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



Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> JAE wrote:
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> > You appear to be justifying supporting speculation with more wild
> > speculation. I do not favor your interpretation of human evolution as
> > being about just-so stories. This smacks of laziness and willingness
> > to forego science in favor of fantasy.
>
> I disagree. It's just being honest and realistic. How on earth are we
> ever going to *know* (in the sense that we *know* how extant species
> live) how putative ancestors lived 3 Mya on the basis of an almost
> totally incomplete fossil record of tiny fragments of bone, very thin
> evidence of paleoclimate and zero evidence of any soft tissue? It's
> always going to be based on speculation that agrees with as many facts
> as possible that are generally agreed upon and is not controverted by
> any.

"Speculation" is not a blanket statement that allows you to put forward
anything, testing and reason be damned. I've time and time and time
again given you ideas of how the speculation could be more palatable,
how you could gather information that could make your wading lifestyle
more plausible. You've whined (and yes, I'm snipping your BS below
about how you don't consider it whining--it is). You've cried how it's
not fair that you have to do this. Grow up. You've got a difficult
case to sell. Rather than try harder, you've become a champion
complainer. You merely insist that your ideas are better and more
evidence based. Though this is your claim, one that most of us here
don't agree with and I suspect most in the scientific communities would
also see as a mere claim rather than a substantiated case that you've
got a better, more "evidence based" hypothesis.

> > You appear significantly
> > resistant (claiming that the bar has been raised) to gathering data
> > that makes the speculation more palatable.
>
> I find that pretty offensive. What do you think I'm doing? I'm engaged
> in research into this area.

You are pleading for your ideas to be taken seriously before you've
done any work. You are resisting criticism at all points. You are
proceeding without a solid understanding of evolutionary theory,
relying on a pop-reductionist hyper-darwinian parody popularized by
Dawkins. You are putting forth explanations that are superfluous by
being alone insufficient and requiring other explanations that, if
true, would function without wading. You are repeatingly making an
error of logic. As you're explaining it, whatever you find isn't going
to be that relevent because the hypothesis you've designed doesn't
indicate what you want it to.

[snip]

> I think it's a key component because it is the single most predictable
> factor to compel and ape to move bipedally. In other words, it's
> evidence based. I bring other scenarios into the 'mix' to show that the
> idea is completely compatible with practically everything out there.
> And yet, despite this, you seem hell bent on resisting it. Why's that?

Because your "single most predictable" situation (if this is the case)
isn't one that we have any reason to believe provides selection for the
morphology we see. "Waist deep water" is your repeated red herring.
You have neither a compelling reason that any apes were regularly in
"waist deep water" nor a compelling reason that this would have
produced a selective difference like we see.

> > There is
> > evidence to controvert what you're saying. It may not outright reject
> > what you're saying, but there's evidence against it.
>
> I think your 'evidence' against it is scratched together and a kind of
> special pleading. (e.g. Marginal improvements in energy efficiency in
> early bipeds - fine, marginal improvements in leg length whilst wading
> - not fine; Lumbar lordosis for walking - fine, lumbar lordosis for
> wading - not fine; no analogues for efficient bipedal walking - fine,
> no analogues for wading - not fine; no terrestrial analogues for
> paltypelloid pelvis - fine; no wading analogues for platypelloid pelvis
> - not fine... etc etc) 'Ad hoc' objections is putting it kindly. Biased
> and one-sided feel more appropriate descriptions to me.

There may not be analogs for efficient bipedal walking, but there are
analogs for efficient terrestrial movement: increased stride, decreased
lateral movement of the upper body, a narrower gait. The changes in
the back and pelvis and knees are adaptations for balance in a forward
stride, balance that is more important at a quicker walking pace as it
minimizes extraneous lateral movement. It's not clear why this is
nearly as relevent in water because a) that's a tremendous amount of
movement in the water (and as such, requires some explanation of the
niche that requires so much movement--a task you've so far punted on),
b) requires that the demands on balance be similar in water as they are
on land though this doesn't appear to be so, especially at your magic
"waist deep" depth you repeat as if it meant something and c) as water
impedes motion and speed, it's not clear that the slower forward stride
produces the same premium on minimizing lateral movement that the
knees, back and pelvis we've got (and are shared by the earliest well
known bipeds) allows for. Hell! You've created a fantasy about wading
that *maximizes lateral movement. You've got a convoluted mess.
You're trying way too hard to fit data to your idea and as a result,
you've got a fiasco of an explanation that makes sense only to you.
You're far too close to it to see what a mess you're working with and
far too defensive to take criticism. You're far to conspiracy minded
and as a result, have created a scenario in your mind to protect
yourself, telling yourself that it's that you're mentioning "water"
that illicits criticism. This is not the truth. You illicit criticism
because you present a poor argument based on bad theory and shoddy
evidence that doesn't explain what you say it does.

> > You simply choose
> > to ignore this evidence. This is, inevitably your loss if you actually
> > decide to stake your claim on your explanations.
>
> Your touting of this as 'evidence' is more likely to be your loss when
> this idea gains the credibility it surely must.

I have no worries here. I've got no vested stake at all. You do
apparently, else you'd not take refuge in such a statement. You are
here arguing not about the evidence, but about your abilities at
precognition, somehow *knowing* that you'll be vindicated. You ought
to put this power to use picking lottery numbers. It will get you
further in life and make you look less like an internet kook
positioning himself as the unrecognized genius. Your bravado about
your future vindication carries no weight. It does nothing to
strengthen your ideas and you are here using it as a crutch to get out
of a jam.

> > > My answer is this: It wasn't *just* wading alone. It was wading in wet
> > > cycles *PLUS* walking in flat, firm, relatively vegetation-free (FFVF)
> > > substrates in dry cycles. Borneo doesn't get many dry cycles, AFAIK,
> > > and there's not much in the way of FFVF substrates in their habitats.
> >
> > Why wading *plus* walking? What about walking alone is insufficient?
> > You will need to do considerably more to incorporate wading into this.
>
> I just explained it.

No. You did not. You think you did, but you offered no explanation.

> If it were walking alone, how come baboons, chimps and gorillas aren't
> bipedal?

You seem to have some (unfortunately erroneous) undertone of absolute
adaptive peaks. That runs through all of your "so why didn't X do Y"
lines. Baboons did not have a prior history as a brachiator. They did
not have the dorsal placement of the scapula, wider clavicle, less
robust olecranon, etc. found in a brachiator, all of which make an
efficient quadrupedal stride increasingly difficult. Their
evolutionary startpoint was signficantly different. Chimps and
gorillas apparently either didn't experience the same selective regime
favoring a more efficient mode of locomotion or found other ways to
deal with it. Chimp social groups are very fluid, allowing for smaller
group sizes when resources are scarcer while gorillas have become
folivore specialists rather than frugivores. [Alternatively, neither
of these groups acquired that variation necessary for the changes.
Selection is not magic. It won't create the *variation* just because
it's favorable.]

> I think an impasse has happenned because one group has refused to look
> at water as a vehicle for evolutionary change, insisting that it was
> purely terrestrial and that aquatic factors are not needed, whilst
> another group has worked itself up into such a state about it that it
> is determined to show that *only* moving through water could have been
> the vehicle of change and that the terrestrial factors were unecessary.

You are pitting "groups" against each other, allying yourself to
protect yourself. You are missing a key point: this isn't criticism
leveled at an idea about water, it's criticism aimed squarely at what
you, YOU, Algis, YOU are presenting RIGHT HERE.

[snip "poor little me" rant]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... The earliest evidence for hominid bipedalism is ... wading apears to have been highly likely. ... from moving in water might have influenced our evolution. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... have far less evidence in support of them and more to controvert them. ... true if the wading hypothesis was correct and I'm setting about testing ... > certainty) that nothing can change your mind about water being a factor ... is that human evolved from apes. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedal Orrorin?
    ... water (this is damning - none of the anti-AAH posters here on SAP have ... being presnted with incontrovertible contrary evidence. ... Example: bipedal wading. ... Keeter posted evidence of the behaviour of wild bonobos ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... > You appear to be justifying supporting speculation with more wild ... evidence of paleoclimate and zero evidence of any soft tissue? ... far worse science than the wading hypothesis. ... no analogues for efficient bipedal walking - fine, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... > it many times claiming it was some big coup for his argument. ... there is no evidence to support a water-side life style for human ... It's not the water that is ... Lee. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading