Re: Updated AAH Definition

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: 24 Nov 2004 18:00:04 -0800

jae@vici.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message news:<co2fa6$cej$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>...
> Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote:

[..]

> I have snipped your arguments because they're the same arguments I've
> addressed that you insist haven't been damaged.

But that is simply not true, Jason. The counter-points I put to *your*
counter points (e.g. obese people do not have problems keeping their
breathing passages out of water, that Kruger et al's anamalous
findings - that both male and females had similar increase in speed
indicates somethig other than drag reduction caused it - might easily
be explained by taking into account sizing effects; that if adipocity
was a 'piss poor' means of improving buouyancy but bipedalism was not
such a good terrestrial solution either) have never been answered by
you before, anywhere, as far as I know. I really would like to hear
what you have to say to them because I honestly value your opinion.

> This doesn't serve any productive purpose. It will and already has
> descended into name calling
> that I suspect both of us believes the other one started. You are clearly
> ready to continue this. I am not.

It certainly wouldn't serve any productive purpose if the name calling
continued but it's within our power to stop that. I'm prepared to, if
you are. Tell you what. I'll halt it anyway - no matter what you do -
how about that? Call me whatever names you like. Insult me as much as
you want and I promise not to respond.

> You have put forth another hypothesis that doesn't compute. This one
> seems founded on at least one false premise and several assumptions that
> are tenuous at best, coupled with poor or false inferences. A hypothesis
> built on false premises is a false hypothesis and there's no "debate"
> beyond this that can salvage it. I have said this, repeatedly.

I know. I have read your points repeatedly too. But merely repeating
something doesn't make it any more right, does it? In a debate, it is
traditional to answer all the arguments put forward by your opponent
and then allow that person an opportunity to respond to those counter
points. I just don't honestly think you've done that.

Can you please be more specific about my 'false premise'? Do you,
perhaps, mean the idea that my proposed *test* (is there a negative
correlation between drowning risk and increased adipocity?) must
control for factors like age, sex, race, swimming abilities etc.?
Because that was where you seemed to be heading in the debate before.

> I said it more kindly at first, but you've grown obstinant and this is
> driving both of us to be increasingly rude.

I apologise for getting obstinate and rude. I'll try harder not to do
that.

> The evidence you've used to support it doesn't support it.

I know. That's what I said in the very first posting I put on the
subject. But I have a testable prediction which is simple enough.

> The mechanism of selection you're proposing relies on
> scenarios you can't support and produces an effect that doesn't appear
> likely given the nature of the beast and the nature of the selection.
> I've said this as well. You're responding by simply saying it ain't so,
> that your scenario does make sense, that selection could produce the
> results we see (and you seem to be suggesting that it's likely it would).

Ok. Then we must agree to differ. I think human ancestors are highly
likely to have crossed rivers, got caught in floods, gone swimming in
coastal waters, gone diving for shellfish etc. because, at the very
least, modern humans do all of those things - you don't. Fine.
 
> Your responses have now gone totally lunatic, saying that I'm not
> answering your questions and have not exposed any real weaknesses to your
> reasoning. This is false.

I accept that you've exposed weaknesses in the initial argument, ok?
But I think I've answered those points. Now, I'm waiting for you to
answer those. You patently haven't done that yet, Jason. See, I want
you to critice them because that way, if the counter points can be
deflected, the arguments gain in strength. If the counter points can't
be deflected then either the idea has to be changed or scrapped. I
value your input. My ideas have benefitted from it.

> It is the same line Marc has used, that no one
> has shown errors in his scenario, and it's false there as well.

But then why is it false, Jason? I have problems with some of Marc's
scenarios too. I think he is mistaken to dismiss, or at least
underemphasise, the huge amount of fossil evidence that shows hominids
living well away from coastal habitats. I think his idea that Homo was
some kind of bottom-diving specialist is very unlikely to be correct
too. And I still can't quite get my head around neanderthals swimming
along ice age coasts.

No-one model has a monopoly on the truth and I accept that many of my
ideas are likely to be incorrect. But, I want to engage in some
rigorous debate to better see which ideas are most likely to be false
and which might be right. Again, that is why I value your input and
why I specifically have enjoyed debating with you more, rather than
some others, on this newsgroup.

> Engaging
> you serves no purpose unless I want to continue teasing you. You aren't
> debating, you aren't learning, you are not holding the open mind that you
> accuse others of not having.

That just sounds patronising to me. Having looked at this thing now
for almost nine years I cannot conceive how it is possible that humans
have not been subject to greater pressure of selection from moving
through water than chimpanzees. It is simply the only conclusion one
can draw from all the available evidence. It is as startlingly
unremarkable as it is obvious.

But I *am* open minded about how *much* selection was going on, very
open. I've practically conceded that it might have actually been
miniscule - and yet, even this conscession appears to be unsufficient
to draw you. To argue against my model, you are basically defending
the view that no significant additional selection for moving through
water took place in humans *at all*. I think that is an astonishing
position to hold considering the constellation of facts which are most
parsimoniously explained if we assume there was some selection going
on.

> Ross's advice is spot-on. You appear to be
> unable to distinguish between criticism and personal attacks. You also
> appear to be completely unable or unwilling to acknowledge the failures of
> your "science."

Ross might be right about that. But can't you see how difficult it can
be sometimes in making the distinction for soemone in my position on
this forum? I've made every effort to try to understand the objections
people have to this idea. I've returned to academia, done a masters
and now I'm doing a PhD. I come to this forum to openly chew on ideas
to get feedback, but more often than not, it *is* just hostility I
receive. Ocassionally people opposed to this AAH, like Ross, have
defended me from the insults of others but the debate seems to have
become far too polarised. I mean take away this tiny slither of an
idea and I suspect that I'd agree with you on practically every other
major area of evolutionary theory. I would stand with you, shoulder to
shoulder, arguing against creationists, for instance.
 
> The kindest thing I can do is not respond in this situation, because since
> you're acting like a total, ass, my patience grows thin and I will get
> nastier. In this light, all I'm doing is teasing someone who has clearly
> lost it, who is clearly out of his league but insists that this is not the
> case. It's not productive and borders on cruel, but if you continue to
> insist that you're scoring points, that you've destroyed my arguments,
> you'll lose any sympathy that you've still got to the same degree that
> you've lost any credibility that you once had.

That, again, just sounds very patronising. You are entitled to your
opinion but I needn't agree with it.
 
> I am not going to take the time to respond paragraph by paragraph, point
> by point to you because this seems to accomplish nothing.

If you don't answer my points, then it's not a debate, it's a lecture.

> The posts get tiresomely long and inevitably wind up with you declaring some
> sort of victory.
> For whatever reason, it doesn't appear that there's anything I
> or anyone else can say that will convince you of your errors though I am
> confident that they are there and believe that I've pointed them out to
> you on many occasions.

I only declared victory because you seemed to be doing so. (The Monty
Python scene analogy again?) Any talk of victory here is clearly just
silly. You're right though, that there is nothing you are going to say
that is now going to convince me that humans have not been subject to
water acting as an agency of selection more than chimps, since the
LCA. Just like there is nothing a creationist can say to me to
convince me that all humans were created by God.
 
> Please take Ross's advice.

No, thanks. But I must spend less time here, that's for sure. These
posts do tend to get tiresomely long, I agree. I'd better go and
capture some more pelvimetric data.

Algis Kuliukas

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... The fact humans swim better ... >> chimps really must be due to natural selection because the weakest ... > history of chimps since the bifurcation of our lineages where in one ... > lineage increasing abilities in water led to greater survival. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... >> the context of a discussion about locomotion, ... Sexual selection? ... If it's humans, is it because we've had selection to move ... I take your point that chimps may have *lost* their ability in water, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... >> the amazingly precise nature of fine tuning that natural selection ... > traces of blood in the water, but can't help it tell the difference ... parsimonious explanation because most humans live close to water today, ... > Selection as a model of speciation has some incredible shortcomings. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... >> It's an overarching statement. ... > are no predictions drawn from the statement that "water was an agency ... > of selection" without the parentheticals which, again, don't need the ... >> in question are humans and any ape and the substrate is water. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... >> fresh water. ... I do not dispute that in extreme circumstances humans, indeed apes, can ... we have more of it there than chimps do. ... Swimming is one of the standard modes of animal locomotion through one ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)