Re: Updated AAH Definition

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: 22 Nov 2004 23:50:31 -0800

jae@ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message news:<b7af43cb.0411221543.7dba6441@posting.google.com>...
> algis@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message news:<77a70442.0411220516.3b5af7d6@posting.google.com>...
[..]
> > > If you consider the criticism you've received as knee-jerk, you have
> > > no future in science. None. Zero. Zilch. Your skin is simply not
> > > thick enough and you do not appear receptive enough to make any real
> > > progress.
> >
> > Maybe you're right. But, I suspect that it is only in the field of
> > paleoanthropology today that an idea based purely on logic could be
> > rounded on with such derision from those opposed to it merely because
> > they don't like the idea.
>
> You are (once again) misusing the word logic. It doesn't mean what
> you seem to think it does.
>
> You are also (once again) incorrect in the statement that your ideas
> are opposed merely because I don't like the idea. Again, it matters
> not the least if we had a more aquatic past or not. What makes me
> hesitate to accept your position is that your arguments, that is YOUR
> specific arguments, the ones put forward by YOU, Algis Kuliukas, suck
> and they suck on their own merits. I realize that you appear totally
> incapable of accepting this (and I suspect from a psychological
> standpoint, passing the buck so that you can ignore criticism of your
> work, writing it off as prejudice instead, is much more comfortable to
> your psyche) but you are simply incorrect in this opinion.

Rant, rant, ad hominem, rant. Hardly a scietific response that, Jason.

If I've misunderstood the term, why don't you tell me why my argument
about fat reducing drowning risk is not logical. (Oh, sorry, you *try*
to do that later... but fail totally.)
 
I wasn't thinking only of you, Jason, nor only of the AAH. The idea
that Dart's Taung child was a hominid was not liked for over twenty
years before the establishment caved in. The idea that the Trinil
fossils could have been hominids is another example. Dubois went into
exile because of the negative reaction from paleoanthropologists at
the time. But, of course, the AAH is a very good example too and your
selectively overly-critical negativity typifies the response.

All you're doing here, again, is dishing out yet more ad hominems
against me. And then you have the gall to accuse *me* of attacking the
messenger.

> > My skin is thick enough though (with a thick sc fat layer, in fact).
> > In fact, considering the number of times you've run off crying 'I'm
> > not talking to him any more' when actually you have insulted me far
> > more than I have you, and yet here I am still trying to engage you in
> > a debate, shows, I think, that the evidence, for all here to see, is
> > that my skin thickness is greater than yours.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems that this thickness penetrates to your skull
> as well, as you've not demonstrated any greater understanding of the
> flaws in your

But you said my skin wasn't thick enough. I showed you that you're
wrong yo say that.
 
> > I'm making very good progress, thank you.
>
> No. You are not making progress. You are still presenting a
> substandard hypothesis, supported by a hodge-podge, ignoring
> counter-evidence that undermines both the hypothesis and data you
> present that is put together in a manner that indicates fundamental
> flaws in your understanding of biological processes including, but not
> limited to, the mechanisms of evolution.

Well as it seems that any pro-AAH argument clearly must be wrong to
your mind, I cannot see how any such progress could be made that might
satisfy you. You've given no indication as to any line of enquiry that
you think might be useful. All you ever have done is attack any
argument that even sets out to hypothesise and test it.
  
> > > The points that have been contested have not been minor.
> > > The leap that higher drowning rates in Americans of recent African
> > > ancestry and males in general to the conclusion that fat is providing
> > > a prophylaxis against drowning is a weak inference. That you didn't
> > > bother to look at the covariables that go along with this, that you
> > > didn't put it in light of socio-economics, swimming education, the
> > > overall accidental death rate for the groups in question is not a
> > > minor point. It's absolutely critical to your argument. If you don't
> > > see that, if you instead see it as a "minor point" you are hopelessly
> > > lost.
> >
> > I see it. I saw it. I noted it - right from the beginning. The point
> > is the logic (above and below) remains even though we have no data -
> > none at all - to support it or to refute it. That's the only reason I
> > offered those, agreed, dubious bits of evidence.
>
> You are misusing the word logic as it pertains to supporting your
> position.

You say that. So then tell me where and why.
 
[..]
> > Ok, what's wrong with these words, assertions and arguments:
> >
> > 1) Fat floats.

Didn't you miss one, Jason? I would have thought you would have found
fault with that too.

> > 2) Animals that have more fat will be more likely to float than
> > animals that are less fat, all other things being equal.
>
> All other things are not equal. You seem not to be regarding this.

What kind of objection is this? I'm saying that *if* everything was
equal apart from fat then... That's the premise I'm making. But you're
even attacking my premise! What hope is there!?

Let me try to spell it out for you...

If we were to compare a group of people, of the same sex, race, of
similar ages, of similar weight, levels of fitness and experience
swimming etc. etc - but *NOT* the same levels of adipocity, then the
hypothesis would predict that the fatter group would be more likely to
survive than the skinnier group.

I mean, if you didn't understand *that* Jason, what kind of a
scientist are you?
 
> > 3) Animals that are more buoyant are less likely to drown than animals
> > that are less buoyant.
>
> This is not necessarily true. Their are a number of factors that are
> involved in human drowning, but resting buoyancy doesn't seem to be at
> or anywhere near the top of the list. Ability to swim tops it. Thin
> swimmers can avoid drowning. Fat non-swimmers do not bob out of the
> water comfortably without assistance. The placement of the buoyancy is
> extremely suboptimal as a life-preserver.

Yes, I know that but I said *ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL*, right? I'm
controlling for those factors.

As long as the person is conscious and has a fair ability to swim (an
assumption in my evolutionary scenario but clearly not yours) the
extra buoyancy is going to be helpful.

> > 4) Humans are fatter, by far, than all other primates, including our
> > nearest relatives, the apes.
>
> Most humans (and probably damn near all pre-agricultural humans--this
> is a very important element that you do not seem to pay any attention
> to when siting that we are "by far" fatter than all other primates)
> are not fat enough to float, airway open, unassisted by an ability to
> actively right themselves (e.g. swimming, treading water). Thin
> humans possess this ability to keep their airway open if they can swim
> or tread water as well. The prophylaxis effect of blubber for bobbing
> out of the water is non-existant if the individual cannot actively
> tread water, in which case the life-jacket of blubber becomes far, far
> more of a non-issue. (Or were you imaging some attrition situation
> where they spent hours treading water until they one by one dropped
> and died?)

You are objecting to a different point. Humans *are* fatter than all
other primates. That was my point and I note that you do not dispute
it.

Again, your argument looks pathetically weak here, jason. You look
like you're avoiding the issue and, like a politician, chossing to
answer a different question, one you think you have a prepared answer
for.
 
> > 5) It is logical that if human ancestors lived in water side habitats
> > more than ape ancestors bouyancy would have been selected for in our
> > lineage more than in theirs.
>
> This is not necessarily so. Being at the "water side" doesn't select
> at all. You're making the leap that the apes were actually in the
> water.

Yes, obviously, I'm assuming they went in the water sometimes. What
did you think? Blimey, try to keep up.

> But even given this unsubstantiated position, if it were
> selected for, it's curious that selection did such a piss-poor job of
> it, placing fat in a position such that one still needs to be
> conscious and possessing the active ability to right the body to keep
> the airway open for it to be of any help. The poor positioning of fat
> accumulations on the human body, a tendency for more of it around the
> midsection and buttocks and thighs, is not consistent with it being a
> selective response. It is not logical that we would accumulate fat
> readily where we do if it were a response to drowning.

Again, you're slightly evading the point, which was: If human
ancestors lived in water side habitats (and, yes, obviously moved
through water) then increased buoyancy *would* be likely to evolve to
help them avoid drowning.

I put it to you (now for the sixth time) that even the most obese
people in swimming pools do not struggle to keep their airways out of
the water, as long as they're conscious, of course. Care to respond to
this point this time?
 
> I do not know how it is that you see most drownings occuring, but it
> doesn't seem at all in line with how most actually occur. It is
> rarely a case where someone is rocketing towards the bottom and that
> extra second at the surface because they're slightly more buoyant
> makes the difference. Drowning occurs generally because someone
> becomes incapacitated in the water, unable to swim either by injury or
> because they didn't know how to swim or some other reason. The fat we
> have doesn't help in these situations. Face down in the water, either
> panicking or unconscious, the fat person and the skinny person have
> the same survival potential. Drowning is seldom a case of attrition
> or where one cannot stay afloat because they are sinking due to a
> problem with buoyancy. Your "logic" ignores how most drownings occur.

Clearly, the scenarios of drowning I am considering are those that
might have been enacted in pre-historic human evolutionary history.
I'm therefore discounting boating or car accidents where people get
injured and hurled into the water. The situations I'm thinking of are
those like:

1) A group of people have waded out to a small off-shore island at low
tide and try to swim back as the tide returns.

2) A group of people lose their footing whilst trying to wade across a
river.

3) Some divers, looking for shellfish get scared off course by a shark
and get caught out in the coastal rips pulling them out to sea.

4) Heavy rains have caused a river valley to flood and, desperate for
food, a group of people who have found temprary refuge up a tree
decide to try to swim across others on high ground on the other side
of the river.

You know... it's not difficult. Fat would help in those situations.

I understand that you want to ignore these scenarios and pretend that
the only ones that count are where the person is lying face down in
the water after some kind of injury. But I put it to you that, again,
your objection is a) extremely facile and easy to deal with and b)
constructed so as to deliberately make the pro-AAH argument look
weaker indicating a certain bias.
 
> > 6) The greater adipocity in human than in apes may be partly
> > explicable by movement through water acting as an agency of selection
> > more in our line than theirs.
>
> This appears unlikely at least as it relates to drowning. It is a
> strange selective response that does a terrible job of solving the
> problem, giving no assistance to those who would need it most.

Again, what an abysmally poor objection.

The hypothesis is that humans lived in water side habitats only *more*
than apes did, not that they became aquatic or semi-aquatic in any
real sense. Therefore the selective response is inlikely to be ideal.

That kind of argument could (but rarely is) be directed at any
adaptation for terrestriality: 'It is a strange selective response
(for greater terrestriality in humans) that does a terrible job of
solving the problem.' (i.e. makes us vulnerable and slow, prone to
injuries etc.) And yet humans clearly are terrestrial and clearly
better adapted there than chimps.

How do you claim that it gives giving "no assistance to those who
would need it most."? That is *precisely* what it does do: It gives
most buoyancy to infants, followed by mothers with their infants,
followed by older females, older males and lastly fit females and fit
males.

> You
> can continue to ignore this, basking in the self-appointed brilliance
> of your "logical" deduction, but ignoring the problems doesn't make
> your "logic" look very sound and continues to make your thinking look
> suspect and your scientific skills look terrible.

Funny. I was thinking exactly the same thing about you. Your six
'objections', when they were actually focused on the point and not
some convenient interpretation of it, were about as sophisticated as I
might expect from a nine year old.

> This is not some
> prejudice because you mentioned water, but on its own, your reasoning
> has holes in it that you have not addressed sufficiently (despite your
> insistence otherwise) and are sufficiently large (despite your
> insistence otherwise) as to warrant rejecting your hypothesis.

If my reasoning has holes, your objections are course netting.

Algis Kuliukas

Quantcast