Re: Oops, Back to the You Know What

JAE wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > JAE wrote:
> > > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > So chimps and bonobos and orang utans and gibbons all had selective
> > > > pressure from *not swimming* but humans carried on as if nothing had
> > > > happenned. I see.
> > >
> > >
> > > You do not see. You are confusing the absence of selection for the
> > > retention of something with selection to eliminate something.
> >
> > Ok, so let me rephrase it: So chimps and bonobos and orang utans and
> > gibbons all had absence of selective pressure *for* swimming but humans
> > carried on as if nothing had happenned. Is that it? A bit
> > unparsimonious, isn't it? Isn't it rather more likely that it was four
> > ape species that carried on as if nothing had happenned and it was the
> > hominin line that became, just slightly, more aquatic. But then I
> > forgot: the principles of parsimony don't apply when the AAH is
> > involved.
>
> There is nothing at all unparsiomonious about this. You do not seem to
> have the best grasp of what the term parsimony means.

What!? If today groups Bo, Ch, Gi, Or are non-swimmers and groups Hu
and Go are swimmers, how can it be more parsimonious to explain that
the LCA was a swimmer? If the LCA was a swimmer four changes are
required. If the LCA was a non-swimmer two changes are required. I
thought the use of parsimony in cladistics always attempts to contruct
the tree which requires the fewest changes so tell me, Master, where is
my understanding of parsimony lacking?

As swimming/non-swimming is not binary, surely the most parsimonious
explanation of all is that the LCA was a slightly worse swimmer than,
say, the gorilla. From that point gorillas have changed the least but
the four non-swimming apes would have had to change relatively little
too. Of all the apes, the human condition (the best swimmers of all the
primates) is therefore the most remarkable and in need of an
explanation - an AAH-based explanation, of course.

> It is also rather unclear that the four ape species don't have an
> ability to swim.

Of course 'ability to swim' is not a binary character like the presence
or absence of a particular bobble on the skull might be.

> There are conflicting sources saying chimps can and cannot swim,

One source (only one AFAIK) says "at least one" male chimp has been
observed swimming - but it was only a few metres at most and it could
have been falling whilst wading. Do you know of any other source? You
seem to be alluding to that.... "source*s*".

All other sources AFAIK say they cannot or do not swim. The fact that
moats have been used in chimp enclosures in zoos for years and that
several have drowned in them argues they generally cannot.

> that gorillas can and cannot swim (one such source saying
> they cannot said that while gorillas can't that chimps can),

Which source is that please?

> that gibbons can and cannot swim.

I've not read anything to suggest that gibbons can swim. The anecdotal
evidence I've heard is that they drown very easily.

> I've not seen any claims that orangs can swim but I've seen conflicting
> reports saying that they're dreadfully
> afraid of water and others saying they'll wade in regularly.

I asked Birute Galdikas face to face about this a few weeks ago and she
told me that in her experience orangs cannot swim but they are very
comfortable wading.

> What this
> seems to indicate is that there's a dearth of real data out there, but
> at least anecdotally, the's reason to believe that *inability to swim*
> is somehow a heritable ancestral state for apes.

So, are you agreeing with me then, or what?

> Since the ability to
> swim is widespread (not the ready desire, but the ability as the two
> are different things) it's not remarkable that any mammal in particular
> can swim *UNLESS* it's somehow clear that their ancestors could not.

But as you've just admitted that the apes' "*inability to swim* is
somehow a heritable ancestral state for apes" then presumably you must
agree that the human ability to swim is remarkable.

Or was that just a typo? Did you mean to write "there's *no* reason to
believe that *inability to swim* is somehow a heritable ancestral state
for apes." ? - If it was a typo, perhaps Mark will attack your English
Language abilities like he did mine, when I made a similar simple
mistake in the previous posting. No? What a surprise. It's like I've
said many times now - the rules change when the dreaded 'a' factor is
invoked. Suddenly, it all becomes tribal and there are no rules. Ug,
Ug!

> But this seems not to interest you as you're instead back to your
> persecuted conspiracy minded self once again insulating yourself in the
> (rather errant) belief that it's only because you've said "aquatic"
> that you're wrong. You'll get nowhere with this reaction, though you
> seem hell-bent on it nonetheless.

But the evidence for that conclusion is there again and again. Why is
it Ok to attack Marc for being uncivil and abusive but not Jois? Why is
ok for Mark to criticise my language skills because of a simple typo
but not yours? Why is the use of parsimony in cladistics fine as long
as we're analysing dry bones but not wet swimming behaviour? Why do
comparisons of locomotor abilities between species pairs in different
substrates have evolutionary significance in all of the billions of
permutations except then they involve humans, apes and water?

This aversion to making the painfully simple concession that, ok, water
influenced our evolution more than it did the apes - is as astonishing
as it is illustrative of a denial of the first principle of science -
start with a simple observation and take it from there. You do not, can
not, *dare* not make that first observation because if you did, you'd
have to admit that the years of hostility against the AAH have been
nothing but a grotesque facade.

Algis Kuliukas

.