Re: Gorrillas use tools, too


JAE wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:

> > Oh what a surprise. You just can't resist chipping in with some pretend
> > correction or other. Well of course, it is me writing about stuff that
> > is vaguely pro-AAH so what else could we expect? Anything I write about
> > this just must be wrong, right?
> >
> > So what's the substance of the reproof *this* time?
> >
> > 1) I don't "appear to know what my claim is".
> >
> > Well I do, actually, Jason. My claim, if you remember, is that moving
> > through shallow water is the factor which is most likely to compel an
> > ape to move bipedally. It's simple enough. I've repeated it enough over
> > the years. Which part of it don't you understand?
>
> The part where you take 37 seconds and generalize that this is
> universal ape behavior in spite of contrary evidence that it is not so
> universal, in spite of evidence that apes wade quadrupedally and as
> such, your conclusion that it's as predictable as you claim is based on
> an incomplete data set.

If I'd have taken one carefully dissected segment out of one sentence
out of a thesis of about 20,000 words (sorry, incorrect last time) and
portrayed it as you have here again as my main (if not only) argument,
you'd have accused me me of being a liar or at least for being a sloppy
researcher. But when you do it, it's ok. When I pull you up for your
double standards it's (what did you call it?) "propagadistic diatribe".


> The part where you appear to have forgotten contradictory evidence. That's
> the part I didn't understand.

I didn't forget it, any more than you 'forgot' the Lavall-Goodall
evidence. That's part of something, we note, you chose to label as
"propagadistic diatribe" and decided to snip out from the posting in
the hope that no-one would notice.

> The parts
> where you repeated "waist deep water" as you've been know to do over
> and over were also the parts I didn't understand because you've been
> totally inept at relating the behavior of a facultative biped in
> instances of slow wading over short distances to morphological changes
> favoring obligate bipedalism. That part that you've slipped over
> mumbling something about flat feet in a creature who doesn't have flat
> feet. That part is tough to understand too. It's tough to understand
> because it's a bunch of nonsense posited by someone who appears to be
> lost when it comes to the subject he pretends to be studying.

I did, again, but you labelled it as "propagadistic diatribe".

It's tough for you to understand because, like the creationists who I
just sent packing from my front door, you haven't got the honesty to
admit that your counter arguments are vapid, faith-based nonsense.

> [snip propagadistic diatribe]

Oh, is it?

What follows is an brief analysis of what Jason Eshleman describes as
'propagadistic diatribe' (If I'd have written that he'd probably have
attacked my spelling and somehow offered it as yet more evidence of how
this shows the AAH is horse ***.)

1) In response to him throwing the really clever "37 seconds" sneer at
me...

"Astonishing. If I'd have taken one snippet out of a thirteen thousand
word thesis of yours and thrown it back in your face like some
creationist journalist would, you'd have jumped down my throat,
lecturing me about poor research methods. I note how it's 'ok' for you
to do that."

- This isn't propaganda, it's basically an observation of years of
tactics against AAH proponents on this forum. It's what aquasceptics
do. And then they have the nerve to critique that this is a major flaw
in "AATer Research Methods." (See
http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html) Double standards, again.

"The 37 seconds of recorded time in water was small, I agree. But as a
percentage of total observation time it compares favourably with all
the other similar studies done. It was only a masters project. I only
had a few days to do it in. The general observation was corroborated by

researchers at the site who had observed them for months."

- This isn't propaganda, or a diatribe. It is a justification for the
small data set. It offers evidence to back it up. Again Jason ignores
that interview, as if he thinks I'd made the observations up, or at
least, as if I was just lucky to see so much bipedal wading in the few
days I was there. Rather than take the bleeding obvious observation
that apes are going to wade bipedally in water on face value, he is
implying that my methods and data were somehow dishonest or invalid.
Just like Jim Moore's attempted character assasination on Elaine
Morgan, it's *this* kind of distortion that is really propaganda, not
my efforts.

"I have no doubt that if anyone took the trouble to study the same
phenomenon there for longer they'd find the data were even more
convincing than my own. (i.e. an even greater percentage than 92%) I
deliberately included one ambiguous incident of quadrupedal movement as

'fully in water' when, actually, it could have been taken as partly
terrestrial (One of its hind limbs was on the edge of the moat and the
enclosure). With such a small sample this skewed the data down from
100% bipedality in water to 92%"

- This is not propaganda. It's a fact. Again you ignore and/or snip
uncomfortable facts you don't like to hear.

"I've noted before how you have less high standards when it comes to
theories you endorse. When two young cappuchins and two young chimps,
trained to walk bipedally on a treadmill (that most natural situation
for them), showed similar energy consumption to quadrupedalism, you
accepted it, albeit with trumpeted reservations."

