What is the Aquatic theory?

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Aug 22, 2004, 5:30:48 PM8/22/04
to
>What is the Aquatic theory? a) A hypothesis that our remote predecessors
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

unread,
Aug 24, 2004, 1:45:55 PM8/24/04
to
From: "m3dodds" <m...@lineone.net>

> > >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

unread,
Aug 24, 2004, 9:39:54 PM8/24/04
to
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.

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

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 6:51:15 AM8/25/04
to
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 11:07:20 AM8/25/04
to
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message news:<10iorp3...@corp.supernews.com>...

The really funny thing is... he thinks *I'm* one of those 'netloons'.

Algis Kuliukas

Philip Deitiker

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 11:37:08 AM8/25/04
to
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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 12:51:33 PM8/25/04
to

"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

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 1:11:34 PM8/25/04
to
(Re-post from 1st July 2004)

"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

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 3:13:17 PM8/25/04
to
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 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.
<snipped>

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

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 3:23:41 PM8/25/04
to

"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

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 5:30:50 PM8/25/04
to
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Aug 25, 2004, 7:44:33 PM8/25/04
to
"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...
>
...

> 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

unread,
Aug 26, 2004, 8:57:45 AM8/26/04
to
Ross Macfarlane wrote:
[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

unread,
Aug 27, 2004, 12:38:48 AM8/27/04
to

"J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hx5Xc.205283$M95.52577@pd7tw1no...

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

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 12:01:16 AM8/31/04
to
"Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<sVyXc.227949$gE.119379@pd7tw3no>...

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

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 12:09:34 AM8/31/04
to
Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04083...@posting.google.com...

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

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 10:45:13 AM8/31/04
to
"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

J Moore

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 3:12:23 PM8/31/04
to
Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
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

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 6:50:46 PM8/31/04
to
Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04083...@posting.google.com...

> 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

unread,
Aug 31, 2004, 9:55:36 PM8/31/04
to
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04083...@posting.google.com...

Algis! Shame on you! How dare you doubt the great and powerful
Morgan!?

:-)
--
Yada, yada, yada.


Rick Wagler

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 1:29:58 AM9/1/04
to

"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04083...@posting.google.com...

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

unread,
Sep 1, 2004, 1:31:01 PM9/1/04
to
Rick Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:q7dZc.291163$gE.117190@pd7tw3no...

>
> "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
<snipped>> > 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?

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

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 5:22:28 AM9/2/04
to
"Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<q7dZc.291163$gE.117190@pd7tw3no>...

> "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

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 6:01:30 AM9/2/04
to
"J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<r44Zc.287593$gE.105515@pd7tw3no>...

> 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

unread,
Sep 2, 2004, 7:02:11 AM9/2/04
to
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04090...@posting.google.com...

> "J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<r44Zc.287593$gE.105515@pd7tw3no>...
[...]

>
> ...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

unread,
Sep 3, 2004, 6:01:43 PM9/3/04
to
Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04090...@posting.google.com...

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

unread,
Sep 10, 2004, 12:33:03 AM9/10/04
to
"J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iJ10d.352933$M95.21443@pd7tw1no>...

> 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

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
Sep 10, 2004, 2:43:56 AM9/10/04
to
"J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iJ10d.352933$M95.21443@pd7tw1no>...

> Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.04090...@posting.google.com...
[..]

> > > You didn't just make it up out of thin air, did you?
> >
> > No, of course you don't *call* it the top ten AAH distortions list -
> > that would be too honest. You call it 'AAT Claims and facts'.
> >
> > See this... http://www.aquaticape.org/aatclaims.html
> >
> > Then see this (Jim's site doesn't give you any links to an alternative
> > view but I do)
> http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/ClaimsandFacts.htm
> >
> > But, they're distortions all the same. No citations are given so we
> > can check if anyone ever did make such claims or if instead you just
> > twisted their words, exaggerated their claims or just fail to report
> > the context in which is was made - you know, what you usually do.
>
> Oh, so you did just make it up out of thin air. I guess you "were just
> trying to make people think" or "just trying to get people to take a look
> at" or whatever excuse you are presently using for just making things up.

Tell you what, Jim. I'll admit that I just made up the bit about the
'top ten AAH distortions list' if you admit I never said that Hardy
and Morgan's work was absolute trash.

[..]
> > You see... in waist deep water, apes do move bipedally. I mean which
> > other mammals do that? Move bipedally in water, 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.
>

> If you confined the "AAT/H" to yet another in a long list of things apes use
> bipedality for you would have no argument, but of course then the whole
> "theory/hypothesis" would be simply one entry in a long list of such
> behaviors. The AAT/H is not presented as simply that, however, except when
> its proponents wish to claim a critic is presenting it inaccurately. The
> AAT/H has, in every form I've seen it presented, a great many more features
> listed than that, and these features are only found in animals which do far
> more than simply "move through water" a little more than apes. So your
> definition is quite vague, apparently deliberately so, so that it can be
> said to be technically "accurate" -- yes, seals, whales, and sirenia do
> "move through water" somewhat more than apes do, I'll grant you that. :)
> But I'd have to say you're being awfully coy about the meaning of "more".

You've missed the plot. Morgan's 'list of aquatic traits' were
speculations. Some of them are more speculative than others. The
hymen, the ventro-ventral copulation and the salt tears arguments are
cases in point. It is easy to focus in on those and claim that you've
exposed a great fallacy. Langdon did the same thing. He listed out the
dreaded 23 traits with equal weighting and equal ridicule. This is
just not fair. Morgan (1997) didn't do that. She had four chapters
just on bipedalism for instance. Anyone that critiques this hypothesis
fairly has to give appropriate weightings to the traits which are
claimed may have a more aquatic explanation. Why we walk, why we're
naked and why we're fat are the three biggest ones. Your critique, and
Langdon's, simply don't do that. They clearly have an agenda to focus
in on the more minor, weaker, points.

If hominids waded through water more than ape ancestors they would be
more likely to move bipedally. That's not vague.

If hominids swam through water more than ape ancestors they would be
more likely to gain buoyancy through increased adipocity. That's not
vague.

If hominids lived in hot tropical water-side habitats they would be
more likely to go for dips to keep cool than ape ancestors and evolve
sweat cooling mechanisms to supplement it. That's not vague.

> Of course, I also had to use quotes around "accurate" in that sentence,
> because in fact the features that the various versions of the AAT/H have
> said are similar between humans and aquatic mammals are not actually similar
> at all when you look at them -- at their distribution between the sexes,
> their distribution during the lifespan, and for that matter, sometimes their
> exsistence at all. I'm sure I don't need to explain, since I have lots
> about this on my site -- anyone interested in this can go there and check it
> out, as they can go to any number (dozens) of uncritically pro-AAT/H sites
> and check out their claims.

No, you don't need to explain it, Jim. I've read the line of your
arguments often enough by now. Take the weakest point, exaggerate it
enough for it to become ridiculous and reject it.

[..]
> > It *is* your fault, though, for not giving clear, unambiguous
> > citations for where you get so called claims from. It's not up to me
> > to have to show that you're making things up. In science we give
> > references to substantiate the claims we make, not expect others to
> > find out if we've just made them up. That's a bit of an admission,
> > Jim. Funny how you take Morgan to task whenever she (rarely) was
> > remiss in citing people well enough - but when it comes to Jim Moore
> > citing AAH proponents, anything goes apparently.
> >
> > It is one thing to have something published in a scientific journal
> > with some reputation, like New Scientist, and quite another to print
> > something in a student magazine. Can you not see the difference? I
> > don't think you can. As long as it's dirt against the AAH you don't
> > care where it was written. A classic creationist tactic if ever there
> > was one.
> >
> > And by the way... you still didn't answer my question.
>
> You can go to my site and read a short page on Hardy's "mild" "boringly
> obvious" theory and see where any of these words of his I mention come from.

I want you to do that, Jim. I want you to cite references to the
claims you make. That's what you criticse Elaine Morgan for not doing
but you rarely do it yourself..

> You claim to have done so, so your claim to be somehow mystified by where on
> earth it can be seems somewhat disingenuous. As for what puiblications are
> more or less credible, I don't care, since I am only looking at what he
> wrote and whether or not it's accurate and makes sense. Your suggestion
> that one needn't write science accurately if you pick the right venue is not
> something I endorse. You should note -- well I should, since you probably
> won't :) -- that New Scientist is not a peer review journal, but more of a
> science magazine -- it seemed to me, perhaps incorrectly, that you were
> misleading people on that a tad -- probably inadvertently.

I know that New Scientist is not peer reviewed but it's a more serious
and important journal than Zenith.

[..]


> > > Because simply because one says that's what they're talking about
> doesn't
> > > mean that's actually what they're talking about
> >

> > Ah right. So only Jim Moore knows what they really meant to write. I
> > see.
>
> I can hardly be the only person on earth able to read, find facts, and
> compare. If you look at the features AAT/H proponents say we have and see
> what "aquatics" (as they are often vaguely labeled by proponents) have them,
> anyone can see that the degree of aquaticism the AAT/H is actually
> suggesting cannot be the amount they generally claim they're suggesting --
> but then they rarely seem to suggest any real time, although Hardy did.

"It may be objected that children have to be taught to swim; but the
same is true of young otters, and I should regard them as more aquatic
than Man has been. " Hardy (1960:643)

"Nobody has suggested that they turned into mermen and mermaids. They
would have been water-adapted apes in the same sense that an otter is
a water-adapted mustelid. If we knew nothing of the otter except what
we can deduce from its bare bones, it would take a clever scientist to
detect that it was any more aquatic than its cousins the stoats and
the polecats." Morgan (1997:31)

"In an environment which combined trees and water ( a flooded forest
or an offshore island dwindling as the sea level rose) the more
dominant males would have had first call on the diminished reserves of
the traditional food source and would have continued to confine
themselves to it. In any society, long-established dominance tends to
lead to conservatism. The hungrier females could have been driven to
seek for less familiar things to eat and would have found them in
water." Morgan (1997:100)

[..]
> > But hold on. In 1960 there was a definite fossil "gap" between
> > Australopithecines and Miocene apes that stretched back a long way.
> > Hardy made it quite clear that this was his rationale for citing 10 My
> > when he was postulating his more aquatic 'phase'. The latest fossil
> > findings might suggest bipedalism began as far back as 7 Ma or even
> > earlier - that's very close to what Hardy said all along.
>
> Hardy did not "cite 10 my" -- he said "some twenty million years or more".
> This is not in any way close to 7 mya, or even 10 mya, although this does
> demonstrate your tenuous degree of reliance on facts.

In the New Scientist paper he cites 10 My. In the Zenith paper he
cites twenty. This tells us something about a) the relative quality of
the editors, b) how much Hardy had declined in another 17 years after
his retirement and c) the determination of Jim Moore to give the worst
possible slant on anything to do with this idea.

[..]
> > But is it uninformed and inaccurate? When he wrote that in 1960 10Ma
> > could have seemed reasonable. Heck, it even seems reasonable today if
> > you take the scepticism about the molecular clock calibration and
> > assume Pan-Homo split 10-13Ma.
> >
> > As usual, you're just scraping the barrel for any bit of dirt you can
> > gather against this AAH but, as usual, when you examine it closely the
> > only dirt is on Jim Moore himself.
>
> Again you substitute your "10 my" -- you are not being accurate about what
> Hardy said -- you should have read more than the title.

