Re: Oops, Back to the You Know What


Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> JAE wrote:
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > > mclark wrote:
> > > > "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > > The only faith I see here is in the strange notion that
humans
> > are
> > > so
> > > > > special we don't need standard biological explanations for
> basic
> > > > > observations like we can swim better than our nearest
> relatives.
> > > >
> > > > It would have to be faith since "we were more aquatic because
> > chimps
> > > > can't swim" ...isn't scientific.
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't it? Why's that? If animal A moves better than animal B in
> > > substrate C doesn't that say something about its evolutionary
> > history?
> > > Apparently it does in all cases except when A=Homo sapiens, B=
Pan
> > and
> > > C = water. Then 'magical' forces have to be invoked to do with
our
> > > intelligence/culture/learning.
> >
> > Since selection appears to have refined our intelligence and
capacity
> > to learn to deal with a host of problems, what is your particular
> > problem with the hypothesis that our intelligence and learning was
> our
> > selective response to water?
>
> Because it is not the usual explanation for other differences in our
> relative locomotor abilities vis-a-vis the chimps, is it? For
example,
> no-one would try to argue that our greater efficiency as terrestrial
> animals was due to our greater intelligence, would they? No, that, of
> course, is because we did rather more terrestrial walking than their
> ancestors did.
>
> Suddenly, when water's involved, the normal most parsimonious
> explanations have to somehow get put away.

There's several reasons for this. The first is that you're (again)
misusing the term parsimony. It isn't synonymous with "a difference
implies selection for that particular difference. Our "aquatic"
ability isn't terribly remarkable. Swimming isn't something
particularly noteworthy in mammals. Swimming rather slowly--and by the
standard of just about any creature that gets a significant of its
subsistence from an aquatic resource we're dreadfully slow and
cumbersome in the water--isn't remarkable. It's somethingt that we
accomplish largely as a learned behavior and our best performances come
as a result of this learning process.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Joe Public
    ... >> water has acted as an agency of selection in our evolution more ... >> has in the evolution of chimps. ... Your assertion is not fact. ... Algis Kuliukas ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... Why not just say that it's due to greater selection ... chimps are better climbers than humans because of natural selection? ... Algis Kuliukas ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Joe Public
    ... Algis Kuliukas wrote: ... > water has acted as an agency of selection in our evolution more than ... > has in the evolution of chimps. ... Your assertion is not fact. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Oops, Back to the You Know What
    ... relatives. ... relative locomotor abilities vis-a-vis the chimps, ... animals was due to our greater intelligence, ... Algis Kuliukas ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... less-than-perfect substrates than chimps'. ... inverted pendulum gait ... no matter what argument I had constructed, no matter how well the point ... Algis Kuliukas ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading