First documented report of a chimpanzee swimming?
Algis Kuliukas
David Attenborough. 2002. BBC. ISBN 0563 53423 0
Just bought this book today. It accompanies the series to be shown on
BBC in the next few weeks starting Wednesday.
Attenborough at least discusses the AAH although is not openly
supportive of it.
On p297 there is a spectacular photo of a wading chimp from
(presumably) Conkuati, in the Congo.
The accompanying paragraphs 296-8 discuss the plausibility of the AAH.
He introduces it thus: "There is yet another theory that was first
proposed half a century ago and is often dismissed by many as far-
fetched Nonetheless it still has its aherents." Hardly an encouraging
start. The rest, however, makes the case quite well.
One point he made surprised me. Discussing the bipedality of the
Conkuati chimps he writes...
"As these chimpanzees have become more accustomed to their new, if
temprary homes [island sanctuaries in the Congo] they have become
more confident in water. It is usually said that chimpanzees do not
swim. Perhaps that is the case in normal circumstances, but one at
least of these males has shown that if there is a need to so so, they
certtainly can. He has now started to swim out, way beyond his depth
to get to the food-carrying boats first." p297
This is, as far as I know, the first documented case of a chimpanzee
swimming ever. If it is true it certainly changes my perspective
somewhat. [And, I have to admit that if true Bob Keeter was right to
doubt my claim that chimps could not swim. There you go, Bob, I found
it for you!]
The distinction in swimming between humans and apes would certainly
not be as distinct as I had thought although I feel this data only adds
still further to the plausibility of wading as a model for bipedal origins.
Any comments?
Algis Kuliukas
Bob Keeter
at al...@RiverApes.com wrote on 11/17/02 6:55 PM:
Snippage. . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> One point he made surprised me. Discussing the bipedality of the
> Conkuati chimps he writes...
>
> "As these chimpanzees have become more accustomed to their new, if
> temprary homes [island sanctuaries in the Congo] they have become
> more confident in water. It is usually said that chimpanzees do not
> swim. Perhaps that is the case in normal circumstances, but one at
> least of these males has shown that if there is a need to so so, they
> certtainly can. He has now started to swim out, way beyond his depth
> to get to the food-carrying boats first." p297
>
> This is, as far as I know, the first documented case of a chimpanzee
> swimming ever. If it is true it certainly changes my perspective
> somewhat. [And, I have to admit that if true Bob Keeter was right to
> doubt my claim that chimps could not swim. There you go, Bob, I found
> it for you!]
I concede, you beat me to it! Rats, I just HATE loosing a bet! Now what WAS
it that we had bet, my friend. . . . . . .? 8-)))
> The distinction in swimming between humans and apes would certainly
> not be as distinct as I had thought although I feel this data only adds
> still further to the plausibility of wading as a model for bipedal origins.
>
> Any comments?
>
Er. . not be be ungrateful, . . . . but WHAT was that wager now . . . . .
swimming, non-bipedal ape = "what"? I could look it up, cuz I do pay my
debts. . . . . . ;-))
Regards
bk
Charles
about this stuff. It is not my field. its a hobby, and I am quite
willing to admit that I don't know the answers.
for you to post this indicates to me that you are doing good science,
and presenting arguments and willing to test your hypothesis & pull back
when necessary (Re: the knee discussion). this is "all good" as we say
in my family.
Your arguments about chimps have often centered on the idea that they
did not float as well as modern humans, i.e., subcutaneous fat &
hairlessness, and that they seemed to have an aversion to water. that
the chimp NEVER swam was not your major argument, AFAIK. Furthermore,
you complained, as i recall, that there was little or no research into
chimp swimming ability. That said, this IS an interesting new
development and should be monitored carefully by AAHer's and trad PA's.
I think your efforts should focus on:
why the whale, for instance, lost most of its fur
what role DOES subcutaneous fat, or any fat, play in infants?
or why are no other primates fat at birth?
how will these now-swimming chimps handle waist deep water?
will they exploit the marine foods?
etc. etc.
Overall, I still think merely from a debate Point of View, you offer a
good explanation of bipedalism, whereas trad PA seems to just say "it
ain't water." It will be interesting to see if these chimps "go
bipedal" in water. for my sake, I just say I don't know why HSS is
bipedal, and I am listening very carefully.
