Intellectual Stealth


Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote

> >> > Heck, even your own paper Verhaegen et al (2002)
> >> > refers to wade/wading in the context of
> >> > bipedalism 24 times, including this... "We find
> >> > nonwading explanations for human bipedalism [1-3]
> >> > (e.g. standing up to reach fruit in trees,
> >> > aggressive posturing, looking over savannah grass
> >> > and carrying tools, food or babies) unconvincing,
> >> > because the advantages appear to be only of a
> >> > temporary nature, and because no other primates
> >> > or savannah mammals have developed bipedalism for
> >> > similar reasons." Verhagen et al (2002:212)
>
> >> Yes. And? Does this mean we find the wading
> >> explanation convincing??
>
> > So when you wrote that, you really, secretly
> > meant that you *didn't* find it convincing?
>
> secretly?? You're a bit paranoic, Algis - no wonder
> after all your "discussions" with the dry ape fools
> here... :-D
> 1) It's no question of conviction, but of data!

IOW, Marc, you don't find the data convincing?

> We
> left the question open: IMO we don't have enough
> data at this moment. So difficult IYO??
> 2) I guess (not enough comparative data, but see
> below) that wading was part of how our locomotion
> evolved, although I don't see how & why they would
> have waded exactly (for salmon? cf grizzleys on 2
> legs? for cattails?)

Algis prefers not to discuss this.

> , except perhaps in the very
> latest phase (eg, early-sapiens? fishing with
> nets??).
> 3) All wading mammals are quadrupedal, so obviously
> wading is not the key factor. If non-human waders
> are quadrupedal, how can you argue that wading
> leads to bipedalism?? For some reason, you believe
> that humans are an exception - very unscientific
> attitude, Algis.

Even Marc can see that you are not a scientist, Algis.

> Lowland gorillas wade usu.on
> 2 legs in forest swamps, but walk usu.on 4 legs on
> land.
>
> > Is that what you're saying now? Why do you have
> > to talk in riddles? Why not just say what you
> > *do* think so that we don't have to second guess
> > you're meaning all the time?
>
> Why on earth should you want to guess what I mean??
> I don't feel the need to guess what you mean,
> Algis... My meaning is unimportant:

Allow me to translate this for you Algis. Marc thinks your wading
notions are idiotic. But that's not important. What is important is
that the only way to preserve the illusion that you AAT theorists are
winning the argument is to keep your thinking so vague that nobody can
dispute it.

Note that your dry ape opponents use this tactic very effectively.

> just look at
> the facts & think a bit.

Yeah, Algis, (wink, wink) *think* a bit.

>
> > Look. At least have the honesty to admit that
> > it's confusing, Marc. You published a paper
> > where you say you find *non*wading explanations
> > for bipedalism unconvincing and now, just three
> > years later, you're acting all surprised that
> > people should consider a wading origin for
> > bipedalism part of the AAH. (e.g. "AAT does not
> > claim for the evolution of bipedalism.")
>
> consider? Where did I say that we shouldn't
> consider wading??? Please, a bit honest, Algis...

Yes, Algis, even though he thinks it's rather bizarre that you have,
thus far, failed to indicate the slightest rationale for why your
wading apes were, supposedly, spending so much time in waste-deep
water, that doesn't mean he doesn't like it. Afterall, it does involve
water.

>
> >> Again: all non-human wading mammals are
> >> quadrupedal! Is this my fault??
>
> > It is your fault that you don't seem to see the
> > significance of the fact that apes (our own
> > clade remember) are most predictably bipedal in
> > depths of water where practically every other
> > mammal is quadrupedal or would swim.

Yeah, Marc. Next thing you know you are going to state that apes are
even more predictably bipedal when they are throwing projectiles and
wielding branches. What's come over you Marc?

> > I just find
> > it bizarre that I'm having to argue with you
> > about such things. Who would have thunk it?

Yeah, Marc, whose side are you on? AAT or science?

> You, if you had used your brain a bit: just compare
> how lowland gorillas move in water & on land.

Yeah, Algis, notice they're not called lowwater gorillas.

> >> > In fact I thought it was the AAH's strongest
> >> > and most demonstrable argument as water is
> >> > clearly the factor which compels apes to move
> >> > bipedally. That's why I've been studying it
> >> > for the last five years.
>
> >> Why do you want to put everything in a wading
> >> basket??
>
> > I'm not putting *everything* in the wading
> > basket, I'm putting *bipedal origins* in the
> > wading basket.
>
> Sorry, I meant: Why do you put human locomotion
> in a wading basket?
>
> As for *bipedal origins*, a lot of Mio-Pliocene
> apes are believed to have been "bipedal"
> (Oreopith, Sahelanthr, Orrorin, Ardipith,
> Australopith), but I don't see how this can
> explain human but not Afr.ape locomotion.
>
> > I'm doing this because apes are most
> > predictably bipedal in depths of water where
> > practically every other mammal is quadrupedal
> > or would swim. I think that is a bit of a clue.
> > I think it's certainly a much more
> > compelling argument
>
> Ah?? Why don't you look at gorillas in water &
> on land?
>
> > than the notion that diving (a horizontal,
> > effectively weight*less* form of locomotion)
> > had anything to do with the origin of humanlike
> > bipedalism (a vertical, weight *bearing* form of
> > locomotion.) Algis
>
> - "horizontal diving"? What might that be?

It's called a belly flop.

>
> - As I argued numerous times, our *bipedal
> origins* lie obviously in our arboreal past.

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast