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

On Jul 5, 12:44 pm, Algis Kuliukas <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:49 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...


<snip evasions>

I assume you can locate message 3 in the discussion thread:
http://tinyurl.com/Gerrit-Cladistics

Do you dispute Strait & Grine's conclusion of 100% support for the
Homo / robust australopithecine clade, which according to their
cladogram is based on 10,000 bootstrapped sets of data?:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Hominoid_phylogeny.jpg

The cladogram image was pretty but it didn't say where the data came
from? Human interpretations about bony bits and bobbles, right?


Have you even read the paper?
Strait, D. S. & Grine, F. E. (2004). Inferring hominoid and hominid
phylogeny using craniodental characters: the role of fossil taxa.
Journal of Human Evolution 47: 399-452.

Jason, meanwhile, did not refer to a scholarly article, but
specifically referred to 8 (count them) individual derived
characteristics which group robust australopiths cladistically with
Homo & separate from Gorilla. That's not an opinion, that's data. Do
you dispute it?
Put up or shut up.

YOU put up or shut up.

From message 325 in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/jason-cladistics-1

"A.robustus shares with genus Homo many derived
characteristics. It shares with us" ...

1. "a reduction or elmination in the I2-P3 diastema,"
2. "incisiform canines,"
3. "greatly reduced aveolar prognathism,"
4. "a more pronounced flexion of the cranial base,
5. "shortened cranial base,"
6. "deeper TMJ facet,
7. "more acute angle of the petrosal relative to the coronal plane..."
8. "Further, for a robust a'pith to be ancestral to Gorilla would
also require reversal of the megadontia."

And the bits and bobbles that you disagree with are - ?

And again, from message 21 in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/jason-cladistics-2

Australopithecines may not be directly ancestral to Homo, but they do
share derived characteristics, including" ...

9. "a valgus knee,"
10. "a foot with at least partially adducted toe
11. "and medial and"
12. "longitudinal arches,"
13. "shortened illia,"
14. "reduced incisiform canines, and"
15. "a reduced diastema."

Now, which of these do you disagree with, and why?


I'm not impressed with cladistic analyses of interpretations of bony
bits and bobs. It's like trying to doing sophisticated stats on how
you're feeling today. Bony bit analyses completely ignore epigenetic
factors Wolffe's law and bone plastisity. I trust cladistics on
molecular data. That's science.


No, that's bias masquerading as opinion substituting for even a
shallow understanding of the science of phylogenetic systematics.

...

'For someone who is supposed to have a Masters, & aspirations to a PhD
in human evolution, your ignorance of not just the science of
cladistics, but the basic principles of statistics, I find quite
extraordinary.'

...How am I supposed to "deal" with this? It's clearly having a go at
me, not my argument.

I accuse you of ignorance of the science, and you don't know how to
counter the argument. Kind of speaks for itself, really...


I know about cladistics. I know that cladistics when applied to hard
molecular data like DNA is rock solid and the best data we have to
infer phylogeny. I also know, from my own experience, that trying to
apply these hard-nosed techniques to bony bits and bobs is very dodgy.

No, in saying this you simply demonstrate your own - it's either
ignorance or blindness (I favour the latter, because it is consistent
with your behaviour otherwise). I clearly recall Jason Eshleman's
dismay at your comments along this line previously. In his view a
first-year university student can easily distinguish the
characteristics which you call bony bits and bobs. He's a research
associate at UC Davis with a PhD in physical anthropology, so his
opinion would have to be fairly authoritative on this point.

Have you ever done one of these, yourself? Have you ever had to look
at a skull and decide (because that is what the cladistic analysis
dictates) if it has a particular bobble (that some anatomist in the
past named for you)... whether to give it a 1 or a 0 when it's kind of
ambiguous? I have, and I quickly learned that it's very arbitrary. Do
you know about Wolffe's law and bone plasticity? Do you realise how
much epigenetic factors change can bone shape during a few years? Do
you know about variability in population and how tiny the fossil
evidence is? I know enough statistics to place a great deal of
confidence in the molecular-based cladograms but to be very sceptical
about the bony based ones.

Now, is that "dealing" with you ad hominem?

No, I'm afraid it's adding weight to my charge of your ignorance.


So you DO put all your faith in a few people's interpretations of the
bits and bobbles. Ok, good. That's clear then.

Straw man argument. Cladistics is not "a few people's interpretations
of the bits and bobbles." It is a highly developed science and your
rejection of it confirms my assessment that your position is not a
moderate one.

When does science
count? When it's based on solid data, not what someone thinks is a bit
and what is a bobble.