Chimps are able to use symbols to communicate two word concepts,
usually actions of some sort. They are not able, however, to
spontaneously invent symbols on their own. Something is quantitatively
different in humans. This may turn out to be the case with their
exposure to water, a new niche, nothing happens. Time (millions of
years from now?) will tell.
regards,
charles
Richard Wagler
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
Chimps can't swim. Support for AAT
Chimps *can* swim. Support for AAT
Everything sipports AAT even if they are
in direct contradiction.
Need a testable prediction.
And since chimps are a long, long way from
being obligate bipeds what does it matter what
they do? At this point their aquaticism is 'proof'
that it contributes nothing to the development
of obligate bipedalism.
Rick Wagler
Rich Travsky
Why, yes.
Why aren't full bipeds then?
Obviously, swimming and bipedalism are independent of each other.
Marc Verhaegen
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.02111...@posting.google.com...
> "Life of Mammals" David Attenborough. 2002. BBC. ISBN 0563 53423 0
Just bought this book today. It accompanies the series to be shown on BBC in
the next few weeks starting Wednesday. Attenborough at least discusses
the AAH although is not openly supportive of it. On p297 there is a
spectacular photo of a wading chimp from (presumably) Conkuati, in the
Congo. The accompanying paragraphs 296-8 discuss the plausibility of the
AAH. He introduces it thus: "There is yet another theory that was first
proposed half a century ago and is often dismissed by many as far-fetched
Nonetheless it still has its aherents." Hardly an encouraging start. The
rest, however, makes the case quite well. One point he made surprised
me. Discussing the bipedality of the Conkuati chimps he writes... "As
these chimpanzees have become more accustomed to their new, if temprary
homes [island sanctuaries in the Congo] they have become more confident in
water. It is usually said that chimpanzees do not swim. Perhaps that is the
case in normal circumstances, but one at least of these males has shown that
out, way beyond his depth to get to the food-carrying boats first." p297
This is, as far as I know, the first documented case of a chimpanzee
swimming ever. If it is true it certainly changes my perspective somewhat.
[And, I have to admit that if true Bob Keeter was right to doubt my claim
that chimps could not swim. There you go, Bob, I found it for you!]
The distinction in swimming between humans and apes would certainly not be
as distinct as I had thought although I feel this data only adds still
further to the plausibility of wading as a model for bipedal origins.
Any comments? Algis Kuliukas
IMO early hominoids & hominids were aquarboreal, very likely they could swim
excellently. But it's not unexpected for an ex-semi-aquatic animal to evolve
hydrophobia: it's safer to avoid water if you're not well-adapted to it any
more. I fully agree with what Pauline wrote in the AAT group:
"The interesting comparison, I think, is not whether a species *can* do
something, but whether they *do* do it, under normal everyday conditions in
the wild. The questions I would ask are these:
- Does the species show physical adaptations to facilitate swimming?
[Humans - yes, subcutaneous fat even at birth, lack of fur,... (list as long
as you like!); other great apes - no, none]
- Does the species acquire the ability to swim if living by water with no
pressure one way or the other? [Humans - yes, readily in infancy and
childhood; other great apes, very very occasionally, and only if the reward
is great enough]
- Does the species enjoy swimming and water-play? [Humans - YES, very much;
other great apes, enter the water only if the reward is great enough]
- Does the species choose to live near deep water? [Humans - yes; other
great apes, no]
One thing I find interesting is that the great apes differ from their
nearest relatives in having larger bodies and no tail. These are features
one might predict for a (semi-)aquatic species. There is always the
possibility that the ancestral condition was as an aquatic of some sort, and
that we are the descendents of those populations who always stayed close to
the water, while the other great apes descend from populations that were
less aquatic.
Just because a chimp can, in extreme circumstances, learn to swim doesn't
mean very much. This is not normal behaviour. It's very like the chimps who
carry a load of food bipedally when provisioned by humans - yes, they *can*
do it but in the wild they almost never do. Learned behaviour in a
human-influenced situation means nothing, it is *natural* behaviour that
matters and untrained chimps avoid deep water and, if they fall in, sink
like a stone. Untrained humans, on the other hand, are fascinated by water
and attempt to swim from birth. -- Pauline Ross"
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Algis Kuliukas
> Chimps can't swim. Support for AAT
>
> Chimps *can* swim. Support for AAT
>
> Everything sipports AAT even if they are
> in direct contradiction.
I'm not arguing that swimming chimps supports the AAH. It's quite
awkward for me since I think it's the *differences* between humans and
chimps that need explaining most. If they couldn't swim but we clearly
can then that, I'd say, was good evidence that something to do with
water happenned to our ancestors since the last common ancestor. If
both chimpa and gorillas can swim, however, that blurs the distinction
for me, making it more difficult to argue.
I posted this to show that I'm equally interested in the facts even
when they do not support my theories.
I have to say that even this one documented instance does not really
change much. Chimpanzees are very prone to drowning and are generally
clearly far less proficient in water than humans.
> Need a testable prediction.
I did - several - with the wading idea. Has anyone else ever bothered
with any other models? Or is it only the AAH that needs to have
testable predictions before it is taken seriously.
> And since chimps are a long, long way from
> being obligate bipeds what does it matter what
> they do? At this point their aquaticism is 'proof'
> that it contributes nothing to the development
> of obligate bipedalism.
Well we've been there before. Nothing new to contribute to that
debate.
Algis Kuliukas
Bob Keeter
> Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:<3DD84E98...@shaw.ca>...
>
>> Chimps can't swim. Support for AAT
>>
>> Chimps *can* swim. Support for AAT
>>
>> Everything sipports AAT even if they are
>> in direct contradiction.
>
> I'm not arguing that swimming chimps supports the AAH. It's quite
> awkward for me since I think it's the *differences* between humans and
> chimps that need explaining most. If they couldn't swim but we clearly
> can then that, I'd say, was good evidence that something to do with
> water happenned to our ancestors since the last common ancestor. If
> both chimpa and gorillas can swim, however, that blurs the distinction
> for me, making it more difficult to argue.
>
It DOES indeed make it difficult to argue, not so much on the basic facts as
it is on the "foundation" that you and your buddies have laid. It was sort
of set up for the fall, i.e. if it could be demonstrated that a clearly
non-aquatic primate (such as this chimp) could, with only proper,
non-life-threatening inducements, swim, it kicks one leg out from under an
already shakey stool.
I will give you credit for a great deal more intellectual honesty that I
have seen from any of the rest of your compadres, and far more than I have
seen from at least some on my side of the fence! The basic tenet of good
science is that empirical evidence, whenever discovered, and no matter which
"side" of a controversy it happens to fall on, overrides old theories like
so many of yesterday's road pizzas on the 405 at rush hour.
You found it, not me, so you cant imagine that I constructed it. You
recognize what it does to the underlying "bedrock" of the AAH, and you CAN
merge with that flow moving down 405, or loose ALL crediblity by hanging on
to a disproved theory. Your call, but its starting to look more and more
like a nondescript pepperoni and peppers. 8-)
> I posted this to show that I'm equally interested in the facts even
> when they do not support my theories.
That is called intellectual honesty and personal maturity. Good on you!
> I have to say that even this one documented instance does not really
> change much. Chimpanzees are very prone to drowning and are generally
> clearly far less proficient in water than humans.
Dont weasel around. It either IS or ISNT. Again, your choice, not your
apologies for facts.
>> Need a testable prediction.
Snip. . . . . .
>
> Well we've been there before. Nothing new to contribute to that
> debate.
So I didnt. 8-)
If you propose a "theory" that 2 + 2 = 5, and then you lay down two banana
chips, and another two bananna chips, anc count them, and get four, and
repeat that process "N" times and still get four, do you still hold with
your "theory" and continue to lay down and count bananna chips, or do you
munch the bananna chips and form a new theory, based on empirical evidence
that 2 + 2 = 4? Again, your call!
Regards
bk
Charles
Bob Keeter wrote:
> snip>
> If you propose a "theory" that 2 + 2 = 5, and then you lay down two banana
> chips, and another two bananna chips, anc count them, and get four, and
> repeat that process "N" times and still get four, do you still hold with
> your "theory" and continue to lay down and count bananna chips, or do you
> munch the bananna chips and form a new theory, based on empirical evidence
> that 2 + 2 = 4? Again, your call!
>
> Regards
> bk
Which is precisely where I find myself... waiting for a decent theory to
come out of "traditional" PA (what IS the moniker for that side of the
fence anyway??) While I agree that very little empirical evidence
supports the AAH, I at least acknowledge that they are thinking "outside
the box" (I hate that cliché) and present their arguments well. Very
little empirical evidence supports any other theory either!
In my opinion, our ancestors probably DID live near water. whether or
not that caused all the things implied in the AA theory is another
question. But in my little brain, we generalist humans could have run
into the water to escape land predators; run out of the water to escape
water predators, all in a complicated dance with the trees. Certainly a
female with an infant has the instinct to escape by whatever means a
threat to her child. Perhaps "she" was running away from the male. :)
I just don't know. The whole question is and has been up for grabs, and
whoever presents the best argument (writes the charter document) will
"win" the day.
A week or two ago, Rick, said that we became bipedal because WE WERE
GOING SOMEWHERE. and i asked him to respond. nothing. "that we were
built for travel" is actually, IMHO, a good start on a hypothesis.
beats the exposure to sun thing, and scouting the savannah, and all
those other things. Of course, evidence suggests that apiths didn't go
anywhere; they stayed home. Anyway. I am the layman here. I am
waiting for SOMETHING. Several "bipedal" threads have gone nowhere. My
eager little brain waits.... waits... yells a little bit... waits...
dum de doo da day...
charles
Charles
>
> Need a testable prediction.
>
You are correct.
Bob Keeter
wrote on 11/18/02 10:05 PM:
>
>
> Bob Keeter wrote:
>> snip>
>> If you propose a "theory" that 2 + 2 = 5, and then you lay down two banana
>> chips, and another two bananna chips, anc count them, and get four, and
>> repeat that process "N" times and still get four, do you still hold with
>> your "theory" and continue to lay down and count bananna chips, or do you
>> munch the bananna chips and form a new theory, based on empirical evidence
>> that 2 + 2 = 4? Again, your call!
>>
>> Regards
>> bk
>
> Which is precisely where I find myself... waiting for a decent theory to
> come out of "traditional" PA (what IS the moniker for that side of the
> fence anyway??)
Well, if the truth be known, I think you already have it down pretty good.
The "other side of the fence" from AAH is more or less all of Physical
Anthropology, aka "PA". LOTS of disunity within, but one common theme seems
to be that the AAH is just not supportable, not even to the degree that some
of the wilder ideas within PA might be. Most of the AAHers even try to play
on that "us vs the rest of PA" ploy, so, perhaps they can be right on that
point at least.
> While I agree that very little empirical evidence
> supports the AAH, I at least acknowledge that they are thinking "outside
> the box" (I hate that cliché) and present their arguments well. Very
> little empirical evidence supports any other theory either!
To a degree I would agree with you on one point there. There IS very little
empirical evidence, just some bits and pieces of bone, some few tools, some
isotope residue, paleoclimatology and paleoecology. The rest is basically
an exercise in deductive and inductive logic. Often that logic gets all
fowled up because of the need to cite modern or even just OTHER examples
where the mechanisms that supposedly tie an aquatic existence to bipedalism
for example. COULD it POSSIBLY be that there was a wading ape? Sure
ANYTHING is possible. are there any other examples of apes that go into the
water? Are there any indications that this is in the process of turning
them into bipedal apes? Are there any examples of other species that have
been aquatic? are any of them bipedal? etc, etc, etc. Devolving into the
basic statement (so often heard) that if AAH is possible, it MUST be
correct, must be accepted, must not be criticized, etc. On the other hand,
the very few scraps of evidence ALL tend to point towards another point of
origin for hominids. Not hard proof by any means, but a consensus in the
face of a total dearth on "the other side of the fence".. . . . .
> In my opinion, our ancestors probably DID live near water.
Er.r.r.r. What species of ape does NOT live near readily available,
potable, surface water? I seem to remember that even Orangs come down out
of the trees to get a drink.
