Re: Bipedal Orrorin?

From: Jason Eshleman (jae_at_ucdavis.edu)
Date: 09/21/04 

Date: 21 Sep 2004 16:32:46 -0700

algis@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) 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.
>
> The reason I didn't cite the whole lot was to try to keep this
> conversation down to size a bit (some hope!).

And had you cited the context, your point would have been rendered
moot. Jim indicated, expressly, that he was trying to provide
references where he could.

The actual paragraph is such:

"I don't have any formal credentials in evolutionary science, so how
can I expect you to believe what I tell you instead of what AAT
proponents say? Leaving aside the fact that all the major AAT
proponents also lack such credentials, you simply look at whether or
not what I say matches actual, known facts. On this site I try to
provide references for my statements, and appropriate, unaltered
quotes from relevant sources to back up my facts. The more curious or
enterprising amongst you may wish to read further about some of these
features, and you'll find that easy to do by simply going to a library
and picking up one of the books or journals I mention. 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. 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. If you do find
an error on my site, please contact me -- there's a feedback link on
most pages."

Jim presents in this paragraph a single point, why, despite his lack
of formal credentials his site shouldn't be disregarded entirely. He
backs this with two points:

1) He say he makes an attempt to provide references where he can. He
makes it clear in statement that at present it's incomplete--he is
explicit about this and as such a website devoted to showing that he
didn't do this everywhere is both petty and pointless.

2) He says that he won't alter quotes. Following that statement he
makes the statement "Pro-AAT accounts *ALSO* [my emphasis] 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." Note
the word also. This is a separate idea. It is to this second point
that he refers when he says "[y]ou won't find those problems here."
While perhaps these should have been dealt with in separate
paragraphs, it's still rather clear to which statement he was
referring when he said "[y]ou won't find those problems here" as he
has already admitted, explicitly, that his process of providing
references everywhere is incomplete.

> 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.

No where did Jim claim that his website was problem-free. The
"meaning at your web site" interjection is your assertion, Algis. Not
Jim's.

> Was it a lie or just sloppyness?

"Sloppiness." And it was sloppiness, on the part of you, Algis.
Jim's clear in what he said he was trying to do and what he did.
You've misread and misrepresented him. I suspect that the inevitable
point though was merely a way to try to call Jim a liar without
stooping to Verhaegenesque directness.

[snip]

> > > 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?

Sloppiness, on your part, Algis. You seem to have trouble with the
words "almost totally." You've not presented a case that apes are
"almost totally bipedal" in water. Jim called you on that.

You posted this sentence on Sept 15, 2004:

The evidence is located in primatology (extant ape behaviour in water
is almost totally bipedal); paleoecology/paleogeography (almost all
early hominid sites could have been wetland habitats);
paleoanthropology (postcranial anatomy of early bipeds is certainly
for upright (hence bipedal) locomotion, but almost certainly not the
kind of bipedalism we practice today); comparative anatomy (humans as
compared to chimpanzees have a number of traits which are most
parsimoniously explained by adaptation to increased exposure to moving
through water) and that's just off the top of my head.

That, save your name was the entirety of your post.

There is no context snipped. You did not qualify the statement that
the "almost totally bipedal" statement meant only in water of any
specific depth. He was fair to call you on it. It is a slip that you
make routinely.

[snip]

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Question about Domain Object
    ... says domain objects should know how to recognize which references indicate aggregation and which ones indicate association. ... Objects should abstract /intrinsic/ properties from the problem space entity that do not depend on the context. ... // implement & instantiate aggregation ... One reason is that one can easily "daisy-chain" relationship paths by "walking" a chain of references to get to the right object. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Christmas, but not a Merry-Christmasy, coincidence.
    ... footnote of a paper presented at an academic conference. ... discussant noted the 'wide range' of references in the paper.... ... what context you found for it?...r ... reflecting on included actions of the Anton Piller type (ex parte ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Christmas, but not a Merry-Christmasy, coincidence.
    ... footnote of a paper presented at an academic conference. ... discussant noted the 'wide range' of references in the paper.... ... what context you found for it?...r ... reflecting on included actions of the Anton Piller type (ex parte ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Scientists against Bush or Swift Boats against Kerry - whom would you believe? Tin cans dont hav
    ... >What more context could you need? ... >> You did not provide any quote at all for Kerry's first contact with the ... >Kerry that they are willing to ignore the contradictions in his OWN ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: A.robustus: habitat generalists
    ... what is in the references is... ... origin of bipedality. ... forced them to walk upright" (Stringer C.1997. ... facilitate bipedal locomotion (as observed in other normally ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)