- This is not propaganda, it's the very basis of the energy efficiency
argument of Rodman & McHenry which is the model you have, in the past,
endorsed most.

"In my thesis, and in all arguments about this, I've also stressed that

the anecdotal evidence for this behaviour is also very strong. The
whole point of my posting was to remind people that this latest gorilla

observation was, of course, again, simply showing the same point. It
moved quadrupedally up to the edge of the water and then, suprise,
surprise, she switched to bipedalism when in the water."

- So your sneering about my "37 seconds" was what, precisely...? Oh
yeah - propaganda.

"The point, which anyone with an ounce of objectivity can see and is
prepared to concede (so clearly you do not qualify), is that moving
through water does compel great apes to move bipedally. Of course, the
deeper the water the greater the compulsion. But even in the very
shallowest depths there is still a greater tendancy to bipedalism than
on dry land.
I should remind you that in Jane Goodall's landmark survey of chimp
behaviour she ranked moving over wet ground (after or during rain)
second in her big three factors to compell bipedalism. (Van
Lawick-Goodall (1968:177.) So, Jason, did you just forget this or was
it simply inconvenient to include it into your reasoning?"

- You attack me for ignoring evidence whilst you do so yourself. Then
you snip out my reminders that you do so whilst you call *me*
propagandistic, as you do so! You're classic, Jason. You remind me of
the local God Squads.

"It's a simple, basic observation. But because it favours the AAH you
just refuse to accept it. Biased is the word.

- Biased *is* the word.

> > This evidence from gorillas has made all the headlines because it shows
> > that they are capable of figuring out that a stick can be used to guage
> > depths. Just as significant a point though, I think, is that it shows
> > how the gorilla switched from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion in
> > water.

> And this is something that it could do without any morphological
> change, without any selection for it because the ape was already a
> facultative biped. You seem to be dead-set against actually addressing
> this and seem to be content with a nebulous postulation that there'd be
> some selection and it would favor what we see, though you provide
> nothing more compelling than the opinion of someone who is obviously
> poorly versed in both functional anatomy and evolutionary theory.

- but wait, more 'propagadistic diatribe'...

"I've addressed it so many times it's painful. If I'd repeated an
argument saying that you hadn't addressed a point, when you had, you'd
have accused me of lying. Note that I'm not going to do that. I'm just
going to repeat my answer to this, rather simple, point, yet again..."

- See, I'm trying to *avoid* the sort of personal attacks you regularly
and oh-so-predictably revel in and, instead, try to explain my argument
again. This, you then call a 'propagadistic diatribe'. And if I had
written *that* you'd have lectured me for lack of understanding of the
term 'propaganda'.

So here's another chance for you to explain what's propagandistic about
it...

When an ape moves in shallow water it tends to do so bipedally. The
differences between this form of locomotion and the same ape moving
bipedally on land are rather minor, whereas the differences between
them knuckle-walking and doing this are rather great.

a) In terms of posture, they're practically identical. The lower back
supports practically the same weight as it would on land. If the water
is shallower than waist deep, then there would be no difference at all.

Of course those factors which would help allow the neck to be held in a

forward looking position are also exactly the same.

b) In terms of lower limb movement, they are similar too but less so,
as factors of drag have to be taken into account too. Depending on the
depth, the lower limb has to be 'forced' through the stride phase,
rather than the momentum-induced 'free-fall' way it would move if on
land. However, the general movement and resultant biomechanics of the
joints of the hip and knee and ankle are clearly much closer to those
of the ape moving bipedally on land, than they are to those movements
during quadrupedal knuckle-walking. For example the weight bearing
stresses on the hip, particularly, and knee, less so, will be very
similar.

c) In terms of balance, even less so because clearly it is easier to
keep one's balance in water than on land. But even here there is
clearly a continuum of depths through which any wading ape would have
to traverse, probably twice. In waist deep water there is less need to
maintain balance but at shallower depths this increases until, of
course, it is exactly the same as it is on land.

Any ancestral hominin that was compelled to move bipedally through
water would be subjected to the same kind of selective pressures that
must have applied to every single population of animals, doing any type

of locomotion - i.e. selection to make it better. By better, I mean:
more energy efficient, faster, more reliable, etc.

The point is that if ancestral hominins were exposed to periodic
floods, then they'd be compelled to move bipedally for several weeks at

a time, when they were not in the trees. It is reasonable to assume,
that under such scenarios, some selection would occur to favour those
traits that made their wading better. And any such population, with a
higher proportion of such traits, is consequently much more likely to
opt for bipedalism on land too, during dry spells.

Therefore it is in habitats prone to flood-desiccation cycles (like
gallery forests of the Plioecene in E Africa, perhaps) where traits
which favour bipedalism might be expected to flourish.

Algis Kuliukas

.