Re: Updated AAH Definition

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 11/17/04 

Date: 16 Nov 2004 18:46:16 -0800

jae@vidi.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message news:<cndbcm$n4e$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>...
> Michael Clark <biteme@spammer.com> wrote:
>
> >"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> >news:77a70442.0411152304.33ba8d8f@posting.google.com...

> >> Q: How many fossils have been attributed to Hominids in the last 2My?
> >> A: Thousands.
> >>
> >> Q: How many have been attributed to Pan/Gorilla?
> >> A: Zero.
> >>
> >> Q: What type of animal is most likely to get fossilised.
> >> A: Aquatic animals. They make up over 90% of all fossils found.
> >>
> >> Duh.
> >
> >"Duh". Algis in action. This isn't a test of anything,
> >genius. I asked you to provide convincing proof that human
> >ancestors lived in waterside habitats *more* than P/G
> >ancestors. You come back with some observation about
> >the relative number of fossils. This isn't a test and instead
> >is merely another wave of your puny little arms. MOST
> >fossils are found in water-borne sediments. This doesn't
> >make aquatic animals out of terrestrial ones. See?
> >Didn't think so. So you fail again --right on time.

More from the Mike and Jason show.

How can we "prove" anything about animals that lived 4 million years
ago? Human ancestors, we are told (sometimes), lived in wooded
habitats. More or less the same kind of wooded habitats that chimps
live in today, right? Or are you a savannah theorist? And yet not one
chip off a tooth of a chimp ancestor has ever been found dated in the
last 2My. Thousands of hominid fossils have been found in the same
period, thousands. If this evidence does not make you think that
perhaps this is more than just a wierd taphonomic bias (they all lived
our in the open patches between the woods but then mysteriously went
down to the water to die, whereas chimps or gorillas didn't) then
you're lacking something in the grey matter.
 
> Though there's a relatively straightforward use of data already collected
> that Algis could and should look at, he's taking a pre-school approach to
> fit his previous prejudice. 90% of all fossils found may be from aquatic
> creatures, but this doesn't mean that any fossil found must then be from
> an aquatic creature. He should note which creatures are found in deposits
> with hominids, notably, which terrestrial creatures are similarly present.
> Are hominids over-represented compared to, say, fossil gazelles and
> wildebeest? Without such a comparison, the presence of hominids in
> waterside habitats indicates only that waterside deposits favor
> fossilization, something that appears true.

Sure. But even there you are making a couple of pretty huge
assumptions:

1) That the ancestors of gazelles lived in similar habitats to their
modern day descendants. There's evidence that savanna-type grassland
is actually a very recent phenomenon, suggesting that the ancestors of
such representatives were adapted to much more wet and wooded
habitats.

2) That if open grassland species were represented then this indicates
that hominids must have shared a lifestyle close to theirs and not to
the lifestyle of the undoubtedly more numerous aquatic species that
are always present. Just because a wilderbeest has made a trek across
thousands of km of open plains to come down to a watering hole to die,
it does not mean that hominids followed them. Microhabitats
surrounding riparian woodland would be expected to produce a large
diversity of species, and this is what we see. The presence of
gazelles or wilderbeest is no evidence that human ancestors did not
remain by the water.

For such a baseline comparison to have any meaning in this debate, we
would need to compare the fauna of hominid sites with those of
Pan/Gorilla sites. Unfortunately there are *no* such sites to make any
comparisons. Odd that.

> >>> > It predicts that humans swim better than apes. Test that.
> >>>
> >>> Humans swim better than apes because we're bipedal, highly
> >>> adaptive generalists. We also ride bicycles better than apes.
> >>> Open your eyes.
> >>
> >> Even human infants are less likely to drwon than infant chimps - long
> >> before they learn to ride bikes.
> >
> >Really? Oh, that clinches it then. Who, the chimps or the humans
> >(riding bikes, I mean).
>
> Here's another Algis interjection. He's presenting as fact that human
> infants are less likely to drown than chimps. Whether or not this is
> true, he seems to be presenting it as fact, as something for which he has
> actual data. To the best of my knowledge, he does not. If this is the
> case, this is a dishonest approach to science whereby his conclusion leads
> his premise and his premise (drawn out of an untested inference) serves
> then as evidence to support his conclusion, sidestepping actual data and
> analysis. This doesn't make AAH a joke, but it sure makes Algis K.'s
> "science" laugh-worthy.

This is a discussion group not a peer reviewed journal. I think the
anecdotal and film evidence of thousands of babies in early swimming
classes, plus the known fact of human infant adipocity compared with
the similarly known fact of distinctly low adipocity in infant chimps
is sufficient to make such assertions. As usual, the very best
evidence you have is absence of evidence - and you're clinging to it.
As with JM you have to try to hit below the belt by claiming some kind
of dishonesty in order to shore up your position, rather than
accepting what little evidence there is and going with that. It
indicates a rather peculiar bias unworthy of a scientist.

MC's facile point that as humans can do things like ride bikes we need
no explanation for our extra swimming ability is just so convenient.
In every species on the planet, in every known substrate, if species
(a) is clearly better adapted at moving through a given substrate than
species (b) then we assume it's because of adaptive pressure. That's
what natural selection is. With humans, on land - same thing - we've
become adapted to moving on land better than chimps - what did you
expect? But when it comes to humans and water - ooops, suddenly the
rules change. Special, mysterious forces have to be invoked. Why's
that?
 
> >> Humans that are completely naked swim better than chimps without any
> >> technological aid.
> >
> >No help for you there since nobody doubts that humans swim
> >better than your average ape --since we're bipeds and are
> >thus built much better for swimming. Oh, did I mention that
> >you fail again, or is it becoming unnecessary?

How does being bipedal help you to swim?

> And a curious point he raises. If completely naked humans swim better,
> why then are we not completely naked? The answer of some sub-optimal
> stroke that keeps our head out of the water is pathetic enough, but to
> date he's had postively nothing to explain the retention of body hair in
> humans.

I must have answered that silly, simple point a dozen times. (So who's
being dishonest, Jason?) You have a remarkably Eurocentric notion of
humanity. Most non-IndoEuropean males are pretty much hairless. Some
human groups, which moved north from the Indian Ocean OoA II migration
early, seem to have reverted some hair growth traits.
 
> >>> > It predicts that having less body hair makes you a better swimmer
> >>> > through drag reduction. Test that.
> >>>
> >>> Thoroughly hashed in this NG --many times. Laughed at
> >>> until the tears rolled. Perhaps you weren't here for the
> >>> dissection?
> >>
> >> Well that's what you do. You dismiss, a priori, the idea that human
> >> ancestors might have ever swam and you egg each other on to convince
> >> yourselves how clever you all are and how stupid the AATers are. Sharp
> >> & Costill x 2 and Kruger et al show unequivocally that body hair
> >> causes drag in swimmers.
> >
> >Where is the goddamned selection, doofus? Yea, I know,
> >the crocs ate all the slow ones. Except that crocs don't hunt
> >that way --as has been explained 5,245 times.

Oh. Where's the selection? Gosh. That's a hard one. Thousands of
people drown every year - didn't you know? And for every one that
drowns there are an estimated four or five that nearly drown but
escape. This is in human populations today, note. That's selection -
going on right now under your very nose. It's almost certainly been
going on, similarly, for about seven million years. *But* I somehow
don't think it's been going on to a similiar extent for chimpanzees,
do you?
 
> Algis's misrepresentation of these papers is dishonest and irresponsible.
> The paper he sites ad nauseum by Sharp and Costill indicate that
> *hairlessness as a result of shaving* causes drag in humans. It does not
> address hair reduction, though despite being reminded of this time and
> time again, Algis seems to have some cerebral defect that makes him ignore
> this. Krueger et al did not show unequivocally that body hair causes drag
> in swimmers. In fact, they state quite clearly that the don't think it's
> drag. I quote: "It can not be explained by the reduction of water
> resistance by the loss of hair, as the nearly body-hairless girls show the
> identical effect [of shaving] as teh boys with clearly more body hair."

