What is the Aquatic theory?
Marc Verhaegen
were aquatic, semi-aquatic. therefore has characteristics of aquatic
species. b) A hypothesis, that our remote predecessors spent generations
on the Indian Ocean coast, and doing so benefited from a rich and varied
diet that fostered the development of a large brain. Why then has the
aquatic theory, become an argument about wading? m3d
Has it?? Why do yo think that? AAT is not about wading AFAIK: wading mammals
don't walk on 2 legs (tapir, capibara, racoon, babirusa, hippo...). AAT says
that (with the words of Alister Hardy) Man was more aquatic in the past.
This is beyond doubt. The question is: how aquatic? Hardy used comparative
arguments to argue that our ancestors were waterside once, esp. SC fat &
furlessness, handiness & tool use (racoon, otter), elongated body... Hardy
was right of that our ancestors were waterside once, but wrong in in
adopting the paleo-anthropologists' time scale. IMO, it's obvious that our
ancestors' semi-aquatic phase did not happen 10 Ma or so, but instead during
the Pleistocene. What we see in the fossil record are our seaside relatives
(Mojokerto, Flores, Boxgrove, Terra Amata, Gibraltar, Eritrea, Hopefield...)
or their waterside relatives inland. BTW, AAT sensu stricto has nothing to
with apiths. Only with Homo. On the Ind.Ocean coast? Presumably, but not
impossibly on the Med.coasts. Atlantic coast is unlikely I guess.
Homo's semi-aquatic adaptations did not happen totally unexpectedly: early
apes were most likely wading-suspensory in swamp forests: only this
lifestyle can explain the remarkably different locomotions of living
hominoids (fast-brachiating, slow-suspensory, knuckle-walking, bipedal). My
idea now: 20 Ma Afr.apes' ancestors already lived in swamp forests (times
were wetter & hotter then), but the typically hominoid innovations
(below-branch, tail loss, larger size) came when they crossed the Tethys Sea
c 18 Ma & split into hylobatids & hominids-pongids. Gibbons soon readapted
to drier forests, but the great ape ancestors could have remained in coastal
forests along the Tethys, where early apes are found (Heliopith southern,
Griphopith northern Tethys coasts c 17 Ma (*)). Between 16 & 14 Ma there
were probably 3 major sea level fluctuations (50m), islands & archipelagoes
& para-Tethys seas formed & disappeared (Pannonia, Transsylvania,
Transcaucasia...). Possibly the early hominids-pongids had to swim to
coastal forests on other islands (island-swimming is sometimes seen in
macaques, proboscis monkeys & capuchins, but in the early hominoids it
probably went further). About 10 Ma we find Dryopith in Parathetyan deposits
in hot & warm swamp forests (**). Shortly thereafter we find Oreopith in
coal swamps on a Med.island & Afr.hominids: Samburupith c 9 Ma, Sahelanthr c
7 Ma, Orrorin c 6 Ma... in waterside forests. At about that time or somewhat
later Pan & Homo split. Gorilla & Pan presumably went inland along gallary
forests, whereas Homo stayed in coastal forest & when the climate cooled,
sea levels dropped & forests disappeared at the beginning of the Ice Ages,
Homo lost most climbing adaptations & got diving skills & in a remarkably
fast time dispersed all alond the Med. & Indian Ocean coasts (founc from
Algeria to Java c 1.8 Ma). They got even better dexterity (Cape otter) &
stone tool use (sea otter), larger brains, an external nose, reduced
olfactory sense, reduced masticatory strength (slippery seafood?), longer
legs (wading??), even a dense skeleton in H.erectus (only seen, to a greater
degree, in slow bottom-diving mammals: walrus, seacows, Odobenocetops,
Kolponomos & some Thalassocnus spp). Presumably they learnt to butcher
turtles & stranded whales at the beach as we see inland at riversides in the
archeol.record (Olorgesaille...).
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
(*) eg, P Holec & RJ Emry 2003 Ch.24 "Another Molar of the Miocene Hominid
Griphopithecus suessi from the Type Locality at Sandberg, Slovakia"
Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist.279:625-631: "The section at Sandberg is a sequence of
transgressive sands & sandstones, with lenses of cross-bedded estuarine
deposits. These littoral marine sediments contain abundant fossils,
predom.of marine invertebrates. Less common are marine vertebrates
incl.fishes, sharks, Phocidae, sirenians & cetaceans, & the remains of
terr.vertebrates are also found occasionally. ... During the Badenian, this
range was a peninsula or archipelago extending into the Paratethyan Sea."
(**) eg, L Kordos & DR Begun 2001 "A New cranium of Dryopithecus from
Rudabanya, Hungary" JHE 41:689-700: "... abundant faunal & botanical remains
& detailed taphonomic paleoecol., geochem., sedimentol.& biochronol.
analyses all point to a subtropical, forested, swamp margin environment
deposited ~10 Ma in shallow embayment of the northern shore of the Central
Paratethys..."
Marc Verhaegen
> > >First, as hypothesis go, I agree the Aquatic ape one is more plausible
than the old savannah theory, however the word aquatic implies that our
remote predecessors lived in water
> > Does it?? The word implies, exactly as Hardy said, that Man was more
aquatic in the past. The term "aq.ape" is from Elaine (after Morris's "naked
ape") & she didn't mean anything else than what Hardy meant.
> > > , whereas it would be more accurate to say that our remote
predecessors lived in water rich environments such as lakes, river estuaries
and the seashore. Coastal or shore apes would be a better description, than
aquatic apes.
> > Well, that's your opinion, but not of, eg, Algis.
> > > Second, we are walking bipeds, not wading bipeds, our legs are long
because our gait is the most efficient way to walk from A. to B.
> > Ah? 1) long legs efficient? what cursorials have long legs? Do
ostriches have rel.longer legs than flamingoes? 2) our gait most
efficient?? People run half as fast as horses. --Marc
> Definition of aquatic: something that lives and grows in water.
Well, I too find the term "aq.ape" not very fortunate: as everybody knows
AAT is not about apes & not about real aquatics. I discussed this with
Elaine, and I have to agree with her that everybody who informs a bit knows
what we mean (that, in Hardy's words, Man was more aquatic in the past). As
you know, I suggested (1) "aquarboreal ape theory" on early hominoids c 18-5
Ma, and (2) "amphibious ancestors theory" on Pleistocene Homo.
> Whether ostriches have rel.longer legs than flamingos is an irrelevance
It's not. It's the essence of Darwinism, eg, if all/most wading-birds have
short legs, it's an argument against wading. If swimmers have short legs,
it's an argument against swimming. Etc.
>, whether apes, chimps swing from branches, run around on tip toes, or
knuckle walk in hob nailed boots, is irrelevant, as you cannot compare human
bipedalism, with locomotion of other living apes, or other living species.
Why not?? Since features inherit apart, we have to analyse our locomotion:
a) on 2 legs: kangaroos, hopping mice, penguins, birds...
b) very long legs: ostriches, flamingoes, herons...
c) vertical trunk: indris, tarsiers, koala, gibbon...
d) linear body build: seals, seacows... (unlike, eg, waders)
e) valgus knees: orang...
f) striding (not hopping): most anthropoids...
g) plantigrady: bears, sealions, rats...
h) etc.
This suggests our locomotion can't be explained in a simple way. The
straight form suggests swimming was part of it. The vertical trunk suggests
climbing was part of it. The plantigrady contradicts fast cursorialism. The
very long legs contradict full aquaticness. The vertical trunk suggest
vertical climbing.
In combination with other evidence (eg, slow suspension in orangs, KWing in
chimps & gorillas, arm-swinging in gibbons, the non-locomotor human
features, the fossil hominoid evidence, etc.), it's clear that our early
hominoid ancestors were hard-object feeders in swamp forests (I guess
coastal) & that our early Homo ancestors became seaside omnviores. This fits
all data. If you have a better solution, let's hear.
--Marc
__________
"Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:41291093$0$4131$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Algis Kuliukas
idea if anyone is going to be able to discuss it's plausibility in a
meaningful way. Unfortunately, and rather amazingly, this had not been
done until quite recently.
The fault lies with the chief propoponents to some degree. Neither
Hardy or Morgan ever defined it as such and Verhaegen et al, although,
providing very detailed scenarios and timescales for their AAH-type
models, never - as far as I know - attempted to *define* the AAH in a
single, simple statement.
To be fair to Hardy and Morgan they weren't really even at the stage
to be able to define the hypothesis. Hardy's request for comments
merely asked 'Was Man more Aquatic in the Past?' and Morgan's five
books on the subject essentially repeated the question in a much more
detailed and ellaborate way but from slightly different angles.
Most AAH proponents have never considered this a problem because they
took Hardy's question on face value and understood that what the
hypothesis was proposing was merely that our ancestors had been more
aquatic in the past - not that they were ever very much aquatic. After
all, Hardy spelled it out in black an white: "otters .... [were] ...
more aquatic than man" Hardy (1960:643). Hence, no defintion has been
forthcoming.
However, there does seem to be a great deal of misunderstanding and
misrepresentation about this hypothesis, even today. Perhaps through
confusion but perhaps mischievously, many opponents of this rather
mild idea seem to have erased the word 'more' from their
considerations. Langdon's 1997 critique, for instance, only succeeds
in demolishing the case that man's ancestors were aquatic or
semi-aquatic animals - a straw man argument if ever there was one. Jim
Moore's one-sided masquerading www.aquaticape.org (for an alternative
view see http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm)
too, always exaggerates the 'claims' made by the AAH, pushing them
into aquatic and semi-aquatic territories rather than merely 'more
aquatic'.
As a consequence, all over the world many experts in paleoanthropology
are supremely confident in their understanding that the AAH is bunk
and that it has been dismissed, when in actual fact it has never even
been properly defined, never been critiqued on the basis if what it
actually claims and, therefore, certainly has *not* been dismissed.
So, let's define it:
The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH):
The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the
evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape
cousins and that, as a result, many of the major physical differences
between humans and the other apes may be explained, at least in part,
as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better
through various aquatic media.
Elaine Morgan endorsed this definition earlier this year and I propose
that this is what people use when discussing it from now on. If we do
that, perhaps the next 44 years might be a little bit more productive
in resolving this issue than the last.
Algis Kuliukas
Ref:
Hardy, Alister (1960). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?. New
Scientist Vol:7 Pages:642-645
Michael Clark
news:77a70442.04082...@posting.google.com...
[fluff]
> So, let's define it:
>
> The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH):
> The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the
> evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape
> cousins and that, as a result, many of the major physical differences
> between humans and the other apes may be explained, at least in part,
> as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better
> through various aquatic media.
Hmmmm. Algis, this looks alot like that other bit of flotsam you
posted awhile back. *That* was bullshit and this appears to be
word-for-word. Say, maybe you could work this up as a macro
and post it everytime someone asks what sort of "selection" is
going on. That way you could rebut another round of curt dismissals
by pointing out that "Gee, the AAR never has been *defined*, ergo
it ~can't~ be dismissed." That ought to let you breath life into another
dead thread for another couple months or so.
You got a backup plan for your meal ticket? I mean, if this message
ever sinks in, you're going to need to be able to dig ditches or yell out
"Ya want fries with that?"
> Elaine Morgan endorsed this definition earlier this year and I propose
> that this is what people use when discussing it from now on. If we do
> that, perhaps the next 44 years might be a little bit more productive
> in resolving this issue than the last.
Ooooo! *Elaine Morgan* Now there's an endorsment. Be honest
now, did you slip her anything under the table --say, a fiver or maybe
a twenty?
> Algis Kuliukas
>
> Ref:
> Hardy, Alister (1960). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?. New
> Scientist Vol:7 Pages:642-645
--
Yada, yada, yada.
Algis Kuliukas
The really funny thing is... he thinks *I'm* one of those 'netloons'.
Algis Kuliukas
Philip Deitiker
message ID news:77a70442.04082...@posting.google.com:
> The really funny thing is... he thinks *I'm* one of those
'netloons'.
As opposed to the kind of netloon that you are?
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
firstjois
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.Spam> wrote in message
news:Xns95506C...@128.249.2.19...
: In sci.anthropology.paleo, Algis Kuliukas created a
: message ID news:77a70442.04082...@posting.google.com:
:
: > The really funny thing is... he thinks *I'm* one of those
: 'netloons'.
:
: As opposed to the kind of netloon that you are?
:
: --
: Philip
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Philip, don't make life any harder for Algis than it already is.
Yes, Algis, you are one of ***those*** netloons.
Jois
Paul Crowley
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04063...@posting.google.com...
> AK: Anyway, I'm thinking of introducing a new formal definition for
> the hypothesis, so that it might be evaluated on a basis that everyone
> can agree too.
>
> The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH):
> The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the
> evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape
> cousins
I think most people would agree to that.
It's pretty banal.
> and that, as a result, many of the major physical differences
> between humans and the other apes may be explained, at least in part,
> as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better
> through various aquatic media.
Sure. I'd accept that. Chimps are the principal
ape with which we are concerned, and their
dominant habitat is the dense forest of central
Africa. They are intensely territorial and very
rarely in their evolutionary history needed to
cross rivers or other bodies of water. So they
lost nearly all the adaptations appropriate for
such purposes.
On the other hand, hominids are like nearly all
other terrestrial animals and, in the course of
their evolutionary history, often needed to cross
rivers and other bodies of water, so they had to
acquire (or re-acquire) minimal capacities in that
respect.
I don't think that this capacity to travel and
migrate (on occasion) provides any substantial
part of the explanation for any aspect of
hominid morphology, but since that behaviour
was an integral aspect of hominid life one might
say that it was "at least in part" an explanation.
The only trouble is that it is not worth saying.
You'll have to do better, Algis.
Think 'proof', or 'disproof' -- even theoretically.
(The only problem here is that you probably
don't have the capacity.)
Paul.
J Moore
> Defining the AAH in a simple, easy-to-understand way, is a rather good
> idea if anyone is going to be able to discuss it's plausibility in a
> meaningful way. Unfortunately, and rather amazingly, this had not been
> done until quite recently.
>
> The fault lies with the chief propoponents to some degree. Neither
> Hardy or Morgan ever defined it as such and Verhaegen et al, although,
> providing very detailed scenarios and timescales for their AAH-type
> models, never - as far as I know - attempted to *define* the AAH in a
> single, simple statement.
>
> To be fair to Hardy and Morgan they weren't really even at the stage
> to be able to define the hypothesis. Hardy's request for comments
> merely asked 'Was Man more Aquatic in the Past?' and Morgan's five
> books on the subject essentially repeated the question in a much more
> detailed and ellaborate way but from slightly different angles.
>
> Most AAH proponents have never considered this a problem because they
> took Hardy's question on face value and understood that what the
> hypothesis was proposing was merely that our ancestors had been more
> aquatic in the past - not that they were ever very much aquatic. After
> all, Hardy spelled it out in black an white: "otters .... [were] ...
> more aquatic than man" Hardy (1960:643). Hence, no defintion has been
> forthcoming.
So Morgan, even after nearly 30 years of writing about it, wasn't "really
even at the stage to be able to define the hypothesis"?! That's astounding.
And of course Hardy, to his credit, did offer an explantion of how aquatic
he thought our ancestors were. He said it was perhaps half their waking
hours, "five or six hours in the water at a time" for "twenty million years
or more", living in large island colonies "like those of seals or penguins".
--
JMoore
__
For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to
www.aquaticape.org
Marc Verhaegen
"J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hx5Xc.205283$M95.52577@pd7tw1no...
> For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
Michael Clark
news:77a70442.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:<10iorp3...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > news:77a70442.04082...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [fluff]
> >
> > > So, let's define it:
<This is it:>
> > > The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH):
> > > The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the
> > > evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape
> > > cousins and that, as a result, many of the major physical differences
> > > between humans and the other apes may be explained, at least in part,
> > > as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better
> > > through various aquatic media.
<The end of it>
> > Hmmm. Algis, this looks alot like that other bit of flotsam you
> > posted awhile back. *That* was bullshit and this appears to be
> > word-for-word. Say, maybe you could work this up as a macro
> > and post it everytime someone asks what sort of "selection" is
> > going on. That way you could rebut another round of curt dismissals
> > by pointing out that "Gee, the AAR never has been *defined*, ergo
> > it ~can't~ be dismissed." That ought to let you breath life into
another
> > dead thread for another couple months or so.
> >
> > You got a backup plan for your meal ticket? I mean, if this message
> > ever sinks in, you're going to need to be able to dig ditches or yell
out
> > "Ya want fries with that?"
> >
> > > Elaine Morgan endorsed this definition earlier this year and I propose
> > > that this is what people use when discussing it from now on. If we do
> > > that, perhaps the next 44 years might be a little bit more productive
> > > in resolving this issue than the last.
> >
> > Ooooo! *Elaine Morgan* Now there's an endorsment. Be honest
> > now, did you slip her anything under the table --say, a fiver or maybe
> > a twenty?
>
> The really funny thing is... he thinks *I'm* one of those 'netloons'.
As long as everybody is laughing, I've got a few questions:
a.) How does water act as an "agent of selection"?
b.) What are these "major physical differences" you keep going on about?
c.) What constitutes "various aquatic media" and how do
these things variously affect (a) and (b)?
Understand that I know what your answers will be --at least
I believe you will answer these questions the same way that
you have answered others like them in the past. What I am
curious about is whether or if the bludgeoning you recieved
in the substrates thread has had any effect.
God bless Jim Moore. He's got a "magnum open" ;-)
(For you tea-totalers, back in high school, when sneaky
petes were all the rage, one of those large bottles of liebfraumilch
was called a "magnum". Magnum Opus...? Oh well, never mind..)
> Algis Kuliukas
--
Yada, yada, yada.
Ross Macfarlane
> news:77a70442.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> Hmmmm. Algis, this looks alot like that other bit of flotsam you
> posted awhile back. *That* was bullshit and this appears to be
> word-for-word. Say, maybe you could work this up as a macro
> and post it everytime someone asks what sort of "selection" is
> going on. That way you could rebut another round of curt dismissals
> by pointing out that "Gee, the AAR never has been *defined*, ergo
> it ~can't~ be dismissed." That ought to let you breath life into another
> dead thread for another couple months or so.
If only Natural Selection worked on netloons' kook theories, like the AAH.
Now, do we *have* have this conversation?
Ross Macfarlane
firstjois
[snip]
>>
>> If only Natural Selection worked on netloons' kook theories, like
>> the AAH.
>>
>> Now, do we *have* have this conversation?
>>
>> Ross Macfarlane
Here's a wet question:
A friend of mine took his 5 year old lab to small-boat dock on a river. The
dog saw the water, ran onto the dock and went flying in. Big splash and
oops, no dog. The dog didn't come back up to the surface and the guy had to
go in get the dog. It couldn't swim. A Labrador retriever couldn't swim?
I've seen Chihuahuas swim. What's up with this?
Jois
Rick Wagler
This statement of Algis' is truly astonishing. I don't think
he would get Elaine Morgan to agree with his characterization
of the situation. One of the claims she endlessly repeated
on this ng is that the AAT - specifically her version - was
the only theory "on offer" and that conventional PA had
nothing to offer as a competing theory. Leave aside that
the claim was utter nonsense since PA is full of scenarios
that are more than a match for what EM was putting forth.
To be fair Algis wasn't around when Elaine was and may not
know that this was a major claim of hers. But Algis has
read her stuff and realizes that EM never actually fleshed
out a scenario much less a theory. What I find astonishing
is that Algis would, in effect, expose EM's claims as
shameless braggadoccio. Whether MV would agree that
his whimsies don't represent a valid hypothesis that is at least
as substantial as the rather vapid definition of AAT that
Algis came up with would, I think, be open to question.
So decades after Hardy's timid efforts to get the idea
up and running Algis thinks its high time for somebody
to actually state what it is. 'Bout bloody time, I should say....
Rick Wagler
Algis Kuliukas
I agree. But if you read her books you'll see that she does never
actually define it. Her works are merely all about trying to get
people with open minds (a very rare phenomenon in paleoanthropology
when it comes to the outrageous idea that our ancestors might have
actuially gone in the water sometimes, it seems) interested in this
thing. That's why it's not as rigorously researched as Jim Moore would
like. They're a series of popular science think pieces, not PhD
theses. This is where Jim's being disingenuous when he claims that
he's 'doing as Morgan asks - taking the AAH seriously'. Really, he's
taking a popular science book - like Desmond Morris' 'The Naked Ape'
and scrutinising it like it was a PhD thesis - with the specific
intent of detecting every (all four of them, Jim?) tiny flaw and
blowing them out of all proportion into shock-horror deceptions so
that people might be deluded into thinking that this is *all* the AAH
proponents can do.
> > And of course Hardy, to his credit, did offer an explantion of how
> aquatic
> > he thought our ancestors were. He said it was perhaps half their waking
> > hours, "five or six hours in the water at a time" for "twenty million
> years
> > or more", living in large island colonies "like those of seals or
> penguins".
Quoting from the student rag again, Jim?
> This statement of Algis' is truly astonishing. I don't think
> he would get Elaine Morgan to agree with his characterization
> of the situation.
I think she did, actually. This is what she wrote to me recently on
this subject:
"I have never spelled it out. I think I made it clear that the
mermaid-ish vision some people were attacking was very wide of the
mark. My own personal view is that we were more than slightly more
likely to move through water. That might explain the hair loss and the
erect posture but I think the breathing differences cannot be
explained by wading.
BUT: The point is this: You don't have to agree with that. You can
disagree with it. Firmly. I hope you will. And give your reasons for
disagreeing with it. It will increase the chances that they will
listen to you, and then form their own opinions about where on the
spectrum they might place their own guess. I have not staked my
reputation on any point. All I wanted to do was to say: "These are the
data that need explaining. Here are some facts about Homo and about
other animals. Here is my guess about their possible significance."
It's a starting-off point for discussion. I am not an authority, and
AAT is not a dogma." Morgan (pers. corr. 2004)
> One of the claims she endlessly repeated
> on this ng is that the AAT - specifically her version - was
> the only theory "on offer" and that conventional PA had
> nothing to offer as a competing theory. Leave aside that
> the claim was utter nonsense since PA is full of scenarios
> that are more than a match for what EM was putting forth.
Oh yeah, like which?
Her point there, which is absolutely right, is that if the official
savanna paradigm is now being backed away from (some would even deny
that it ever existed) what the hell is it that replaces it?
You mean the 'Hominids evolved in a mosaic of slightly more open
habitats than chimps live in today but not quite as open as might be
characterised as savannah because that's a straw man argument'
hypothesis?
How does this miniscule change explain all the differences between
humans and chimps and gorillas? It just doesn't. It's just wishful
thinking. The point is, which Morgan made so elloquently, is that even
a very mild form of the AAH still proposes something different
*enough* to explain the bifurcation in anatomy between ape and human.
"The original savannah model - though it did not stand the test of
time - was argued in strong and clear terms. We are different from
apes, it stated, because they lived in the forest and our ancestors
lived on the plains.
The new watered-down version suggests that we are different from the
apes because their ancestors, perhaps, lived in a different part of
the mosaic. Say what you will, it does not have the same ring to it."
Morgan (1997:17)
So yes, Elaine was right to say that the AAH was the 'only game in
town' but even that was not defining what the AAH was exactly.
Essentially she was saying that water must have played some role.
Essentially the opposition say: 'no, it didn't'.
I put it to you that this opposition view is totally untenable. The
fact that we swim better than chimps is proof enough of that.
My point is that in order to debate the AAH in any meaningful way we
had better define it first. This is what I have tried to do.
> To be fair Algis wasn't around when Elaine was and may not
> know that this was a major claim of hers. But Algis has
> read her stuff and realizes that EM never actually fleshed
> out a scenario much less a theory.
That's what I'm saying and she would agree. (see above) So what are
you arguing against?
> What I find astonishing
> is that Algis would, in effect, expose EM's claims as
> shameless braggadoccio. Whether MV would agree that
> his whimsies don't represent a valid hypothesis that is at least
> as substantial as the rather vapid definition of AAT that
> Algis came up with would, I think, be open to question.
"Shameless braggadoccio?!" - Hardly. I'm saying (what she says
herself) that she never defined it. Hardy never defined it either.
Verhaegen *did* define it, but 'it', in his case, was perhaps in so
much specific detail as to exclude all other forms of the AAH other
than the one he supports. The bottom line is: we need to define what
the AAH means, broadly.
Morgan's contribution was massive. When people involved in human
evolution had failed to see the significance that humans could swim
better than chimps, or that we were the only naked primate or that
water is the perfect place for bipedalism to evolve - and, worse, had
ignored highly visible calls from a FRS to look into the thing - she
did everything within her power to bring it to the attention of
everyone. In my humble opinion, more than anyone else in the history
of paleoanthropology, she deserves an honourary degree - but will they
give her one?
> So decades after Hardy's timid efforts to get the idea
> up and running Algis thinks its high time for somebody
> to actually state what it is. 'Bout bloody time, I should say....
> Rick Wagler
Well I'm glad that you agree with me there, Rick.
So what say you on my definition?:
The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH):
The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the
evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape
cousins and that, as a result, many of the major physical differences
between humans and the other apes may be explained, at least in part,
as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better
through various aquatic media.
Elaine Morgan said: "I'll drink to that!"
Algis Kuliukas
J Moore
And what, I wonder, given the above, did Elaine say when you said that her
work, and Hardy's, was all just incomptetent trash?
Algis Kuliukas
> And what, I wonder, given the above, did Elaine say when you said that her
> work, and Hardy's, was all just incomptetent trash?
What???
Algis
J Moore
news:77a70442.04083...@posting.google.com...
You said she worked on the subject with a "massive contribution" which
nevertheless wasn't "really even at the stage to be able to define the
hypothesis" -- that's massive incompetence, if true. I see it a bit
differently, as I think she, and Hardy, did in fact define their hypothesis;
if anything Hardy was less vague than your present attempt.
> > > And of course Hardy, to his credit, did offer an explantion of how
> > aquatic
> > > he thought our ancestors were. He said it was perhaps half their
waking
> > > hours, "five or six hours in the water at a time" for "twenty million
> > years
> > > or more", living in large island colonies "like those of seals or
> > penguins".
>
> Quoting from the student rag again, Jim?
I also find it interesting, as a study of AAT/H proponents' tactics, to see
that you mention Hardy in such different ways. When you are dealing with
people who presumably haven't read Hardy's words, you refer to Hardy's ideas
as "modest" and "so mild that all the objections raised to it so far
disappear". When Hardy's ideas are brought out by someone who has read them
(like me), you suggest that one should be looking only at his first title
and not at all those words after that title -- a bizarre method to say the
least. When Hardy's words are repeated (and people can see how radical and
uninformed they are), you attack the messenger for looking at and citing the
sources Hardy chose to present his ideas -- what sources am I to use other
than those in which Hardy wrote his ideas?
The fact is that, to his credit, Hardy understood the neccesity of putting
forth some specific idea of how aquatic these creatures supposedly were. He
was, after all, a good marine biologist, at least when he stuck to his
speciality (plankton) and understood what a new idea, even one he called
speculative, needed to make any sense at all. He did, of course, not do the
study that would have alerted him to his wildly foolish errors, and, sadly,
this was not unusual for him. For instance, to bolster his idea that
telepathy played a role in human evolution, he used such chicanery as Soal's
tests of Basil Shackleton (Soal was spotted altering the data). Likewise,
his notions of how long hominids had existed was wildly inaccurate, and
remained so up to and including his last statements on the matter -- damning
me for pointing this out by calling Hardy's chosen place to write a "student
rag" seems perverse -- what have I to do with where Hardy published? So if
one doesn't read Hardy, one has to accept claims his idea was "mild" and
"boringly obvious", "simply irrefutable" ideas to which "no serious
objection" can be made, but if one actually reads Hardy's words and shows
they are anything but mild, obvious, or accurate, then one is castigated for
using as a source the place(s) Hardy himself chose to publish his ideas.
Actually, the oddest thing about Hardy's mistakes, to me, is his incredible
lack of knowledge about the diving reflex. This is something I would expect
a marine biologist with decades of experience to have heard of (in passing
at least) yet his 1977 article (yes, Algis, in that "student rag") seems to
describe it as a new discovery ("but now there has come another discovery"),
even though it had been known for decades before, and of course he
erroneously claims it "is found only among mammals and birds that dive under
water". But then his telepathy in human evolution idea shows he had made a
long-term habit of not realy checking out his ideas when he veered from his
primary studies.
J Moore
> I agree. But if you read her books you'll see that she does never
> actually define it. Her works are merely all about trying to get
> people with open minds (a very rare phenomenon in paleoanthropology
> when it comes to the outrageous idea that our ancestors might have
> actuially gone in the water sometimes, it seems) interested in this
> thing. That's why it's not as rigorously researched as Jim Moore would
> like. They're a series of popular science think pieces, not PhD
> theses. This is where Jim's being disingenuous when he claims that
> he's 'doing as Morgan asks - taking the AAH seriously'. Really, he's
> taking a popular science book - like Desmond Morris' 'The Naked Ape'
> and scrutinising it like it was a PhD thesis - with the specific
> intent of detecting every (all four of them, Jim?) tiny flaw and
> blowing them out of all proportion into shock-horror deceptions so
> that people might be deluded into thinking that this is *all* the AAH
> proponents can do.
I meant to mention this in my post below. About my being disingenuous...
well, first Algis slangs Morgan for doing a poor job of researching (after
all this time of slanging anthropologists for not accepting her ideas on the
basis of what he now claims is her poor research -- I wonder if Morgan said
"I'll drink to that"? :)
But he's got a strange bee in his bonnet about just what I'm doing when I
look at Morgan's work, or the words of other AAT/H proponents. I don't
treat any of their work as if it were a PhD dissertation, nor do I care
where and in what form they publish, as he (now) seems to. Apparently books
and articles on science ideas, especially those in "student rags", need not
be accurate in his view -- I disagree. I disagree vehemently. But then he
thinks one shouldn't read past the title of Hardy's 1960 article -- I can
certainly see why he might want to have people do so, but that's just not
sensible behavior.
And he suggests -- well, no, he doesn't suggest it, he says it -- that what
I found when I looked at the accuracy of these many books, articles, and
papers, is 4 tiny flaws. I'd suggest people look at my site and see whether
it's me or Algis who's being disingenuous.
Michael Clark
news:77a70442.04083...@posting.google.com...
Algis! Shame on you! How dare you doubt the great and powerful
Morgan!?
:-)
--
Yada, yada, yada.
Rick Wagler
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
Then what's the point?? And especially given Elaine's endless
claims to have a 'theory' that deserved equal consideration with
the work of genuine scientists this observation of yours is the most
damning criticism of EM work that I've seen.
Her works are merely all about trying to get
> people with open minds (a very rare phenomenon in paleoanthropology
> when it comes to the outrageous idea that our ancestors might have
> actuially gone in the water sometimes, it seems) interested in this
> thing.
A chatty 'critique' with very poor research and no substantive
position to put forth? I'm sorry, Algis, either you were abducted
by space aliens or you weren't. What's the point of timid half
measures like this.
That's why it's not as rigorously researched as Jim Moore would
> like.
Nonsense. It's not rigorously researched because she couldn't
do it. Jim's website contains ample evidence of this. This doesn't
make Elaine a bad person but if you are going to make the demands
she did for a hearing from the field you have to put on a better
show than this
They're a series of popular science think pieces, not PhD
> theses.
More guff. Popular science pieces are incredibly difficult
to write. You have to have a familiarity with the field and
be able to write about it without dumbing it down. Walker's
"The Wisdom of the Bones" is an escellent example.
This is where Jim's being disingenuous when he claims that
> he's 'doing as Morgan asks - taking the AAH seriously'. Really, he's
> taking a popular science book - like Desmond Morris' 'The Naked Ape'
> and scrutinising it like it was a PhD thesis - with the specific
> intent of detecting every (all four of them, Jim?) tiny flaw and
> blowing them out of all proportion into shock-horror deceptions so
> that people might be deluded into thinking that this is *all* the AAH
> proponents can do.
>
And what is "scrutinising it like a PhD thesis" supposed to mean?
You may find out that scrutinzing a PhD thesis involves checking
the candidates work for consistency of argument and knowledge
of the field. Popular science books - the good ones at any rate - pass
this test. Do you think pop science means you don't have to make
a sound argument, be careful with sources and understand the concepts
they are trying to explain? Pop science that doesn't do this is justifiably
scorned.
that claims to be
> > > And of course Hardy, to his credit, did offer an explantion of how
> > aquatic
> > > he thought our ancestors were. He said it was perhaps half their
waking
> > > hours, "five or six hours in the water at a time" for "twenty million
> > years
> > > or more", living in large island colonies "like those of seals or
> > penguins".
>
> Quoting from the student rag again, Jim?
>
The 'New Scientist"? Hardy had a bundle of connections and
a big reputation. He could have given this thing a real good
push by putting a decent attempt at a comprehensive argument
together. He would have had absolutely no problem finding a
publisher. Is the fact that he chose not to an indication of how serious
he was about this stuff?
> > This statement of Algis' is truly astonishing. I don't think
> > he would get Elaine Morgan to agree with his characterization
> > of the situation.
>
> I think she did, actually. This is what she wrote to me recently on
> this subject:
>
> "I have never spelled it out. I think I made it clear that the
> mermaid-ish vision some people were attacking was very wide of the
> mark.
What mark? She never spelled it out. It was left to her
critics to try and figure out what the f*** she's talking
about???? Well MV employs similar....tactics is not the
word....
My own personal view is that we were more than slightly more
> likely to move through water.
That might explain the hair loss and the
> erect posture but I think the breathing differences cannot be
> explained by wading.
> BUT: The point is this: You don't have to agree with that. You can
> disagree with it. Firmly. I hope you will. And give your reasons for
> disagreeing with it. It will increase the chances that they will
> listen to you, and then form their own opinions about where on the
> spectrum they might place their own guess. I have not staked my
> reputation on any point.
Oh yeah.....
All I wanted to do was to say: "These are the
> data that need explaining. Here are some facts about Homo and about
> other animals. And this is where it all falls apart as jim ably
demonstrates
Here is my guess about their possible significance."
> It's a starting-off point for discussion. I am not an authority, and
> AAT is not a dogma." Morgan (pers. corr. 2004)
>
Given the demands she continuously made about the status her
"theory" should have in the field this statemnet is, as I said,
astonishing.
> > One of the claims she endlessly repeated
> > on this ng is that the AAT - specifically her version - was
> > the only theory "on offer" and that conventional PA had
> > nothing to offer as a competing theory. Leave aside that
> > the claim was utter nonsense since PA is full of scenarios
> > that are more than a match for what EM was putting forth.
>
> Oh yeah, like which?
>
Start with Aiello and go through to Zihlman.
> Her point there, which is absolutely right, is that if the official
> savanna paradigm is now being backed away from (some would even deny
> that it ever existed) what the hell is it that replaces it?
>
A theory who's major proponent now airily admits was never
fleshed out and argued in any serious way perhaps?
> You mean the 'Hominids evolved in a mosaic of slightly more open
> habitats than chimps live in today but not quite as open as might be
> characterised as savannah because that's a straw man argument'
> hypothesis?
>
Your ineptitude is showing again.....
> How does this miniscule change explain all the differences between
> humans and chimps and gorillas?
Miniscule change? You really need to get to grips with some basic
ecology. Try looking into the work of Robert Foley for one.
It just doesn't. It's just wishful
> thinking. The point is, which Morgan made so elloquently, is that even
> a very mild form of the AAH still proposes something different
> *enough* to explain the bifurcation in anatomy between ape and human.
>
> "The original savannah model - though it did not stand the test of
> time - was argued in strong and clear terms. We are different from
> apes, it stated, because they lived in the forest and our ancestors
> lived on the plains.
> The new watered-down version suggests that we are different from the
> apes because their ancestors, perhaps, lived in a different part of
> the mosaic. Say what you will, it does not have the same ring to it."
> Morgan (1997:17)
>
It would be nice if EM had actually made a critique of the 'savannah
theory' then we'd actually know what she is arguing against. So go
ahead, Algis, what's a savannah theory and where can I get some?
> So yes, Elaine was right to say that the AAH was the 'only game in
> town' but even that was not defining what the AAH was exactly.
> Essentially she was saying that water must have played some role.
> Essentially the opposition say: 'no, it didn't'.
So that's it. She made no critique, offered no competing hypothesis
but its the only game in town? Ain't science easy! As for what the
opposition said no one ever said water played no role. We only try
to deal with the arguments of people who say that it did. Stuff like
hairlessness. Pointing out that there is absolutely no reason to
suppose that living an aquatic lifestyle of some sort should result
in hair loss brings out the seals and the whales. And it is the
proponents who do this.
>
> I put it to you that this opposition view is totally untenable. The
> fact that we swim better than chimps is proof enough of that.
>
Proof of what? It's obvious that modern humans have more
facility in the water than modern apes but that's not the guts
of the case you're trying to make.
> My point is that in order to debate the AAH in any meaningful way we
> had better define it first. This is what I have tried to do.
>
> > To be fair Algis wasn't around when Elaine was and may not
> > know that this was a major claim of hers. But Algis has
> > read her stuff and realizes that EM never actually fleshed
> > out a scenario much less a theory.
>
> That's what I'm saying and she would agree. (see above) So what are
> you arguing against?
>
A body of arguments made for four decades by AAT proponents.
You know bipedal wading, cork-headed infants, tossing coconuts
at nesting crocodiles and on and on...
> > What I find astonishing
> > is that Algis would, in effect, expose EM's claims as
> > shameless braggadoccio. Whether MV would agree that
> > his whimsies don't represent a valid hypothesis that is at least
> > as substantial as the rather vapid definition of AAT that
> > Algis came up with would, I think, be open to question.
>
> "Shameless braggadoccio?!" - Hardly. I'm saying (what she says
> herself) that she never defined it. Hardy never defined it either.
> Verhaegen *did* define it, but 'it', in his case, was perhaps in so
> much specific detail as to exclude all other forms of the AAH other
> than the one he supports. The bottom line is: we need to define what
> the AAH means, broadly.
>
And given the claims and demands that Elaine was making
her statement above exposes it as shameless braggadoccio.
> Morgan's contribution was massive. When people involved in human
> evolution had failed to see the significance that humans could swim
> better than chimps, or that we were the only naked primate or that
> water is the perfect place for bipedalism to evolve - and, worse, had
> ignored highly visible calls from a FRS to look into the thing - she
> did everything within her power to bring it to the attention of
> everyone. In my humble opinion, more than anyone else in the history
> of paleoanthropology, she deserves an honourary degree - but will they
> give her one?
>
On the basis of her work? No
> > So decades after Hardy's timid efforts to get the idea
> > up and running Algis thinks its high time for somebody
> > to actually state what it is. 'Bout bloody time, I should say....
>
> > Rick Wagler
>
> Well I'm glad that you agree with me there, Rick.
>
> So what say you on my definition?:
>
> The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH):
> The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the
> evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape
> cousins and that, as a result, many of the major physical differences
> between humans and the other apes may be explained, at least in part,
> as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better
> through various aquatic media.
>
> Elaine Morgan said: "I'll drink to that!"
>
Good for her. Well make your arguments. Oh shit..
here come the seals and the whales....
And spend an afternoon in the Google archive
and see what a load of nonsense is Elaine's claim
to have only been timidly and modestly venturing
a few mild questions re PA. She was hunting bigger
game than that. It's not our fault she went hunting
elephants with a slingshot.
Rick Wagler
J Moore
>
> "Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.04083...@posting.google.com...
> > "Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:<sVyXc.227949$gE.119379@pd7tw3no>...
> > > "J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:hx5Xc.205283$M95.52577@pd7tw1no...
> > > > Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:77a70442.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > Defining the AAH in a simple, easy-to-understand way, is a rather
> >
> The 'New Scientist"? Hardy had a bundle of connections and
> a big reputation. He could have given this thing a real good
> push by putting a decent attempt at a comprehensive argument
> together. He would have had absolutely no problem finding a
> publisher. Is the fact that he chose not to an indication of how serious
> he was about this stuff?
