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


rmacfarl wrote:
> 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..."

When I had tried to infer motive like that to someone here, I got
attacked from several people. But never mind that.

No, that's not it, at all. Like Tobias, I think for certain human
characters the AAH may well provide the most reasonable, or perhaps the
only, explanation which has yet been proposed.

I find the chromosome number difference in humans just as interesting
and I looked at the models proposed. I found the hybridisation model
the most plausible and it seemed to fit in with the idea that humans
had some traits which indicate a more aquatic past and others which
indicate a definite early adaptation to a terrestrial life style.

> ... 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.)

Yes. Fictitious.So why do you bring them up? Another straw man?

> 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...

What is "outrageous" or "over-the-top"? Jason should have shown you
that the hybridisation model for speciation is not such a crazy idea.
So is it the fact I once had the audactity to try to write some
children's stories which told how humans might have evolved and made up
a couple of hominid species names? Really, Ross. I think you're
clutching at straws here.

Algis Kuliukas

.

Quantcast