Look, I'll make it easy for you...

Click this link http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Hardy/HardyPage4.htm

Scroll down the third column, last but one para, last sentence.

Now if I'd made an error like that, or Elaine or any AAH proponent, it
would find it's way on Jim Moore's 'Can AATer Research be Trusted?'
page.

See http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html for the original twists

and http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/Quotes.htm for the
expose.

[..]
> > Another twist. I'm the one offering quotes from the body of text after
> > the title of the New Scientist paper - and giving page references for
> > them. You won't even tell us which journal you're citing from. I was
> > arguing that a mild form of the AAH - if one scales back the claims,
> > rather than deliberately exaggerate them as you do - was "boringly
> > obvious", not that specifically Hardy's original paper was - more
> > twists from the master twister.
>
> Now you're saying it isn't "boringly obvious"? -- that was a quote from you,
> you know.

Yes, Jim. When you quote someone you really should quote more than two
words. What was the context of it, do you remember?

sap thread 'Walking' 15-Jan-2004
"Yes, the answer given over and over again is the same gross
misrepresentation of what the hypothesis is saying. It is the strawman
argument that the AAH proposes that human ancestors were aquatic when
the
question Hardy posed was merely 'was man more aquatic in the past?' It
is
people like you who refuse to consider it in the modest, boringly
obvious,
sense - because then you'd have to concede that there can be no
serious
objection to it at all." Kuliukas (2004)

I'm saying that when you consider the AAH merely as meaning that 'Man
was more aquatic in the past' and by definition therefore more aquatic
than ape ancestors, it becomes boringly obvious. That's why you have
to take words out of context and twist them into a claim that wasn't
made. This is all you do.

[..]
> > In your web site you say "there are, sadly, many more where these came
> > from" on your http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html page, first
> > paragraph. Amazing that in the (how long is it?) six? years since
> > you've still only given us the pathetic four (Well, let's be honest,
> > Jim - it's just ONE really) - and yet the way you hype them up implies
> > to anyone going to your web site that Elaine Morgan's the biggest
> > fraud in history.
>
> I invite anyone reading this exchange (poor souls) to look at my site and
> see if Algis is being accurate when he claims I've found only 4 errors in
> AAT/H work.

Yes, poor souls indeed. Jim expects you to read his whole gigantic,
one-sided, masquerading web site to find these extra (extra to the ONE
he reports on his 'Can AATer research be trusted' page) errors because
he's just not tellin'.

> I'll leave it up to them to determine whether or not altering a
> quote -- like Negus' (without indicating that the words had been left
> out) -- didn't change the substance of her argument.

What? You're leaving it to the reader, Jim? That's a bit dangerous
isn't it? Well if we're leaving it to the reader we should point out
both cites, shouldn't we...

Jim's site (with no alternative view):
http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html

And mine with a link to Jim's so you can check both:
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/Quotes.htm

> If you wish to argue
> that it was simply poor scholarship and writing on her part, but that she
> deserves an honorary degree for that work... well, that's not an argument
> I'd want to have to defend (my sympathies to you on that). I certainly
> don't wish to leave the impression that Morgan is the biggest fraud in
> history -- there are far more ambitious frauds -- but I do demonstrate that
> she did an awful lot of dubious scholarship which she apparently thought
> should be accepted and swallowed whole. I wouldn't think one could swallow
> that whole, but then there's you, so I guess it can.

Keep on smearing, Jim.

[..]
> > Thirty years selfless work deserves recognition, that's why the
> > Norwegian Academy of Sciences did recognise it. Jim Moore, apparently,
> > knows better - he's exposed all the dirt on Morgan for all to see -
> > all four (well just ONE actually) tiny error(s) in thirty years work.
> >
> Again, folks, check out my site and see if Algis is being accurate when he
> claims there are only 4 errors (tiny or otherwise) demonstrated.

While you're there, check how many of his claims have references so
you can check them out.

