Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- From: Paul Crowley <dsfdsfdsfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:26:09 +0000
spiznet wrote:
And in case anyone should be wondering how Hawks regards the aquatic
ape theory:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/aquatic_ape_theory.html
While I have no sympathy with AAT ideas,
the criticisms of Hawks reveal mainly his
own ignorance. Similar words are ALWAYS
issued against 'heretical' theories by the
orthodox. whether or not those theories
later turn out to be true or false. Hawks is
simply not aware of this. Had he been
writing in the 1960s we'd have heard much
the same from him about 'continental drift'.
If it was the 1880s he'd have been castigating
the 'crazy' ideas of Agassis about ice-ages.
And so on and on, for the whole history of
science.
Proponents of
the Aquatic Ape Theory compare the predictions of
their model with the predictions that they derive
for a traditionalist model, which they term the
"Savanna model". In their view, an aquatic phase
provides a better explanation for many human
characteristics that the savanna model finds
difficult to explain. For example, why do humans
lack fur? Most anthropologists believe the lack of
fur derives from selection associated with
thermoregulation. In this account, humans are
unlike most primates in using sweating as a
significant source of evaporative heat loss. This
system is efficient in humans because it exploits
the latent heat of condensation to carry away much
more heat than is possible through radiation,
convection, or shade alone. But sweating would not
work on a furry hominid, because evaporation from
the fur does not carry away nearly the amount of
heat lost by direct skin transfer.
If Hawks regard THIS crap as a reasonable
explanation for sweating, he is even more
of a fool than I thought. What conceivable
reason does the hominid line have for this
system -- NOT possessed by numerous other
species. A pure carnivore _might_ (under
this reasoning) benefit from nakedness --
since, presumably, it could run faster.
But no mammalian carnivores lack fur.
The Aquatic Ape
Theory rejects this hypothesis, noting that: the
mechanism of sweating in humans is especially
wasteful of water--a rare commodity in the hot
savanna
Sweat also wastes body salts -- even rarer
in the savanna.
other medium-sized mammals in the hot
savanna environment do not use this mechanism of
heat loss the loss of fur has required the
development of a significantly costly form of
insulation for the human body, a relatively thick
layer of subcutaneous fat By this argument, the
theory proposes that it makes more sense that
humans developed hairlessness and their unique
glandular system of sweating in an environment
where water was both plentiful and continuously
available. Several other distinctive human features
are treated by this hypothesis. Bipedalism itself
is suggested for its value in wading into
moderately deep bodies of water. If the Aquatic Ape
Theory explains so much, why do the majority of
anthropologists not subscribe to it? It is hard to
find a clear answer to this question on the
Internet.
NO, it is not. The answer is presented
again and again and again -- to utter
tedium. Scientists don't change their
minds. They die, and another generation
takes over. Hopefully that will have
acquired -- from intelligent laypersons
-- a better understanding of reality.
(Hopefully also, that new generation will
not have acquired any AAT crap, since it
very bad science.)
<Snip some badly-written stuff>
And they can continue to criticize
the "Savanna model" as inadequate to explain human
features-especially soft tissue characteristics.
This process itself displays an element of the
disingenuousness, considering that the fossil
evidence increasingly suggests that hominids did
not originate on the savanna at all.
Hawks forgets that (a) the 'savanna theory'
is still the dominant one -- even among
professional PA types, and
(b) all (or nearly all) professional PA
types still maintain a savanna existence
within the last 3 Myr.
In fact all
hominid sites earlier than around 3 million years
appear to represent woodland of an open or closed
nature. It appears quite evident now that our
"descent from the trees" didn't take us out of the
woods. As the present evidence continues to
develop, the Aquatic Ape debate gets farther and
farther from relevance.
Another huge point Hawks misses is that
standard PA provides no answers whatever,
and AAT stuff exists only because it can
(apparently) fill in the gaps.
Like most other
professional anthropologists, I am well aware that
there is no active conspiracy under way to preclude
strange ideas from scientific evaluation.
There may not be "an active conspiracy",
but there is certainly a highly effective
passive one.
In fact I
have seen many strange ideas come down the pike
over the years that received far more celebrity
than notoriety. The history of new research in the
field will show to any close observer the value of
breaking with scientific norms. This is so much the
case in the study of human evolution that has
provoked published complaints on the part of senior
scientists. But despite these grumblings, there is
nothing that anyone can do to prevent the
publication of credible research in the field, and
little they can do to prevent the publication of
incredible research. There is much more to be
gained for young scientists in pushing a new or
outlandish idea that has serious empirical support
than in mindlessly following the dictates of the
aging graybeards.
This kind of crap is a story as ancient as
the hills. Every 'discipline' with an axe to
grind -- and even every social institution
(such as the Catholic Church) -- says much
the same.
[..]
More
than simple phylogenetic inertia is required to
explain this, since the very reasons that the
aquatic ape theory rejects the savanna model would
apply to the descendants of the aquatic apes when
they moved to the savanna. This is far from
trivial, since fossil hominids did inhabit open
woodland starting by 6 million years ago, and did
move to open savanna by 3 million years ago.
See -- the savanna theory is alive and well.
What a dope! To him the savanna theory is
so unquestionable, that it might as well be
in the Bible (let's say in the Book of
Genesis).
If this is your core belief, then you might
as well give up science. Human beings have
as much to do with the savanna as they do to
the Arctic. They have no savanna features.
than unparsimonious. It leaves the Aquatic Ape
Theory explaining nothing whatsoever about the
evolution of the hominids.
Maybe AAT types (or some of them) believe
that ancestral hominids spent most of the
last 3 Myr on the savanna. If so, Hawks's
criticism have a some very slight purpose.
But since Standard PA explains none of the
features of modern humans, it is criticism
that emerges from a desert of understanding.
Paul.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- From: mclark
- Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- References:
- Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- From: rmacfarl
- Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- From: rmacfarl
- Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- From: spiznet
- Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- Prev by Date: Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- Next by Date: Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- Previous by thread: Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- Next by thread: Re: Homo : glacials = more marine exploitation?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
