Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?

From: rmacfarl (rmacfarl_at_alphalink.com.au)
Date: 02/10/05 

Date: 10 Feb 2005 01:16:05 -0800

Algis Kuliukas wrote:

<diatribe>

> > > So it's *flawed* to argue that as billions of comparisons of how
> > > species pairs move in major substrates undoubtedly show natural
> > > selection as the overwhelming cause, the very same reasoning
should
> > be
> > > used to explain the differences between how humans and chimps
swim,
> > is
> > > it? Why?
> >
> > In so many ways. In so many ways, in fact, that I would call that
one
> > of your "convoluted" arguments.
>
> Great answer, that. Wonderful.

I thought so. Thanks.
>
> > > It's *convoluted* to argue that, since the bifurcation with apes,
our
> > > ancestors have lived in predominantly water-side habitats,
whereas
> > > theirs have not, is it? Why?
> >
> > No, that's more one of your flawed arguments, given that you have
got
> > absolutely no evidence to support it.
>
> What?
>
> Thousands of hominin fossils found - the vast majority in
depositional
> substrates.

That's where they died, not where they lived. So this provides no
evidence in support of one of your above claims: that "our ancestors
have lived in predominantly water-side habitats" ...

> ZERO attributed to Pan/Gorilla.

... while this fact provides no evidence for your other claim: that
"theirs have not".
>
> The Homo erectus diaspora to Java must have been to some degree
> coastal.
> ZERO evidence Pan/Gorilla living anywhere near a coast, let alone
> leaving Africa.

Why don't you look up the derivation of the word "rainforest" Algis?
Here's a clue - it's a compound word, and one part refers to the trees.
Then why don't you try coming up with a definition for the phrase
"water-side habitats"?
>
> Since 130kya there is a massive amount of evidence for modern Homo
> sapiens on coasts - shell middens, shell decorations etc.
> ZERO evidence of any Pan/Gorilla ever living on a coast.

Man, you really aren't helping yourself with this stuff you know. You
are now effectively excluding swamps & streams from water-side
habitats, despite all your other stuff about wading. This is exactly
what I meant by the phrase "self-contradictory".
>
> And yet you, Ross, say that there's 'absolutely no evidence to
support
> it'. Exactly what kind of scientist are you?

One who'd like you to present a logically consistent argument.
...
> You misunderstood my argument.
> Hairlessness evolved in humans not 'because aquatic animals are
> hairless', but because hairlessness reduces *human* drag in water -
> evidenced by Sharp & Costil, Sharp et al and Kruger et al.
> I don't give a stuff about how hairy small, semi-aquatics that tend
to
> move through dense thick vegetation are - they've very little to do
> with our evolution.

OK, let's play the "Null Hypothesis" game again. Jason (for one) has
put forward well-reasoned arguments criticising this line of reasoning
of yours, & you are on record acknowledging the validity of elements of
his critique, even if you have not accepted his argument in toto. So
far, so good. Now, why don't you (for the purposes of a debate) take
the null hypothesis that hairlessness is not due to drag avoidance. How
about 3 alternative suggestions for why it evolved?
>
> > How about that when chimps
> > /bonobos come within a kilometre of a stream of water, they're
evidence
> > for AAH, & when they come within a kilometre of a patch of grass
> > they're an outgroup?
>
> You're making it up. Have you been taking lessons from Jim Moore?
> When did I ever say 'when they come within a kilometre of a patch of
> grass they're an outgroup?' when did I ever suggest that a chimp
being
> 'within a kilometre' of a stream of water it was evidence for the
AAH?
> If I'd have made such points against you or Jason, you'd be calling
me
> a liar. Rare bipedal wading in African apes today is evidence for the
> AAH because it shows a simple plausible scenario where our ancestors
> could easily have practiced greater bipedality in the past.