Algis Kuliukas

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Sep 9, 2004, 4:49:04 PM9/9/04
to
"J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iJ10d.352933$M95.21443@pd7tw1no...

> If you look at the features AAT/H proponents say we have and see what
"aquatics" (as they are often vaguely labeled by proponents) have them,
anyone can see that the degree of aquaticism the AAT/H is actually
suggesting cannot be the amount they generally claim they're suggesting --
but then they rarely seem to suggest any real time, although Hardy did.

You're a liar or an idiot. Hardy described how a sea-side life
(beach-combing, wading, swimming, collecting coconuts, shellfish, turtles &
turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc.) explains many human traits
(absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) a lot better than savanna
scenarios do: very large brain (but reduced olfactory bulb), greater
breathing control & greater diving skills, small mouth, masticatory
reduction (myosine MYH16 inactivation), descended larynx, well-developed
vocality, extreme handiness & tool use, reduction of climbing skills,
reduction of fur, more subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body
build, reduction of olfactory sense, late puberty, high needs of iodine,
sodium & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.etc. Hardy was wrong in follwing
the PAs at the time & thought this seaside phase happened ~10 Ma. More
likely it happened during the Ice Ages: early Pleistocene Homo fossils or
tools ~1.8 Ma have been found in Algeria, Iran, Kenya, Georgia, Java, always
near shellfish & seas & large bodies of water. When sea levels dropped,
H.ergaster followed the Mediterranean (pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian
Ocean coasts (erectus). Pleistocene coasts during the glacial periods were
some 120 m below the present sea level, so many fossil & archeological finds
show the inland Homo populations that entered the continents along the
rivers & wetlands. In spite of this, Homo remains (but not
australopithecine) have frequently been found amid shells, corals, barnacles
etc., throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts all over the Old World (eg,
Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on islands that could only
be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ).

Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html


Paul Crowley

unread,
Sep 10, 2004, 8:58:09 AM9/10/04
to
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04090...@posting.google.com...

> You've missed the plot. Morgan's 'list of aquatic traits' were


> speculations. Some of them are more speculative than others. The
> hymen, the ventro-ventral copulation and the salt tears arguments are
> cases in point. It is easy to focus in on those and claim that you've
> exposed a great fallacy. Langdon did the same thing. He listed out the
> dreaded 23 traits with equal weighting and equal ridicule. This is
> just not fair. Morgan (1997) didn't do that. She had four chapters
> just on bipedalism for instance. Anyone that critiques this hypothesis
> fairly has to give appropriate weightings to the traits which are
> claimed may have a more aquatic explanation. Why we walk, why we're
> naked and why we're fat are the three biggest ones. Your critique, and
> Langdon's, simply don't do that. They clearly have an agenda to focus
> in on the more minor, weaker, points.

You are dead-on here. Jim's site is quite
obnoxious, as is Langdon's critique --
largely because they set out to conceal
the fact that orthodoxy has no answers.
They thrash around among the minor
byways down which AAT people have
gone, pretending that there are no major
issues, apparently hoping that no one
will notice that they are as utterly lost
as any AAT theorist ever was.

> If hominids waded through water more than ape
> ancestors they would be more likely to move
> bipedally. That's not vague.

It's just both wrong and irrelevant -- since
you disdain to put forward any remotely
likely theory as how it could have lead
to terrestrial bipedalism.

> If hominids swam through water more than ape
> ancestors they would be more likely to gain
> buoyancy through increased adipocity. That's
> not vague.

It's just wrong. Other terrestrial species
don't gain 'increased buoyancy' though
increased adiposity. Nor do humans --
by and large. I doubt if any of the
Olympic swimming champions had
significant levels of fat. Adult males
and children of about five often have
little fat, yet can learn to swim well.

> If hominids lived in hot tropical water-side
> habitats they would be more likely to go for dips
> to keep cool than ape ancestors

This is both wrong and ridiculous.
Native people in hot countries rarely
do this sort of thing. Nor do the great
bulk of other mammals. They don't
have the time nor the energy, and
insofar as they need to keep cool,
they find other ways. Human
mothers with small infants do not
go into deep water.

> and evolve
> sweat cooling mechanisms to supplement it.

That's getting even more ridiculous.
Sweating is essentially an adult male
phenomenon. (a) The whole of the
species does not consist of adult males
(even if that is the working assumption
of both yourself and standard PA);
(b) When you find a feature that affects
only a certain part of the population,
you explain it by the behaviour (or
other characteristics) of that part --
not of the whole.

> That's not vague.

It is vague. But when it's utterly
wrong, the vagueness becomes
a trivial matter.


Paul.

J Moore

unread,
Sep 10, 2004, 8:58:16 PM9/10/04
to

No, you didn't use those words -- you just said that after some 40-50 years
of thinking for Hardy, and 35 or more years for Morgan, they hadn't managed
to get to the point where they defined their idea, which I'd have to say
sounds like absolute failure, since that's one of the first things you need
to do. Of course, I disagree with you in that you can definitely see what
they were talking about if you look at what features they said we share with
other mammals and just which mammals those are, not to mention other things
like Morgan's aldosterone evidence and such.

The "naked" (we aren't, you know) and fat (not all humans are, you know) --
well, maybe you don't, but there you go -- are traits "shared" with seals,
whales, and sirenia. And of course those traits aren't really the same in
humans as in those other mammals, so that's another problem for the AAT/H
(and esp. it's claim of parsimony). And of course when we look at
bipedalism, aquatic anything isn't where it's at, but other primates are.

> If hominids waded through water more than ape ancestors they would be
> more likely to move bipedally. That's not vague.
>
> If hominids swam through water more than ape ancestors they would be
> more likely to gain buoyancy through increased adipocity. That's not
> vague.
>
> If hominids lived in hot tropical water-side habitats they would be
> more likely to go for dips to keep cool than ape ancestors and evolve
> sweat cooling mechanisms to supplement it. That's not vague.

It's vague when it doesn't give any sort of time needed to affect these
changes -- of course, since the features in question are those of virtually
or completely aquatic mammals which have been aquatic for between 25-50
million years, there's a really good reason to be vague on your part.

You read that page and you still can't tell where Hardy said what I
reported? Wow.

> > You claim to have done so, so your claim to be somehow mystified by
where on
> > earth it can be seems somewhat disingenuous. As for what puiblications
are
> > more or less credible, I don't care, since I am only looking at what he
> > wrote and whether or not it's accurate and makes sense. Your suggestion
> > that one needn't write science accurately if you pick the right venue is
not
> > something I endorse. You should note -- well I should, since you
probably
> > won't :) -- that New Scientist is not a peer review journal, but more of
a
> > science magazine -- it seemed to me, perhaps incorrectly, that you were
> > misleading people on that a tad -- probably inadvertently.
>
> I know that New Scientist is not peer reviewed but it's a more serious
> and important journal than Zenith.

How non-serious need one get before they're allowed to spout nonsense and
have it accepted as acurate science? I say that any science writing,
especially that which purports to be trying to get a new idea accepted,
should be accurate, no matter where it's published -- you obviously
disagree, so again, just how non-serious does one have to get in choice of
publishing venue before one's work gets accepted uncritically in science?

Yes, they can say that, but look at the features they say we got as a
result, and what other creatures have them, and you see that these
statements you've quoted are disingenuous.

