Re: Evidence, and scientific palatability

From: J Moore (anthrosciguy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/25/04 

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:07:48 GMT

Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0410250257.13b1fe9b@posting.google.com...
> "J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<ZGVed.13739$%k.6618@pd7tw2no>...
>
> > My point exactly. As I said: "This post describes the essense of the
AAT/H
> > problem -- we are even now
> > demonstrably "more aquatic" than apes, but then by this measure so are
> > horses and dogs. The statement lacks definition and explanatory power,
and
> > doesn't even begin to suggest why this tiny degree of "aquaticism" begat
> > features like those of seals, whales, and serenia in humans and in no
other
> > animals. Of course that's granting that these features are actually the
> > same as in those mammals, which is not actually true, which constitutes
> > another problem for the AAT/H."
>
> Well thank you, Jim, for actually taking on the idea as I see it. I've
> not seen you do that before. If you have elsewhere, I apologise.
>
> 1) I agree that the human features nakedness and sc fat are not really
> the same as in seals... they're only vaguely analoguos.
>
> 2) I agree that by such measures dogs and horses are also more aquatic
> than apes.
>
> 3) The point you're missing is that we are descended from apes.
> Therefore, due to our arboreal past combined with relatively (compared
> to other primates) large size we have a propensity for upright posture
> which, uniquely amongst mammals tends to bipedalism in water. That's
> one major trait explained.
>
> Now, back to nakedness and sc fat. Nakedness clearly benefits sweat
> cooling and, by all accounts, reduced drag in water whilst swimming.
> It does not take much imagination to see how this would have evolved
> in water-side 'slightly more aquatic' apes. Primates and apes
> especially are poor swimmers. Anything that increases buoyancy is
> likely to help them survive. Hence that's why we're fatter than the
> primates. It really isn't that difficult, Jim, and it certainly
> doesn't need any extremist comparisons with seals and dolphins for it
> to work.
>
> Algis Kuliukas

There are non-human primates which are excellent swimmers. I doubt that
anyone has ever stated that humans are not more aquatic than apes, but they
don't bring it up because the problem with the statement that humans are
more aquatic than apes is, as I said, that it's so vague as to be virtually
meaningless, as shown by the examples of horses and dogs (and many other
animals) fitting the statement as well or better. You have to be one hell
of a lot more specific than that to even begin to make a reasonable
speculation, much less a hypothesis. When the AAT/H uses the examples of
fat and reduced body hair and says it's because of aquaticness, they are the
ones comparing us to seals, whales, and serenia, although they are coy about
it, I'll grant you. Some might use words other than "coy", but I'm then
being coy in not using them. Jason is right that you have to get rid of the
word "hairless" because it doesn't describe the state of things, and if you
aren't accurate in your description of the state of things you can't
possibly make anything valid out of your speculations -- this is a similar
problem to your way too vague "more aquatic" statement. 

--
JMoore
__
For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to
www.aquaticape.org

Relevant Pages