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



JAE wrote:
[..]
> > > What is your motive in asking it again?
> >
> > Because I was hoping that you might answer it in simple,
> > straightforward English. It's a simple enough question and it deserves
> > a simple answer. In the posting you referred to you did come close to
> > answering it, I accept. In that posting it seemed to me that you were
> > arguing that climbing differences were broadly due to drift and walking
> > efficiency differences were broadly due to selection and that swimming
> > differences were... well unknown.
>
> It was a simple enough question, but that doesn't mean there's a simple
> answer. You want me to say "it was selection" or "it was drift."
> Since neither answer does it justice, I'm not going to provide a simple
> answer, one that would be neither helpful nor complete for sake of your
> desire.

Oh come on, Jason. Surely you can do better than that. If drift is the
null then why aren't you confident in just saying it was drift? The
reason, clearly, is that you can see that some selection has obviously
been going on in the divergence in climbing ability between Pan and
Homo. If it's not the null, it must be the alternative hypothesis and
that means... 'selection did it'.

> > All I was looking for was confirmation on that but you started
> > squirming your way out of the 'climbing was drift' answer - I suspect
> > because anyone who thinks about this would realise that the phenotypic
> > changes which made us better walkers (at least) must have made us worse
> > climbers too - in other words it was selection that did it.
>
> You'd do well to avoid the simplistic "in other words" that Verhaegen
> has found himself wedded to. In this case you're again simplifying
> something that can't be simplified.

If it isn't obviously the null, it must be the other. It's simple
enough.

> [snip]
>
> > I'm trying to understand the answer, Jason. That's why I was seeking
> > confirmation on it. To the question: Are the differences in climbing,
> > walking and swimming abilities between humans and chimps mainly due to
> > selection or drift? A three word answer would do.
>
> No. A three word answer would NOT do. A three word answer depends on
> a reduction of "climbing" "swimming" and "walking" as it all are a
> single entity that came into being all at once and for one reason.

Why? To take climbing - there are hundreds of traits that contribute to
a chimp's greater ability to climb than a human's. These trait
differences could have evolved in millions of steps - some forwards
some backwards - each time for a different reason. But overall,
thinking about all of those steps, is pure drift the most likely
explanation for the diveregence (the null, as you put it) or has some
selection taken place (the altrenative hypothesis). The more steps, the
more unlikely it must be that it was pure drift. Some selection was
bound to have been involved - as it must have been with walking
efficiency, hand-to-hand fighting and.... swimming ability.
It feels to me that
> > you're resisting giving a simple answer because that simple answer
> > would be: selection, selection, drift - and that wouldn't look too good
> > for your argument.
>
> See above.
>
> > > I have been very patient recently in explaining conceptually
> > > what I'm talking about. Reposting the same question as if I've not
> > > answered it (and rather recently) is making you look like a real jerk.
> >
> > Yes I appreciate your patience but, with respect, I don't think you did
> > quite answer it. I was only seeking confirmation on it.
>
> I answered it. Go back and look at the previous posts. Try to
> comprehend what's going on. Divorce yourself from the notion that
> there will be a one-word solution.

Was it pure drift? No. Therefore some selection was involved. Correct?

> [snip]
>
> > > Things that would make selection for swimming more likely: 1) The
> > > analogies with creatures that swam were good analogies that didn't open
> > > up more holes in the argument than they caused. The only way to know
> > > this is to actually (and honestly) explore the analogies rather than
> > > declare the comparisons off-limits and instead make a comparison
> > > without real reference points.
> >
> > On this I think comparisons with primates are more important than
> > comparisons with seals, don't you? If not, why not?
>
> If we are trying to establish the conditions present in our more
> immediate ancestors, the comparisons with other primates are more
> appropriate. If we are looking at traits that are evidence of
> selection in the water, we need to look at trait that were much more
> certainly a product of this for comparison to see if the similarities
> are merely superficial. There are no appropriate reference points to
> look at within primates to establish the validity of the analogy. One
> of the most frustrating un-scientific aspects of your argument is the
> near-blanket refusal to allow investigation into the analogies you cite
> as evidence.

My only point there is that comparisons with dolphins have to be made
in context. The usual aquasceptic argument is a sneering - 'look, we're
nothing like dolphins.' Clearly humans were never anywhere near as
aquatic as cetaceans and therefore it's ridiculous to make such
comparisons except in the vaguest sense.

> > > 2) Solid ecological reason why the better swimmer would prosper.
> > > This involves looking at the resources
> > > available to the swimmer vs non-swimmer and getting at the net returns
> > > on foraging in these environments given differing abilities. An
> > > arugment that actually indicated a plausible new, beneficial niche (and
> > > "they're food rich" isn't an argument--it's a general statement that
> > > equates all wetlands and addresses a gross productivity, not the net
> > > foraging returns which can and often are much different) would go a
> > > ways towards being convincing.
> >
> > Ok. That's a fair request. I hardly think it's much of an objection
> > however because: 1) Existing models are hardly brimming with ideas on
> > this. 2) Early hominin bipeds did live in wet and wooded habitats. 3) E
> > Africa was exposed to large and rapid and swings in climate which would
> > have exposed hominins to flood-dessication cycles in the Pleistocene
> > and 4) Much of the Homo diaspora was clearly coastal, placing right on
> > the marine food chain.
>
> You have time and time and time and time again used the defense that
> existing models don't serve up good ecological arguments for why a
> change would be made. While I believe some of your objection indicates
> that you're too familiar with textbook simplifications and haven't
> spent enough time going deeper into primary literature, you should also
> realize that if you find other hypotheses lacking going *beyond* what
> other hypotheses have done is a pretty good idea. When I hear that, it
> sounds like you're lazy, like you're content to do something lousy and
> can justify it because other people didn't solve the problem either.
> Sounds more like you care about getting in a textbook than solving a
> problem and you're primed and ready to do the bare-assed minimum and no
> more.

That's not fair. I've read a very large chunk of primary literature on
the theories of bipedal origins and they all lack the kind of rigour
you seem to require of the wading hypothesis. What am I to conclude
from that?

> You have time and time and time again simply put forth that early
> hominins lived in "wet and wooded" and broadly equated this to
> something resembling "aquatic" as if factors in a "wet and wooded"
> environment are somehow "aquatic" in nature. Again, expanding on what
> "wet and wooded" means is vital. Rain forest? Wet and wooded, but
> hardly aquatic. Extant apes live in rain forests. How is this a
> different environment? Or are you using it to mean something else? In
> any case, it's a monumental stretch to go from the drop phrase "wet and
> wooded" to concluding that any special morphologies relating to "wet"
> allowed primate X to get at resources better than those without them.

The point is such habitats would provide an early biped with ample
situations where it had little choice but to wade.

> And while the Homo diaspora(s) may have involved traveling on or near
> the coast, equating this with a selective force that shaped the
> particular phenotype as it did is another thing altogether. Using this
> as evidence for anything relating to our divergence with chimps ignores
> a problem of several million years of temporal separation and ignores
> that the morphologies that make us human were well present in Africa
> before the diaspora. An interesting problem for behavioral ecologists
> looking at a generalist? Sure. Evidence of selection on a phenotype?
> FAR less clear.

If we cannot even use evidence of coastal life as material suggesting a
greater likelihood to swim, what can we use? The morphologies I'm
thinking of for this phase are mainly soft tissue ones.

> > > With these two primary elements in
> > > hand, you can then start to look at the archaeological and
> > > paleontological record to see if we've really got "aquatic traits" and
> > > if traits associated with a net gain show up in environments where the
> > > net gain is actually feasible. You've resisted this. You've said that
> > > the bar is somehow too high.
> >
> > No I haven't resisted it. My point was only that you do not seem to be
> > so critical of other theories which also do not meet these
> > requirements.
>
> Algis, for piss sakes do I have to repeat this over and over and over
> again? Are you really so dense as to not see that when YOU post your
> stuff here (using considerable bandwidth in MANY threads), it's more
> likely to get criticized that hypotheses that aren't posted here? You
> REALLY act like you don't understand this. You honestly seem to think
> that there's some equal-time clause whereby to criticize what you
> brought up, I've got to dredge up something that hasn't been posted for
> the sole purpose of criticizing it too. I don't see Hunt or Wheeler or
> Lovejoy or Rodman and McHenry posting here. Things might be different
> if they did, but your claim that I'm less critical of them, as if I'm
> somehow letting them slide where I don't let you slide is ridiculous.
> THEY AREN'T HERE POSTING THEIR IDEAS. You are. You're opening yourself
> up to the criticism. Whether or not they've received proper criticism
> does not in any way, shape or form change the fact that your ideas
> don't stand up to rigorous criticism. Your repeated desire to have the
> bar lowered is really pretty silly.