Yes, you're right. I shouldn't exaggerate your viewpoint in order to
make a rhetorical point, which is what I was doing above. Heaven knows
I don't need to.
>
> > How about that finding hominid remains in
> > watercourses is for AAH, but finding them away from watercourses
isn't
> > evidence against?
>
> What evidence of hominid remains *is* there away from watercourses?
If
> you can point some out, I might be able to form an opinion as to
> whether it is an argument against a mild form of the AAH.

Time for a sig, methinks:

"
Someone should mark down 16 March 2003 as a red-letter day in SAP
history. It was on this day that 2 of the prime proponents of the
Aquatic Ape Hypotheses, Algis Kuliukas and Marc Verhaegen, both
acknowledged publicly that the Laetoli Footprint Tuff represents
negative evidence of their hypotheses.
"

You might also look into how the South African fossil deposits such as
Makapangsat & Sterkfontein, which accumulated in dry caves.
...

> One misrepresentation of an argument, one invention,
> one dream and one piece of confused thinking.
Algis Kuliukas, 9 February 2005.

One for you Jois. I'm incapable of commenting...
>
> > > Show me any piece of evidence that contradicts the argument that
> > > water acted as an agency of selection in human evolution more
than it
> > > did in the evolution of chimps. You should be able to do so,
easily,
> > if
> > > your assertion that my evidence is *selective*.
> >
> > The only thing about the above paragraph that I've ever seen anyone
> > deny around here is that saying that "water acted as an agency of
> > selection in human evolution more than it did in the evolution of
> > chimps" is an argument.
>
> Why's that Ross?
>
> Would it be ok if it were: "moving through more open habitats acted
as
> an agency of selection in human evolution more than it did in the
> evolution of chimps"?
>
> If not, why not?

While I suspect the latter proposition isn't well-enough defined to
qualify as a testable hypothesis, it is in fact an improvement, because
the phrase "moving through more open habitats" refers to a hypothetical
behaviour, whereas the single word "water" refers to nothing more than
a chemical substance. Your statement, as framed, could be true of a
savanna ape, because adaptations to life in a water-scarce environment
might be expected to have driven human evolution.

Really Algis, this is why you open yourself to criticism of your
scientific method. You can't even recognise a basic flaw in the core
sentence that describes your position: that you've failed to even try
to define how or why "water acted as an agency of selection". This is a
basic logical flaw that has nothing to do with the quality of your
other hypothesising.

It's also a flaw that's been pointed out to you on multiple occasions,
but you've ignored it because you don't like the messengers.

<inconsequential twaddle>
...

> Wonderful response, Ross. Sneer. You attack the AAH when it hasn't
> been defined. You attack it when it is defined. You distort it either
> way, misrepresent it and dismiss it every time.
>
> Stephen Munro was right when he said (words to the effect) 'When it
> comes to the AAH, everyone's suddenly an expert. When it's not,
> everyone is really modest and admits to not knowing much at all'.

You still don't get it.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: the best argument I've
yet seen for why the AAH must be wrong is the quality of the arguments
made by those who believe it is right.

Ross Macfarlane

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?
    ... > randomly start critiquing the work of others all the time is beyond me. ... > there is actual evidence beyond your speculation. ... you'd be making some other criticism instead. ... Algis Kuliukas ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Savanna nonsense
    ... >> Algis Kuliukas wrote: ... > abilities between two species in a given substrate may have been due to ... Since there is evidence, not conclusive by any stretch, but solid ... >> chimp mothers would even attempt a rescue. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Savanna nonsense
    ... >> Algis Kuliukas wrote: ... > abilities between two species in a given substrate may have been due to ... Since there is evidence, not conclusive by any stretch, but solid ... >> chimp mothers would even attempt a rescue. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: New Ethiopian Find - Oldest Biped At 3.8-4 mya
    ... >> As apes do not do the inverted pendulum gait I think it is reasonable ... > it take evidence to move you to this point. ... That your only response is, again, to attack me and not the message ... Algis Kuliukas ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What is the Aquatic theory?
    ... Algis Kuliukas wrote: ... My studies are absolutely taken up by addressing the evidence for the AAH. ... At the end of my study if the evidence doesn't stack up, I'll drop the idea like a stone and move on. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)