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

On Jun 27, 5:00 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No, it is not a misrepresentation. It is an accurate representation of
your own argument, as you have permitted it to evolve, even if you
don't understand it yourself. One by one you have introduced each of
these ridiculous corollaries to your cherished bipedal wading
hypothesis: waist-deep, in the gallery forest, and then with no handy
trees along the edge. Those are your corollaries, not my psychological
projections.

Please don't do that. The "no handy trees" argument was a speific
response to your precious citing that reported that bonobos never
resorted to waist deep wading as they climbed trees. I was merely
pointing out that sometimes there wouldn't be a handy tree escape the
dreaded waist deep water.

See how the defenders of the faith waste everyone's time? They pick at
common sense obvious facts and then scrutinise every argument for more
ammuniton to add to their misrepresntations. Rather than just
conceding a centimetre "yes, ok, apes wade in waist deep water and
they do so bipedally' we have this endless time wasting. Ross has
already added to his little list of 'AATer' malpractice the
"ZINGability" that one minute a claim gallery forests are covered with
trees the next minute I'm saying there's "no handy trees". PLEASE,
show a little generosity in your debating style.

Ross macfarlane is clearly a graduate from the Jim Moore school of
evolutionary biology.

Do you even know what the accepted definition of a gallery forest is?

Yes.

http://dictionary.weather.net/dictionary/gallery%20forest
a forest growing along a watercourse in a region otherwise devoid of
trees

Exactly. So what are you on about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_forest
Gallery forests are evergreen forests that form as corridors along
rivers or wetlands and project into landscapes that are otherwise only
sparsely treed such as savannas, grasslands or deserts... the boundary
between gallery forest and the surrounding woodland or grassland is
usually very abrupt, with the ecotone being only a few metres [2]

Exactly. So what are you on about?

The reason why "all hell breaks loose" is that you try to base your
wet-ape interpretations of the putative hominids behaviour, and the
resultant direction of their evolution, on this extremely tenuous link
to seasonal flooding, and reject a priori any alternative explanation
that involves them exploiting any other obvious niche in case it
involves the dreaded "s" word.

No I don't. I'm agreeing with the savannah hypothesis to the extent
that I agree human ancestors lived in that macro habitat - in a
gallery forest micro habitat surrounded by savannahs. I'm making a
concession but you still have to attack the idea in case any of your
peers think you've gone soft on the "aquatic ape". It's pathetic.

You've been given your chance to produce something that looks like
evidence to support this wading scenario. I gave you a chance, and
wished you well with it, about 5 years ago. History and the PhD
committee at UWA have told the tale.

The evidence is there for all to see. The BBC doco is enough on its
own. The fact that Hadar was a wetland is enough on its own. What's
this "PhD committee"? You pretend to know something about me when you
don't. I resigned because I have beteter things to do with my time
than to bang my head against academic walls. I could go back tommorrow
if I wanted. My supervisors have regularly nagged me to go back and
finish it and maybe I will, when I'm ready.

Our ancestors would not have been "compelled" to do any such thing at
any time of the year. Your hypothesis is a just-so story that, as I
said, just isn't.

So, when the forest was flooded, they'd never get down form the trees?
Is that what you're suggesting?

Because they were searching through the mud for food. If I were
searching for a coin I'd dropped in the grass I wouldn't do so
bipedally, I'd get down on my hands and knees - and I'm an obligate
biped.

Wrong.

Hohmann and Fruth, Current Anthropology, Volume 44,
Number 4, August–October 2003.
"Forage wade. During the dry season, males and females of all ages
walk quadrupedally along streambeds for up to an hour, stopping now
and then to search through the matrix of rotten leaves and soil for
insect larvae and small Crustacea..."

They were quadrupedal all the time, but were only stopping to forage
"now and then". So your hand-waving attempt to dismiss this data is
based on a false premise.

They were still searching for food in the substrate. "now and then"
they found something.

Look, I admit that in 20cm of water there is little compulsion to move
bipedally. Hear that? I concede that they wouldn't necessarily move
bipedally just that, overall, they'd be more likely to move bipedally
in 20 cm of water than on dry land.

They're much more likely to be on dry land than in the water. (Even
when there's a moat.)

Yes, captive bonobos/chimps are but, guess what? the waterside
hypothesis is considering human ANCESTORS, hominins like the
australopithecines, not extant Pan. Hadar was a wetland - there
probably wasn't much dry land around.

You know, this is one of your really annoying habits. Like so many
aspects of your personality, I find myself vacillating between blaming
it on deliberate trolling and your complete absence of personal
awareness.

