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


Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> rmacfarl wrote:
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > > rmacfarl wrote:
>
> > > When I had tried to infer motive like that to someone here, I got
> > > attacked from several people. But never mind that.
> >
> > Unless I misunderstand you, that person was not here to defend
> > themselves, and I've warned you not to reopen that Pandora's Box...
>
> The person (Jim Moore) whose motives I, (wrongly, I admit) inferred
> *is* around to defend himself. I made no criticism of the person who
> isn't. I don't want to reopen that argument but you must not distort
> what happenned either.

Nor should you. You were roundly criticised for your mode of attack on
Jim, and rightly so. Attack his work, by all means. Or try to,
anyway...

>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Unlke you, I doubt that Tobias thinks it is perhaps the only, or even
> > the most reasonable explanation.
>
> "I am not yet convinced that the AAH is correctly applied to all of the
> the
> traits that its proponents have listed, but for at least some of the
> enumerated characters it may well provide the most reasonable, or
> perhaps the only, explanation which has yet been proposed." Tobias
> (2002:16)
>
> Tobias, Phillip V (2002). Some aspects of the multifaceted dependence
> of early humanity on water. Nutrition and Health Vol:16 Pages:13-17
>
> Oh... but it sounds like he *does* think that, Ross. I said "for
> certain traits" - Tobias would seem to agree.

I stand corrected. But unimpressed.

>
> > > 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.
> >
> > You do not demonstrate a notable ability to be objective about this
> > viewpoint.
>
> If I'd written that to Jason Eshelman, he'd have replied "*** you,
> too".

We all have our individual sensitivities. Jason doesn't like it when
you accuse him of double standards. Mine's my name, which if you'd
misspelled it like you just did his, I might have responded in kind.

You are not a notable for your objectivity when it comes to the AAH.
Tell me to *** off if you wish, but it is still a true statement.

>
> I'm doing some science. All my work will be peer reviewed. All my
> experiments will be documented and repeatable. All my data will be
> published and be tested for statistical significance.

And when it is, and it's taken seriously in the scientific literature
and the halls of academia, I may decide to take it seriously too. No
guarantees mind - no desire to commit the fallacy of accepting an
appeal to authority. Meantime, I'll breathe.

>
> It's people like you, whose objectivity should be questioned. Rather
> than welcome the fact that someone's actually trying to investigate the
> idea and actually get involved in the discussion to try to make that
> research better (heaven forbid the thought you actually might want to
> do some of that science yourself!), you'd rather it stayed out on the
> fringes so you can sit, smug and continue to sneer. And you pretend
> that this is a scientific approach!

On the contrary. Unlike you, I do not pretend to be a professional
scientist working in this field.

Doesn't prevent me from recognising a flawed argument when I see one
though.

>
> ...
>
> > > > (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?
> >
> > The fact that I follow your example in using the 2 names as a
> > convenient shorthand to illustrate your hypothesis should not be cause
> > to be suspicious of my motives. The names, as I correctly attributed,
> > are described by you as fictitious. The existence of 2 such putative
> > hominids to hybridise the new species, in your hypothesis, are not.
>
> I used two fictitious names because I wasn't sure in my own mind, then,
> whether H erectus (s.s.) would fit better as the more marine hominid
> and H ergaster the more riparian one, as I do now. When I get time I'll
> fix the poster to reflect that change.
>
> I think a lot of the names in paleoanthropology are ridiculous. Why
> have completely new genera been labelled in recent years? (Orrorin,
> Saheleanthropus, Kenyanthropus, Aridpithecus etc) I don't think it's
> justified. The one recent new paleospecies that perhaps best deserves a
> new genera was lumped in with Homo (H. floresiensis) probably only
> because it was contemporaneous with it. It seems a very ad hoc process
> to me.

Take it up with Carolus Linnaeus. Or duBois. Maybe Hardy can help you
get in touch with them...

>
> So if my fictitious nomenclature suggests two water-side dwelling
> hominids, one marine and one ripparian then I think H. flumensis and H.
> maratimus are better names than the ones the paleoanthropological gurus
> have come up with.
>
> > Just a touch senstitive to criticism of this hypothesis of yours,
> > aren't you? As I've commented on several occasions...
>
> No. I'd love to debate the AHAH actually. I think it's the most
> plausible model there is. I'm sensitive to you attacking my ideas for
> failing logical fallacies when you do so yourself. (In this case: Straw
> Man.) I'm sensitive to hypocrisy and doubls standards in
> paleoanthropology about the AAH. It's a great thing to be sensitive to,
> because there's *so very much* of it around.

In what way is my characterisation of AHAH a straw man? As presented,
it is little more than a nebulous idea with little to recommend it.

We are all heartily sick of pseudoscientific arguments being presented
here on the basis that "you can't prove it wrong, therefore I'll keep
on saying it's right", no matter how poorly it fits the available
science.

>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > The possibility of hybridisation is not completely over-the-top,
> > although I suspect Jason would agree that the mere fact that he has
> > supported the idea as a possible cause of speciation doesn't actually
> > make it any more or less a probable explanation.
>
> True. It doesn't make it any more *or less* probable.

Another carefully crafted statement to remind me of what I can't prove
wrong.

>
> > But my point is that your hypothesis isn't just a hybridisation event.
> > It's a hybridisation of 2 different aquatic hominids that you postulate
> > existed, without anything that could be called evidence.
>
> No. Not "aquatic" - another straw man misrepresentation. The idea is
> (listen, please) that our ancestors were *more* aquatic (stop for a
> second and assimilate that word, Ross... 'm o r e') than the ancestors
> of the chimps. What this means is that we waded, swam and dived *more*
> than they did. It does not mean we became mermaids. Get that?

Oh yeah. I get it all right.

Now just what were those different sets of physical and behavioural
characteristics that the hybridisation event is supposed to bring
together?

>
> Putative gallery forest and coastal habitats are not outrageous, Ross.
> It's largely where hominid evidence had been found.
>
> Evidence? Early bipeds lived in and around wetlands. Homo migrated to
> Indonesia by around 1.8Mya and later, shell middens indicate that Homo
> sapiens lived on coasts from at least 130ky - that's probably more than
> half of our species' time on the planet.

Red herring. Factually inaccurate, or at best highly selective,
interpretation of the evidence. One which has been done to death here
before, like most watery subjects. I choose not to go there.

>
> > There are so many separate events that are required, for which there is
> > no good evidence, that the fact that you are willing to attach your
> > name to it does not mark you as a theorist to be relied on. The AHAH is
> > the very definition of a slippery slope hypothesis. You must see this.
>
> No. For a start, it is almost completely based on the current thinking
> for hominid phylogeny. If I made a few mistakes on that poster then
> I'll correct them eventually but generally, the only speculation really
> is that the Homo sapiens speciation resulted from a hybridisation of
> two Homo species (e.g. H. erectus s.s. and H ergaster.) Apart from
> that, I'm infering that Homo and their immediate ancestors were *more*
> aquatic than chimps, that's all. To posit that, all I need is to
> suggest that early Homo lived in gallery forests subject to
> flood-dessication cycles and later Homo lived at the coasts. There's
> nothing outrageous about that idea, unless you are one of Marc's
> savannah believers.
>
> > How about, for example, that the "River Apes Poster" shows the 2
> > putative hominids that hybridise to have separate evolutions for 2.6
> > million years. Is this because you see evidence that early anamensis
> > shows the maritime traits you're looking for, but you can't find the
> > riparian ones until garhi?
>
> You are reading too much into my poster. It's only meant to be a rough
> guide to the timescale. The main thing is the beauty of showing how our
> children are part of a continuum stretching back from our hominid
> ancestors. I'm really proud of doing that.
>
> Take a look if you haven't seen it:
> http://www.riverapes.com/images/RiverApePoster.jpg
>
> Why can't you give a smidgeon of credit for that?

I believe I already did. Regrettably, it was in the context of a
discussion you instigated on "Style Over Substance":

"Here's a clue: your website is *much* prettier than Jim Moore's."

>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Nice attempt at changing the subject. Do you believe the AHAH is a
> > viable hypothesis or not? If yes, where's your evidence? If no, why do
> > you continue to attach your name to it? And either way, how do you
> > reconcile your claim to promote a "moderate" or "sensible" AAH?
>
> Of course I think it's a viable hypothesis.
>
> I have tried to take the lowest common denominator of all the AAH
> variants (e.g. Vehaegen et al's, Morgans, Hardy's, Crawford's etc) and
> define it as broadly as possible. That's what I have labelled as the
> broad AAH definiton. I think it is something that is extremely mild and
> sensible (i.e. the idea that human evolution was the result of
> selection from moving through water more than chimp evolution.)
>
> Now, of course, individuals have their own ideas. Marc now seems to
> think that human bipedal origins are not part of the AAH at all (or
> perhaps I'm wrong, he seems to change his mind on it mid sentence these
> days.) Others have other views. My own variant is what I call the AHAH
> (with an extra 'H' for 'Hybrid'.) I'm not claiming it's particularly
> "moderate" because I accept that the idea that hybridisation is a major
> factor in speciation is still rather speculative. But I do think it
> makes a lot of sense.
>
> So there, see? The two are easily reconciled. The broad AAH definition
> is mild and moderate - it's a 'lowest common denominator' of all the
> models. My own variant is less 'moderate', only because it assumes
> hybrididisation, but I still think it's plausible and I will continue
> to support it until I see some good evidence against it.

Sigh. And In those 4 paragraphs are all the evidence I need to support
my stance that you should not be accepted as an objective theorist
promoting a "moderate" AAH...

Ross Macfarlane

.

Quantcast