Yes, of course you quote *those* words but not the thirteen
immediately before the bit you carefully copied out: "Conclusion:
Results show that body shaving leads to a clear gain in performance."
Kruger et al (2000:55)

Kruger, J; Mikoleit, J; Heck, H (2000). The influence of total body
shaving on performance and lactic acid behaviour in swimming. DEUTSCHE
ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR SPORTMEDIZIN Vol:51(2) Pages:55-58

Shades of Jim Moore bias there. That's just the sort of thing he does
on his self-styled 'scientific critique' of the AAH.

Look they found that shaving reduced drag. Fact. That was what they
found.
The second part, the part you quote, was their conclusion but this was
an interpretation only. They say the girls were "nearly body-hairless"
but where's their data? Did they weigh the body hair shaved off the
males and compare it with females? No. We've just got a subjective
opinion on that.
 
> Algis not merely misrepresenting Krueger et al, but he's being outright
> dishonest, dare I say lying, if he is putting forth that Krueger et al
> showed "unequivocally" that hair caused drag in humans. It's not only
> equivocal from their studies, but completely contrary to their stated
> conclusions. This, Algis, is blatant dishonesty.

Who's really misrepresenting and being dishonest here?
 
Here's the bit you *didn't* quote again: "Conclusion: Results show
that body shaving leads to a clear gain in performance." Kruger et al
(2000:55)

And, of course, the two Sharp & Costil papers that had no such
sex-based ambiguity to deal with both also showed unequivocally that
shaving body hair reduces drag in water.

I repeat this from my other, unanswered, posting...
The Sharp & Costil and the Kruger et al papers all show that shaving
body hair improves drag reduction. None of them studied the effects
during body hair grow-back or correlated the amount of body hair
shaved with the amount of drag reduction. So, we have no real data
there. But, JE seems to be arguing that *absolute* body hair shaving
is requred to get *any* benefit in drag reduction. Presumably, the
shavings in those volunteers was 100% perfect, then. Not one single
stubble was left intact, not one hair was missed. And, the day after
the experiments, presumably, that 0.5mm of hair re-growth suddenly
would have negated all of the effect of drag reduction at a stroke.
What a ridiculous posiiton to have to defend - but Jason's there doing
it! Good ol' Jason, eh, Michael? Defenders of the faith, unite!

> >> 'It aint'? Where's your evidence? I can't find any data on it either
> >> way but as with JE you're assuming absence of evidence is evidence of
> >> absence. Of course fat makes you more buoyant, only a fool (or someone
> >> with an obsessively anti-AAH axe to grind) would deny it. Of course
> >> being more buoyant is likely to help you avoid drowning.
> >
> >Where is my evidence that fat is an energy store?! You're
> >kidding, right? Please say you're kidding.

You know that was not what I meant. All you can do is twist and
distort the arguments into ones you think you can deal with. That's
just intellectual cowardice.

>> And please provide
> >some indication that you appreciate the fact that fat **and**
> >skinny people drown with the same frequency. That way,
> >I'll know that you haven't spent years living in ignorance *as
> >a choice*. This has all been said before --repeatedly.

Fat and skinny people both drown, of course. But I hesitate to say
that they drown with the same frequency. I've not seen any direct
evidence for this but the evidence shows that women are far less
likely to drown than males and that African Americans are more likely
to drown than European Americans. Both of those correlate with greater
levels of adipocity reducing drowning risk. We need more direct data
though, clearly.

[..]
> If fat served the purpose of life-preserver, why does it appear that older
> folks, folks moving past their peak reproductive years start putting on
> fat? Why does the fat not accumulate in such a way as to help keep
> airways open? Why does Algis think so highly of selection that it
> operates always on every minimal differential with strong effect, but so
> poorly as to produce a piss-poor solution?