> [..]
> > > But hold on. In 1960 there was a definite fossil "gap" between
> > > Australopithecines and Miocene apes that stretched back a long way.
> > > Hardy made it quite clear that this was his rationale for citing 10 My
> > > when he was postulating his more aquatic 'phase'. The latest fossil
> > > findings might suggest bipedalism began as far back as 7 Ma or even
> > > earlier - that's very close to what Hardy said all along.
> >
> > Hardy did not "cite 10 my" -- he said "some twenty million years or
more".
> > This is not in any way close to 7 mya, or even 10 mya, although this
does
> > demonstrate your tenuous degree of reliance on facts.
>
> In the New Scientist paper he cites 10 My. In the Zenith paper he
> cites twenty. This tells us something about a) the relative quality of
> the editors, b) how much Hardy had declined in another 17 years after
> his retirement and c) the determination of Jim Moore to give the worst
> possible slant on anything to do with this idea.

Ah yes, it's the editors' fault, not Hardy's -- poor fellow. Just as you
suggested that Morgan's problems with leaving words out of quotes without
any indication of their absence is her editors' fault... which would mean,
of course, that her editors also crept into her home or office and altered
newsgroup posts before she sent them along. Wow -- these editors have a lot
of power, and the poor author. Well, Algis, let me respectfully submit that
that theory is bullshit.

It was one of the many times you insisted that all should read only Hardy's
1960 title and ignore all the words that followed, a technique I do not
endorse. ("the question Hardy posed was merely 'was man more aquatic in the


past?' It is people like you who refuse to consider it in the modest,
boringly obvious, sense - because then you'd have to concede that there can

be no serious objection to it at all.")

> sap thread 'Walking' 15-Jan-2004
> "Yes, the answer given over and over again is the same gross
> misrepresentation of what the hypothesis is saying. It is the strawman
> argument that the AAH proposes that human ancestors were aquatic when
> the
> question Hardy posed was merely 'was man more aquatic in the past?' It
> is
> people like you who refuse to consider it in the modest, boringly
> obvious,
> sense - because then you'd have to concede that there can be no
> serious
> objection to it at all." Kuliukas (2004)
>
> I'm saying that when you consider the AAH merely as meaning that 'Man
> was more aquatic in the past' and by definition therefore more aquatic
> than ape ancestors, it becomes boringly obvious. That's why you have
> to take words out of context and twist them into a claim that wasn't
> made. This is all you do.

Asking us all to ignore everything written by AAT/H proponents except for
the title of Hardy's 1960 article isn't really sensible, yet if you do read
more than that it rapidly becomes way less than "obvious" -- not boring
either, at first, but that feeling creeps up on us after a few exchanges
from AAT/H proponents denying facts and blaming all the idea's problems on
editors.

> [..]
> > > In your web site you say "there are, sadly, many more where these came
> > > from" on your http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html page, first
> > > paragraph. Amazing that in the (how long is it?) six? years since
> > > you've still only given us the pathetic four (Well, let's be honest,
> > > Jim - it's just ONE really) - and yet the way you hype them up implies
> > > to anyone going to your web site that Elaine Morgan's the biggest
> > > fraud in history.
> >
> > I invite anyone reading this exchange (poor souls) to look at my site
and
> > see if Algis is being accurate when he claims I've found only 4 errors
in
> > AAT/H work.
>
> Yes, poor souls indeed. Jim expects you to read his whole gigantic,
> one-sided, masquerading web site to find these extra (extra to the ONE
> he reports on his 'Can AATer research be trusted' page) errors because
> he's just not tellin'.

I had to create a web site to list them all, I can't see cutting and pasting
the whole thing in a newsgroup -- it's far better to offer the link. I know
it's not the way you're used to seeing things done by, say, Marc, but then
that's how he got the nickname "macroman". I think that sort of thing is
bad newsgroup manners.

