Re: David Attenborough reporting chimp wading (and supporting a waterside model for human evolution)

On Jun 24, 8:09 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Only 0.37% of time (38 seconds) was spent in contact with water."

Clear cut??

By my calculation, 38/0.0037 = 10,270 seconds total observation time
(about 2 hours & 51 minutes).

I can't read your chart very well, but the report says "When
terrestrial or arboreal, which accounted for over 99% of time for the
group, the level of bipedality dropped to around or below 2%." That's
about 200 seconds, or 5 times as much time bipedal out of the water as
in.

You may call that clear cut. Thousands wouldn't.

Well I can understand your tactic. I fully get your reason for arguing
this but the point always was, and is, that AS A PERCENTAGE of time in
water, the apes are almost totally bipedal. On land they are almost
totally NOT bipedal.

It's an obvious point but I can understand why someone (for some
bizarre tribal reason) who was hostile to the idea would do everything
in their power to try to argue against it.

5) None of the apes in the wading clip reverted to quarupedalism AT
ALL whilst they were in water. In all of the dry land clips they
reverted to quadrupedalism after a few seconds.

It's the last point that's key but I don't expect any of you to be
able to take thata on board.

And they ate what, while they were in the water?

What they ate there is not relevant because the wading hypothesis is
not suggesting that they ONLY moved through water to callect food.

Remember, none of us explicitly deny that wading could have influenced
the evolution of bipedalism. What we explicitly deny is that any piece
of evidence you have ever proffered in support of the hypothesis is of
any explanatory value whatsoever...-

Oh sure. You've all been so open minded and fair about this. (Denying
anyone had EVER witnessed an ape moving in waist deep water? - any
chance of some kind of admission of ignorance there?)

Oh I KNOW you deny the evidence. Congratulations. Creationists deny
the evidence from geologists all the time too. Look, I'm just bored
trying to convince you about the evidence just as i'm bored trying to
convince creationists. You believe what the *** you want to believe
but when there are 30 odd published so-called Darwinist ideas of
hominin bipedal origins but only one scenario that can guarantee
extant ape bipedalism, only one that can offer a childishly simple
means of killing a quadruped, only one that shows that only our
closest cladistic cousins switch from quadrupedalism to bipedalism and
only only one that maps, almost exactly onto human walking - you know,
I think any rational person shou;d consider that this evidence is
BETTER than any other.

Algis Kuliukas
.

Quantcast