Oops, Back to the You Know What

3 views
Skip to first unread message

firstjois

unread,
May 18, 2005, 10:22:41 PM5/18/05
to
From Nature again:

Centenary stimulates top scientists' wish-list
What's the one thing you wish more people grasped about science? That was
the question posed to some 270 leading scientists, whose responses have now
been published for all to ponder on the Internet.

[snip]

"I should teach the world that science is the art of doubt, not of
certainty," reads the contribution from Frances Ashcroft, a physiologist at
the University of Oxford, UK. "Science is the antithesis of faith, and of
the popular view that science provides immutable theories and fixed facts
about the world in which we live."

[snip]

There you go, AAR, you are the antithesis of Science, plain, simple, and
damp.

Jois

See: Nature 435, 260-261 (19 May 2005) | doi: 10.1038/435260a - ish.

--
----------------------------------
"Once you know, you know"
The Unified Field of Know Theory

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 18, 2005, 11:30:11 PM5/18/05
to

firstjois wrote:
> From Nature again:
>
> Centenary stimulates top scientists' wish-list
> What's the one thing you wish more people grasped about science? That
was
> the question posed to some 270 leading scientists, whose responses
have now
> been published for all to ponder on the Internet.
>
> [snip]
>
> "I should teach the world that science is the art of doubt, not of
> certainty," reads the contribution from Frances Ashcroft, a
physiologist at
> the University of Oxford, UK. "Science is the antithesis of faith,
and of
> the popular view that science provides immutable theories and fixed
facts
> about the world in which we live."
>
> [snip]

Fine, but...

> There you go, AAR, you are the antithesis of Science, plain, simple,
and
> damp.

.. how do you make that leap?

The only certainty I see on this newsgroup is that the AAH is, in fact,
a religion, that is completely wrong and that it's proponents are
misguided.

I don't see much doubt coming from the self-style scientists here that
are on the aquasceptic side of the fence.

The only faith I see here is in the strange notion that humans are so
special we don't need standard biological explanations for basic
observations like we can swim better than our nearest relatives.

Algis Kuliukas

mclark

unread,
May 19, 2005, 6:01:35 AM5/19/05
to

"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:1116473411.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> firstjois wrote:
>> From Nature again:
>>
[...]

>>
>> "I should teach the world that science is the art of doubt, not of
>> certainty," reads the contribution from Frances Ashcroft, a
>> physiologist at
>> the University of Oxford, UK. "Science is the antithesis of faith,
>> and of
>> the popular view that science provides immutable theories and fixed
>> facts
>> about the world in which we live."
>>
>> [snip]
>
> Fine, but...
>
>> There you go, AAR, you are the antithesis of Science, plain, simple,
> and
>> damp.
>
> .. how do you make that leap?

By making a comparison with religion in general and the
presentation, by you, in this NG, of your brand of AAT.
Simple.

> The only certainty I see on this newsgroup is that the AAH is, in fact,
> a religion, that is completely wrong and that it's proponents are
> misguided.

You misspelled "fat-headed bigots".

> I don't see much doubt coming from the self-style scientists here that
> are on the aquasceptic side of the fence.

Then you should work on your reading comprehension skills.

> The only faith I see here is in the strange notion that humans are so
> special we don't need standard biological explanations for basic
> observations like we can swim better than our nearest relatives.

It would have to be faith since "we were more aquatic because chimps
can't swim" ...isn't scientific.

> Algis Kuliukas


ma...@spiznet.com

unread,
May 19, 2005, 2:01:38 PM5/19/05
to
McClark-

AAT is the only true religion ... oom...

Believe the pathetic sub-humans always.

Algis and Verhageen are the real deal,

Aquatic Atlanteans unite in peace with the upper world at last....

Whouoppeee!?!

-mermark

firstjois

unread,
May 19, 2005, 3:05:44 PM5/19/05
to

LOL and it is so odd that Angis and Co., Inc. don't get this. oom.

Jois


firstjois

unread,
May 19, 2005, 3:12:27 PM5/19/05
to

Come on, we are old friends, now. Which edition on the Jehovah Witnesses'
handbook do you use?

I won't even tell M.C.

Jois


Philip Deitiker

unread,
May 19, 2005, 7:57:03 PM5/19/05
to
"firstjois" <firstj...@hotmail.com> says in
news:_MCdndMa5pv...@comcast.com:

>>> Algis Kuliukas
>
> Come on, we are old friends, now. Which edition on the Jehovah
> Witnesses' handbook do you use?
>
> I won't even tell M.C.

Would you guys stop summoning deamons. Algis is insecure enough as it
is, don't encourage him into another cult.

rmacfarl

unread,
May 20, 2005, 1:32:53 AM5/20/05
to

And for Heaven's sake don't mention "Letter After I"-"Letter Before X"s

around here, or you have "Letter Before K"-abbers back polluting the
atmosphere...

Letter Before S-oss

firstjois

unread,
May 20, 2005, 9:17:45 AM5/20/05
to

Phew! Thank you for the reminder!

Jois


Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 20, 2005, 9:30:09 PM5/20/05
to

mclark wrote:
> "Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message

> > The only faith I see here is in the strange notion that humans are


so
> > special we don't need standard biological explanations for basic
> > observations like we can swim better than our nearest relatives.
>
> It would have to be faith since "we were more aquatic because chimps
> can't swim" ...isn't scientific.


Isn't it? Why's that? If animal A moves better than animal B in
substrate C doesn't that say something about its evolutionary history?
Apparently it does in all cases except when A=Homo sapiens, B= Pan and
C = water. Then 'magical' forces have to be invoked to do with our
intelligence/culture/learning.

Algis Kuliukas

firstjois

unread,
May 20, 2005, 10:30:21 PM5/20/05
to
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
[snip]


--
Algis lived up to his description "a 'sub-human piece of shit'" 051005 and
continues to live up to this descriptive without apology.

At Algis' request
Jois 051905


Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 20, 2005, 11:24:20 PM5/20/05
to

What *is* your problem, Jois?

Algis Kuliukas

JAE

unread,
May 21, 2005, 12:20:55 AM5/21/05
to

Since selection appears to have refined our intelligence and capacity
to learn to deal with a host of problems, what is your particular
problem with the hypothesis that our intelligence and learning was our
selective response to water?

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 21, 2005, 2:01:52 AM5/21/05
to

Because it is not the usual explanation for other differences in our
relative locomotor abilities vis-a-vis the chimps, is it? For example,
no-one would try to argue that our greater efficiency as terrestrial
animals was due to our greater intelligence, would they? No, that, of
course, is because we did rather more terrestrial walking than their
ancestors did.
Suddenly, when water's involved, the normal most parsimonious
explanations have to somehow get put away.

Algis Kuliukas

mclark

unread,
May 21, 2005, 10:31:01 AM5/21/05
to
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:1116639009.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

I'm so glad you put it in such mathematical terms, Algis. It makes it
so much easier to laugh at. Here: the AAT must be correct because if
A = B, then B = C. I think I see the first entry in my new .sig collection.

Thanks.

"If animal A moves better than animal B in substrate C doesn't

that say something about its evolutionary history?" Algis --5/21/'05

> Algis Kuliukas
>


JAE

unread,
May 21, 2005, 2:12:45 PM5/21/05
to

There's several reasons for this. The first is that you're (again)
misusing the term parsimony. It isn't synonymous with "a difference
implies selection for that particular difference. Our "aquatic"
ability isn't terribly remarkable. Swimming isn't something
particularly noteworthy in mammals. Swimming rather slowly--and by the
standard of just about any creature that gets a significant of its
subsistence from an aquatic resource we're dreadfully slow and
cumbersome in the water--isn't remarkable. It's somethingt that we
accomplish largely as a learned behavior and our best performances come
as a result of this learning process.

firstjois

unread,
May 21, 2005, 2:12:45 PM5/21/05
to

You don't know?
Think back.

firstjois

unread,
May 21, 2005, 2:18:27 PM5/21/05
to

[snip]

>>
>> "If animal A moves better than animal B in substrate C doesn't
>> that say something about its evolutionary history?" Algis --5/21/'05
>>
>>> Algis Kuliukas

Have you had to start a new sig file, Mickael?

The last several I've added are grayed out on O.E. I had to slap this new
one:

--
Algis lived up to his description "a 'sub-human piece of shit'" 051005 and
continues to live up to this descriptive without apology.

At Algis' request
Jois 051905

over an old one. How do you add a new sig file?

Tia,
Jois

ma...@spiznet.com

unread,
May 21, 2005, 7:13:18 PM5/21/05
to
Too late, guys.

firstjois has summoned demon #0 and hes taken over the list. Just lucky
the other one
didn't notice.

Peace to all air-breathers from Atlantis, soon to reawaken in the
post-apocalypse.

-Mermark

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 22, 2005, 1:13:41 AM5/22/05
to
JAE wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > JAE wrote...

> > > Since selection appears to have refined our intelligence and
> capacity
> > > to learn to deal with a host of problems, what is your particular
> > > problem with the hypothesis that our intelligence and learning
was
> > our
> > > selective response to water?
> >
> > Because it is not the usual explanation for other differences in
our
> > relative locomotor abilities vis-a-vis the chimps, is it? For
> example,
> > no-one would try to argue that our greater efficiency as
terrestrial
> > animals was due to our greater intelligence, would they? No, that,
of
> > course, is because we did rather more terrestrial walking than
their
> > ancestors did.
> >
> > Suddenly, when water's involved, the normal most parsimonious
> > explanations have to somehow get put away.
>
> There's several reasons for this. The first is that you're (again)
> misusing the term parsimony.

Am I? In all other animal pairs, when comparing abilities to move
through a particular substrate, the most parsimonious explanation for
one moving better than the other hast to be natural selection. There
*might* be some other reason, sure, but the simplest and most
parsomonious has to be because of natural selection.

> It isn't synonymous with "a difference
> implies selection for that particular difference. Our "aquatic"
> ability isn't terribly remarkable.

It is not so much *our* "aquatic" ability that is remarkable but the
comparison of human-chimp abilities. For two such closely related
species there is a rather marked difference in swimming ability.

> Swimming isn't something particularly noteworthy in mammals.

It is in the primates and especially in the apes. I note that you let
the principles of cladistics slip when it suits your argument.

> Swimming rather slowly--and by the
> standard of just about any creature that gets a significant of its
> subsistence from an aquatic resource we're dreadfully slow and
> cumbersome in the water--isn't remarkable.

It's the relative abilities of humans and chimps that's remarkable for
two such closely related species. It speaks, as clearly as anything
could, that since the LCA our ancestors have been exposed to the
pressure of selection from moving through water more than their
ancestors have. It's about as obvious a biological fact as you could
get, and yet you are forced to pretend it away, otherwise you'd have to
admit that the AAH had been largely right all along and you'd just been
talking out of your arse on this subject for all these years. And, we
can't have that, can we?

> It's somethingt that we
> accomplish largely as a learned behavior and our best performances
come
> as a result of this learning process.

Yes and walking in humans and climbing in chimps are accomplished
largely as learned behaviours too, but no-one would pretend that they
hadn't resulted from chimps being more arboreal and humans being more
terrestrial since the LCA. The rules change when it comes to water.
Then, we have to conjure up other weird and wonderful factors other
than the obvious ones of pure and simple natural selection. Why? So
that the shambolic facade of a cosy myth that the AAH can be laughed
away can be clung onto to.

Algis Kuliukas

PS

Have you anything to say about the abuse I'm currently getting from
your pal Jois? No? Didn't think so. If the person is an AAH proponent
any amount of abuse is fair game, right?

rmacfarl

unread,
May 22, 2005, 6:03:15 AM5/22/05
to

"mclark" <mcl...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:FCHje.81$LT2...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
...

> I'm so glad you put it in such mathematical terms, Algis. It makes it
> so much easier to laugh at. Here: the AAT must be correct because if
> A = B, then B = C. I think I see the first entry in my new .sig
> collection.
>
> Thanks.
>
> "If animal A moves better than animal B in substrate C doesn't
> that say something about its evolutionary history?" Algis --5/21/'05

Non Sequitur - Affirming the Consequent

Definition:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/affirm.htm

Ross Macfarlane


Pauline M Ross

unread,
May 22, 2005, 6:28:49 AM5/22/05
to
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:03:15 +1000, "rmacfarl"
<rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:

>Non Sequitur - Affirming the Consequent
>Definition:
>Any argument of the following form is invalid:
>If A then B
>B
>Therefore, A

This sort of argument would be quite effective if it actually bore any
relationship with the original comment.

Do you want to try again? Here's what Algis actually said:

"If animal A moves better than animal B in substrate C doesn't
that say something about its evolutionary history?"

--
Pauline Ross

mclark

unread,
May 22, 2005, 9:22:04 AM5/22/05
to
"Pauline M Ross" <pmr...@ross-software.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5gn091dtelngeq27o...@4ax.com...

Sure. Let's substitute some values, shall we?

A = fruit bat
B = sperm whale
C = pavement.

Now just exactly what am I supposed to infer from
this equation? That A & B had different evolutionary
histories? Well, that's a given, isn't it? The bat prefers
the air, the whale prefers the deep ocean. The whale
is in serious trouble on the sidewalk but the bat seems
to be able to negotiate the same with some difficulty.
We know that bats evolved from tree-climbing mammals
and that whales evolved from shoreline dabbling arteriodactyls.
Flopping them down in the middle of the sidewalk yields the
expected result and merely reinforces what we already
know about their evolutionary histories. What does it say
about either of their contacts with pavement, Pauline?

Now lets use Algis' agenda items:
A = human
B = chimp
C = water.

Humans are bipeds descended from slow-moving, vertical-
trunk, tree climbers. Chimps are quadrupeds with a similar
history. Chimps, like fruit bats, have an environmental
preference. In this case it is mixed to dense trees --anywhere
that supports the fruits, leaves, colubus and bushbuck that they
feed on. Humans, OTOH, are bipeds and as such are consumate
walkers --able to cover long distances across a variety of
habitats in search of anything edible. They are even, because
of their unique body plan, efficient (though somewhat kludgey)
swimmers. Neither of these two seem to have a relationship
with water as it is not the substrate of choice for the primate
grouping to which they both belong. To say that humans are
more closely associated with water than the chimp is to say
that the fruit bat is more closely associated with sidewalks
than the whale. While obviously acceptable, even true, it means
absolutely nothing. So "If animal A moves better than animal


B in substrate C doesn't that say something about its evolutionary

history?" might seem like some profound truism, it isn't the magical
support for the AAT that your kind are so desperate to produce.
It is, as Ross suggests, a non-sequitur since it produces no greater
revelation than that whales walk poorly --which we knew all along.
Further, it assumes that there is some direct coupling of environment
to anatomy which isn't, sadly, supported by objective observation.
Finally, it has issued from the mouth of Algis, a wet ape, and a
character of known provenance; a running dog in the ranks of
the pseudo scientists and the unwashed ham-fisted fumblers of
logic and reason. That should be enough ;-)

BTW, I saw your plea for talk of gibbons. I'm afraid that I can
offer nothing new about their particular mechanics other than
the fact that they possess bipedalism as part of their repetoire
and that they aquired it without water and are thus a case in
direct opposition to the wet apes insistence that water *must* be
involved in the origin and development of our own bipedalism. It
is merely *another* case in point. There are others as has been
mentioned, oh, at least once or twice.

BTB, I have a lovely Windows Media file of a gibbon torturing two
tiger cubs. It is somewhat large -a little over 5 meg but if you have a
high speed connection, I can send it to you. The gibbon really smokes
the tiger clubs --something about their respective evolutionary histories,
no doubt. ;-)

> --
> Pauline Ross
>


Pauline M Ross

unread,
May 22, 2005, 11:58:33 AM5/22/05
to
On Sun, 22 May 2005 13:22:04 GMT, "mclark" <mcl...@skypoint.com>
wrote:

>>>[Ross] Non Sequitur - Affirming the Consequent


>>>Definition:
>>>Any argument of the following form is invalid:
>>>If A then B
>>>B
>>>Therefore, A
>>

>> [Pauline]This sort of argument would be quite effective if it actually bore any


>> relationship with the original comment.
>> Do you want to try again? Here's what Algis actually said:
>> "If animal A moves better than animal B in substrate C doesn't
>> that say something about its evolutionary history?"
>
>Sure. Let's substitute some values, shall we?

Thus missing the entire point [see below].


>
>A = fruit bat
>B = sperm whale
>C = pavement.
>Now just exactly what am I supposed to infer from
>this equation?

