Re: Wading Apes


spiznet wrote:
> OK, Jim, let me "help" Algis on this one, so that he can compete with
> your level of proofs.
>
> Here's what happened:
> The areas of occupation flooded intermittently. The organisms that
> could happily adapt to standing upright and moving from place to place
> were more likely than the other beings to survive during the flooding.
> The only genes that survived were the ones that made it through these
> killer floods, eg the "more bipedal ones".
>
> The more floods, the taller and erecter the population became.
>
> Voila. McGinnian evolutionary proof!!

*This* is more like a hypothesis. *This* is something
that is potentially testable. Just as my hypothesis
presents testable predictions, like the prediction that
the fossil record will reveal the sudden emergence of a
recurring dry season in Africa at about 8.1 mya, this notion
also has the potential to present a testable prediction
that can be tested in the paleoclimatological record.
So why doesn't Algis supply us the details? When did
these floods supposedly happen? Give us dates so we
can test it. You'll note that I have no trouble doing
this in the context of my hypothesis.

Also, what, precisely, was the adaptive behavior?
Again, you'll note that I had no trouble delineating
this in the context of my hypothesis. Delineate the
advantages. Delineate the disadvantages. Weigh them
against each other. Evolution always involve tradoffs.
Delineate these tradeoffs. I don't see Algis, or
anybody, making any effort at all in this regard. To him
(and this is a conceptual error that Algis shares with
many anthropologists) it is foregone conclusion that
bidalism is adaptive. He's so deluded he thinks it's
just a matter of finding some aspect in the environment
that would make it easy to achieve a bipedal stance and
the rest takes care of itself. This isn't McGinnian at
all. It's Lamarkian.

For Algis's vague notion to be truly McGinnian it must
live up to the same level of detail of my hypothesis.
It doesn't come close. (Nor does any other hypothesis,
for that matter.)

Jim

.

Relevant Pages

  • Does Algis realize hes Lamarkian?
    ... > OK, Jim, let me "help" Algis on this one, so that he can compete with ... So why doesn't Algis supply us the details? ... Delineate the disadvantages. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... But clearly Jim does and that's the point I'm making. ... >> Algis, you just don't know what you are talking about. ... transparent hostility to Elaine Morgan. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What is the Aquatic theory?
    ... Algis Kuliukas wrote in message ... > 'top ten AAH distortions list' if you admit I never said that Hardy ... > No, you don't need to explain it, Jim. ... Ah yes, it's the editors' fault, not Hardy's -- poor fellow. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... claiming that Jim's site is somehow motivated out of ... I was hoping that Algis would get the point ... > like him describing Moore as bitter and twisted, ... I certainly didn't mean it as an insult to Jim, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Wading Apes
    ... > the trees, right?? ... So is Jim an advocate of the gallery forest wading hypothesis too? ... Algis Kuliukas ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)