Infants have greater adipocity than most age groups, I think you'll
find. During sexual maturity, general fitness levels are presumably so
high that greater adipocity is not required so much. But even here,
compared to primates, the leanest, athletic male is in the high range
of adipocity compared to a typical primate. Later in life, as fitness
diminishes, the return of greater bouyancy aid is entirely
predictable.

I repeat for the third time now - you do not see obese people in
swimming pools floating with their feet or their butts in the air, but
their airways. Odd that.

We have an observation: humans are the fattest primates by far and
fatter than almost all terrestrial animal species.

We have an hypothesis: humans swam more than other primates and
increased adipocity was selected for because it slightly reduced the
risk of drowning.

We have a testable prediction: There should be a negative corelation
between people who drown compared with people who barely esacape
drowning in terms of their adipocity. Fat people should be more
represented in people that escape near-drowning incidents than skinny
people.

Easy.

It's called the hypothetico-deductive method. Why are you so opposed
to it? Oh yes, I forgot - you just know a priori that the AAH is
wrong.
 
> >>> > Name me one example of how the the orthodox paradigm (whatever that
> >>> > is) is testable.
> >>>
> >>> Gee, Algis, this isn't about somebody elses' hypothesis, this is
> >>> about yours. Remember? You don't know how other scientists
> >>> have tested their stuff? Is that because you just don't know what
> >>> you're talking about? Did you every take a theory class or a
> >>> historical survey of the science? No? Jesus, does it show or what.
> >>
> >> Ooops - change the subject, do. It's one rule for the AAH and another
> >> rule (actually, no, there are no rules for that) for the other
> >> whatever-the-hell-thing-we-call-it-today.
> >
> >WHO is changing the subject!!!!?????

You are. All models of human evolution are in direct competition. They
can only be evaluated and compared on the basis of the explanatory
power they hold and how much evidence they can amass. You criticise me
for not providing testable hypotheses (when I do) but avoid showing me
examples of other models that do so. How convenient. At least your
partner on your anti-AAH show, JE, attempted to do that.
Unfortunately, all he came up with was Wheeler and the treadmill. I
was not impressed. I think you'll both have to do better to persuade
people that you're not just biased here.

[..]
> >> All you've done is listed a list of links to the thread where NAS
> >> tried to convince me that because no ape would be so stupid as to wade
> >> quadrupedally in waist deep water then that means that there would be
> >> no selection for bipedalism in wading apes. The most absurd argument
> >> I've ever heard - and this is your great winning formula!! You're
> >> deluding yourself. That's *ALL* you can do.
> >
> >Look, if you don't want to read the thread, I can't say I
> >blame you. NAS does the slice-and-dice on your behind
> >*very* thoroughly. You've *never* recovered. When do
> >we get to talk about the origins of ~gibbon~ bipedalism?
> >Or are they too far removed from our lineage for comparison?
> >[Be sure to snip questions about bipedalism, now. It must
> >be terribly *boring* for you to ask questions that deal with
> >the subject at hand.]

NAS provided the most absurd argument I've ever heard: That because no
ape would move quadrupedally in waist deep water (because it would
drown if it tried to) then this shows that there would be *no*
selection for bipedalism in wading apes! And this is another of your
magnus opus heros! Hah!!

Gibbons. Again? Ok. Gibbons hop around bipedally for a few steps when
crossing from one patch of trees to another, true. And I agree that
abroealism was a key precursor to bipedalism, ok?

But... gibbons have clearly become highly specialised since the LCA
with the great apes. It is very unlikely that the LCA was anywhere
near as adept a brachiator. How come, of all the species of arboreal
large monkeys there is not one which we could class as an abligate
biped? Arborealism is a part of it, but it's clearly not sufficient on
it's own. Wading is the perfect logical compliment and it happens to
have a large body of supporting evidence too.

> Algis is delusional.

No. Actually, I think you are.

Algis Kuliukas

Quantcast