Allow me to point out to you that, like the ad hominem stream, you
initiated the emotional invective in this thread, not me. "You believe
what the *** you want to believe", etc.You then wait for the other
person to respond ~in kind~, and then accuse them of being emotional
or making ad hominem attacks.

Please point out an ad hominem attack I have made against you in the
last few weeks.

It's the same tactic you use to wave away, and then later ignore,
substantive criticisms of your hypothesising. It was this tendency
above all that derailed your discussion with Jason Eshleman, and
allowed you to continue your self-delusion that your arguments had
carried the day.

What are you on about, Ross? The "criticisms" even Jason cited were
nothing really and he's the best of the bunch. Most of the time it's
the most pathetic excuses imaginable. Just look at the level of yours
in the last few weeks here... one minute you seem to be arguing that
no apes would ever go in waist deep water and then why I show you the
Attenborough clip you say you never claimed that. You cling onto your
precious Hoffman quote as if it were the be all and end all of the
wading issue but ignore all the other citations and evidence. You've
even had to pretend I'm claiming that gallery forests have "no trees"
that's the level it's got to..

Yes I have read it. I have also read The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis,

Then you have no excuse. At least most paleoanthropologist have that
to hide behind.

Morgan's ineffectual 1997 attempt to address the substantive
criticisms she was by then encountering on sci.anthropology.paleo.

Ineffectual? She wipes her arse with these "criticisms".

Suffice to say I am not convinced. Nor are Zihlman, Langdon, Smith et
al. But perhaps 0.37% of your paleoanthropological peer group are.

Who cares what these people think. Morgan is head and shoulders above
them.

It is only clear cut evidence that chimps can wade bipedally in waist-
deep water, which is hardly surprising.

Well, considering the opposition you keep putting up against the idea
that apes move bipedally in shallow water your claim, now, that it is
hardly surprising is a little difficult to understand.

1) Poster states that their hypothesis is as revolutionary as Darwin's/
Huxley's/Einstein's/Newton's/Bohr's/Pauli's /etc.'s hypothesis (pick
any famous dead scientist), but the poster cannot provide any concrete
testable predictions of their own hypothesis (+ 20 points).*

There is a tonne of evidence and scores of testable predictions. Can't
you discriminate between the plausibility of human ancestors moving
through water enough to affect ou phenotype and aliens coming down
from outer-space?

24) Favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo; claims that the
Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..(+40 points)*

http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html

Come on Ross, this is a bit pathetic isn't it? The net loon index,
indeed.

Ironic that you're now invoking the wet-apers' favourite bete noire to
try to support your case...

Ironic that you can't tell a bete noire from a typical example of how
the field of anthropology goofs up.

Like geologists when Wegener proposed continental drift, rather
than accept the parsimony of the explanation, they had to claim that
all his evidence was not really evidence, just a series of
coincidences. And so it goes on... when will people learn not to sneer
at new ideas?

When the new ideas turn out to be good ideas?

Well how about explaining every physical difference between humans and
chimps - You know, what the fieldd of paleoanthropology is all about
and has failed miserably to answer in 150 years. Waterside hypotheses
do this with effortless ease in one simple, evidence-based step. Isn't
that good enough for you?

"Vanguard of change"? You??http://www.thefreedictionary.com/delusions+of+grandeur

Well if it were my idea you might have a point. It's Hardy and Morgan
(and Verhaegen too) who deserve the credit for this. What I do take
some credit for, which you clearly have failed at, is recognising a
brilliant idea when I see one and not being intimidated by the bizarre
fact that it is curerntly unpopular.

You gutless, spineless, two-faced liar! Jesus, you've got a hide!

Again... (gritting my teeth and cursing the screen) when have I domade
a personal attack on you in the last few weeks?

Don't try to hide behind some spurious excuse of "collective mindset".
This is me you're arguing with, and I can damn well think for myself.

Can you? I've seen no evidence of that yet.

You try and bracket me with some great collective that are all wrong,
devious and conspiratorial, then you accuse me of being wrong, devious
and conspiratorial, and I reserve the right to take it personally.

Wrong. Not devious or consiprational. I accuse the field of being
WRONG. You made the other bits up. All I have criticised you of - and
I do so again, and I do so at you, not the collective - is being
wrong. You are serially wrong. You are more often wrong than right.
Take it personally if you like but scientists are supposed to expect
that. Criticising someone's argument and saying that they are wrong is
not an ad hominem - I thought you realised this.

I attack your arguments individually because they're your arguments,
and they're bad ...

I really don't respect your opinions, Ross. The fact that you think
they're bad makes me all the more confident that they're probably
good. You're wrong so often having you on the opposition is really
quite comforting.

Algis Kulukas.
.