Marc's empty hypothesis
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 May 2005 09:48:04 -0700
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "Pauline M Ross" pmross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> A dry aper wrote:
>
> >>EVEN IF you consider that any particular trait or suite of traits is more
> >>likely an adaptation, drift is a better default because, perhaps
> >>definitionally, it has to happen.
>
> This is nonsense. This can explain anything. I think the man should read
> some relevant recent literature, eg, J Hereford cs.2004 "Comparing strengths
> of directional selection: how strong is strong?" Evolution Int J Org
> Evolution 58:2133-43, discussed by P Andrew 2005 "The power of
> nat.selection" Nature 433:694-5. The conclusion is that nat.selection is
> overwhelmingly strong.
Drift is nonsense. It, LITERALLY, has everything to do with what an
observer chosed to be "sampling error," which is a 100% arbitrary
determination. Enough said.
These dry apers seem to believe that we evolved into
> what we are just because of coincidence without any environmental selection,
> eg, they believe that savanna hominids can evolve thick SC fat & sweating &
> furlessness...
No, you intellectually dishonest jackass. As you, undeniably, are
aware your opponents DO NOT believe that early hominids were located in
"savanna" habitat and/or in habitat that was distant from water.
> We're wasting our time with these guys, Pauline.
Yes, and they're wasting their time with you.
>
> Even if we know that most if not all of the features of a species evolved as
> the result of nat.selection, this does not require that we know in a
> particular case which selection exactly selected the trait.
Wrong. You are required to match a trait to the factors that selected
for it. If you don't do this then all you have is vague nonsense that
has no explanatory power.
Take SC fat.
> Whether this evolved for energy store, buoyancy, thermo-insulation,
> sex.selection, whatever, we don't need to know this for knowing that SC fat
> is more often seen in (semi)aquatic mammals than in others. When we take all
> the features together which humans discern from chimps (our nearest
> relatives), it's completely clear that we had waterside ancestors rather
> than typical savanna ancestors.
Nobody seriously disputes that hominids had waterside ancestors. Lots
of present-day mammals of similar size had waterside ancestors: seals,
whales, pigs, bears etc. But they didn't evolve into the large-brained,
cultural, communal, situated, warriors that our species certainly is.
If you have a theory as to how we got this way starting 8 million years
ago starting with chimps then you should let us know. In the meantime
don't quit your day job. Your vague notion that they resided close to
water is about as useful as the supposition that they breathed air.
Jim
.
- Prev by Date: Sampling Error
- Next by Date: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Previous by thread: Sampling Error
- Next by thread: Fatty Acids May Help Kids' Behavior Problems
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
