Re: Sweating is a dryland, not an aquatic adaptation in humans.

jae_at_ucdavis.edu
Date: 01/15/05 

Date: 15 Jan 2005 08:58:29 -0800

Algis Kuliukas wrote:

[snip]

> It's odd that the explanation for why we swim better than chimps is:
> 'Oh, but we can do lots more things than they can - it's certainly
not
> any adaptation' - but the explanation for why humans can live in arid
> habitats better than 'non-desert animals' is, apparently,
> adaptationist. A bit selective, aren't we?

Philip has said several times that it's not the topic of AAH that he
despises at all, but the tactics that its proponents here use. Algis,
you make this abundantly clear with your repeated distortion of what
people have said. You make a statement time and time and time again
that people are saying with absolutely certainty that our ability to
swim is "certainly not any adaptation." I do not see the certainty in
anyone's statements other than your own. You are making parody of what
has been presented to you, and that is that YOUR particular
explanations are rather weak and inconsistent with a larger body of
evidence. That you continue to distort, in light of being informed
time and time again of this distinction makes me question your motives,
your objectivity, and indeed your honesty. But engaging in a sane
conversation with someone who radically parodies both evolutionary
theory (and yes, choosing popular works by Dawkins as your primary
source and arbitration on what is evolutionary theory parodies it) and
the arguments against this mythical "AAH" (and yes, insisting
repeatedly that the arguments against your tripe are saying that
things "can't possibly have anything to do with water" is parody) is
beyond pointless. You're not discussing science, but engaging in a
strange exercise in rhetoric.

[snip]

Relevant Pages