> whether or
> not that caused all the things implied in the AA theory is another
> question. But in my little brain, we generalist humans could have run
> into the water to escape land predators; run out of the water to escape
> water predators, all in a complicated dance with the trees. Certainly a
> female with an infant has the instinct to escape by whatever means a
> threat to her child. Perhaps "she" was running away from the male. :)
> I just don't know. The whole question is and has been up for grabs, and
> whoever presents the best argument (writes the charter document) will
> "win" the day.
you said it right up top in this paragraph when you used the words "could
have". We "could have" done a lot of things. there is a whole world of
science (fiction) based on what "could have been " or "could be". You and I
could fashion a huge framework of "could be"'s for just about anything we
could dream up, BUT it still would not be a theory unless we had some facts
to support it, and most notably, no facts contradicting it! ALl it takes is
ONE contradictory FACT and the old theory lands on the garbage heap making
room for the new. The basic creationist theories could not explain the
undeniable fossil record, and for most of us they became quaint mythology,
at least for me they did.
> A week or two ago, Rick, said that we became bipedal because WE WERE
> GOING SOMEWHERE. and i asked him to respond. nothing. "that we were
> built for travel" is actually, IMHO, a good start on a hypothesis.
> beats the exposure to sun thing, and scouting the savannah, and all
> those other things. Of course, evidence suggests that apiths didn't go
> anywhere; they stayed home. Anyway. I am the layman here. I am
> waiting for SOMETHING. Several "bipedal" threads have gone nowhere. My
> eager little brain waits.... waits... yells a little bit... waits...
> dum de doo da day...
Well, cant speak for Rick, but I dont think that "going somewhere" had
anything to do with it. Some of the most mobile of the apes are the baboons
and they are probably the MOST quadrupedal of any! I keep looking for some
good reason to be bipedal that would actually explain the HUGE survival
advantages apparently gained by hominids. The only thing that I can
conceive that would have offered that "edge" is the use of hand
tools/weapons. If you look at chimps, when they are USING a tool, they
almost always seem to be either sitting or standing bipedally. Tools beget
better food, more survivable in the face of predators, more possessive of
"homesteads" when challengeed by other hominids, etc, etc, etc. All
contributing to the survival of the "bipedal trait" and the more bipedal the
creature is the better able to manage hand tools, and you have that
"compound interest" compiling. . . .
But that is must my own personal best WAG! 8-)
Regards
bk
Charles
Bob Keeter wrote:
> snip for now cause I am going to bed...>
> Well, cant speak for Rick, but I dont think that "going somewhere" had
> anything to do with it. Some of the most mobile of the apes are the baboons
> and they are probably the MOST quadrupedal of any! I keep looking for some
> good reason to be bipedal that would actually explain the HUGE survival
> advantages apparently gained by hominids. The only thing that I can
> conceive that would have offered that "edge" is the use of hand
> tools/weapons. If you look at chimps, when they are USING a tool, they
> almost always seem to be either sitting or standing bipedally. Tools beget
> better food, more survivable in the face of predators, more possessive of
> "homesteads" when challengeed by other hominids, etc, etc, etc. All
> contributing to the survival of the "bipedal trait" and the more bipedal the
> creature is the better able to manage hand tools, and you have that
> "compound interest" compiling. . . .
>
> But that is must my own personal best WAG! 8-)
>
> Regards
> bk
A mighty good wag, and I appreciate it. thanks. will think more about
it, but do we have any evidence that apith's used tools? we can propose
they fished for grubs with sticks like the chimp....
yikes! past my bedtime for real. nighty-night.
Mario Petrinovic
news:B9FF1E61.1FE45%rke...@earthlink.net...
> in article 3DD9AA6D...@mindspring.com,
> To a degree I would agree with you on one point there. There IS very
> little
> empirical evidence, just some bits and pieces of bone, some few tools,
> some
> isotope residue, paleoclimatology and paleoecology. The rest is basically
> an exercise in deductive and inductive logic. Often that logic gets all
> fowled up because of the need to cite modern or even just OTHER examples
> where the mechanisms that supposedly tie an aquatic existence to
> bipedalism
> for example. COULD it POSSIBLY be that there was a wading ape? Sure
> ANYTHING is possible. are there any other examples of apes that go into
> the
> water? Are there any indications that this is in the process of turning
> them into bipedal apes? Are there any examples of other species that have
> been aquatic? are any of them bipedal? etc, etc, etc. Devolving into
> the
> basic statement (so often heard) that if AAH is possible, it MUST be
> correct, must be accepted, must not be criticized, etc. On the other
> hand,
> the very few scraps of evidence ALL tend to point towards another point of
> origin for hominids. Not hard proof by any means, but a consensus in the
> face of a total dearth on "the other side of the fence".. . . . .
And...
> you said it right up top in this paragraph when you used the words "could
> have". We "could have" done a lot of things. there is a whole world of
> science (fiction) based on what "could have been " or "could be". You and
> I
> could fashion a huge framework of "could be"'s for just about anything we
> could dream up, BUT it still would not be a theory unless we had some
> facts
> to support it, and most notably, no facts contradicting it! ALl it takes
> is
> ONE contradictory FACT and the old theory lands on the garbage heap making
> room for the new. The basic creationist theories could not explain the
> undeniable fossil record, and for most of us they became quaint mythology,
> at least for me they did.
AATers (as was said before) only try to draw attention to AAT. If
AAT is possible than it have to be looked on, by official science. Todey it
is religiously rejected. Facts doesn't fall from the sky. Somebody have to
search for them, and only official science has time, money, and other means
to do that.
> Well, cant speak for Rick, but I dont think that "going somewhere" had
> anything to do with it. Some of the most mobile of the apes are the
> baboons
> and they are probably the MOST quadrupedal of any! I keep looking for
> some
> good reason to be bipedal that would actually explain the HUGE survival
> advantages apparently gained by hominids. The only thing that I can
> conceive that would have offered that "edge" is the use of hand
> tools/weapons. If you look at chimps, when they are USING a tool, they
> almost always seem to be either sitting or standing bipedally. Tools
> beget
> better food, more survivable in the face of predators, more possessive of
> "homesteads" when challengeed by other hominids, etc, etc, etc. All
> contributing to the survival of the "bipedal trait" and the more bipedal
> the
> creature is the better able to manage hand tools, and you have that
> "compound interest" compiling. . . .
Well, if you ask me, hand tools came long after bipedality. But you
can carry other things too. Well, if you see that we are animals that live
in symbiosis with fire, you can say that we can carry fire around.
How all those nocturnal predators react to fire. In the middle of
the night, is looking at fire (with their big eyes) like looking at the sun
for us during the day? -- Mario
Mario Petrinovic
news:3DD83D08...@mindspring.com...
> Overall, I still think merely from a debate Point of View, you offer a
> good explanation of bipedalism, whereas trad PA seems to just say "it
> ain't water." It will be interesting to see if these chimps "go
> bipedal" in water. for my sake, I just say I don't know why HSS is
> bipedal, and I am listening very carefully.
If you ask me, it is like in any other bipedal. Our legs grew too
long. I think we should try to find the reason for that. When your legs grow
too long, you actually don't have other choice. -- Mario
Mario Petrinovic
>
> Chimps *can* swim. Support for AAT
>
> Everything sipports AAT even if they are
> in direct contradiction.
>
> Need a testable prediction.
>
> And since chimps are a long, long way from
> being obligate bipeds what does it matter what
> they do? At this point their aquaticism is 'proof'
> that it contributes nothing to the development
> of obligate bipedalism. Rick Wagler
Isn't the difference between us and chimps important. If chimps can
obviously swim, but they completly abandoned contact with water to the point
that they became obviously terrible swimmers, isn't that important to our
subject.
It indicates that they didn't have business near water (unlike all
the other animals). Isn't a bit of strange in rainy forest of Africa, to
have so little contact with water. -- Mario
deowll
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.02111...@posting.google.com...
been kept in a moated enclosure and learned to get across the moat.
> Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> Not suprised. I'm not even sure this is news. I think some chimps in zoo had
> been kept in a moated enclosure and learned to get across the moat.
AFAIK all such instances indicated that the chimp had waded across, not swam.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> in article 77a70442.02111...@posting.google.com, Algis Kuliukas
> at al...@RiverApes.com wrote on 11/17/02 6:55 PM:
> > This is, as far as I know, the first documented case of a chimpanzee
> > swimming ever. If it is true it certainly changes my perspective
> > somewhat. [And, I have to admit that if true Bob Keeter was right to
> > doubt my claim that chimps could not swim. There you go, Bob, I found
> > it for you!]
> Er. . not be be ungrateful, . . . . but WHAT was that wager now . . . . .
> swimming, non-bipedal ape = "what"? I could look it up, cuz I do pay my
> debts. . . . . . ;-))
Can't remember, Bob. Maybe it was "if you can find evidence of a
swimming chimp I'll eat my hat" - it was something like that. But I
found it, so I'm not going to eat any hat, just a slice of humble pie.
:-)
Algis Kuliukas
Bob Keeter
at al...@RiverApes.com wrote on 11/24/02 4:30 AM:
Actually, if its the account I remember reading, the zookeepers learned the
hard way not to leave any kind of "floatable" material in the compound. As
I remember the writeup, the chimps actually fashioned a very crude raft.
Not the article I remember but. . . . .
"Social by nature, the chimps - who range from 5 to 40 years old - are also
wily. Those due this fall cannot use sign language like some counterparts,
but they can climb and will hop onto each other's backs to scale walls.
Unable to swim, they have been known to fashion escape boats."
http://www.savethechimps.org/news_building_home.asp
Perhaps that documented "swimming chimp" is a case of human-reinforced
learning, just as the swimming of modern humans is! 8-) IOW, they are not
stupid, they just dont do well swimming and can conceive of "a better way".
;-))
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
at al...@RiverApes.com wrote on 11/24/02 4:51 AM:
Well, my friend, a snack of humble pie in the cause of a bit of
enlightenment is a very cheap price to pay. Its even one that I think a lot
of cocksure people should try from time to time. Being absolutely dead
wrong as often as I tend to be, about people, science and a lot of other
things, leaves me with a very humble view of my place in reality. Even if
I never do exactly develop a savoring of that particular confectionary
treat, I guess I end up valuing truth more than "stage presence".
The advantage to all this is that Ive seen that I can emotionally survive
the downfall of "bright ideas" that just dont make sense anymore! I will
not flop over dead EVEN if I may have conceived those discarded ideas! When
people childlishly allow themselves to become "joined at the waist" to a
conjectural concept, they loose intellectual honesty, in the eyes of others
but more important in their own eyes. When their concept runs up on the
rocks, well, they get to fight the gallant fight, right to the futile end,
attempting to perserve "Their Theory" and their fragile little ego. Be
honest with yourself (as well as others) and perhaps it demonstrates a
little bit more robust and mature personality, but it certainly does make
life simpler! If it were not for HONEST people changing their minds when the
facts dont match their ideas, where would we be in science!?!?!?
Its pretty basic, but seems to come from a simplistic view of truth,
honesty, ego, and the Scientific American way! 8-)) Oh yea, forgot
baseball, apple pie, and Fords (I know, but I hate Chevrolets)! 8-)))
Regards
bk
Mario Petrinovic
> in article 77a70442.02112...@posting.google.com,
As usual, I don't understand more than few words you wrote. I want
to say a remark on a whole concept, which is very popular these days. This
concept tries to make you unmistakable, and even if you make mistakes all
the time, survivable. Which isn't very humble.
I want to say that this thing simply doesn't exist. You are right or
wrong. If you are wrong, you are in dead end street, and nothing will help
you. I don't understand concept of "ego" quite well, but I can understand
only my theory, nothing else. And I don't expect anybody else to understand
it. Only people similar to me (in that way), will understand it somehow.
There is no scientific method that will help you in that.
The whole PA science is simply doing it wrongly, and this is why it
is so fruitless.
If you are doing it rightly you are on right track, if you are doing
it wrongly, you are on wrong track, and your future isn't bright. It is as
simple as that, and there is nothing more to it. You say yes, I can easily
change tracks. I'll say that you are fooling yourself.
Being "humble", "undarstandable" and what is that "intellectual
honesty", are false unnatural terms, and they are falling down like cards,
when presented with proper tests.
Now, this is "honesty" for you. -- Mario