Re: Tobias 1995

On Dec 20, 5:41 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2:32 pm, Algis Kuliukas <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Well directed"? Because I got the name of the site wrong?
So why else? Is going back to uni to do a masters degree in the
subject and passing with a distinction not quite up to the Macfarlane
mark?
Id enrolling to do a PhD in the subject not quite up to your
impeccable standards? Is conducting a set of experiments to test one
of the hypotheses and trying to get it published in the best peer
reviewed journal available just not good enough for you?
Your arrogance is incredible.

This is going nowhere. You can enrol in all the degrees and post-
graduate qualifications you like. But until you do something about
your inability to approach your chosen subject without your swimming
goggles on, your science is and will be bad.

Oh that's a great approach to science, that is: Do not look at the
subject from a different perspective than the current paradigm. It's
the fact that not one (as far as i know) post graduate student in the
world has been encouraged to do a bit of science in this area that has
led to a few of us to have to do so. And you call this approach to
science "bad". If that kind of view had prevailed in the past we'd
still be living in the dark ages.

Am I arrogant? Is Michael Clark? Is Lee Olsen? No doubt you think so,
but we're all using the same essential critique of your methods - that
*your data does not match the conclusions that you draw from it*. Was
Jason Eshleman? Philip Dietiker? Their critiques identified exactly
the same themes. Maybe even your peer reviewers were drawing a similar
conclusion? I wouldn't know - but you should. If they were, does that
make them arrogant too?

Yes. Arrogant and ignorant. Worse, they're close minded to new ideas,
something that is absolutely anethema to science. It is the worst
possible "approach to science" and yet you slavishly defend it at all
costs.

The "your data does not match the conclusions" argument is just
special pleading. I can make the same argument, with far more examples
and evidence againsst the existing shambles of a paradigm and yet it
does not put you off defending it in the slightest. Waterside
explanations are more parsimonious and far more powerful than anything
else. So, I'll add "hypocrit" to the list: Arrogant, ingorant, closed
minded and hypocritical.

Are you familiar with the story of the [insert intellectually
challenged cultural stereotype] mother who goes to the army passing
out parade, and says "Begorrah! They're all out of step except my
Bill!" ?

Yes, but the trouble with that analogy is that implies that orthodoxy
is any kind of step. It's not. It's a shambles.

You miss the point completely. It's not cultural. It's a question of
depth. In very shallow water all bonobos would wade quadrupedally if
they're collecting invertebrates off the underside of floating leaves.

Where, in those articles, does it say anything about difference in
wading behaviour based on depth? If the observations match your
assertion, I'll concede the point. If not - it's just your
assertion...

It's aspects like this that show how desperate you are to defend the
indefensible. I am conceding (CONCEDING) the point that in very
shallow water they may move quadrupedally. But in waist deep water
they can't move quaadrupedally, can they? They'd drown if they did.
And yet you can't concede that, can you? You can't concede ANYTHING
that is against your prescious paradigm. Then, you demand a full
citation. Even if I gave one, then you'd want a full scientific
investigation published in a peer review paper. Anf yet, when it comes
to all the vacuous assumptions you make about human evolution no such
requirement is necessary, just a belief based on the power of
authority.

You or I probably would too...

An irrelevant point...

No it's not. Even a committed biped is likely to REVERT to
quadrupedalism when foraging for invertebrates on the underside of
floating leaves in 5cm deep water.

... In waist deep water, all apes, no matter
what "culture" they'd learned, no matter what species, would move
bipedally.

Prove it.

They'd drown if they tried to move quadrupedally. If the scenario was
one where there was a lot of vegetation about they'd be unable to
swim. Use your brains, please. It's your total unwillingness to
concede even the slightest point that shows me that you're just
completely biased against this idea.

Gosh Ross, your approach to science seems a little dodgy
here: Picking out the bits from the literature that agree with your
view and repeating them.

Ooh, the irony of accusing me of selective evidence.

Cite quotes from the articles. Stop the hype.

I really doubt that that would make any difference. I did quote you
the 24% figure and you still didn't concede the point you'd made
before from your selected quote. When I quote from the literature
you'd just roll out another set of excuses. You have showed yourself
incapable being reasonable when it comes to the dreaded 'a' factor.
And you criticise my approach to science!

I see no evidence, however, that Hunt would have been motivated to
disguise the evidence had his data shown something different. Your
comments, which seem to imply that he would have, make your opinions
suspect and you liable to ridicule. (If you didn't intend them that
way, you should have chosen your words more carefully.)

Hunt's work looked for behavioual contexts of (rare) bipedalism in
extant apes. If he'd have studied the bonobos instead of chimps, he's
have seen about 20% instances of bipedalism, instead of 3% and the
vast majority would have been in the context of wading.

So what?

SO WHAT?? It's the very basis of science - the observtaion. If the
observation would have been different so must be the conclusion.


What would you have made of such a paper, incidentally? If Hunt had
done that in 1994, and it had been published inferring from the
evidence wading, instead of postural feeding, as a model of bipedal
origins - what would your response have been?

So what?

Seriously, had he published that, I would have considered it to be a
plausible explanation of the origins of bipedalism that had been
postulated by a credible researcher - but far from the only, or even
the most plausible explanation.

My current position is that it's a plausible explanation of the
origins of bipedalism that has not been postulated by a credible
researcher - but far from the only, or even the most plausible
explanation.

No offense, of course.

Offense taken.

"Maybe"  eu - bloody - reka!
"no more plausible" is just your opinion.
"no more supported by evidence" is just wrong. All apes, with 100%
predictability, will switch from quadrupedalism on dry land to
bipedalism in waist deep water. No other model can say that.

Bollocks. I predict that 100% of quadrupedal apes will be able to see
further if they stand up on 2 legs.

But do they do so? Can you cite the paper where that evidence is
reported? No? Hunt reported no incident of that kind of bipedalism.
Not one. Suddenly that doesn't matter. They might get up, like a
merecat, to peer ahead for a second or two but then it's back down
onto all four to move.

I predict that 100% of apes can carry more food in their hands when standing on their back feet.

Do they do so? Hunt reported a tiny fraction of bipedal incidents in
that context. The evidence is that it is a tiny fraction of a tiny
fraction of locomotor repertoire.

I predict that 100% of apes will absorb less solar radiation at midday when upright.

But do they do so? No ape has ever been observed doing anything like
that. But suddenly the literature and scientific observations dosn't
matter. Nausiating double standards, as usual.

I predict that 100% of apes will be better able to manipulate tools with their hands when their hands aren't on the ground.

But do they do so? Hunt reported no bipedal tool use.

I predict - what else is there?

Well you missed the best three... first, postural feeding. At least
that has some good data. 80% of Hunt's reported incidents were in that
context. Secondly, energy efficiency os clearly the main factor in
later human evolution- even though it has very little evidence going
for it in the early stages (except the Sokol et al paper recently),
The other is wading, of course.

None of this is getting either of us any closer to the real
explanation,

Well I disagree. Just there you listed a few of the usual suspects and
anyone can see that few of them actually have much data to back them
up. The three or four that do have data are therefore the ones to
stress. They are not mutually incompatible but actually complementary.
Wading in addition to vertical climbing, including a bit of carrying
and postural feeding, leading to energy-efficient later, all help to
bring us closer to the real explanation.

and you, unlike me, are yet again endeavouring to have
the conclusion lead the evidence.

Wrong. I'm looking at the evidence. I'm looking at the methods used by
scientists that have been behind all the various published ideas and
I'm saying why not look at the same kind of thing but applying the
heretical idea of moving through water to it?

For example, Hunt's study was a good approach and it promoted
posturaal feeding. If he'd have studied bonobos in the Congo he'd have
got a very different (pro-wading) conclusion.

No other
model has a scenario that would kill you if you moved quadrupedally.

More rubbish. I predict that 100% of apes who don't wade into waist-
deep water won't drown.

Very clever. But in some scenarios they have no choice...

"aquatic origins" is wrong. Waterside orgins is the term to use and
clearly the wading hypothesis supports it completely.

Yes, but *Nothing* supports the wading hypothesis..............

Data. Results. Conclusion. In. That. Order.

Data: Apes switch from quadrupedalism to bipedalism in waist deep
water. Paleohabitats of early hominids are conducive to wading.

Results; For an early biped with an anatomy that is non-optimal for
bipedalism (e.g. Bent-hip bent knee), the differential in cost of
locomotion compared to the optimal (e.g. fully upright) form is
reduced in water.

Conclusion: Wading in shallow water is an ideal place for an early
hominid to practice bipedalism before the anatomy to make it efficient
had evolved. If you add a vertical climbing pre-requisite, a bit of
postural feeding and carrying, it provides the perfect platform for
the evolution of bipedalism.

Well you're right about the first point. I'm long passed being
persuaded by defenders of the faith. Although what you call a
"slippery slope" is really better termed a step of enlightenment. If
you choose not to follow, more fool you.

I really don't like it when you call me a fool [gritted teeth...]

And I really don't like it when you criticise my approach to science
when I have done more science on possibly the most important idea on
bipedal origins than an entire field has in 50 years.

I wasn't really calling you a fool, I was suggesting that if you
continue to dismiss this so easily it is your loss. I don't think
you're a fool, I think you're a time waster.

On the contrary, I think I do the argument a lot of good. Let's spell
it out even clearer for all to see.

Fact: Hunt '94 studied chimps at Gombe looking for "behavioual
contexts of bipedalism" that might give us a clue to our bipedal
origins.
Fact: From this study he found that although rare (3%) 80% of observed
bipedalism were in context of postural feeding.
Fact: This led him to propose "postural feeding" as a model for human
bipedalism.
Fact: Bonobos at Lukuru have been reported to move bipedally 24% of
the time, mostly in the context of wading.

Now, if Hunt had studied apes at Lukuru rather than Gombe he would
have got a very different result.

And no doubt, with that different data having produced a different
result, he would have reached a different conclusion.

Which, I'm going to suggest, would not have been "Hah! That proves
that our ancestors evolved to be come obligate bipeds while wading in
seasonally flooded forests >4 million years ago!"

You want to know why? Because *it doesn't* prove that...

Of course. When have I ever claimed anything was proved by anything in
paleoanthropology?

All it would prove is that an entire field, and an odd bunch of their
lay defenders, have been wrong to dismiss and sneer at the ideas of
Hardy and Morgan for 50 years.

Can you even admit that much? I didn't think so.

Algis Kuliukas
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... phobia that you claim forced proto-hominins into a pattern of bipedal ... >that the fact that quadrupedal apes move bipedally in water, ... But you claim they weren't wading for hours at a time, ... >selection of traits that would aid terrestrial bipedalism. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... >> sustained terrestrial bipedalism. ... >to adopt in waist deep water than quadrupedalism. ... When apes are in water approaching waist deep, ... Bipedal wading doesn't ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... The earliest evidence for hominid bipedalism is ... wading apears to have been highly likely. ... from moving in water might have influenced our evolution. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... > morphological changes necessary for efficient terrestrial bipedalism. ... Apes will already do this on land, no water required. ... Requires millions of years of wading for one thing... ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: poor runners (Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?
    ... in waist deep water the stresses that compel bipedalism are ... >> changes that result from upright posture) and in very shallow water ... What's the difference between standing up and wading as ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Quantcast