Algis was ignoring the New Scientist article and referring only to Hardy's
last (1977) article, which was in a student magazine called Zenith (Elaine
describes it as "the magazine of the Oxford University Scientific Society,
which is mainly an undergraduate concern"). Your other points are sound on
that matter, though. How Algis can attack me for Hardy's choice of
publishing spots is downright weird.
Algis Kuliukas
> "Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.04083...@posting.google.com...
> > "Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > > > So Morgan, even after nearly 30 years of writing about it, wasn't
> "really
> > > > even at the stage to be able to define the hypothesis"?! That's
> > > astounding.
> >
> > I agree. But if you read her books you'll see that she does never
> > actually define it.
>
> Then what's the point?? And especially given Elaine's endless
> claims to have a 'theory' that deserved equal consideration with
> the work of genuine scientists this observation of yours is the most
> damning criticism of EM work that I've seen.
The point was to try to get people to think about it, to discuss it
and to investigate it. I'm doing that. I'm doing it because,
apparently every professional paleoanthropology departmental gead just
knew it was a load of crap and wasn't worth looking at, even though -
truth be known - they couldn't even tell you what it was. The fact
that I'm doing what Elaine Morgan has expected PAs to do is hardly a
damning criticism of her contribution. I admire her more than most
people who have written about human evolution.
> Her works are merely all about trying to get
> > people with open minds (a very rare phenomenon in paleoanthropology
> > when it comes to the outrageous idea that our ancestors might have
> > actuially gone in the water sometimes, it seems) interested in this
> > thing.
>
> A chatty 'critique' with very poor research and no substantive
> position to put forth? I'm sorry, Algis, either you were abducted
> by space aliens or you weren't. What's the point of timid half
> measures like this.
The "very poor research" is , what exactly? The four tiny errors on
Jim Moore's masquerading one-sided web site? Four tiny errors out of
hundreds of citations and claims. You could find as many errors in any
popular science book if you were obsessed enough to try to find them.
Do you have any others?
'No substantive position?' - really, Rick - it must be you who's been
abducted by aliens. The very substantive positon is the beauty at
which a whole host of ape-human differences are explained away with
consumate ease - we moved through water more than they did.
> That's why it's not as rigorously researched as Jim Moore would
> > like.
>
> Nonsense. It's not rigorously researched because she couldn't
> do it. Jim's website contains ample evidence of this. This doesn't
> make Elaine a bad person but if you are going to make the demands
> she did for a hearing from the field you have to put on a better
> show than this
'Ample evidence' - FOUR FRIGGING TWISTS OF TINY ERRORS?
So... the Darwin misquote - oh yeah, really terrible that.
The The Elsner & Gooden Misquote was the worst but even that hardly
deflected her general point.
The Negus quote - from a newgroups chat-line.
The Denton quote - where it's Moore, not Morgan, doing the twisting.
See http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/Quotes.htm for
details
And this is your ample evidence from her five books - wow. You're just
making it up or, actually, following the pied piper Jim Moore.
> They're a series of popular science think pieces, not PhD
> > theses.
>
> More guff. Popular science pieces are incredibly difficult
> to write. You have to have a familiarity with the field and
> be able to write about it without dumbing it down. Walker's
> "The Wisdom of the Bones" is an escellent example.
Desmond Morris' Naked Ape is worse than Morgan's worst, and so are
several others. Craig Stanford's 'Upright' is also pretty poor except
from a point of view of historical commentary on the subject.
> This is where Jim's being disingenuous when he claims that
> > he's 'doing as Morgan asks - taking the AAH seriously'. Really, he's
> > taking a popular science book - like Desmond Morris' 'The Naked Ape'
> > and scrutinising it like it was a PhD thesis - with the specific
> > intent of detecting every (all four of them, Jim?) tiny flaw and
> > blowing them out of all proportion into shock-horror deceptions so
> > that people might be deluded into thinking that this is *all* the AAH
> > proponents can do.
> >
> And what is "scrutinising it like a PhD thesis" supposed to mean?
> You may find out that scrutinzing a PhD thesis involves checking
> the candidates work for consistency of argument and knowledge
> of the field. Popular science books - the good ones at any rate - pass
> this test. Do you think pop science means you don't have to make
> a sound argument, be careful with sources and understand the concepts
> they are trying to explain? Pop science that doesn't do this is justifiably
> scorned.
The basic arguments were very sound - if one or two examples (like
ventro-ventro copulation and salt tears) were over extended or not
checked thoroughly enough. She made a few tiny errors that would have
been picked up if it was a PhD thesis. That is, obviously, the point I
was making.
> > Quoting from the student rag again, Jim?
> >
> The 'New Scientist"? Hardy had a bundle of connections and
> a big reputation. He could have given this thing a real good
> push by putting a decent attempt at a comprehensive argument
> together. He would have had absolutely no problem finding a
> publisher. Is the fact that he chose not to an indication of how serious
> he was about this stuff?
Jim was quoting from his Zenith article, I think. He likes to do that
because it contains the weakest Hardy arguments.
I've spoken to his son about this and he informs me that he was very
serious about it. He really though that the fossil evidence was about
to prove him right. I agree that it a real shame that he didn't write
that book he had promised.
> > > This statement of Algis' is truly astonishing. I don't think
> > > he would get Elaine Morgan to agree with his characterization
> > > of the situation.
> >
> > I think she did, actually. This is what she wrote to me recently on
> > this subject:
> >
> > "I have never spelled it out. I think I made it clear that the
> > mermaid-ish vision some people were attacking was very wide of the
> > mark.
>
> What mark? She never spelled it out. It was left to her
> critics to try and figure out what the f*** she's talking
> about???? Well MV employs similar....tactics is not the
> word....
Hardy said 'More aquatic' right? He said 'not as aquatic as an otter',
right? Morgan made many similar comments which made it clear that she
wasn't talking about 'full-on aquatics' - it's just the imaginings of
some people that pushed and extended the arguments to such a point
that they could be easily ridiculed and dismissed - what do we call
this... tactic is the word... it's a strsaw man argument.
[Elaine Morgan]
> > All I wanted to do was to say: "These are the
> > data that need explaining. Here are some facts about Homo and about
> > other animals.
> And this is where it all falls apart as jim ably
> demonstrates
Jim twists and exaggerates - anyone could do that with any argument.
> > Here is my guess about their possible significance."
> > It's a starting-off point for discussion. I am not an authority, and
> > AAT is not a dogma." Morgan (pers. corr. 2004)
> >
>
> Given the demands she continuously made about the status her
> "theory" should have in the field this statemnet is, as I said,
> astonishing.
Then I think you misunderstood her, or misrepresent her. She might
have been guilty of over-enthusiasm on ocassion but that is all.
> > > One of the claims she endlessly repeated
> > > on this ng is that the AAT - specifically her version - was
> > > the only theory "on offer" and that conventional PA had
> > > nothing to offer as a competing theory. Leave aside that
> > > the claim was utter nonsense since PA is full of scenarios
> > > that are more than a match for what EM was putting forth.
> >
> > Oh yeah, like which?
> >
> Start with Aiello and go through to Zihlman.
You dodged the question - what is *ONE* competing theory which more
satisfactorily and parsimoniously explains our nakedness, bipedality,
sc fat, ability to swim, etc etc.
> > Her point there, which is absolutely right, is that if the official
> > savanna paradigm is now being backed away from (some would even deny
> > that it ever existed) what the hell is it that replaces it?
> >
> A theory who's major proponent now airily admits was never
> fleshed out and argued in any serious way perhaps?
You dodged the question again - I wonder why.
> > You mean the 'Hominids evolved in a mosaic of slightly more open
> > habitats than chimps live in today but not quite as open as might be
> > characterised as savannah because that's a straw man argument'
> > hypothesis?
> >
> Your ineptitude is showing again.....
If it's inept, tell me in simple, clear terms what the current
orthodox paradigm actually *IS* then.
> > How does this miniscule change explain all the differences between
> > humans and chimps and gorillas?
>
> Miniscule change? You really need to get to grips with some basic
> ecology. Try looking into the work of Robert Foley for one.
If it's not savanna - it's miniscule change. Which is it?
> > "The original savannah model - though it did not stand the test of
> > time - was argued in strong and clear terms. We are different from
> > apes, it stated, because they lived in the forest and our ancestors
> > lived on the plains.
> > The new watered-down version suggests that we are different from the
> > apes because their ancestors, perhaps, lived in a different part of
> > the mosaic. Say what you will, it does not have the same ring to it."
> > Morgan (1997:17)
> >
> It would be nice if EM had actually made a critique of the 'savannah
> theory' then we'd actually know what she is arguing against. So go
> ahead, Algis, what's a savannah theory and where can I get some?
You know Rick.... hominins left the trees and, for some reason, went
out onto the savanna and began moving bipedally because it gave them a
more flexible response to the new challenges ahead. Funny how you seem
to have some kind of amnesia about this idea - how convenient for you.
Others are not so fuzzy minded though.
"As the competing savanna hypothesis is no longer tenable since I
presented much evidence against it in my Daryll Forde Lecture at
University college London in 1995, I believe that scientists have a
duty to re-examine these claims, much as Langdon (1997) has done."
Tobias (2002)
Tobias, Phillip V (2002). Some aspects of the multifaceted dependence
of early humanity on water. Nutrition and Health Vol:16 Pages:13-17
Or how about this...
"Although the savanna hypothesis has gained recent support, it has
also been strongly contested. Some authorities advocate a
contradictory model—the woodland/ forest hypothesis—which argues for
the importance of closed vegetation in early hominin evolution. Early
australopiths, according to some interpretations, were closely
associated with wooded environments, exhibited significant arboreal
activity, and should be considered adapted to closed habitats (Clarke
and Tobias, 1995; Berger and Tobias, 1996)." Potts 1998
Potts, Richard (1998). Environmental Hypotheses of Hominin Evolution.
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology Vol:41 Pages:93-136
How many more quotes do you want? I've got an ever growing database of
them.
Don't tell me... it was all invented by Elaine Morgan, right, Rick -
keep takling the pills.
> > So yes, Elaine was right to say that the AAH was the 'only game in
> > town' but even that was not defining what the AAH was exactly.
> > Essentially she was saying that water must have played some role.
> > Essentially the opposition say: 'no, it didn't'.
>
> So that's it. She made no critique, offered no competing hypothesis
> but its the only game in town? Ain't science easy! As for what the
> opposition said no one ever said water played no role. We only try
> to deal with the arguments of people who say that it did. Stuff like
> hairlessness. Pointing out that there is absolutely no reason to
> suppose that living an aquatic lifestyle of some sort should result
> in hair loss brings out the seals and the whales. And it is the
> proponents who do this.
She made a huge critique of the existing paradigm - that's exactly
what she did. Have you ever read any of her books? She never defined
the AAH, because she just wanted to get it in the public arena.
If you are not saying that water played no role in discriminating
between apes and humans then what are you arguing about? But, of
course, you *are* arguing against that, aren't you - otherwise what's
your problem with wading leading to bipedalism and swimming and
dip/sweat cooling leading to nakedness etc?
Hypocrite!
> > I put it to you that this opposition view is totally untenable. The
> > fact that we swim better than chimps is proof enough of that.
> >
> Proof of what? It's obvious that modern humans have more
> facility in the water than modern apes but that's not the guts
> of the case you're trying to make.
AAH: The hypothesis that water acted as an agency of selection in
human evolution more than the evolution of the apes. Yes I am.
> > That's what I'm saying and she would agree. (see above) So what are
> > you arguing against?
> >
> A body of arguments made for four decades by AAT proponents.
> You know bipedal wading, cork-headed infants, tossing coconuts
> at nesting crocodiles and on and on...
Just mock personal incredulity then - and no science.
> > So what say you on my definition?:
> >
> > The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH):
> > The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the
> > evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape
> > cousins and that, as a result, many of the major physical differences
> > between humans and the other apes may be explained, at least in part,
> > as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better
> > through various aquatic media.
> >
> > Elaine Morgan said: "I'll drink to that!"
> >
> Good for her. Well make your arguments. Oh shit..
> here come the seals and the whales....
I try not to use the seals and the whales, Rick, haven't you noticed?
I tend to concentrate on apes and humans.
> And spend an afternoon in the Google archive
> and see what a load of nonsense is Elaine's claim
> to have only been timidly and modestly venturing
> a few mild questions re PA. She was hunting bigger
> game than that. It's not our fault she went hunting
> elephants with a slingshot.
Why should I? I've read all of her books - that's what counts. She's
made her case there and she's absolutely right on most of her points.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.04083...@posting.google.com...
> > "J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<2SSYc.277511$gE.60438@pd7tw3no>...
> >
> > > And what, I wonder, given the above, did Elaine say when you said that
> her
> > > work, and Hardy's, was all just incomptetent trash?
> >
> > What???
> >
> > Algis
>
> You said she worked on the subject with a "massive contribution" which
> nevertheless wasn't "really even at the stage to be able to define the
> hypothesis" -- that's massive incompetence, if true. I see it a bit
> differently, as I think she, and Hardy, did in fact define their hypothesis;
> if anything Hardy was less vague than your present attempt.
Ok, *where* exactly did they *define* it? Come on, book, author, page
reference... the standards you demand of Morgan but, tellingly,
continually fail to meet yourself.
Hardy and Morgan were merely trying to get people to look at the idea.
They made that clear enough too, if you care to read the whole piece
and not just take snippets out of context.
What I want to know, Jim, is where exactly I ever said... how did you
put it?... that "her work, and Hardy's, was all just incomptetent
trash?" I mean that's what you wrote, right? : "And what, I wonder,
given the above, did Elaine say when you said that her work, and
Hardy's, was all just incomptetent trash?" - Just give me a link to
the web page or the posting Id, anything.
I mean, if I'd written anything like that or Marc or Elaine - it would
be straight in at number one on anthrosciguy's top 10 AAH distortions
list. Be honest... you were just drunk, weren't you?
> > > > And of course Hardy, to his credit, did offer an explantion of how
> aquatic
> > > > he thought our ancestors were. He said it was perhaps half their
> waking
> > > > hours, "five or six hours in the water at a time" for "twenty million
> years
> > > > or more", living in large island colonies "like those of seals or
> > > penguins".
> >
> > Quoting from the student rag again, Jim?
>
> I also find it interesting, as a study of AAT/H proponents' tactics, to see
> that you mention Hardy in such different ways. When you are dealing with
> people who presumably haven't read Hardy's words, you refer to Hardy's ideas
> as "modest" and "so mild that all the objections raised to it so far
> disappear". When Hardy's ideas are brought out by someone who has read them
> (like me), you suggest that one should be looking only at his first title
> and not at all those words after that title -- a bizarre method to say the
> least. When Hardy's words are repeated (and people can see how radical and
> uninformed they are), you attack the messenger for looking at and citing the
> sources Hardy chose to present his ideas -- what sources am I to use other
> than those in which Hardy wrote his ideas?
You didn't answer my question. Did you get those snippets from the
Zenith article or from New Scientist? I want a page reference please.
You see, you never give that info, do you? You expect Morgan to
provide every book, author and page reference for her citations but
you, on the other hand, just don't bother. You can, it seems, just
make them up out of thin air.
If you read the whole of Hardy's New Scientist piece - not the student
rag - I think anyone would be struck by its modesty. That's why you
always quote from the Zenith article and never from New Scientist. You
have a clear agenda to portray this whole idea in the worst possible
light every time.
> The fact is that, to his credit, Hardy understood the neccesity of putting
> forth some specific idea of how aquatic these creatures supposedly were.
Yes... less aquatic than an otter. So why do Langdon, you and everyone
just ignore that?
