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

jae_at_ucdavis.edu
Date: 01/24/05 

Date: 24 Jan 2005 11:25:24 -0800

Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> jae@ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:

[snip]

> > Is this shape of nose consistent with any other aquatic creature?
>
> BZZZZT!!! Sorry, wrong question. Do I need to tell you why? Have you
> not been listening to anything we've been arguing for the past eight
> years? Honestly, with 'experts' like this, no wonder the field is so
> ignorant about the AAH.

When a proponent of a hypothesis starts dictating what questions can be
asked of his hypothesis, he has ceased to do science. It was a
question. You do not get to define the right and wrong questions. I
realize that you still quite naively only like to look at humans and
apes when the comparison with anything else doesn't fit your position,
but you're not doing science in the process. You're engaging in pure
propaganda defining the debate as you see it.

I've been listening to what you've said, Algis, but much of what you've
said is just bogus, irresponsible, and quite certainly not any way to
go about a real scientific investigation.

You're now trying once again to attack my credibility by implying that
A) I've said I'm an 'expert' and B) implying that I don't know
anything. I'm not aware that I've ever referred to myself as an
expert. Expertise is difficult to define. I don't think you're
interested in my qualifications in any event, so you're just acting
like a putz again. You're also pitting the "us against them" battle
again, or was that the royal "we" when you ask if I've been paying
attention to what "we" have been arguing. I've been paying attention
to what you've been posting and it's lousy.

> > Are
> > there other creatures who appear to have evolved an extended hood
> > redirecting their nostrils downward as a result of some selective
> > pressure of water?
>
> No, but then how many such creatures evolved from an ape stock ?
>
> > Aren't most aquatic creatures who have modified
> > nostrils capable of actually closing their nostrils?
>
> True, but an alternative way of voluntarily blocking off the passage
of
> water into the lungs is, of course, possible with a descended larynx.

Making the nose irrelevent. But since you're arguing swimming shaped
the morphology of the nose, it's interesting that you don't want to
look at the noses that swimming appears to have shaped.

> > What is the selective pressure differentiating our nose from that
of
> an
> > ape while swimming?
>
> 'Some'. More than 'none'. Enough for natural selection to make a
clear
> difference.

This is not an answer to the question. You are asserting that it's a
selective difference, but providing no indication that it is such.

> > How does having an unshielded nostril decrease one's fitness?
>
> You are more likely to drown. When swimming at the surface, face down
> in clear water, perhaps looking for shellfish, having a beaky nose
like
> ours provides a 'diving bell' kind of air buffer which would be all
but
> absent if a chimp or gorilla attempted to do so.

Is this true or is it conjecture? I don't believe you've actually got
any data to support your supposition. Your probability that one would
be "more likely to drown" is not empirical, is it? It's again the
product of your assertion. Since you seem to refuse to look at other
creatures other than humans and apes to see what kind of noses they
have, I'm not sure how your data can be anything other than your own
unsubstantiated assertion. This is, again, not science that you are
engaging in, despite your claims to the contrary.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast