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


JAE wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:

> > Sure, but most of those are just picky and pedantic. I come here to
> > *discuss* issues on human evolution, not to have my sentences grammar
> > checked. I'm not the only one who makes mistakes like this. Everyone
> > does. Even you made a couple of typos lately. (Raise the siren!) Su
> > Solomon, in her last posting said the AAH "did not exist", Hardy's
> > ideas were a "hoax" and his paper "wasn't a request for comments." If
> > I'd have written sentences like those, you'd have been onto me like a
> > shark.
>
> You should stop trying to fight what you proclaim I *would* have
> criticized you for because you're not a mind reader and it simply
> indicates to me that you've got a persecution complex that blinds you
> to what is and what is not scientific criticism.

But you would have, wouldn't you? Imagine it. If I'd said that Rodman &
McHenry's paper was a hoax (not that I would, of course), or that the
the energy efficiency model of human evolution *did not exist* because
no-one had laid it out in a precise form with testable predictions and
all, could you have resisted one of your detailed corrections? That'd
be the day! Where are your super-sharp scientific critical skills when
it comes to evaluating Su Solomon's sloppy comments? Oops. Not needed.
That's different.

> The claims I've
> called you on here are scientific ones. Make no mistake about this.
> It is not pedantic to call someone on the charge that their claim that
> "chimps can't swim" may not in fact be true. It is especially not true
> when it becomes such a focal point of the orginal claimant's argument.
> It is especially true when the distinction between "can't swim" and
> "don't swim"--things that are not the same--can radically affect the
> conclusions about any common ancestor.

But I've clarified that many times since. It isn't very scientific, or
fair, to pick one phrase someone used in a conversation a couple of
times and then repeatedly throw it back in their face for eternity as
if it was being put up for peer review. You know what I meant. At least
if you didn't the first time, you should by now.

> The repeated claim you make
> about the importance of waist deep water but then immediately you must
> shift to some selective argument that occurs not in waist deep water is
> not pedantic. It is a claim that confounds two things that are not
> equal and tries to pass it off as if they were. Your repeated claim
> that apes wade bipedally ignores that this is not a universal and many
> things, like the depth of water, like the reason for wading, like
> cultural differences between ape populations, dramatically affects
> this. You make absolute statements where they are not warranted.

I have made this as clear as I can too - over and over again. I make
shorthand, absolute statements sometimes in conversations because it's
quicker. It's easier to say 'chimps can't swim' (in the sense that
chickens can't fly, not that it is absolutely impossible for any chimp
ever to swim any distance) than 'chimps have only ever been observed
swimming according to at most two anecdotal pieces of evidence - one
from David Attenborough's book life of Mammals and one from Fred's
PostBag on Straight Dope - in contrast to many thousands of incidents
of them observed not swimming, so on balance they would appear to be as
likely to be able to swim as a chicken is to fly.' These *are*
conversations. I do not make absolute statements in work that is meant
to be read by a critical audience. I accept that here we have a group
of people who are critical, but we are still essentially engaged in a
conversation. I think you forget that - but only when it suits you. At
other times your own use of language slips well below mine and is more
reminiscent of blokes down the pub. Then, you don't like it when I get
pedantic about your use of sloppy words.

> Mistakes? Perhaps, but I don't think it's so much a mistake of your
> typing as of your reasoning because it appears that you use the
> absolute positions as the foundation for your later conclusions. The
> more qualified statements don't necessarily support the same
> conclusions. This is why I call you on them. It's not pedantic. It
> is not minor. Your dismissal of things as such makes me think that you
> don't know what you're doing.

I dismiss them because you know (or at least you should by now) what I
mean by apes being most predictably bipedal in waist deep water and
that humans swim better than chimps. Your picking on my wording appears
to be a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the real issues. Why is it
that humans swim better than chimps? You don't really want to go there.
You'd rather pull in any argument you can think of to question the
fact, belittle the importance and invoke any possible reason that might
make it be due to non-selection. *Anything*, that can stave off the day
when you have to actually sit down and think: what *if* humans really
do swim better than chimps and that the reason for it *is* natural
selection - then what? Then, all that posturing on superior
methodologies and superior thinking start to look a bit thin. Then, it
starts to look like you've just been part of a bloody great filibuster
for all these years.

> > A flash flood indicates a cause of death through flooding - strongly
> > associated in the fossil record to the exact place we're talking about
> > at around the same time. That's the onlt reason I mentioned it.
>
> The only reason? That's not what your postings indicate. You were
> first arguing that flash floods were a selective force. You said you
> suspected that flash floods happened often (your post June 22). You
> claimed to know what a flash flood was, but didn't appear to really
> understand how they operated since you said that slightly longer legs
> were advantageous in "flash floods." You did not appear to be
> differentiating between flash flooding and any other type of floods
> when you wrote: "If an ape has longer legs, a more upright posture
> (e.g. through increased lumbar lordosis) and flatter feet they'd be
> more likely to survive the sort of flash flooding that, apparently,
> wiped out the Al 333 hominids..." You also said that a flash flood
> implies other minor "flash floods." You appear to have tried two
> things: to argue for selection through flash floods but when that
> didn't pan out, tried to move the target to a different type of flood,
> one you didn't have the same evidence for, without requalifying your
> original mistake.

As with your argument about Hardy's ideas not being looked at because
they were not precisely defined, an argument I showed to be false, here
too you're being too binary.

I never meant to claim that having slightly longer legs would enable an
ape to survive the maximum effects of a full on flash flood but even
here there is a lot of gray you have ignored. Do flash floods kill
everyone that it touches? Everyone? No. A flash flood is not shaped
like rectanglar block which either kills you or leaves you untouched.
It starts pretty suddenly but it doesn't end so abruptly. Depending on
when and where and how it happens to affect you, there are a million
ways that the effects can be dissipated. Perhaps you were on the edge
of the valley when it was at it's worst. Perhaps you were up a very
robust tree, or standing on a rocky outcrop overlooking the main water
course. Or maybe you were downstream on the edge of a large lake which
absorbed most of the run off. There are many scenarios where being a
more competent wader might well have helped you to survive on the
fringes of such an event, although none are likely to have helped at
all if you were smack bang in the middle of it. And, of course, the
events themselves are not all going to be exactly and equally as bad.
There are going to be worse flash floods and milder flash floods. There
are going to be some floods that are almost flash but not quite flash
enough to earn the title.

Your interpretation that I have "tried two things" implies that you
think I've been kind of mischievousness trying to make this work. But
that's not so black and white either. On the other side of the gray
area is brainstorming, or iterative processing - trial and error.
Actually I've not just tried two things to make this work, I've tried
scores. If one thing doesn't appear to work, I look to see if I can
find something else that might. It's called 'trying to find a
solution'. I think that's what's been missing in this whole area - the
area where moving through water and human evolution overlap. That's
what I thought discussion forums were about - to *discuss ideas*. It's
why I come here: to get feedback on ideas.

People like you, accurate and efficient syntax checkers that you are,
seem to completely lack any real desire to find a solution and seem to
lack any positive ideas of your own. You don't want to discuss, you
want to critique. You're all about critiquing each and every idea that
might pop up with the sole purpose of knocking it firmly back down
again. I expect you think that this 'rigour' makes you a better
scientist than me, but I'm beginning to question the value of this kind
of pure negativity in science. What's your big idea, Jason? That
everything's due to drift, and very little selection takes place? It's
easy to pick holes in everybody else's.

With science like this little progress is likely because there is no
creativity of thought, only negative criticism. We're likely to stand
still if we do that. Just like we have, in the debate about bipedal
origins, for 150 years. It's time for some radical, positive thinking
and the best and most evidence-based idea there, clearly, has to be
wading.

Algis Kuliukas

.

Quantcast