If neither A nor B actually move through substrate C at all in the
real world, the equation does not apply. A has to move *better* than
B, OK?

>Now lets use Algis' agenda items:
>A = human
>B = chimp
>C = water.

[Snip]


> Neither of these two seem to have a relationship
>with water as it is not the substrate of choice for the primate
>grouping to which they both belong.

False argument. Water isn't the first choice of substrate for any
primate, but both chimps and humans can (and do) move through it. The
difference is that humans choose to do so often, chimps as little as
possible (to the extent that water can be used as a boundary in zoos).
Humans clearly *do* have a relationship with water.

> So "If animal A moves better than animal
>B in substrate C doesn't that say something about its evolutionary
>history?" might seem like some profound truism, it isn't the magical
>support for the AAT that your kind are so desperate to produce.

I agree it's rather trite, and any support it offers AAT is tenuous at
best. Nevertheless, it is effective, no? And what exactly is "my
kind", I wonder? ;-)

>It is, as Ross suggests, a non-sequitur

Well, no. Check the fallacies website Ross quoted, and then have
another think about it. Just because Algis used A, B, C doesn't mean
he was arguing A => B, B therefore A. [This was the point, OK?]

>BTW, I saw your plea for talk of gibbons. I'm afraid that I can
>offer nothing new about their particular mechanics other than
>the fact that they possess bipedalism as part of their repetoire
>and that they aquired it without water

I'm not interested in the mechanics of it, I just wanted some basic
information, since you've seen this yourself and so far the gibbons
I've seen have been unobliging.

Like: do they stand or walk or run bipedally? do they use one or both
hands for support? do they have arms out for balance? how many steps
at a time? in what contexts (feeding? moving about the tree?
aggression?) how big is the branch? That sort of thing.

I'm not trying to make anything of it, I'm just curious. After all, we
know our ancestors were still in amongst the trees when they became
bipedal, so the possibility that they became bipedal *in* the trees is
one of the more intriguing options. I'm not wedded to the water idea,
you know. I'd like to hear about all the options.

--
Pauline Ross

JAE

unread,
May 22, 2005, 12:55:57 PM5/22/05
to

A difference does not necessarily result from selection for that
particular difference.

> >Now lets use Algis' agenda items:


> >A = human
> >B = chimp
> >C = water.
> [Snip]
> > Neither of these two seem to have a relationship
> >with water as it is not the substrate of choice for the primate
> >grouping to which they both belong.
>
> False argument. Water isn't the first choice of substrate for any
> primate, but both chimps and humans can (and do) move through it. The
> difference is that humans choose to do so often, chimps as little as
> possible (to the extent that water can be used as a boundary in
zoos).
> Humans clearly *do* have a relationship with water.

Humans have a relationship with water. True. Extending beyond this
and using this as "evidence" that any particular trait or suite of
traits is a product of selection with regards to this relationship
though is far more problematic. The observation that we've got a
relationship with water (which can be as minimal as "we need to drink
it" or more extensive in the case of marine based economies) doesn't
provide any evidence that the host of AAH 'explanations' are at all
worth a damn by any realistic measure.

> > So "If animal A moves better than animal
> >B in substrate C doesn't that say something about its evolutionary
> >history?" might seem like some profound truism, it isn't the magical
> >support for the AAT that your kind are so desperate to produce.
>
> I agree it's rather trite, and any support it offers AAT is tenuous
at
> best. Nevertheless, it is effective, no? And what exactly is "my
> kind", I wonder? ;-)

Trite yes. Effective? No.

JAE

unread,
May 22, 2005, 1:14:17 PM5/22/05
to

Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> JAE wrote:

[snip]

> > Swimming isn't something particularly noteworthy in mammals.
>
> It is in the primates and especially in the apes. I note that you let
> the principles of cladistics slip when it suits your argument.

You should learn to note better and you should certainly learn more
about cladistics as you seem here to show dreadfully little
appreciation for what it means, how it is used. The things you 'note'
(which for those playing at home is Algis's cute way of trying to
pretend I'm changing the rules in some underhand fashion) tend to be
your own inventions.

But for starters, you're once again jumping beyond your initial
observation ('we swim better than chimps') and putting to "swimming is
noteworthy among primates. Is this really true? Is there actual
evidence that swimming among primates as a general group is
particularly limited such that we can infer an immediate non-swimming
ancestry in our lineage? Since swimming primates have been observed
among old and new world monkeys (and, apparently, among apes) a basic
mammalian ability to swim seems on basic cladistic principles, to be a
symplesiomorphy and thus not evidence of any special selection we've
experienced in the presence of water.

> > Swimming rather slowly--and by the
> > standard of just about any creature that gets a significant of its
> > subsistence from an aquatic resource we're dreadfully slow and
> > cumbersome in the water--isn't remarkable.
>
> It's the relative abilities of humans and chimps that's remarkable
for
> two such closely related species. It speaks, as clearly as anything
> could, that since the LCA our ancestors have been exposed to the
> pressure of selection from moving through water more than their
> ancestors have. It's about as obvious a biological fact as you could
> get, and yet you are forced to pretend it away, otherwise you'd have
to
> admit that the AAH had been largely right all along and you'd just
been
> talking out of your arse on this subject for all these years. And, we
> can't have that, can we?

It does not speak to that at all and you're inventing "biological fact"
now, Algis. You are unfortunately in an unholy marriage with a
hyperselectionist way of thinking that, though comical at times, puts
you at an extreme disadvantage when trying to make sense of
evolutionary phenomena. I realize that you have no appreciation for
this and you get pissy when I tell you that you don't display a
sophisticated understanding of evolutionary biology. You consider this
to be a personal attack. It is not. It is advice from someone who has
spent considerably more time engaged in the subject than you. I
realize you're likely to accuse me of some totalitarian criminal
tactics for saying it, but you'd have long been booted out of any
institution I've been involved with had you proceeded for so many years
so steadfastly refusing to learn anything more than the pop-science
reductionism you've got from the Dawkins bestsellers. It's not
state-of-the-art evolutionary biology, though I get the impression that
you believe it's sufficient. It is not.

If, as it appears likely, swimming ability is a primitive trait, and
indeed the chimps can't swim (which is a point of considerable debate
and its unclear as to real data) it speaks that they have not had
pressure to *maintain* the ability. It says nothing about the pressure
in our lineage. Traits that are not under selective pressure stick
around or disappear due to the powerful stochastic effects of drift.
There is no rule as to how fast this will happen.

ma...@spiznet.com

unread,
May 22, 2005, 2:07:16 PM5/22/05
to
Aldis-

I think this is an extremely literate and polite letter of refutation
to your specific points as far as it goes.

Please respond factually to this critique and join the ranks of
the reasonable, or continue to whine about unfair treatment
and I will urge "jois" to continue her sigfile.

-Mark

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 23, 2005, 7:07:40 AM5/23/05
to
JAE wrote:

> Humans have a relationship with water. True. Extending beyond this
> and using this as "evidence" that any particular trait or suite of
> traits is a product of selection with regards to this relationship
> though is far more problematic. The observation that we've got a
> relationship with water (which can be as minimal as "we need to drink
> it" or more extensive in the case of marine based economies) doesn't
> provide any evidence that the host of AAH 'explanations' are at all
> worth a damn by any realistic measure.

'Can be as minimal as "we need to drink it"' but can be as much as "we
can swim across wide (as much as 30km) stretches of water" or "we can
dive metres under water for shellfish"'. Chimps have not been ever seen
doing that. In fact, only one male has only ever been seen swimming
once (maybe, or maybe it was just wading with style) for a few metres
in all the thousands of primatologist hours of observation time.

The difference in swimming abilities between these two, most closely
related, species is as clear as it is remarkable. Odd that you always
seem to want to pretend it's not there. Not much of a scientific
approach, that.

Algis Kuliukas

firstjois

unread,
May 23, 2005, 12:17:35 PM5/23/05
to

Is demon #0 a nice person or not? I mean if he is a nice person he can
stay. If he is a sleazy two faced lily livered chicken hearted lop eared
jerk, let's throw him out.

It just dawned on me - is this Algis' lab time that he spends on the
computer spouting away re: AAR and wispering sweet nothings in Marco's ear?
What kind of program let's him spend 24/7 going on blah, blah, blah about
AAR? Does his current school have standards of learning where he
demonstrates he has actually learned something while there? (Probably good
typing skills?) And then I thought that the people paying for his grant
are getting robbed. And then I realized he probably hasn't got any kind of
grant. The time and money wasted are his own. And doesn't that make you
feel a little bit better? Does me.

He knew EVERYTHING before he started grad school and hasn't learned
anything since.

Jois
--
Algis lived up to his description "a 'sub-human piece of shit'" 051005 and
continues to live up to this descriptive without apology.

At Algis' request
Jois 051905

--
Thank you, Mr President. This is Algis Kuliukas, reporting for Sleazy
News on the SAP forum. And now... back to the studio for a well
deserved return to other news.

SAP 011904


JAE

unread,
May 23, 2005, 12:59:41 PM5/23/05
to

Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> JAE wrote:
>
> > Humans have a relationship with water. True. Extending beyond
this
> > and using this as "evidence" that any particular trait or suite of
> > traits is a product of selection with regards to this relationship
> > though is far more problematic. The observation that we've got a
> > relationship with water (which can be as minimal as "we need to
drink
> > it" or more extensive in the case of marine based economies)
doesn't
> > provide any evidence that the host of AAH 'explanations' are at all
> > worth a damn by any realistic measure.
>
> 'Can be as minimal as "we need to drink it"' but can be as much as
"we
> can swim across wide (as much as 30km) stretches of water" or "we can
> dive metres under water for shellfish"'. Chimps have not been ever
seen
> doing that. In fact, only one male has only ever been seen swimming
> once (maybe, or maybe it was just wading with style) for a few metres
> in all the thousands of primatologist hours of observation time.

You seem to be falling into the trap of using an extreme of human
performance, one acheived only through considerable planning and
training, and want to use it as some evidence for selection. Most
humans have never been seen swimming 18 miles. You may as well say
that we're specially adapted for living on cliff faces because someone
has done a free ascent of half-dome or we're specially adapted for
living 5.5 miles above sea level amidst glaciers because a few hundred
people have climbed Everest.

All moot. Rather than look at the marvels and decide this premise is
your conclusion, you ought to spend some time constructing a real
argument, like what it was that actually inspired this move to a "more
aquatic" environment that you've claimed rather than simply spout about
"food rich" environments and giant easy to fetch crabs.

[

ma...@spiznet.com

unread,
May 23, 2005, 3:50:12 PM5/23/05
to
firstjois wrote:
> ma...@spiznet.com wrote:
> >> Too late, guys.
> >>
> >> firstjois has summoned demon #0 and hes taken over the list. Just
> >> lucky the other one
> >> didn't notice.
> >>
> >> Peace to all air-breathers from Atlantis, soon to reawaken in the
> >> post-apocalypse.
> >>
> >> -Mermark
>
> Is demon #0 a nice person or not? I mean if he is a nice person he
can
> stay. If he is a sleazy two faced lily livered chicken hearted lop
eared
> jerk, let's throw him out.

Not a nice person, or perhap TOO NICE, in a petrified sort of way.

> It just dawned on me - is this Algis' lab time that he spends on the
> computer spouting away re: AAR and wispering sweet nothings in
Marco's ear?
> What kind of program let's him spend 24/7 going on blah, blah, blah
about
> AAR? Does his current school have standards of learning where he
> demonstrates he has actually learned something while there?
(Probably good
> typing skills?) And then I thought that the people paying for his
grant
> are getting robbed. And then I realized he probably hasn't got any
kind of
> grant. The time and money wasted are his own. And doesn't that make
you
> feel a little bit better? Does me.

Maybe he gets paid by the word...

> He knew EVERYTHING before he started grad school and hasn't learned
> anything since.
>
> Jois
> --
> Algis lived up to his description "a 'sub-human piece of shit'"
051005 and
> continues to live up to this descriptive without apology.
>
> At Algis' request
> Jois 051905

This I like.

> --
> Thank you, Mr President. This is Algis Kuliukas, reporting for Sleazy
> News on the SAP forum. And now... back to the studio for a well
> deserved return to other news.
>
> SAP 011904

But now demon #1 is again appeared- Phil must have done it, we
shouldn't say
"demon" even, let alone the name of the somesuch...

Well, it was a nice newsgroup while it lasted.
-Mark

firstjois

unread,
May 23, 2005, 9:00:43 PM5/23/05
to
ma...@spiznet.com wrote:
[snip]

>>
>> Well, it was a nice newsgroup while it lasted.
>> -Mark

Over time fewer and fewer posters have responded to the AAR and I think
that is an extraordinary improvment. I keep wondering if we couldn't make
a 4-5 liner that we could use as a cut and paste (or Marco!) to respond to
the AAR posts and otherwise ignore the whole group of them.

You might be surprised.

Jois


--
Please stop and smell the roses:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 24, 2005, 4:50:33 AM5/24/05
to

JAE wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > JAE wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Swimming isn't something particularly noteworthy in mammals.
> >
> > It is in the primates and especially in the apes. I note that you
let
> > the principles of cladistics slip when it suits your argument.
>
> You should learn to note better and you should certainly learn more
> about cladistics as you seem here to show dreadfully little
> appreciation for what it means, how it is used. The things you
'note'
> (which for those playing at home is Algis's cute way of trying to
> pretend I'm changing the rules in some underhand fashion) tend to be
> your own inventions.

Note the usual patronising tone. Snobby Jason at his best.

> But for starters, you're once again jumping beyond your initial
> observation ('we swim better than chimps') and putting to "swimming
is
> noteworthy among primates. Is this really true? Is there actual
> evidence that swimming among primates as a general group is
> particularly limited such that we can infer an immediate non-swimming
> ancestry in our lineage? Since swimming primates have been observed
> among old and new world monkeys (and, apparently, among apes) a basic
> mammalian ability to swim seems on basic cladistic principles, to be
a
> symplesiomorphy and thus not evidence of any special selection we've
> experienced in the presence of water.

Note that I actually qualified it a little more precisely... 'in the
primates and especially in the apes'. Small, hairy primates will almost
certainly be good swimmers simply due to the extra buoyancy they gain
from being a small hair-ball.

Out of the apes only gorillas swim AFAIK. As we evolved from that clade
the most parsimonious assumption is that 'not swimming' was the
symplesiomorphic (shared ancestral character, for the rest of us)
state. Put in that context human swimming ability is remarkable.

Then tell me, master, one (just one will do) example where one species
moves unequivocally better than another in any given substrate for a
reason that is unequivocally not due to natural selection. There are
literally billions of permutations to choose from so you should be able
to manage something if your excuses are not just waffly tissues of thin
air.

> If, as it appears likely, swimming ability is a primitive trait, and
> indeed the chimps can't swim (which is a point of considerable debate
> and its unclear as to real data) it speaks that they have not had
> pressure to *maintain* the ability. It says nothing about the
pressure
> in our lineage. Traits that are not under selective pressure stick
> around or disappear due to the powerful stochastic effects of drift.
> There is no rule as to how fast this will happen.

So chimps and bonobos and orang utans and gibbons all had selective
pressure from *not swimming* but humans carried on as if nothing had
happenned. I see.

Algis Kuliukas

mclark

unread,
May 24, 2005, 7:04:17 AM5/24/05
to
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:1116924633.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> JAE wrote:
[...]

>> If, as it appears likely, swimming ability is a primitive trait, and
>> indeed the chimps can't swim (which is a point of considerable debate
>> and its unclear as to real data) it speaks that they have not had
>> pressure to *maintain* the ability. It says nothing about the
> pressure
>> in our lineage. Traits that are not under selective pressure stick
>> around or disappear due to the powerful stochastic effects of drift.
>> There is no rule as to how fast this will happen.
>
> So chimps and bonobos and orang utans and gibbons all had selective
> pressure from *not swimming* but humans carried on as if nothing had
> happenned. I see.

You don't see. You've pretty much established that fact.
Back on the farm, I have a horse and a cart. I've been
cute and named each of them. One is named "evidence"
and the other "conclusion". Can you guess who is who
and in which order they're hooked up?

> Algis Kuliukas


JAE

unread,
May 24, 2005, 4:11:51 PM5/24/05
to

Algis Kuliukas wrote:

[snip]

> So chimps and bonobos and orang utans and gibbons all had selective
> pressure from *not swimming* but humans carried on as if nothing had
> happenned. I see.


You do not see. You are confusing the absence of selection for the
retention of something with selection to eliminate something.

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 24, 2005, 8:36:28 PM5/24/05
to

Ok, so let me rephrase it: So chimps and bonobos and orang utans and
gibbons all had absence of selective pressure *for* swimming but humans
carried on as if nothing had happenned. Is that it? A bit
unparsimonious, isn't it? Isn't it rather more likely that it was four
ape species that carried on as if nothing had happenned and it was the
hominin line that became, just slightly, more aquatic. But then I
forgot: the principles of parsimony don't apply when the AAH is
involved.

Algis Kuliukas

rmacfarl

unread,
May 24, 2005, 10:17:23 PM5/24/05
to
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
...

> I note that you let
> the principles of cladistics slip when it suits your argument.

I could be wrong, but if cladistic relationships are based on comparing
physical taxonomic features, then swimming ability, a behavioural
trait, would have nothing to say in a cladistic analysis.

...


> Have you anything to say about the abuse I'm currently getting from
> your pal Jois? No? Didn't think so. If the person is an AAH proponent
> any amount of abuse is fair game, right?

If you want my opinion, I don't think Jois's currently favoured sig is
appropriate. I prefer the classics that are funny without being
abusive.

Like, say:

> Tell you what, Ross. You're right. There is no point. Why don't
> you just use the usual aquasceptic tactic and killfile me (stroke
> of genius, that). That way you can pretend there is no AAH and you
> can all live happily ever after.
- Algis Kuliukas, 20-Dec-2004.

Why indeed?

<Plonk>

Ross Macfarlane

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 24, 2005, 11:09:10 PM5/24/05
to
rmacfarl wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> ...
> > I note that you let
> > the principles of cladistics slip when it suits your argument.
>
> I could be wrong, but if cladistic relationships are based on comparing
> physical taxonomic features, then swimming ability, a behavioural
> trait, would have nothing to say in a cladistic analysis.

Of course cladistics have traditionally been used to analyse physical
characters because fossils (the usual material for studying
evolutionary relationships) do not have behavioural traits. But I do
not think that there is any rule that says that cladistics cannot be
used to analyse behaviours too. I seem to remember reading a study of
primate behaviours recently which used cladistics as its basis to infer
evolutionary relationships. At UWA one PhD student did a cladistic
analysis of Persian rugs. Although he analysed physical characters of
the rugs, they are clearly a cultural manifestation.

> ...
> > Have you anything to say about the abuse I'm currently getting from
> > your pal Jois? No? Didn't think so. If the person is an AAH proponent
> > any amount of abuse is fair game, right?
>
> If you want my opinion, I don't think Jois's currently favoured sig is
> appropriate. I prefer the classics that are funny without being
> abusive.

Thanks Ross. At least you have shown some civility and independence of
thought here. If only more would do so.

> Like, say:
>
> > Tell you what, Ross. You're right. There is no point. Why don't
> > you just use the usual aquasceptic tactic and killfile me (stroke
> > of genius, that). That way you can pretend there is no AAH and you
> > can all live happily ever after.
> - Algis Kuliukas, 20-Dec-2004.
>
> Why indeed?
>
> <Plonk>
>
> Ross Macfarlane

I've got no problem with piss taking. If people think the AAH is
ridiculous poke fun at it by all means. I poke fun at the counter
arguments, after all. What I find really depressing is the level of
hostility some people on this newsgroup seem to have with people like
myself whose only 'crime' is to have a view of human evolution that
assumes that moving through water played a part. It's not a hanging
offence, surely, and yet to read the bigotted comments of people like
Jois and Michael you'd think I'd killed someone.

It's not justified. I bet if I was sitting in the same room as these
people they'd be a little more civil. (At least I'd hope so.) What is
it about the internet that makes people think they can get away with
being so nasty and hostile? It's the car-rage syndrome all over again,
I think.

We should remember that there is a real person at the other end of
these postings, people who deserve at least the same level of respect
and civility that you'd give to people passing you in the street.

Algis Kuliukas

Philip Deitiker

unread,
May 24, 2005, 11:28:25 PM5/24/05
to
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>> Have you anything to say about the abuse I'm currently getting
>> from your pal Jois?

Although Jois is not my pal, I think she is doing a fine job.
I have learned from experience that people who cry foul are usually
the ones doing the fouling. Jois is using your own rope to hang you.
I suggest you stop giving her more or she'll hogtie you with that
also. There is a basic idea in debate, that is if you present a
tactic that causes you to loose ground, don't repeat the tactic.
You have to have learned something in all these debates better than
X, Y and Z are all bad people who want to do you in.

>> No?
>> Didn't think so.

You think? Wow and that is now a bit worthy of a news group.
Can I see an example of you thinking? I know your good at fabricating
propoganda and crying wolf.

>> If the person is an
>> AAH proponent any amount of abuse is fair game, right?

Algis, if I thought AAH was off topic here I and others would ask you
to leave and find another group. You have full right under the
charter of the group to stay and make your own bed to lie in. Just
don't complain about the bed bugs. Your basic problem is that people
respond to you and critique you, learn to live with it. If I were you
I would find a way of dealing with people where you can both present
your ideas and get the respect of your critics at the same time.
Encouraging critical members to plonk you is not that way.


> If you want my opinion, I don't think Jois's currently favoured
> sig is appropriate.

Except for Algis asks for these types of things. What goes around
comes around, if Jois is being unfair she will get her come up-ings.
I would hope that as long as people stay on topic we can avoid the
confrontationals and stay above the E# and J@ZBR!0L show that has
showed.

> I prefer the classics that are funny without
> being abusive.
>
> Like, say:
>
>> Tell you what, Ross. You're right. There is no point. Why don't
>> you just use the usual aquasceptic tactic and killfile me
>> (stroke of genius, that). That way you can pretend there is no
>> AAH and you can all live happily ever after.
> - Algis Kuliukas, 20-Dec-2004.

Algis, What Ross gives you is a wonderful illustration of a basic
edict in science. Respect in science is not given, its earned.
Statements like the above show something about your character which
you should reflect upon, so that you don't make such statements or
similar statements again. No one here is your tribe mate, brother,
sister, child, they have no reason to give you respect any more than
a vagrant walking the street. You need to find a way to earn it. Your
particularly long and tiring battles with Jason in which you bang
your head against and intellectual wall have earned you few points
with anyone.
As I told you, its not the basic concept of AA? that I personally
am bothered by, its the manner in which the AA? proponents try to
cram their 'scenarios' down the throats of open minded people. It is
not altogether bad that people lean in a direction. In fact I lean in
the direction that early humans probably increased aquatic
adaptations as a protoprocess before leaving africa, recent
publications now support more or less my point of view. But there are
other things also going on that must be coconsidered and the adaptive
nature of human beings as a precondition to the enhanced (evolved)
water adaptations as well as other enhancments need to be
simultaneously considered. Essentially you want people to forget
about preconditions and other processes and take your flag and run
with it. It makes you look pushy and ignorant. Good ideas don't need
propoganda, what they need is articulate people who think clearly to
express them and offer them up as alternatives when the _appropriate_
opportunity arise, creating 1000 threads is not the way.
You have to accept the fact that people are going to disagree with
you, they may or may not good reason. Its how you deal with the
disagreement in your life that will gain the respect of people and
reflect badly on people who insult you and 'abuse' you. If you cry
abuse after you yourself created a reason for being abused, in the
south we call it crocodile tears. Why don't you take a break for a
while from the group if you feel other regulars are abusing you, I
don't care, you are deep in my killfile and if I see a reply to most
posts to you I scroll to the next post, that is utterly how boring
your post are now. Is that what you were aiming at?



Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 25, 2005, 12:55:56 AM5/25/05
to

Philip Deitiker wrote:
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> >> Have you anything to say about the abuse I'm currently getting
> >> from your pal Jois?
>
> Although Jois is not my pal, I think she is doing a fine job.
> I have learned from experience that people who cry foul are usually
> the ones doing the fouling.

What a wonderful outlook on life you have.

> Jois is using your own rope to hang you.

What rope? I've not been hostile to her. Where and when did I earn that
hostility? Because I'm an AAH proponent? That makes it ok, does it?

