Re: Morphological evidence of marine adaptations in human kidneys

r norman:
> Mario Petrinovich:
>>r norman:
>>> OK -- this one bears careful reading. I will have to go through the
>>> original paper to see to what degree the specialized kidney truly
>>> reflects a marine adaptation rather than an adaptation to an arid
>>> environment and also to what degree the presence of similar
>>> adaptations in other terrestrial mammals truly reflects inheritance
>>> from marine ancestors rather than independent developments of the
>>> characteristic in non-marine but arid habitats.
>>
>> Really, and what do you think you will find?
>>
>>> It also depends on
>>> whether "marine" means living in an ecological niche truly closely
>>> connected with salt water or merely living in a terrestrial habitat
>>> not too far from the ocean.
>>
>> It means living on the Mars.
>>
>>> But still it must be read and considered.
>>
>> You are joking?
>> Read and considered by whom? -- Mario
>
> What I have been presented with is a paper in a scientific journal.
> I am not familiar with that particular journal but I am aware that it
> is not a "main-line" journal in either evolutionary biology or
> comparative physiology/morphology. Still, a paper must be read for
> content, not because of what people tell me about the reputation of
> the author or the fact that it seems to provide evidence for a
> hypothesis that I would ordinarily reject.
>
> You answer a scientific paper by demonstrating that the evidence is
> inappropriate or selective, that the conclusions do not properly
> follow from the data, that there are alternative hypotheses that need
> be considered. Or you accept the conclusions as suggestive or
> convincing or whatever. You do not simply ridicule and reject it out
> of hand.
>
> Or is that the way you ordinarily conduct business? Incidentally, my
> own background is animal physiology, not anthropology. Does that make
> a difference? Should it?

Ok, I agree.
Well, I could say that it was me who was joking, but I was simply
plain stupid. Please examine the paper.
But, it isn't only this paper that makes AAT an alternative
hypotheses that need to be considered. I must say that there is a lot of
things that point to AAT. We are eating salt food, with this paper, or
without it. And we do have sc fat.
So, it is true that no, you are not looking at AAT as an alternative
hypoothesis that must be considered. You will never consider AAT until you
get deffinitive proof. Like nobody else. And this is so religious, if you
ask me. -- Mario


.