Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 02/10/05 

Date: 9 Feb 2005 20:08:27 -0800

"JAE" <jae@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:<1107928855.986641.230680@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> > There is a clear and wide disparity between the amount of time you
> > spend critiquing any wading-based model of bipedal origins and the
> > amount of time you spend critiquing others. You have shown your bias
> > over and over again on this matter. The truth of that is beyond
> > question.
>
> Algis, you seem to be rather thick on this point. There is a clear and
> wide disparity between the amount of threads where you bring up your
> assorted aquatic ideas and the number of threads that deal with ANY
> other ideas regarding early hominids.

That's because, Jason, this is my area of study. I'm doing a PhD on
this subject. What's really bizarre is that you find so much time to
join me here in order only, it seems, to contradict each and every
point I make. An equivalent scenario would be if I were to continually
go onto some genetics newsgroup forum where you spent a lot of time
debating an area of research you were engaged in, simply in order to
criticise each and every point you made.

> That you continue to see some
> bias or conspiracy leads me to believe you do not understand the cause
> of this alleged "bias" you see. Why you would ever expect ANYONE to
> randomly start critiquing the work of others all the time is beyond me.
> It's pretty clear that I have responded in rebuttal to the
> hare-brained schlock that you present here. You bring the critique
> upon yourself. You are responsible for this 'bias.'

There's no conspiracy against the AAH, I've made that view clear
enough many times. (Why do you keep misrepresenting my view and
slipping that word in at every opportunity to pretend it is?) But
equally clear is that you do have an aquasceptic agenda. I've never
expected you to critique everyone else all the time but, you know,
once or twice would have been encouraging - enough to show that you
have no bias. But you've not shown a willingness to do that. In fact
when I lead you to a potential source of shoddyness (JM's web site)
which very much deserves criticism from a scientist, you shied away
pleading that 'well he did say EXPLICITLY it wasn't perfect'. You are
obviously just biased. Any impartial observer will have made that
assessment years ago.

My 'hare-brained schlock' is, I should remind people, that human
ancestors waded and swam more than chimp ancestors and that this
difference was a significant part of the reason for our bipedality,
nakedness and increased adipocity. Intelligent, fair-minded people
will judge for themselves whether it is more hair brained to think
that, or one of the other score of diverse and contracdictory
explanations, which do not involve moving through water.

[..]

> > > Algis, you continue to be nothing more than an amusing joke so long
> > as
> > > you pretend that your assertions are more than they are. You have
> > said
> > > that being slightly fatter reduces the risk of drowning, yet have
> not
> > > at all demonstrated that this is so.
> >
> > I said "if". It is an hypothesis.
>
> You said "that seem to be true." This implies to me that you believe
> there is actual evidence beyond your speculation. Your speculation
> doesn't make anything appear to be true, other than that you speculate
> wildly.

It is an hypothesis. I think it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't be
putting it forward. I've laid out a clear and unambiguous testable
prediction for it. If the prediction is wrong I will withdraw my
support for the hypothesis. I don't see what more I could do.
 
> > > It is your assertion, one you
> > > continue to make despite the dearth of empirical evidence and one
> you
> > > continue to present as something more than your assertion.
> >
> > Fat does float.
> > Increased buoyancy is a key feature of life preservers.
> > Humans are fatter than other primates.
> > Humans do swim better than other primates.
>
> > These empirical facts are not in dispute. All that is lacking is
> clear
> > data from drowning stats showing the relationship between adipocity
> and
> > risk of surviving near drowning incidents. If that evidence was
> > forthcoming and it showed a positive correlation, I think your
> argument
> > would sink without a trace. But I know that even then, you'd come up
> > with some other excuse for why the argument was flawed.
>
> All that is lacking is that critical piece of evidence without which
> you have a series of rather unconnected observations of no apparently
> evolutionary connection.

You assert that they are "rather unconnected".
You assert that they have "no apparently evolutionary connection."
You might be wrong be wrong on both.

> If the evidence was there, I'd not be making
> the same criticisms, Algis. But the evidence is NOT there for some
> reason.

No, you'd be making some other criticism instead.

I don't know why the evidence appears not to be there. It should be
easy enough to record some measure of adipocity during a post mortem.
Perhaps the data is there but no-one has bothered to collate it. The
adipocity of near drowning survivors is probably much sparser if not
non-existent. It's a real problem, but it is easily solvable.

> You're acting like a real ass Algis. You're principle argument
> here appears now to have shifted to the assertion that if this evidence
> that you've not shown were shown, I'd do something. You have neither
> the power to predict the future nor read my mind. All you are doing is
> slandering me, saying that you know I'd disregard evidence. Stop being
> such a schmuck.

Well every single piece of evidence I *have* presented you've used
your powers of imagination to think of clever sounding excuses on
which to base some kind of dismissal, so why should I imagine that
you'd do otherwise in this case?

Algis Kuliukas

Quantcast