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



JAE wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > JAE wrote:
>
> > > Then did you understand why your use of selection-as-null is terribly
> > > problematic?
> >
> > No, actually. I think you are just bullshitting us.
>
> I am by no means "bullshitting" you (who is "us?") on this and it's
> rather unfortunate that you believe it to be true.

That was written in haste.

By 'us' I meant those who are crazy enough to think that humans swim
better than chimps because of natural selection, whoever they may be. I
suspect it is a set of people greater than 1.

An the term 'bullshitting' was inapproriate too. I apologise. I just
think your 'drift is the null' is too simple. Of course drift is going
on, how else could any evolution occur? Your argument that we can
assume drift but not selection and therefore it should be the default
mechanism involved for phenotypic changes seems to be technically
correct but completely ignores the equally true fact that selection is
always going on in each and every population. Therefore if a phenotypic
change has occurred over time then drift must have happenned, sure, but
so must have selection.

I put to you again (for the third time now, at least)...

Do you propose that chimps are better at climbing trees than humans and
humans are more efficient walkers than chimps merely because of drift
and not because of selection? This is where your answers sounded like
bull*** to me... 'oh, it's much more complicated than that.' This
point has been the basis of the entire field of paleoanthropology for
over 100 years.

Of course drift, at the genetic level, generated the variation within
populations to make these changes possible. But it was selection from
that population that clearly took place to change the LCA into Pan and
Homo. I can't see how you can deny it, or suggest that any other factor
was the primary cause.

Now take that point and apply it to swimming. Same argument, same
explanation.

> I have long
> suspected that you do not really have a solid, graduate level grasp on
> the mechanisms of evolution. If you believe that proper hypothesis
> forming is "bullshitting" you, there's no point in continuing. You're
> not able to follow the argument and will remain lost.

I apologise for using the term. It was written in haste. I follow the
argument, Jason. There's no need to be patronising.

Algis Kuliukas

.

Quantcast