Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.

mark@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Sorry to repost but my comments did not come thru properly:

>
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > JAE wrote:
> > > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> > > > I'm not trying to justify Marc's actions, Jason. I've
criticised
> > > them.
> > > > You don't seem to realise this. I agree with much of what you
> say.
> > > See,
> > > > it's possible to not agree with him *and* to not agree with you
> > too.
> > > > You and Marc are both very alike in this respect. Marc doesn't
> like
> > > it
> > > > when I deviate from his new AAT = (pure and simple) Homo
diaspora
>
> > > model
> > > > (and forget all the stuff on wading bipedalism - that's
suddenly
> > > > nothing to do with the AAH any more.) He seems to feel the need
> to
> > > put
> > > > me in the 'savannah-believers' camp when I criticse this view
> even
> > > > though I largely agree with other aspects of his and indeed
> changed
> > > my
> > > > mind on the wading bipedalism aspects *because* of Marc. But
you
> > are
> > > no
> > > > better. You can't accept that I'm with you on anything either.
I
> > > > support, largely, the energy efficiency model of human
> bipedalism.
> > I
> > > > agree with many of your points about Marc. But, no, it's no
good.
>
> > In
> > > > your mind I'm "one of the enemy" now - someone to be attacked
and
>
> > > > ridiculed at every opportunity. Marc isn't as bad as you in
that
> > > regard
> > > > though. He has much more balance there.
>
> > > What seems lost to you is that I'm not trying to argue someone
into
>
> > my
> > > camp.

whine

> > Then why is it so important to you that I condone your most abusive
> > labelling of Marc? I'm not going to do it. Calling him what you did
> > makes you far, far worse than he is simply because his rudeness and
> > uncivility never goes that far. Nowhere near. It's like arguing
that
> > someone who picks their nose incessantly next to you at work for 10
> > years justifies them being bashed in the face with a hammer. I'm
not
> > going to join you and your little 'bashing Marc Verhaegen is ok'
> clique
> > here no matter how much you think you can legitimise it with
> > clever-sounding arguments and no matter how much peer-pressure
there
> is
> > here from your tribe to do so.

whine

> > > That appears to be what you're doing. ?Whether or not you
> > > largely agree with an energetic model doesn't excuse you from
your
> > damn
> > > near total inability to formulate a reasonable scientific
argument.
>
> > It
> > > doesn't excuse you from actually learning something about
> > evolutionary
> > > practices.
>
> > Typical arrogance. I turn that round and throw it back in your
face.
> > Your inability to see the ludicrously simple point that as humans
> swim
> > better than our nearest relatives it proves (as much as anything
> could)
> > that our ancestors were exposed to selection from swimming more
than
> > theirs, makes me question exactly what it is you have learned in
your
>
> > scientific career.

whine whine

> > > I'm not here trying to convert the heathens, Algis. ?I'm
> > > not here to spread my gospel. ?I don't care what models people do
> or
> > do
> > > not agree with, but if they make the claim that they've got
> evidence,
> > > they damn well better actually present a coherant argument to
back
> > it.
> > > So far, you have not and you've stumbled and bumbled your way
> through
> > > what you conclude is an argument. ?It is not. ?It is poor and
your
> > > insistence that it is not doesn't change this.

waaah waaahh

> > Here's a coherent argument:
>
> > In evolutionary biology we generally assume that the
characteristics
> of
> > species are the result of natural selection.
>
> > Therefore when you compare the ability of two species moving in one
> of
> > the handful of media on the planet (trees, above ground, under
> ground,
> > water, air) it is the simplest assumption that if one is better
than
> > the other it is also the result of natural selection. This is
> > especially true when the phylogeny of the two species places them
> close
> > together with a recent common ancestor.
>
> > Humans swim better and are more efficient in moving on hard ground
> than
> > chimpanzees, our nearest phylogenetic relations, but are less adept
> at
> > climbing. This strongly implies that since the LCA natural
selection
> > has favoured arboreality in the Pan lineage more than the Homo
> lineage.
> > It strongly implies that efficient terrestriality has been selected
> > more in the Homo lineage than the Pan lineage. And, by exactly the
> same
> > logic and reasoning (and lack of necessity to invoke other
'special'
> > explanations, like cultural learning), it implies that Homo has
been
> > more aquatic than Pan since the LCA too.
>
> > That you seem to find such a simple and coherent argument heretical
> > implies to me that you *are* something of an evolutionary heathen.
> What
> > *is* your problem? I know. Your problem is this: It means that
Jason
> > Eshelman would have to admit that he was wrong. Spectacularly wrong
> for
> > many years, in fact. In theory scientists should all be very
willing
> to
> > do this but you clearly are not. Not in this area anyway.
>
> > Algis Kuliukas

goo goo gaa gaa

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?
    ... selection as the overwhelming cause, the very same reasoning should be ... did in the evolution of chimps. ... You chose the term 'aquatic phase', ... Algis Kuliukas ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... >> Algis Kuliukas wrote: ... Why not just say that it's due to greater selection ... >> confirm your hypothesis without actually confirming it. ... >> formulating hypotheses properly and actually supporting them. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Namma Srikanth is the greatest selector ever
    ... Shridhar's gotta whine and snivel. ... still he is the incumbent as he eats 10 plates of idli sambar everyday ... opposed his selection if he were to get selected. ... Vijay over him. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... "Algis Kuliukas" wrote in message ... >> Just a reminder that you still haven't responded to requests that you ... >> regime leading to obligate terrestrial bipedalism. ... > provides selection over quadrupedalism. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... Algis Kuliukas wrote: ... It's the explanation that's assumed pretty much ... > mysteriously been the lack of selection in chimps that could explain ... Your notion that there's such a major difference ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)