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


JAE wrote:
....

> In Algis's defense, the notion of hybridization is in itself not wild
> speculation and is potentially a reasonably plausible hypothesis that
> can be investigated. It appears there are a couple of things being
> confounded here though: Hybridization and the specific
> *characterisitics* of the species being hybridized which have to stand
> on their own.

Fair enough. I read your discussion re the possibility of
hybridisation, fusion of 2 chromosomes etc. as a possible cause of a
speciation event, & I think I understood enough to accept this as a
viable possibility - 1 of a number of possible mechanisms, yes?

My issue, though, which I think is entirely valid, is that I think that
Algis' whole concept of an Aquatic Hybrid Ape Hypothesis owes more to
his desire to synthesise an AAH than an HAH. On 8 May 2003, I wrote:

"Algis, it's my suspicion that your hypothesis began as an attempt to
create a hybrid between contradictory lines of evidence, and you
somehow twisted this philosophical construct, in your mind, into an
actual hybridisation event..."

.... As I say, I still think this is a valid and a fair assessment of
the AHAH. Even if a hybridisation event led to the speciation, that's
only 1 step on a slippery slope, as there's no actual evidence that any
animal that could be characterised as a Homo maritimus or a Homo
flumensis ever existed.

(These are "the fictitious 'seasiders' and 'riversiders' described in
the River Ape Stories", as described on the poster on Algis' website,
http://www.riverapes.com/images/RiverApePoster.jpg.)

And again, I find it very hard to reconcile Algis' claim to present a
"moderate" or "sensible" version of AAH with outrageous, over-the-top
material like this. Sorry Algis...

Ross Macfarlane

.

Quantcast