Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.

jae_at_ucdavis.edu
Date: 01/18/05 

Date: 18 Jan 2005 12:48:25 -0800

Paul Crowley wrote:
> <jae@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:1106068307.246164.172130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> > > > You appear to be making the argument that there
> > > > is only one way that humans and chimps can differ
> > > > in their swimming abilities and this is selection
> > > > specifically *for* this difference.
> > >
> > > Pretty much, yes. Put it this way: It's the most parsimonious
> > > explanation. It's the explanation that's assumed pretty much
> > > everywhere else that there's such a major difference in ability
> > > between a pair of species at moving through one of the five
> > > major substrates on the planet. I note your stressing of *for*,
> > > suggesting that it might have
> > > mysteriously been the lack of selection in chimps that could
explain
> > > it. Ok, but even this is adaptive and suggests a 'more aquatic'
past
> > > in human ancestors than theirs.
> >
> > You are abusing the word "parsimony." Your notion
> > that "[i]t's the explanation that's assumed pretty much
> > everywhere else" isn't evidence. It's your assertion.
>
> This is like watching toddlers attempting to
> fight. They take great big swings at each
> other, invariably miss, fall over on their butts,
> and scream out for mom.

This is Paul, once again acting more and more like an anthropologist
either failed him in a class or kicked him in the balls. Big chip on
your shoulder you got there Pauly.

Quantcast