated on
hominoids
> > over a large part of their evolution. It follows that selection pressure
> > would favour retention and, perhaps, elaboration of salt appetite
> > mechanisms -- both hedonic liking and the hunger with deficiency --
which
> > were developed at earlier stages of phylogeny. This may also have held
for
> > the elaboration of salt retention by aldosterone secretion, which has a
> > multifactorial mode of control that includes special adaptations to the
> > assumption of the upright posture. This selection pressure would have
been
> > ameliorated by meat-eating with the consequential obligatory sodium
supply
> > during the latter 2-3 million years of hominid evolution. Whether this
> > resulted in regression of these mechanisms to any extent is a matter of
> > speculation (see Chapter 26)."
> >
> > And of course we've already covered this, so I'll do a Marc and cut and
> > paste from that SAP post:
> > The context of Denton's sentence is the senetences preceding it in the
> > paragraph it's in -- it does not refer to savannah or indeed any
specific
> > environment, only the general type of "environmental, dietetic and
metabolic
> > conditions" which determine an animal's "behavior toward salt". Denton
makes
> > clear in many places in his book that humans' behavior toward salt shows
> > that humans evolved in a salt deplete environment, which is precisely
the
> > opposite of what Morgan claims he said.
> >
> > That particular paragraph about the Kalahari bushmen and Hadza is
(rather
> > clearly) talking about the diet of those people, not their environment.
This
> > is made even clearer by the fact that the paragraph you mention
specifically
> > talked about "predominantly vegetarian" diets not only in the Kahahari
> > bushmen and Hadza but also the peoples of highland New Guinea and the
> > Amazon, contrasting all these with diets of predominately "animal
products"
> > such as Eskimos and the Maasai (guess you missed that part, or just
forgot
> > to tell us about it). His point about the Kalahari bushmen and Hadza was
> > that most of their diet was vegetable sources rather than meat.
> >
> > The reason that's imporant is that primarily carnivorous mammals, and
those
> > living in saltwater environments such as Morgan was pushing at the time,
do
> > not demonstrate salt appetite, while animals living in salt deplete
> > environments with salt deplete diets do exhibit salt hunger. In this way
you
> > can demonstrate whether our ancestors lived in a salt replete
enviornment
> > (like the seaside like Morgan was claiming at that time) or a salt
deplete
> > environment (as paleoanthropologists claimed).
> >
> > The parts of Denton's book that pertained to humans and human evolution
do
> > say the opposite of what Morgan claimed they said -- she claimed that
Denton
> > said that humans had no salt appetite, when the main thrust of this book
was
> > to point out that they do; she claimed that his work showed that humans
> > evolved in or around a saltwater enviroment, when he was at pains to
point
> > out that his work showed that we evolved in an environment where salt
was
> > rare. This includes savannah and desert conditions like those the
bushmen
> > live(d) in, it includes forests, it includes everywhere except for the
> > seashore where Morgan was placing our ancestors at that time (and for
which
> > she offered Denton's work as support, even though his work was very
clear
> > about saying that such a place was the one place where our ancestors
could
> > not have evolved).
>
> Typical politician's twisting twaddle.
>
> But, Jim, (Mr President) you said "Denton neither says it nor implies"
> a context for savannah but he DOES, in the very next sentence to the
> one you posted on your web site. How can you squirm out of that?
>
> Was it a lie or just sloppyness?
See above re reading comprehension. If you can't read and assimilate what
you read, I can't explain it to you. I didn't actually expect you to,
though; I just put the facts in for the sake of others.
> > > and now... one more...
> > >
> > > 7) "the statement [my statement 'extant ape behaviour in water is
> > > almost totally bipedal'] is simply completely false". Jim Moore last
> > > posting. Well is it *completely* false, Jim? I mean if it were
> > > completely false then what? Wouldn't that mean that apes are *never*
> > > bipedal in water. I put it to you that they are much more bipedal in
> > > water (any depth of water) than they are on land or in trees. On what
> > > basis do you say that it is *completely* false? I have written a
> > > masters thesis with a large section showing that it is far from that.
> >
> > Your statement was not "apes are sometimes bipedal in water" or "ape
> > behavior in water is sometimes bipedal" or anything like that. It was a
> > flat statement that is simply wrong.
>
> No it isn't. Apes are more bipedal in any depth of water than they are
> on land. In waist deep water they are pretty much 100% bipedal, in
> thigh-deep water it's theoretical possible (but highly unlikely) that
> they might knuckle-walk, In knee-deep water, it's more likely and in
> very, very shallow (a few centimetres) then, if they're foraging for
> food in stream beds, then yes, they're likely to move quadrupedally.
> But even then, Jane Goodall in 1968 wrote this:
>
> "Chimpanzees frequently stand upright in order to look over long grass
> or other vegetation. Sometimes a branch or tree trunkis held with one
> hand, but often both arms hang down at the animal's sides. These apes
> frequently walk bipedally for short distances: (i) whilst moving
> through long grass when looking for an unusual object of searching for
> a companion, (ii) when it is raining hard and the ground is wet and
> (iii) when carrying food in one or both hands." Lawick-Goodall
> (1968:177)
>
> See that? Her number TWO reason for bipedality in chimps was moving on
> WET GROUND.
>
> Van Lawick-Goodall, J (1968). The Behaviour of Free-living Chimpanzees
> in the Gombe Stream Reserve. Animal Behaviour Monographs Vol:1(3)
> Pages:161-311
>
> So again - was it a lie or just sloppyness?
You are really trying to insist that your statement was correct? Your
statement was not "Apes are more bipedal in any depth of water than they are
on land"; it was "extant ape behaviour in water is almost totally
bipedal" -- those are extremely different statements. All I did was point
out that your statement was incorrect; now you're trying to divert attention
from this incorrect statement of yours by saying I was implying that apes
don't use bipedality in water sometimes, which of course I don't do. You
really would have been better off to simply offer a mea culpa instead of
this long-winded attempt to divert attention from your statement. A mea
culpa would have taken the problem you're having and made it just go away,
simple, like that (snap your fingers for full effect). Instead, you're
prolonging and compounding your error in a very foolish way.
(I leave it to the audience to determine the error in using a percentage of
time on land and in water in the AAT/H -- okay, here's a hint: apes spend
many times more time on land than in water.)
> > If I say that 25 cents is almost a
> > dollar, and someone points out that this statement is BS, it would be
> > nonsense to claim they were saying that 25 cents is not money at all.
You
> > would probably be better to stop using nonsense in your defense and
instead
> > simply say, "Gee, I goofed... that was stupid of me" and then what could
I,
> > or anyone else, possibly say without looking foolishly overbearing?
When
> > you try to counter with nonsense talk you just make yourself look
foolish
> > and prolong your own agony. Everybody makes mistakes -- what kills you
is
> > compounding the mistake by claiming it's not really an error. (Remember,
> > what got Nixon wasn't the break-in so much as the coverup.)
>
> The point is that if anyone was to go searching for statements I've
> made about ape behaviour in water they'll find that most of the time I
> qualify it with something like 'in waist deep water' but trust good
> 'ol Jim to ignore all of those and find the one or two where I failed
> to do so and put it up as evidence of sloppiness or, what he really
> hopes people will think, some kind of attempt at a deception. It's ALL
> Jim Moore does. It's what he did with Elaine Morgan, it's what he did
> with Hardy and it's what he's trying to do with me. Trouble is - I'm
> just not having it, Jim.
See above re mea culpas and the salutory effects they have.
> > > I think I've made it clear often enought that it's in waist deep water
> > > where apes have practically no choice but to go bipedal but we can
> > > always trust the master twister to find a snippet which was not fully
> > > qualified that he can then triumphantly report as an act of deception.
> > >
> > > Can you answer a simple question which you have avoided like the
> > > plague in previous postings: In Hardy's 1960 paper in New Scientist,
> > > did he, or did he not suggest that the gap between Proconsul and
> > > Australopithecines was ten million years?
> > >
>
> > He sure did; then he changed his mind later -- should we ignore any
things
> > he said that you don't like?
>
> We should be fair minded, see the broad context of what people are
> arguing and on those ocassions when errors are made see that they are
> indeed errors, like scientists do, instead of obsessively storing them
> up as rotten tomatoes to throw at opponents for cheap political
> points, like political spin doctors do.
>
> But anyway... what new! AT LAST! THANK YOU, Jim. You've finally
> admitted it. Hardy said ten million years in his New Scientist
> article. So, when you said "you are not being accurate about what
> Hardy said -- you should have read more than the title" (Meaning 'Was
> Man More Aquatic in the Past?' the only title I've alluded to of his]-
> was that a lie, or was it just sloppy?
So you say we should sift through someone's work, find only the things that
show them in a good light, and then pretend they didn't say any of the
rest... I don't think so. And apparently neither do you, or you'd have a
rave review of my site on yours, since you'd ignore anything that you didn't
think was good. You don't do that, do you? Mind you, I don't think you
should do that, but even more I also think you shouldn't have two different
sets of criteria about what is acceptable like you're proposing.
> On your web page 'Can AATer Research be Trusted?' you come up with
> four (no, actually just one) error that Elaine Morgan was guilty of
> making and you suggest that it is evidence of either sloppy work or,
> as you slimily insinuate, fraudulent methods.
>
> Well I've got more than four similar errors just here, Jim. The big
> difference is, considering your attempted defence of them, that
> there's just no question that it's just sloppiness in your case.
>
> Algis Kuliukas
You really should have simply issued a mea culpa and taken the wind out of
my sails instead of doing this long-winded attempt to divert attention from
your completely false statement. Instead of taking the wind out of my
sails, you are now the wind beneath my wings, and I hate that song. I beg
you to stop singing it.
-- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org
- Next message: J Moore: "Re: What is the Aquatic theory?"
- Previous message: John: "Re: oldest American skull found!"
- In reply to: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Bipedal Orrorin?"
- Next in thread: firstjois: "Re: Bipedal Orrorin?"
- Reply: firstjois: "Re: Bipedal Orrorin?"
- Reply: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Bipedal Orrorin?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