> I suggest you stop giving her more or she'll hogtie you with that
> also. There is a basic idea in debate, that is if you present a
> tactic that causes you to loose ground, don't repeat the tactic.
> You have to have learned something in all these debates better than
> X, Y and Z are all bad people who want to do you in.
>
> >> No?
> >> Didn't think so.
>
> You think? Wow and that is now a bit worthy of a news group.
> Can I see an example of you thinking? I know your good at fabricating
> propoganda and crying wolf.

Oh what a clever argument.

> >> If the person is an
> >> AAH proponent any amount of abuse is fair game, right?
>
> Algis, if I thought AAH was off topic here I and others would ask you
> to leave and find another group. You have full right under the
> charter of the group to stay and make your own bed to lie in.

You wish. The AAH has been the reason this newsgroup has kept going. It
would have packed in, through boredom, long since otherwise. It's been
the number one topic of discussion since its inception. Ever wondered
why?

The AAH is a theory of human evolution. This forum is primarily
concerened with human evolution therefore the AAH is certainly not 'off
topic'. It's most definitely 'on'.

> Just
> don't complain about the bed bugs. Your basic problem is that people
> respond to you and critique you, learn to live with it. If I were you
> I would find a way of dealing with people where you can both present
> your ideas and get the respect of your critics at the same time.
> Encouraging critical members to plonk you is not that way.

I have no problem being 'critiqued'. Some posters here, people like
Rick Wagler and Jim Moore (when he comes), are highly critical of the
AAH but they tend to avoid insults and bigotry. Why can't you endorse
that approach?

It's people like Jois and Michael I've got a problem with. No content,
no debate, just inane childish insults every time. But they get your
thumbs up, don't they? A clear endorsement for stupidity and bigotry
from you. Thanks.

> > If you want my opinion, I don't think Jois's currently favoured
> > sig is appropriate.
>
> Except for Algis asks for these types of things. What goes around
> comes around, if Jois is being unfair she will get her come up-ings.
> I would hope that as long as people stay on topic we can avoid the
> confrontationals and stay above the E# and J@ZBR!0L show that has
> showed.

Why and how do I ask for being insulted in every posting? Jois "will
get her come-uppings"? How is this going to happen when you defend her
and say that she's doing "a fine job". Note that I do not say Marc is
doing a fine job. I criticise him for his insulting and uncivil
behaviour but you endorse it and JAE gives it his tacit approval.

Algis Kuliukas

JAE

unread,
May 25, 2005, 4:11:17 AM5/25/05
to

rmacfarl wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> ...
> > I note that you let
> > the principles of cladistics slip when it suits your argument.
>
> I could be wrong, but if cladistic relationships are based on comparing
> physical taxonomic features, then swimming ability, a behavioural
> trait, would have nothing to say in a cladistic analysis.

You are wrong. Cladistics is a classification system based on
similarities in derived characteristics. These need not be physical
characteristics and need not even be confined to biological systems,
though when used to characterize relationships elsewhere, some
considerable liberties must be taken when it comes to asserting the
manner of inheritance of the traits. *If* the traits are heritable, it
is possible to use a cladistic approach to analyze them. If entirely
learned, it's still possible to examine swimming if this learning
process occurs in a strictly vertical system, though it's far harder to
accept such constraints on any real system over millions of years.

There's considerable misuse of cladistics. I'm suspicious whenever I
see the line "principles of cladistics." Sounds more religious. It's
not a principle so much as it's a methodological approach to examine
evolutionary relationships between taxa as these relationships relate
to heritable traits. It provides both a methodology for deducing
relationships from traits (provided the mechanism of heredity is solid)
and, if the relationships are know, for analyzing the evolution of
heritable traits over the natural histories of related taxa.

JAE

unread,
May 25, 2005, 4:27:18 AM5/25/05
to

There is nothing at all unparsiomonious about this. You do not seem to
have the best grasp of what the term parsimony means.

It is also rather unclear that the four ape species don't have an
ability to swim. There are conflicting sources saying chimps can and
cannot swim, that gorillas can and cannot swim (one such source saying
they cannot said that while gorillas can't that chimps can), that
gibbons can and cannot swim. I've not seen any claims that orangs can
swim but I've seen conflicting reports saying that they're dreadfully
afraid of water and others saying they'll wade in regularly. What this
seems to indicate is that there's a dearth of real data out there, but
at least anecdotally, the's reason to believe that *inability to swim*
is somehow a heritable ancestral state for apes. Since the ability to
swim is widespread (not the ready desire, but the ability as the two
are different things) it's not remarkable that any mammal in particular
can swim *UNLESS* it's somehow clear that their ancestors could not.

But this seems not to interest you as you're instead back to your
persecuted conspiracy minded self once again insulating yourself in the
(rather errant) belief that it's only because you've said "aquatic"
that you're wrong. You'll get nowhere with this reaction, though you
seem hell-bent on it nonetheless.

rmacfarl

unread,
May 25, 2005, 4:38:27 AM5/25/05
to

Thanks for the clarification...

Ross Macfarlane

ma...@spiznet.com

unread,
May 25, 2005, 1:52:48 PM5/25/05
to
>Why and how do I ask for being insulted in every posting? Jois "will
>get her come-uppings"? How is this going to happen when you defend her
>and say that she's doing "a fine job". Note that I do not say Marc is
>doing a fine job. I criticise him for his insulting and uncivil
>behaviour but you endorse it and JAE gives it his tacit approval.
>
>Algis Kuliukas

Language problem:
I will not admit that JAE gives tacit approval to anything MV says.
Re-reading this
I believe you were **trying** to say that PD & JAE approve of
aquasceptical abuse.
Please be more grammatical: replace "it" with "this sort of thing" or
some other
verbiage to avoid meaningless or contradictory paragraphs.

"Why and how do I ask for being insulted in every posting?" {Don't
disappoint him! He's begging.}
-Algis 052505

Philip Deitiker

unread,
May 25, 2005, 2:56:52 PM5/25/05
to
In sci.anthropology.paleo, ma...@spiznet.com created a
message ID news:1117043568.902982.236230
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>>Why and how do I ask for being insulted in every posting?
Jois "will
>>get her come-uppings"? How is this going to happen when you
defend her
>>and say that she's doing "a fine job". Note that I do not
say Marc is
>>doing a fine job. I criticise him for his insulting and
uncivil
>>behaviour but you endorse it and JAE gives it his tacit
approval.
>>
>>Algis Kuliukas

The reason I would ask people not to insult you is for the
sake of the group, to be able to differentiate serious
participants from flame throwers. It has no issue on whether
you deserve it. If Jois continues this then she might attract
a contingent of naer do wells that will annoy her and the rest
of the group. As for you, the way i see it, it is very easy to
avoid the treatment you get, see Jason's reply. Otherwise
learn to deal with it.

> "Why and how do I ask for being insulted in every posting?"
{Don't
> disappoint him! He's begging.}
> -Algis 052505

Keep it on the high road folks, we were challenged in
talk.origins for the garbage that was being thrown back and
forth, and as a result it was hard to get the restrictions in
place. As long as he stays on topic, he deserves are little
bit of respect, of course he cannot call his own writings
abuse.

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 25, 2005, 9:17:19 PM5/25/05
to

Only as much as you do to try to argue the opposite point. What you
said, remember, was "The observation that we've got a relationship with
water (which can be as minimal as 'we need to drink it'..." You were
putting forward one extreme to make your point, I was merely countering
with the opposite extreme.

> Most
> humans have never been seen swimming 18 miles. You may as well say
> that we're specially adapted for living on cliff faces because someone
> has done a free ascent of half-dome or we're specially adapted for
> living 5.5 miles above sea level amidst glaciers because a few hundred
> people have climbed Everest.
>
> All moot. Rather than look at the marvels and decide this premise is
> your conclusion, you ought to spend some time constructing a real
> argument, like what it was that actually inspired this move to a "more
> aquatic" environment that you've claimed rather than simply spout about
> "food rich" environments and giant easy to fetch crabs.

Yes, it is all moot. The key facts are that humans are generally more
comfortable in water than chimpanzees. They are generally able to swim
and they are generally better able to dive. How many instances of human
swimming have been observed - billions. How many in chimps - one or
two, maybe. (A reasonable control would be that for 'climbing' with a
somewhat opposite result.) The most fundamental part of science starts
with making simple observations. That it takes such an effort to get
you to admit such shockingly simple one (no doubt you still won't admit
them even here) is illustrative of the blind spot you have and the
bizarre need you have to pretend it doesn't exist. Some scientific
approach that - pretend the most basic fact simply is not there and
then invent a tonne of bullshit to justify the twisted explanations
that results from it's absence.

Algis Kuliukas

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 25, 2005, 9:53:19 PM5/25/05
to
JAE wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > JAE wrote:
> > > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > So chimps and bonobos and orang utans and gibbons all had selective
> > > > pressure from *not swimming* but humans carried on as if nothing had
> > > > happenned. I see.
> > >
> > >
> > > You do not see. You are confusing the absence of selection for the
> > > retention of something with selection to eliminate something.
> >
> > Ok, so let me rephrase it: So chimps and bonobos and orang utans and
> > gibbons all had absence of selective pressure *for* swimming but humans
> > carried on as if nothing had happenned. Is that it? A bit
> > unparsimonious, isn't it? Isn't it rather more likely that it was four
> > ape species that carried on as if nothing had happenned and it was the
> > hominin line that became, just slightly, more aquatic. But then I
> > forgot: the principles of parsimony don't apply when the AAH is
> > involved.
>
> There is nothing at all unparsiomonious about this. You do not seem to
> have the best grasp of what the term parsimony means.

What!? If today groups Bo, Ch, Gi, Or are non-swimmers and groups Hu
and Go are swimmers, how can it be more parsimonious to explain that
the LCA was a swimmer? If the LCA was a swimmer four changes are
required. If the LCA was a non-swimmer two changes are required. I
thought the use of parsimony in cladistics always attempts to contruct
the tree which requires the fewest changes so tell me, Master, where is
my understanding of parsimony lacking?

As swimming/non-swimming is not binary, surely the most parsimonious
explanation of all is that the LCA was a slightly worse swimmer than,
say, the gorilla. From that point gorillas have changed the least but
the four non-swimming apes would have had to change relatively little
too. Of all the apes, the human condition (the best swimmers of all the
primates) is therefore the most remarkable and in need of an
explanation - an AAH-based explanation, of course.

> It is also rather unclear that the four ape species don't have an
> ability to swim.

Of course 'ability to swim' is not a binary character like the presence
or absence of a particular bobble on the skull might be.

> There are conflicting sources saying chimps can and cannot swim,

One source (only one AFAIK) says "at least one" male chimp has been
observed swimming - but it was only a few metres at most and it could
have been falling whilst wading. Do you know of any other source? You
seem to be alluding to that.... "source*s*".

All other sources AFAIK say they cannot or do not swim. The fact that
moats have been used in chimp enclosures in zoos for years and that
several have drowned in them argues they generally cannot.

> that gorillas can and cannot swim (one such source saying
> they cannot said that while gorillas can't that chimps can),

Which source is that please?

> that gibbons can and cannot swim.

I've not read anything to suggest that gibbons can swim. The anecdotal
evidence I've heard is that they drown very easily.

> I've not seen any claims that orangs can swim but I've seen conflicting
> reports saying that they're dreadfully
> afraid of water and others saying they'll wade in regularly.

I asked Birute Galdikas face to face about this a few weeks ago and she
told me that in her experience orangs cannot swim but they are very
comfortable wading.

> What this
> seems to indicate is that there's a dearth of real data out there, but
> at least anecdotally, the's reason to believe that *inability to swim*
> is somehow a heritable ancestral state for apes.

So, are you agreeing with me then, or what?

> Since the ability to
> swim is widespread (not the ready desire, but the ability as the two
> are different things) it's not remarkable that any mammal in particular
> can swim *UNLESS* it's somehow clear that their ancestors could not.

But as you've just admitted that the apes' "*inability to swim* is
somehow a heritable ancestral state for apes" then presumably you must
agree that the human ability to swim is remarkable.

Or was that just a typo? Did you mean to write "there's *no* reason to


believe that *inability to swim* is somehow a heritable ancestral state

for apes." ? - If it was a typo, perhaps Mark will attack your English
Language abilities like he did mine, when I made a similar simple
mistake in the previous posting. No? What a surprise. It's like I've
said many times now - the rules change when the dreaded 'a' factor is
invoked. Suddenly, it all becomes tribal and there are no rules. Ug,
Ug!

> But this seems not to interest you as you're instead back to your
> persecuted conspiracy minded self once again insulating yourself in the
> (rather errant) belief that it's only because you've said "aquatic"
> that you're wrong. You'll get nowhere with this reaction, though you
> seem hell-bent on it nonetheless.

But the evidence for that conclusion is there again and again. Why is
it Ok to attack Marc for being uncivil and abusive but not Jois? Why is
ok for Mark to criticise my language skills because of a simple typo
but not yours? Why is the use of parsimony in cladistics fine as long
as we're analysing dry bones but not wet swimming behaviour? Why do
comparisons of locomotor abilities between species pairs in different
substrates have evolutionary significance in all of the billions of
permutations except then they involve humans, apes and water?

This aversion to making the painfully simple concession that, ok, water
influenced our evolution more than it did the apes - is as astonishing
as it is illustrative of a denial of the first principle of science -
start with a simple observation and take it from there. You do not, can
not, *dare* not make that first observation because if you did, you'd
have to admit that the years of hostility against the AAH have been
nothing but a grotesque facade.

Algis Kuliukas

JAE

unread,
May 26, 2005, 3:03:14 PM5/26/05
to

Cut the sarcastic 'master' crap. You're simply using it as a
smokescreen, unless you're simply trying to act like an asshole for
effect. But since you asked, you are confusing "can swim" with "does
swim." This is a significant error. You should have paid more
attention. Swimming is not part of the ecological adaptation of apes
in general. Housecats do not swim. Housecats can swim.

You are using parsimony innaccurately when you equate "don't swim" with
"can't swim" when you don't have the evidence to back the claim.


> As swimming/non-swimming is not binary, surely the most parsimonious
> explanation of all is that the LCA was a slightly worse swimmer than,
> say, the gorilla. From that point gorillas have changed the least but
> the four non-swimming apes would have had to change relatively little
> too. Of all the apes, the human condition (the best swimmers of all the
> primates) is therefore the most remarkable and in need of an
> explanation - an AAH-based explanation, of course.
>
> > It is also rather unclear that the four ape species don't have an
> > ability to swim.
>
> Of course 'ability to swim' is not a binary character like the presence
> or absence of a particular bobble on the skull might be.
>
> > There are conflicting sources saying chimps can and cannot swim,
>
> One source (only one AFAIK) says "at least one" male chimp has been
> observed swimming - but it was only a few metres at most and it could
> have been falling whilst wading. Do you know of any other source? You
> seem to be alluding to that.... "source*s*".

This is really not difficult.


A single source that indicates that it is not impossible for a chimp to
swim indicates that the claim that it is impossible is false. The many
claims that they *can't* seem to be indicating more that they *don't*
swim.

I've said that there's a problem with the data.

Take a look at:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcamelswim.html

This is, btw, a second source indicating that chimps can swim based on
actual eyewitness account. Note how it says also that gorillas *can't*
swim, something that, should your source on swimming gorillas be true,
is false. Who knows what he based it on. I suspect that the claims of
*inability* to swim in chimps are similarly basing this on nothing.
Moats will stop a creature that really doesn't want to swim even if the
*ability* is there.

> All other sources AFAIK say they cannot or do not swim. The fact that
> moats have been used in chimp enclosures in zoos for years and that
> several have drowned in them argues they generally cannot.

Note the difference between cannot and do not. These are very
different things and have drastic implications to the reconstruction of
character states based on a parsimonious cladistic relationship.

> > that gorillas can and cannot swim (one such source saying
> > they cannot said that while gorillas can't that chimps can),
>
> Which source is that please?

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcamelswim.html


> > that gibbons can and cannot swim.
>
> I've not read anything to suggest that gibbons can swim. The anecdotal
> evidence I've heard is that they drown very easily.

"http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Hylobates_hoolock.html"

"Hoolock gibbons are known to swim well, but rarely do so and will go
out of their way to avoid water (Roonwal and Mohnot, 1977)." I haven't
checked out the primary reference. I do not vouch for it, though I did
not notice primary references supporting the claims that gibbons cannot
swim.

> > I've not seen any claims that orangs can swim but I've seen conflicting


> > reports saying that they're dreadfully
> > afraid of water and others saying they'll wade in regularly.
>
> I asked Birute Galdikas face to face about this a few weeks ago and she
> told me that in her experience orangs cannot swim but they are very
> comfortable wading.
>
> > What this
> > seems to indicate is that there's a dearth of real data out there, but
> > at least anecdotally, the's reason to believe that *inability to swim*
> > is somehow a heritable ancestral state for apes.
>
> So, are you agreeing with me then, or what?

Typo. There's a dearth of data. I am suspicious of the many claims
that apes CANNOT swim since the reports that they can seem to be from
positive evidence and the reports that they can't seem more based on
the fact that they don't swim.

> > Since the ability to
> > swim is widespread (not the ready desire, but the ability as the two
> > are different things) it's not remarkable that any mammal in particular
> > can swim *UNLESS* it's somehow clear that their ancestors could not.
>
> But as you've just admitted that the apes' "*inability to swim* is
> somehow a heritable ancestral state for apes" then presumably you must
> agree that the human ability to swim is remarkable.

A typo. No, I don't consider the *ability* remarkable. It's not
remarkable because it's not clear that our ancestors couldn't and it's
clear that mammals, in general, can. The remarkable thing is that at
some point, humans seemed to add aquatic resources to their diet in
ways that other creatures haven't. This is an interesting question for
human behavioral ecology. How did this happen? Was it purely a
technological advent? What I object to is the immediate assumption
that this accompanied a phenotypic change. Concluding that this
acompanied phenotypic changes is not currently warranted.

[snip]

> This aversion to making the painfully simple concession that, ok, water
> influenced our evolution more than it did the apes - is as astonishing
> as it is illustrative of a denial of the first principle of science -
> start with a simple observation and take it from there. You do not, can
> not, *dare* not make that first observation because if you did, you'd
> have to admit that the years of hostility against the AAH have been
> nothing but a grotesque facade.

[Back to the persecuted-Algis-hypothesis. Yawn]

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
May 26, 2005, 8:01:14 PM5/26/05
to

Then you cut the patronising "I'm the great teacher and you're the
stupid pupil" crap. Whenever you write stuff like "You do not seem to
have the best grasp of what the term parsimony means", when I do, then
I'm going to give you the sarcastic master crap, right? Your
patronising tone deserves some reposte and being sarcastic is more
civil than calling someone 'a pathetic little prick' or 'a subhuman
piece of shit'. You expect my grovelling respect for your superior
academic achievements, and you'd get it if the ex cathedra argument was
not the only arguemnt you have.

I never claimed it was impossible for chimps to swim but they're
clearly not as good at it as humans.

> > All other sources AFAIK say they cannot or do not swim. The fact that
> > moats have been used in chimp enclosures in zoos for years and that
> > several have drowned in them argues they generally cannot.
>
> Note the difference between cannot and do not. These are very
> different things and have drastic implications to the reconstruction of
> character states based on a parsimonious cladistic relationship.

Until that day when some ethical committee somewhere passes approval on
subjecting precious ape subjects to the risk of drowning so that some
scientist can attempt to demonstrate which apes really can swim, I
think we're stuck with the anecdotal. And the anecdotal overwhelmingly
suggests that apes are not as good swimmers as we are. Why don't you
just start accepting that as a working premise, rather than trying to
pretend it away?

> > > that gorillas can and cannot swim (one such source saying
> > > they cannot said that while gorillas can't that chimps can),
> >
> > Which source is that please?
>
> http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcamelswim.html

I wonder how seriously you'd have taken any citation I'd have made from
Cecil's mail bag but anyway... Ok, so that's two claims that chimps can
swim. I have never claimed that it was impossible for chimps to swim,
just that they generally don't and that as it is as true to suggest
that chickens can fly as it is to say that chimps can swim. If they
*can*, they can only do so very modestly. The main point is that humans
swim far, far better than they do and that this is remarkable
considering how closely related we are.

> > > that gibbons can and cannot swim.
> >
> > I've not read anything to suggest that gibbons can swim. The anecdotal
> > evidence I've heard is that they drown very easily.
>
> "http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Hylobates_hoolock.html"
>
> "Hoolock gibbons are known to swim well, but rarely do so and will go
> out of their way to avoid water (Roonwal and Mohnot, 1977)." I haven't
> checked out the primary reference. I do not vouch for it, though I did
> not notice primary references supporting the claims that gibbons cannot
> swim.

Thanks for that.

> > > I've not seen any claims that orangs can swim but I've seen conflicting
> > > reports saying that they're dreadfully
> > > afraid of water and others saying they'll wade in regularly.
> >
> > I asked Birute Galdikas face to face about this a few weeks ago and she
> > told me that in her experience orangs cannot swim but they are very
> > comfortable wading.
> >
> > > What this
> > > seems to indicate is that there's a dearth of real data out there, but
> > > at least anecdotally, the's reason to believe that *inability to swim*
> > > is somehow a heritable ancestral state for apes.
> >
> > So, are you agreeing with me then, or what?
>
> Typo. There's a dearth of data. I am suspicious of the many claims
> that apes CANNOT swim since the reports that they can seem to be from
> positive evidence and the reports that they can't seem more based on
> the fact that they don't swim.

Look, I'm suspicious too. But even if they can swim there's little
doubt that they can't swim as well as we can. There's clearly a big
element of learning involved too but it also applies to walking and
climbing and our great learning abilities don't seem to help or hinder
much there.

> > > Since the ability to
> > > swim is widespread (not the ready desire, but the ability as the two
> > > are different things) it's not remarkable that any mammal in particular
> > > can swim *UNLESS* it's somehow clear that their ancestors could not.
> >
> > But as you've just admitted that the apes' "*inability to swim* is
> > somehow a heritable ancestral state for apes" then presumably you must
> > agree that the human ability to swim is remarkable.
>
> A typo. No, I don't consider the *ability* remarkable. It's not
> remarkable because it's not clear that our ancestors couldn't and it's
> clear that mammals, in general, can. The remarkable thing is that at
> some point, humans seemed to add aquatic resources to their diet in
> ways that other creatures haven't. This is an interesting question for
> human behavioral ecology. How did this happen? Was it purely a
> technological advent? What I object to is the immediate assumption
> that this accompanied a phenotypic change. Concluding that this
> acompanied phenotypic changes is not currently warranted.

It's fair to object but when you put the observation that humans swim
better than chimps alongside the peculiar phenotypic traits we *do*
have I think those objections really appear to be rather unfounded.

Algis Kuliukas

Philip Deitiker

unread,
May 27, 2005, 11:25:54 AM5/27/05
to
In sci.anthropology.paleo, JAE created a message ID
news:1117008677.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> There's considerable misuse of cladistics. I'm suspicious
whenever I
> see the line "principles of cladistics." Sounds more
religious. It's
> not a principle so much as it's a methodological approach to
examine
> evolutionary relationships between taxa as these
relationships relate
> to heritable traits. It provides both a methodology for
deducing
> relationships from traits (provided the mechanism of
heredity is solid)
> and, if the relationships are know, for analyzing the
evolution of
> heritable traits over the natural histories of related taxa.

This I like. I haven't seen it put like this before, but you
are absolutely correct. I think in many cases, instead of
assigning a species name the researchers should point out the
methodology they use for determining separate clads and
explain why, for example, if only one fossil of a morphotype
exists, why it deserves a separate species. If other people
are using other criteria and that criteria is not used it
should be explained why.

I was just going over the wheat genetics and if appears that
modern wheat is placed in the genus Triticum

However bread wheat is a hybrid between that genus and
Aegilops.

Emmers GoatGrass Bread Wheat.
AABB + CCDD ----> AABBDD hexaploid wheat (less CC)

CCDD is a hybrid between two species of Aegilops

AA is a hybrid between the ancestor of Einkorn wheat and some
other grass of unknown origin.

Obviously there must be a reason why these are all assigned to
separate genomes, since they can clearly inter mate.

In the other triticeae grains the same process of
hybridization has been used.

There are speltoid goatgrass genes that have made their way
into AABBDD (spelt) and there appears to be an asia precursory
spelt AABB

The basic problem with systematics is that nomenclature and
reality often differ. The assignment of names based on
esoteric qualities such as culture or phenotype should include
a suffix allowing them to remain in a temporary or informal
status until sufficient information is accumulated for
otherwise.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages