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

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 01/16/05

  • Next message: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Sweating is a dryland, not an aquatic adaptation in humans." 
    Date: 15 Jan 2005 19:07:38 -0800

    jae@ucdavis.edu wrote:
    > 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 mean like comparing the merits of sweat cooling on open habitst
    with swamps? Does that qualify too? I thought not.

    You mean like comparing humans with aquatics and semi-aquatics, when
    I've repreated time and time again that I'm arguing humans were
    terrestrial? I thought not.

    Those example are, somehow, different.

    > 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.

    It is a parody when i make statements like that. It is a charicature,
    of course it is. But it makes a point. You have consistently argued
    *against* the idea that the difference in human-chimp swimming
    abilities might not be the result of selection. I know you haven't said
    anything as definitive as "it could not have been selection" but then
    again you have not said anything like "well, on balance, as billions of
    other such permutations are clearly the result of selection, it is the
    most likely and parsimonious explanation here too".

    You have *always* argued against each and every point of evidence that
    promotes a pro-AAH view so excuse me if I interpret this as some kind
    of view. It is the lack of balance in your arguments that leads to the
    parody, can't you see that?

    > 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.

    Your basic argument, as always, boils down to the necessity be the
    arbiter of what is science and what is not, who's ideas are valid and
    who's are not and what is tripe and what is not. I simply don't
    recognise your authority to do that, Jason. All you have is the ex
    cathedra (I know best) argument. You've continually failed to show
    anything more persuasive than that.

    We have an observation: humans swim better than chimps. We have a
    hypothesis: It is the result of natural selection. We have evidence to
    back it up: Billions of other species pair- substrate perutations are
    clearly are the result of natural selection.

    The best counter-arguments you have are the sort anti neoDarwinist
    arguments a creationist might use.

    Algis Kuliukas

  • Next message: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Sweating is a dryland, not an aquatic adaptation in humans."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: The Role of Water in Human Evolution
      ... You have never established that swimming in humans ... history of chimps since the bifurcation of our lineages where in one ... whether or not selection made them different. ... It seems that the bulk of mammals can swim and do so ...
      (sci.anthropology.paleo)
    • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
      ... > compared to chimps but not our walking efficiency and not chimps' ... It isn't something that selection "gave" chimps since the split. ... selection FOR the ability. ... possibility that the traits we have that allow us to learn to swim as ...
      (sci.anthropology.paleo)
    • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
      ... If indeed the accounts of swimming chimps are not accounts ... that chimps can essentially teach themselves to swim ... > difference between humans and chimps is mitigated by a number of things ... > influences how selection and drift operate. ...
      (sci.anthropology.paleo)
    • Re: Oops, Back to the You Know What
      ... >>> So chimps and bonobos and orang utans and gibbons all had selective ... >> retention of something with selection to eliminate something. ... > gibbons all had absence of selective pressure *for* swimming but humans ... ability to swim. ...
      (sci.anthropology.paleo)
    • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
      ... > making the argument that there is only one way that humans and chimps ... > can differ in their swimming abilities and this is selection ... If it's not due to selection, how come humans swim better ...
      (sci.anthropology.paleo)
    • Quantcast