A "bit" and a "bobble" are, in the most literal of senses, "solid
data".


As for the slur "gives me answers I don't like". I never said anything
about whether I liked them or not.

Oh, who are you kidding, Algis? No one who has seen your approach for
as long as I have need have any doubt about what answers you want to
find, and which ones you will be predisposed to either ignore, deny,
downplay or reinterpret to fit your biases.

All I said was that in my opinion
Marc's view (backed up with a citation, by the way) that a'piths were
ancestral to chimps and gorillas is not that crazy.

Which citation was that, and how many bootstrapped sets had they
compared in their cladogram?

(Seriously, I looked back through this thread and found no citations.)


It's very clear, however, that you didn't LIKE what Marc said or that
I suggested that he might not be crazy to say it. To you that was  a
heresy in itself. To the biased aquasceptic mindset EVERY pro-argument
must be resisted and contradicted. EVERY SINGLE ONE, no matter how
modestly phrased, no matter how much evidence is provided to back it
up, no matter if it's so bleeding obvious a three-year-old would get
it.

b   i   a   s   e   d.


b u l l s h i t

http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html
"Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as idiosyncratic by most of the
participants."

Let me be very, very, very clear about this. Leave aside the
likelihood or otherwise of a waterside evolutionary scenario for
humans. This hypothesis that members of the australopith line might be
more closely related to Pan / Gorilla than Homo is by far the most
unlikely, untenable, unscientific piece of pseudoscientific nonsense
of alll the stuff Marc and you trot out.

I will go further. If at some point in the future, some hypothesis of
partial aquatic origins comes to achieve mainstream acceptance,
something I find unlikely but don't entirely rule out, I absolutely
guarantee that it will not include this nonsensical scenario.

... But anyway, either way, you're wrong. The arguments I've put
forward for the wading model are far better than ANY arguments for ANY
of the other 30 odd models of bipedal origins. The only reason that
it's not orthodoxy by now is it's unfortunate association with the
damned "aquatic' theory.

You can keep on making those claims until you are blue in the face,
but it will not make them true.


I do also criticise you directly, for the propensity which you cannot
and do not deny, to interpret evidence according to your waterside
biases. Again, as noted above, such in-context, well-attested
criticism is not ad hominem (even if you don't agree with it.)

Who's the most biased?
Do I deny that humans are fully 100% (to the nearest integer)
terrestrial? No.
Do I deny that significant parts of human evolution occurred, in the
broad sense, in the macro habitat of the savannah? No.

You used to.
"
Final question - when did the hominids become savannah-adapted?

Never.

Algis Kuliukas
"
http://tinyurl.com/nzypcf

Do I deny that terrestrial factors (e.g. carrying and energy
efficiency) were contributary to the evolution of human bipedalism?
No.
Do I deny that our anatomy speaks of terrestrial, efficient
bipedalism? No.

Now let's see...
Do you deny that moving through water (even in a very slight, i.e. <
0.5% of the picture, way - merely a tiny bit more than the chimp
ancestors) could have had an affect on our phenotype? Yes.

No.

What I deny is that you've provided any substantive evidence that
would support this assertion.

There is a difference.

Do you deny that significant parts of human evolution occurred, in the
broad sense, in coastal niches? Yes.

No.

What I deny is that you've provided any substantive evidence that
would support this assertion, or more importantly, the conclusions you
would like to follow from it.

There is a difference.

Do you deny that aquatic factors (e.g. wading through shallow water)
were contributory to the evolution of human bipedalism? Yes.

No.

Again: I deny that you've provided any substantive evidence that would
support this assertion.

Do you deny that our anatomy also speaks of some differential ability
(as compared to our ape clade) to swim and dive better than they do?
Yes.

No.

I just don't interpret that fact in the same way that you do. There
are a number of other differential abilities that you don't interpret
the same way I might.


You're the blinkered, biased defender of the faith here, mate, not me.


The evidence isn't with you on that one, "mate".

How about Langdon (1999)?http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/langdon.htm

Not published in a 'proper' anthro journal. My argument was the great
field of anthropology have officially ignored this idea for 50 years -
whilst it's been by far the number one subject of discussion on
newsgroups like this since they existed.

Nice evasion.

<snip more evasions>


Actually it tells me a great deal, mostly about AAH's proponents.

What's that, then? (Awaiting the usual slur...)



What more could I add to the case you've just made for me?

Ross Macfarlane
I have said it before, and I will say it again: the best argument
I've
yet seen for why the AAH must be wrong is the quality of the
arguments
made by those who believe it is right.
.

Relevant Pages