> He
> was, after all, a good marine biologist, at least when he stuck to his
> speciality (plankton) and understood what a new idea, even one he called
> speculative, needed to make any sense at all. He did, of course, not do the
> study that would have alerted him to his wildly foolish errors, and, sadly,
> this was not unusual for him. For instance, to bolster his idea that
> telepathy played a role in human evolution, he used such chicanery as Soal's
> tests of Basil Shackleton (Soal was spotted altering the data). Likewise,
> his notions of how long hominids had existed was wildly inaccurate, and
> remained so up to and including his last statements on the matter -- damning
> me for pointing this out by calling Hardy's chosen place to write a "student
> rag" seems perverse -- what have I to do with where Hardy published? So if
> one doesn't read Hardy, one has to accept claims his idea was "mild" and
> "boringly obvious", "simply irrefutable" ideas to which "no serious
> objection" can be made, but if one actually reads Hardy's words and shows
> they are anything but mild, obvious, or accurate, then one is castigated for
> using as a source the place(s) Hardy himself chose to publish his ideas.
You exaggerate and twist, pick bits out of sentences and out of
context. You use the tactic of guilt by association - stressing his
telepathy ideas, for example - oooh, so he *must* have been a loony
then!
How long have hominids existed? In 1960 there was no real evidence to
say. Even today can you tell me when bipedalism began? I can't. So how
can you attack him for that?
The Zenith piece was a light hearted piece for students' entertainment
written by an 81 year old ex-professor who had retired almost twenty
years earlier. But never mind that, as long as it's dirt against the
AAH it all counts, right?...
> Actually, the oddest thing about Hardy's mistakes, to me, is his incredible
> lack of knowledge about the diving reflex. This is something I would expect
> a marine biologist with decades of experience to have heard of (in passing
> at least) yet his 1977 article (yes, Algis, in that "student rag") seems to
> describe it as a new discovery ("but now there has come another discovery"),
> even though it had been known for decades before, and of course he
> erroneously claims it "is found only among mammals and birds that dive under
> water". But then his telepathy in human evolution idea shows he had made a
> long-term habit of not realy checking out his ideas when he veered from his
> primary studies.
...Right!
Hardy may have been wrong on many things - but the idea that humans
have been influenced by water more than our ape cousins since the
split was almost certainly not one of them.
I still have yet to read a single line from you, Jim, where you take
that "mild", "boringly obvious", "simply irrefutable" idea on. Could
it be that you simple have "no serious objection" to it?
Algis Kuliukas
Michael Clark
>
> ...Right!
>
> Hardy may have been wrong on many things - but the idea that humans
> have been influenced by water more than our ape cousins since the
> split was almost certainly not one of them.
>
> I still have yet to read a single line from you, Jim, where you take
> that "mild", "boringly obvious", "simply irrefutable" idea on. Could
> it be that you simple have "no serious objection" to it?
>
> Algis Kuliukas
Oh. Here you are again. Prattling on about the same old stuff.
Do you need to go back and review Norm's contributions to the
substrates thread?
Check out the gibbons yet?
--
Yada, yada, yada.
J Moore
I don't have a top ten AAH distortions list -- you must be confusing me with
some other person. I'd like to see it though; would you tell me where you
got that from? You didn't just make it up out of thin air, did you? You've
been trashing Hardy and Morgan lately for not providing any idea of what
their theory meant (which I think is incorrect, BTW) and that does seem to
me like saying that they were incompetent -- after all, Morgan worked on
this for 30 plus years, with 5 books and many articles and talks -- for her
to have done so little as you claim she did she would have to be
incompetent. Of course part of the problem is that your now-preferred
definition is so vague as to be meaningless.
You say: "The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in
the evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape cousins
and that, as a result, many of the major physical differences between humans
and the other apes may be explained, at least in part, as adaptations to
moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better through various aquatic
media." Now you can see how non-descriptive that is by substituting other
terms for "water" in your statement -- terms like "the desert" or "the
arctic". These too were definitely used more by humans than by apes, but
they don't explain much of anything in human evolution, except for our
abilities to utilise a lot of different environments -- it certainly doesn't
support the idea that such environments were at the crux of our differences
from apes.
Again you attack me for Hardy's choice of publisher -- this is perverse.
How on earth can I affect his choice? It was his choice; I had nothing to
do with it. However, you also incorrectly say I don't mention his New
Scientist piece when I do -- of course you object to the fact that I mention
what he wrote in the body of the article, since you want me to only mention
and comment upon his title -- that also is perverse. I cannot help either
Hardy's choice of venue or the words he wrote -- these things were his
decision and I can only read them and report on them. It's not my fault
that he chose his venues as he did and it's not my fault that he used
erroneous "facts" as evidence.
If I am indeed making things up out of thin air, show it. If I have said
something incorrect about what Hardy said, show it. If he didn't say the
things I quoted him as saying, show it.
You now say that they shouldn't have their facts scrutinised, nor the quotes
Morgan used, because they were "just trying to get people to think". Isn't
it thinking to look at what they said and see if it actually matches facts?
Just because the answer after that thought isn't the one you want to hear
doesn't mean that thought wasn't involved. (BTW, you might sometime become
aware that variations of the phrase "[I/we/they] [was/were] just trying to
make you think" -- like your "just trying to get people to look" -- are a
classic pseudoscience tactic when an arguemnt has been shown to be faulty --
you may want to reconsider its use.)
> > The fact is that, to his credit, Hardy understood the neccesity of
putting
> > forth some specific idea of how aquatic these creatures supposedly were.
>
> Yes... less aquatic than an otter. So why do Langdon, you and everyone
> just ignore that?
Because simply because one says that's what they're talking about doesn't
mean that's actually what they're talking about -- and when the aquatic
animals they compare human features to are seals, whales, and sirenia they
are not talking about being less aquatic than an otter, no matter how many
times they say it.
It's not even so much the idea that it's loony, but the stuff he used to
support the idea -- discredited and inaccurate BS research, which he
presented as sound. That tells me something about the presenter. And after
all, that particular idea was his biggest interest in retirement (and for
several decades before) and the one thing he spent the most time on -- he
obviously considered it more sound and important than his "aquatic ape"
idea, which also tells you something about him. Something you may not want
to hear, perhaps; something you especially may not want others to hear,
perhaps, but it is telling.
> How long have hominids existed? In 1960 there was no real evidence to
> say. Even today can you tell me when bipedalism began? I can't. So how
> can you attack him for that?
>
> The Zenith piece was a light hearted piece for students' entertainment
> written by an 81 year old ex-professor who had retired almost twenty
> years earlier. But never mind that, as long as it's dirt against the
> AAH it all counts, right?...
Again the attack on me for Hardy's choice of venue -- I don't care where he
wrote it up; I care whether or not he said things that were accurate -- and
he didn't. This is not my fault; your anger is misplaced (and I would think
that a publication for the Oxford University Scientific Society is not so
much a "rag" as you suggest -- I even believe Elaine's alma mater is
consdiered a pretty decent school, or so I've heard). As for the length of
time hominids had existed; even in 1960 it was becoming clear that the total
hominid timeline didn't stretch back nearly as far as the length of time
Hardy said we were water-dwellers, and certainly by 1977 it was very clear
that it was not that long at all -- and all but a few people were quite
certain it was far far less time. I didn't attack him (I'm not sure that
every time one points out an error it's fair to call it an "attack") for any
statement of his about how long ago bipedalism arose; I pointed out that he
said that the aquatic period for hominids was far longer than the total time
hominids have existed, and that this was well known at the time he said it.
Why should an idea be accepted when the arguments for it are so uninformed
and inaccurate?
I show that Hardy's idea, if you take the incredibly radical step of reading
more than the title (!) is neither mild", "boringly obvious", or simply
irrefutable". I disagree with your idea that one should stop reading after
the title.
Of course you claim that all i've found are "4 tiny erros"; if that's so I
really don't see what you're getting so worked up about.
But then you also say Morgan should get a degree for her work, work you
simultaneously claim was so incompetent that after 30 plus years, 5 books,
many articles, and loads of talks she still hadn't managed to get across how
aquatic "aquatic" is. I liked that; I had no idea degrees were so easily
come by -- maybe I can get one for finding "4 tiny errors".
Ross Macfarlane
> Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > You see... on the ground, apes do move bipedally. I mean which
> > other mammals do that? Move bipedally on the ground, I mean. Do dogs? No,
> > horses?, No. Elephants? No. Monkeys, even? Apart from one or two
> > larger ones, no. Bit of a clue isn't it.
Ross Macfarlane