savanna believers' arguments... (Re: What is the Aquatic theory?
From: Marc Verhaegen (fa204466_at_skynet.be)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: Jason Eshleman: "Re: Bipedal Orrorin?"
- Previous message: Marc Verhaegen: "savanna believers... (Re: What is the Aquatic theory?"
- In reply to: J Moore: "Re: What is the Aquatic theory?"
- Next in thread: Michael Clark: "Re: What is the Aquatic theory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:57:28 +0200
"J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AH14d.467401$M95.190777@pd7tw1no...
> Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.0409140741.40ce9d20@posting.google.com...
> > "J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<0cn1d.420900$gE.131064@pd7tw3no>...
> > > Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > > news:77a70442.0409120431.30038f20@posting.google.com...
> > > > "J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<4cO0d.396323$gE.286961@pd7tw3no>...
> > > > > Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:77a70442.0409110233.576d4dea@posting.google.com...
> >
> <much snipped -- I snipped a lot here because the whole thing is pretty
> tedious (Algis will say it's because of me, and what can I say, I have
this
> bad habit of correcting people and they find it tedious >
>
> > > (http://www.gatorswimteam.org/2004/5/breaststroke.html) I've always
> been
> > > amused at these explanations of AAT/H swimming styles -- the "hair
> tracts
> > > method" which requires you to swim with the crown of your head facing
> > > forward and your arms at your sides, or the "AAT/H variation
> breaststroke"
> > > where the entire head, including beard, is held out of the water --
and
> > > these are supposed to be high speed swimming strokes to account for
hair
> > > loss, too!
> >
> > Hominids probably swam with a variety of strokes just like we do
> > today, just like we have a variety of terrestrial modes of locomotion
> > too. You're exaggerating again, as always.
>
> Jump in a pool and swimm with your head completely out of the water (leave
> enough room for a beard to be out of water too). Try it. Then look at
> Robin Williams (the Fisher King is a good place to look) and tell me how
he
> swims with no body hair in the water. This ad hoc swimming stuff for the
> body hair just doesn't fit with the actual state of body hair and head
hair
> for humans. You also need to learn a bit more about sexual selection too,
> it seems.
>
> > [..]
> > > > You completely avoided my question. What ecological scenario would
> > > > have allowed this sexual selection positive feedback loop to cause
> > > > such a marked difference between humans and chimps?
> > > >
> > > > No I'm not comparing to seals and whales. People that are fatter are
> > > > less likely to drown than people who are thinner. It's called
> > > > buoyancy.
> > >
> > > This idea is not borne out by comparisons to other aquatic mammals --
> except
> > > of course to seals, whales, and sirenia, and even there Pond points
out
> that
> > > their fat seems adapted to shaping for streamlining along with the
> general
> > > use of fat, in all animals, as a food store.
> >
> > You just want to keep bringing on the seals, even though they're a
> > side issue. Humans that are fat are less likely to drown than those
> > that are skinny. It's simply a mater of increased buoyancy.
>
> So you say that all those years of AAT/H claims about "aquatics" and where
> we find fat and hairlessness and sweat etc., are just, what, not
operative?
> Nonsense? Ignore the man behind the curtain?
>
> <much snipped>
>
> > > And this is your "parsimonious" idea? Can you say "ad hoc"?
> >
> > Well why don't you answer my question and state the orthodox paradigm
> > suggestion for explaining this. When no other primate uses nakedness
> > and fatness for sexual selection, how come our species suddenly did?
>
> We aren't "naked", you really have to look at just what we have, not what
> you wish it to be. Really, I don't see any sign that you want to look at
> this, either. (And who said suddenly?) I'm not stating the "orthodox" or
> "paradigm" or whatever -- I am, as I've many times stated, simply looking
at
> the AAT/H claims and see if they're accurate and make sense. Even if, for
> instance, every single thought and hypothesis that ahs been generally
> accepted in human evolution became miraculously invalid, it wouldn't make
> any other idea true, or even more likely. Your idea has to stand on its
> own. This is something where you're following Morgan's lead, and it's a
> false method (it's also uncomfortably like the primary method used by
> creationists).
>
> > [..]
> > > > I don't need fully aquatic animals to show that more fat in humans
> > > > makes you more bouyant and less likely to drown.
> > > >
> > > > I don't need them to show that shaving body hair off a human reduces
> > > > drag significantly in water and that hair reduction aids dip/sweat
> > > > cooling.
> > >
> > > You use our present body (and head) hair as evidence of an aquatic
> past --
> > > aquatic to some vaguely stated degree of "more". But of course our
> present
> > > condition -- the state that AAT/H proponents says this
vaguely-defined
> > > aquaticness created -- turns out to be just exactly what competitive
> > > swimmers don't want -- they go either for hair removal or (and/or)
body
> > > suits that mimic the effect of hair or dermal ridges. If we can speed
> up
> > > our swimming by removing our body and head hair, how is it that our
body
> and
> > > head hair were adapted to swimming speedily?
> >
> > 'Speedily' is a twist. Less drag makes it more efficient, more durable
> > as well as faster. How do you know that hairier men are not slower
> > than less hairy men, all other things being equal? Are you just
> > guessing?
>
> Are you? You are the one with the new theory you want accepted. Why is
it
> that in all the decades of AAT/H scenarios being bandied about, with
> swimming and body hair at or near the center, did no one look at the
studies
> done on it until I did? Why did you, for instance, find it on my site
> instead of at the library years earlier? Why didn't Morgan? And this is
> degree-worthy scholarship?
>
> <much snipped>
>
> > > Ahh, again with the "they were just trying to get you to think"
idea --
> so
> > > beloved ofthe pseudoscience crowd -- I'd think you might want to try
to
> > > avoid that particular association by not using their tactics.
> >
> > Well if you actually read Hardy and Morgan you'd have realised that
> > this is exactly what they said they were doing...
> >
> > "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)
>
> As I said, this is a classic dodge by pseudoscience types and not
something
> you really want to be emulating, and your assumption is of course that
Hardy
> and Morgan didn't make anyone think simply because when they did think,
they
> didn't come up with the conclusion you guys wanted them to.
>
> <much snipped>
- Next message: Jason Eshleman: "Re: Bipedal Orrorin?"
- Previous message: Marc Verhaegen: "savanna believers... (Re: What is the Aquatic theory?"
- In reply to: J Moore: "Re: What is the Aquatic theory?"
- Next in thread: Michael Clark: "Re: What is the Aquatic theory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
