Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- From: "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 May 2005 16:43:29 -0700
JAE wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > JAE wrote:
> > > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > > > rmacfarl wrote:
> > > > > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > Surely, the word "generally" is the factor that makes that statement
> > > > > > > > wrong, Ross.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, it isn't. You can't say that chimps generally can't swim if 1 can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course you can. So, can you say, *generally* that humans can swim
> > > > > > 40km? One can. Isn't that enough for you, suddenly?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear me Algis. If you're going to move the goalposts in the discussion,
> > > > > you're going to need to be much more subtle about it than this. The
> > > > > introduction of the 40KM limit is a red herring. Humans can swim,
> > > > > chimps can swim.
> > > >
> > > > Yes and by the same logic: Chimps can climb, humans can climb. Birds
> > > > can fly, fish can fly. Humans can talk, seals can talk.
> > > >
> > > > But seriously, why is one chimp swimming evidence that generally chimps
> > > > can swim but one human swimming 40km is not evidence that humans can
> > > > generally swim 40km?
> > >
> > > The "chimps can/can't/do/don't swim thing gets to the heart of a claim
> > > that somehow the raw ability to swim is or isn't something that chimps
> > > have. The claim that they cannot seems to imply some physisiological
> > > barriers. If indeed the accounts of swimming chimps are not accounts
> > > of somehow abnormal chimps, this implicitly alleged barrier doesn't
> > > exist. If so, that chimps can essentially teach themselves to swim
> > > without aid of instruction, formal or otherwise, from another
> > > conspecific who can swim indicates that a latent capacity, perhaps
> > > nascent capacity is there. This makes the gulf between "chimps who
> > > can't swim" and "humans who can swim," as it pertains to purely
> > > biologically determined abilities smaller.
> >
> > Smaller than what? Smaller than you think I'm claiming? Fine. But are
> > you claiming there is no gulf or that what gulf there is is explicable
> > by factors that have absolutely nothing to do with selection from our
> > ancestors being exposed to drowning more than theirs?
>
> I am claiming: A) That at every opporuntity you overemphasize a gulf
> and repeatedly exaggerate it beyond that which you've already admitted
> you can't demonstrate as seen through you repeated dropping of
> statements like "chimps can't swim which, at the very least, indicates
> that you're sloppy in your use of language.
I repeatedly overemphasise it because people like you repeatedly
underemphasise it. (humans adaptation to water may be no more than they
get thirsty, remember.) It's called trying to maintain some kind of
balance. In a recent post you made a typo which completely altered the
argument you were making. Note that I did not use that as an
opportunity to criticse you for your use of language, I accept that
people make typos and often write things here in haste.
> B) That the observed
> difference between humans and chimps is mitigated by a number of things
> including the phylogenetic natural history of the creature that
> influences how selection and drift operate.
Of course. Who could argue with that?
> C) That your argument
> about selection lumps together disparate explanations seeming to equate
> selection mitigating the loss of traits with selection favoring
> novelties.
Yes. Genetic drift generates the variability with populations.
Selection works on that variation. As environments change novel traits
which are adaptive get selected for, old traits which are not get
selected out. I don't see what's wrong with that.
> D) That the explanation of "selection did it" is an
> inappropriate null hypothesis,
"Drift did it" as a null hypothesis is stating the obvious. It's like
saying "DNA did it" should be the null hypothesis, not drift. Of course
genetic drift is a prerequisite to producing the variability within
populations from which selection could - and must have - occurred.
> E) as a hypothesis is not useful for
> explaning phenotypes that must on their own hold up to a much higher
> level of scrutiny as the general "selection did it" does not address
> the specific phenotypic differentiation.
Has climbing and terrestrial walking been held up for 'much higher
scrutiny'? Does *anyone* doubt that selection was the major factor in
those phenotypic changes. Why should swimming be treated any
differently?
> [snip]
>
> > Ok, but what about normal everyday people that happen to make a living
> > from the sea? They swim far, far better than chimps. What about the
> > mean, the median, the mode - every time the human in that position
> > would be a better swimmer than the chimp. What don't you just admit it:
> > humans swim better than chimps.
>
> I've not DENIED that humans swim better than chimps.
Ok. And would you further agree that chimps climb better than humans
and that humans are more efficient walkers than chimps? May assume you
do?
Now, how do you explain these three locomotor differences in terms of
selection?
a) Climbing.... selection?
b) Walking.... selection?
c) swimming... seelction?
Algis Kuliukas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Next by Date: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Previous by thread: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Next by thread: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
