Re: Updated AAH Definition

From: Michael Clark (biteme_at_spammer.com)
Date: 11/17/04 

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:18:14 -0600

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0411161846.1db63141@posting.google.com...
> 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.

And so you've filled up a whole paragraph and said nothing, again.
I'm sorry that you have no fossils of P/G to point to. I really can't
help that and I can't help you with your presentation (that would be
cheating). You have not established that our ancestors spent any
more time at the waterside than *anything* else --say nothing of
the other apes. The above paragraph does not seem to address
this problem or any of the myriad of other paragraphs that you seem
to produce with such fury. Appeals to grey matter don't seem
to be helping your case, either. Can I expect an argument from
you anytime soon?

>> 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.

Could you be a little more specific (chortle)? Which gazelles?
Where? When? etc. (More wasted keystrokes)

> 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.

Could I change that last sentence for you? Here: " The presence of
turtles and fish scales is no evidence that human ancestors remained
by the water." Turnabout is fair play, is it not?

> 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.

Oh well, then I guess we'll just have to go home. [Yawn, looks
at watch, glances out window] Say, Algis, weren't you going
to establish that our ancestors spent more time at the waterside
than P/G? When do you plan on keeping your promise?

>> >>> > 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.

You would --given your famous capacity to thrust your little
pinkies deep inside your auditory canals. There is a difference
between chimp and human infants that you consistently ignore
when you make your repeated, bald-faced, and unsupported
assertions. There is no sense in pointing it out to you as this
has been done 4,345 times --to no avail.

> 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.

Great. You plan on providing support for your claim that
human ancestors spent more time at the waters' edge than
P/G anytime soon? I mean, I'm already 50 years old and
I'm afraid that we may run out of time.

> 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?

Ooooh yea! A sig: "With humans, on land - same thing - we've
become adapted to moving on land better than chimps - what did you
expect?" I guess that settles it then. Humans are better adapted
at moving on land than chimps. Must be some adaptive pressure,
eh Algis? (Yawn, scratch, belch)

>> >> 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?

Ask Marco about linear build.

>> 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.

So if we look at other human population groups, we'll
find NO hair, right? Algis? Right?

>> >>> > 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?

Ummm, I looked but I didn't see your analysis of the selection
going on in the above paragraph. Could you point it out? Besides
the fact that death occurs, could you define just who is drowning,
under what circumstances and frequency, where (specifically),
and what sort of pressure this is putting on the rest of the population?
Inquiring minds want to know.

[Sharp and Costill special pleading]

> 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...

Somebody didn't respond to one (1) of your posts?
A goddamned CRIME! Call out the marines.

> 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!

Jason has an argument that you appear to be having trouble with.
So what's it gonna be? Are you gonna argue for paleolithic razors
now? And when you get this "benefit" from hair reduction, what
are you gonna do with it (assuming that it's there)? Are you gonna
argue that the more hairless escaped the crocs? But haven't we
trod this ground before? (Sorry about the phrasing)

>> >> '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.

Still wanna see my evidence that fat is an energy store? Or
are you ready to concede that point without 50 million google
links? Now I'd like to see your evidence that fat is a life
preserver. THEN I'd like to see your evidence that human
ancestors retained such levels of fat "during the alleged aquatic
phase". Would somebody please wake me up when Algis
complies?

>>> 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.

You could use *any* data for a start. And while you hesitate
to say that they drown with the same frequency, somehow you don't
hesitate to draw the conclusion that fat is a life preserver [guffaw]

> [..]
>> 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.

Fat infants (ghosts of threads past) need fat for a reason.
Adults need fat for a different reason. This is primary school
stuff and that may be the reason that you don't get it.

> 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.

You repeat for the gazillionth time but who's counting.

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

Unsupported assertion noted.

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

More unsupported arm waving noted.

> 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.

Ridiculously.

> 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.

I'll *begin* listening to your tripe when you *begin* to practice
what you preach.

>> >>> > 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.

You provide nothing testable as this recent thread demonstrates.
Further, when cornered, you always start whining about what
you call "other models". If that isn't changing the subject then
I'm Abraham Lincoln.

> 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.

~You're~ not impressed? OMG, whatever will we do?
Yea, we'll just have to work harder to pursuade Nick.

[...]
>> >
>> >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!!

Sure, you've got your spin. You do have difficulty selling it though
--when the thread is so easily accessed. Here, looks like somebody
snipped it: http://tinyurl.com/6d5yy

> 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.

It doesn't matter what you think as everyone reading your
posts here in this NG knows that by now. It matters what
other people think of your presentation --to you (or should).
So far, you've managed to attract 1 defender (Nick). Nick
thinks your science far exceeds that of your detractors. Nick,
like you, has some problems with rationalism. The others
are convinced *by your presentation* that you are some shade
of lunatic. I belong to that later group.

> Algis Kuliukas 

-- 
Yada, yada, yada.
Loading