Re: Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)

"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someonelse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
im Newsbeitrag news:bnGgf.566430$x96.443020@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dl8eb0$q60$02$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> >> True that. However, you should be aware that we have agencies like that
> >> in the US government system. The people in these agencies are routinely
> >> ignored. For example, prior to Pres.Bush (the current) pressing for a
> >> military campaign in Iraq, the resident specialists at the War College
> >> wrote a rather extensive finding that was filled with information about
> >> the racial, cultural, historic, and religious tensions and possible
consequences
> >> of interference with those processes. The information was roundly and
> >> soundly ignored, and the War College's predictions have been accurate
in
> >> full and in detail. Sad, neh?

> > Very sad indeed. Let's hope that the War College experts' findings will
be
> > heeded in the future.

> Apparently the current administration tends to think AFTER the fact and
> tends to select only that evidence which supports their pre-conceived
> conclusions. Secondarily, their "thinking" tends to hew strictly to
> ideological absolutes (rather than the weight of evidence). They are not
the
> first to do this, nor, sadly, will they be the last.

That they adjust their reasoning AFTER the fact was the impression I got as
the Iraq war went on. First, the reason to wage war was "Iraq has WMD".
After it was evident that there was no WMD to be found, the reason was "to
liberate Iraq from Saddam". After Saddam was caught and hostilities didn't
slow down, it was "to bring them democracy".
Each of those reasons may be honorable, but somehow it appears like defining
the rules DURING the game to make sure that one certain party is the winner,
no matter how things may go.

> For some reason it seems to be the tendency to work the inductive process
> backwards, cooking the data, looking for the evidence that supports an
> established hypothesis, and then calling it "scientific" or "reasoning."
> Some of my students have even claimed they were taught that reverse
process
> AS IF it were the way science is supposed to be done... they were taught
> that in high school, apparently.

It might be an interesting experiment to turn the chain of causation upside
down, in order to make the flaws of a theory transparent. But it should be
made clear that the inductive process has only ONE direction. To invert it
is no longer scientific but rather religious. (Which brings us back to the
original title of this thread, "What does an evolutionist actually
believe"). :-)

> > A few groups of humans learned to live in desert surroundings
(Australian
> > aborigines or African Khoi-San come to my mind), but I think they later
> > adapted to an increasingly dry surrounding rather than being descendants
> > of savannah-dwellers.

> Exactly. Cultural adaptation to the savannah AFTER the acquisition of the
> tools, utensils, and weapons that would make such an existence possible. I
> cannot imagine trying to live on a savannah without at least an atlatl.
But
> as a primitive, ape-like creature with nothing more than fangs and claws,
I
> cannot see how savannah survival is possible.

It is actually possible, but only if you are quadruped, like baboons,
because only quadruped animals can flee fast enough when threatened by
predators.
Our bipedalism makes us comparably poor runners and poor tree climbers.
Without the use of tools and fire we would have little chances to survive in
the open savannah.
Not to mention the fact that we need to drink large amounts of water every
day.

> > But to live on the edges of the savanna, near open bodies of
> >> water, is far more survivable and provides ready sources of nutrition.
Do
> >> I have proof that humanity started as a riverine species? No, I do not.
It
> >> just makes more sense to me than the two "popular" theories.

> > What really convinced me is that our switch to bipedalism really makes
sense
> > if we assume a riverine way of life. Long legs are an advantage if you
wade
> > in shallow water gathering shellfish and crabs. Savannah-dwelling
mammals
> > (like baboons) are better off to be quadruped - they erect when they
want
> > to look around, but if they have to run fast, they go on four legs.
> > Just consider - at a certain point, long rear legs no longer permit
> > quadrupedalism - our physical features changed in a way that we couldn't
go
> > back to quadrupedalism, even if we wanted to. There must have been good
> > reasons for and a strong selection towards long rear legs. And we still
> > prefer tall (or better: long legged) partners. ;-)

> The single bit of evidence that stands out for me is the spine-hip-leg
> alignment and that only marine mammals have a similar arrangement.

Marine mammals and otters. But note that these animals gather their food by
swimming and diving, while our ancestors turned to stand erected and gather
food with their HANDS. That way of life requires a quite different body.
There is a wonderful book about the theory of how we acquired bipedalism by
Prof. Carsten Niemitz:
http://www.biologie.fu-berlin.de/humanbio/amphniem.htm
Sorry, it's German, but if you scroll down you will find a brief abstract of
the book in English.

The
> question then becomes "At what point (in time) did we make the transition
> from quadrupedalism to bidpedalism" and how long did it take (as well as
> where)? The single sticking point for this bit of evidence is that most of
> the riverine environment of three to five million years ago is now
> underwater or fits other conditions which (apparently) made and make
> fossilization unlikely or recovery of appropriate fossils unlikely.

Yes, that's probably the reason why fossile data is so rare.
Being convinced by Prof. Niemitz's theory I think that all the worldwide
spreading of hominids and humans happened along the coastlines of the
oceans, with rivers to cross being less an obstacle than mountains and
deserts.

> We have been fortunate indeed to recover sufficient fossils to account for
> the transitions in certain cetaceans. It may be quite some time before we
> find similar evidences for the human record.

I hope we'll be lucky to find some 4 million year old pelvis and femurs
which are the missing link between our quadruped and our biped ancestors.
:-)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)
    ... >>> ideological absolutes (rather than the weight of evidence). ... Another reason why nations should better not have them! ... >> made clear that the inductive process has only ONE direction. ... >>> I cannot see how savannah survival is possible. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)
    ... ideological absolutes (rather than the weight of evidence). ... cannot imagine trying to live on a savannah without at least an atlatl. ... > back to quadrupedalism, ... > reasons for and a strong selection towards long rear legs. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... maybe if I'd set reason aside one time and went with my feeling that one time might have worked. ... Evidence is used to convince someone who DOESN'T already believe. ... entered the guy's head. ... there are all sorts of regulations about secondary usage of tech related to a whole host of items - being able to take something apart and rebuild it into something else. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... I still haven't seen a good reason. ... People in Biblical times supposedly saw God. ... The evidence says the opposite. ... that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Big Bang theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Toad is the Epitome of Stink Bombs
    ... The question is, if this so called evidence actally exists, will it be ... "The question may be asked what was the reason or motive for the ... motive need be proven by the prosecution, and circumstantial evidence ... and reject that interpretation which points to ...
    (misc.legal)