I'm not saying the bar is too high for the AAH just that it should be
the same height for all of the ideas whther the proponents of them come
here, or not.

> > > This indicates to me that your
> > > scholarship is in general poor (perhaps explaining how you got to this
> > > point where you still didn't really know what the mechanisms of
> > > evolution were) because this *is* the sort of stuff that gets done.
> > > Crowley's got an excuse. He's a nutcase that admits that he doesn't
> > > read the literature. You're supposedly in school. What's your excuse?
> >
> > What's my excuse? Don't have one, don't need one. I'm interested in
> > this subject and I've been studying it now for eight years. But it's
> > not my career. I'm only a part time student and I've lots of major
> > distractions. There are huge gaps in my knowledge, I acknowledge that.
> > I've never pretended to be an expert in anything. I've made a few
> > embarrasing gaffs here, but I'm not the only one.
> >
> > Look, congratulations for exposing the fact that my understanding of
> > the theory of drift was incorrect in that it did not generate
> > variation, it would reduce it. I feel embarassed about it, for sure.
> > But, seriously, did it change anything about the point we were
> > discussing? Are differences in swimming abilities between humans and
> > chimps any better explained as drift if only one understands this
> > point? I think not.
>
> As a point of psychology, it's rather interesting that you've at times
> admitted that you were wrong about a fact, about evidence, now about a
> major evolutionary mechanism. Yet somehow, the radical changes in what
> you had based your hypothesis on don't EVER seem to matter to you.
> "Yes, that chimps couldn't swim was part of my argument and yeah,
> perhaps chimps can swim, but I hardly see how that changes anything.
> Yes, it does appear that there's evidence that hair *elimination* and
> not *reduction* could be the key but [despite the fact that we've got
> the latter and not the former] I hardly see how that changes anything.
> Yes, I had argued against drift when I didn't really know what drift
> is, but I hardly see how that changes anything." Algis, it doesn't
> look to me like you're committed to the evidence and since you've
> admitted that no evidence can change your view about the role of water
> in our past, I'm at a loss as to why I should regard what you're doing
> as science.

You didn't answer the question: Why did my error on the nature of drift
alter the argument on the likelihood of drift being responsible for
swimming divergences between humans and chimps? It doesn't.

Scientists should be prepared to accept when they are wrong. I am.
You've given me good reason to think I'm wrong on several things and
I've agreed with them when you've made a good argument. I just don't
think you've ever given me good reason to make me think I'm wrong about
one thing: that water influenced human evolution more than it did
chimps' since the LCA. You seem to think that because you've shown
error in a couple of arguments I should just bow down and give in to
all your arguments. Each argument has to be debated point by point.

Algis Kuliukas

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... >> Algis Kuliukas wrote: ... > climbers too - in other words it was selection that did it. ... as evidence. ... Whether or not they've received proper criticism ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Battle of Nitwits
    ... >>> Algis, you're asking a question I addressed at length within the last ... >> climbers too - in other words it was selection that did it. ... > as evidence. ... Whether or not they've received proper criticism ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Evolution lessons
    ... that could lead to speciation ... avoid the pitfall of treating selection as being preeminent. ... NS is preeminent, not drift. ... and be willing to change his beliefs based on evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
    ... >>I claim that selection and drift can be separated conceptually (and ... > walk, while others have fitness adaption pressure, which tends to rein ... Evidence for what, precisely? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Standards of Evidence
    ... >>treats the external environment as constant - selection occurs, for instance, ... how diversity is affected by environment size. ... Or it may be that one speciation occurs we ... >>coefficient or ordinary drift changes a population, ...
    (talk.origins)