> > I'll leave it up to them to determine whether or not altering a
> > quote -- like Negus' (without indicating that the words had been left
> > out) -- didn't change the substance of her argument.
>
> What? You're leaving it to the reader, Jim? That's a bit dangerous
> isn't it? Well if we're leaving it to the reader we should point out
> both cites, shouldn't we...
>
> Jim's site (with no alternative view):
> http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html
>
> And mine with a link to Jim's so you can check both:
> http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/Quotes.htm

By all means. There have long been a great many uncritically pro-AAT web
sites -- literally dozens by now, I think, and having one that takes a more
critical view (required in science, after all) never seemed so bad to me.
You disagree, of course, but hey, no one said you have to like science.

I forgot to mention the business about Algis claiming Morgan deserves praise
because she tried so hard for so long, even though her tries were blunders
filled with falsehoods and distortions. In the States we'd call that grade
an "E for effort", and it isn't a compliment.

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
Sep 11, 2004, 6:33:54 AM9/11/04
to
"J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<I4s0d.366581$M95.320708@pd7tw1no>...

> Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.04090...@posting.google.com...
> > "J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<iJ10d.352933$M95.21443@pd7tw1no>...
[..]

> > Tell you what, Jim. I'll admit that I just made up the bit about the
> > 'top ten AAH distortions list' if you admit I never said that Hardy
> > and Morgan's work was absolute trash.
>
> No, you didn't use those words -- you just said that after some 40-50 years
> of thinking for Hardy, and 35 or more years for Morgan, they hadn't managed
> to get to the point where they defined their idea, which I'd have to say
> sounds like absolute failure, since that's one of the first things you need
> to do.

So when you claimed that I'd said their work was 'absolute trash'
what, exactly, was that? Was it a lie or just sloppyness? As this is
limit of the big, terrible claims you make against Elaine Morgan
doesn't this put you firmly and squarely in the same boat as her?

> Of course, I disagree with you in that you can definitely see what
> they were talking about if you look at what features they said we share with
> other mammals and just which mammals those are, not to mention other things
> like Morgan's aldosterone evidence and such.

In five books and several articles it is posible to find a couple of
words and quote them out of context to prove that the authors meant
anything you fancy, Jim. But if you were to change the habit of a
lifetime and be fair and reasonable for half an hour or so and read a
whole chapter of any of Morgan's books or Hardy's whole article and
get a feel for the broad context that they are referring to, you'd
have to agree that they're not postulating anything more than humans
merely being more aquatic than our ape cousins. All you have done is
to hunting for slight errors and misrepresnted them as fraudulent.
You've filtered out the more ambiguous phrases and exaggerated them
into 'humans were like whales' claims. It's just sleazy crap, Jim. You
ought to try to get a job as science correspondant for the UK rag, The
Sunday Sport.

[..]


> > You've missed the plot. Morgan's 'list of aquatic traits' were
> > speculations. Some of them are more speculative than others. The
> > hymen, the ventro-ventral copulation and the salt tears arguments are
> > cases in point. It is easy to focus in on those and claim that you've
> > exposed a great fallacy. Langdon did the same thing. He listed out the
> > dreaded 23 traits with equal weighting and equal ridicule. This is
> > just not fair. Morgan (1997) didn't do that. She had four chapters
> > just on bipedalism for instance. Anyone that critiques this hypothesis
> > fairly has to give appropriate weightings to the traits which are
> > claimed may have a more aquatic explanation. Why we walk, why we're
> > naked and why we're fat are the three biggest ones. Your critique, and
> > Langdon's, simply don't do that. They clearly have an agenda to focus
> > in on the more minor, weaker, points.
>
> The "naked" (we aren't, you know)

What amount of body hair (that is number of hairs x average length)
does an adult male human have compared to an average male chimpanzee?
Make the same comparison for females and then for all people at
different ages. Repeat for different ethnic groups. Add the data all
up and work out an average. If it failed to reach even 0.5% (which I
doubt) then, to the nearest integer, we're naked compared to chimps.

> and fat (not all humans are, you know) --

Not all but even the least fattest humans are typically fatter than
primates. Your own Caroline Pond says so.
"More than half the 31 captive monkeys that we examined were less than
5% fat, thinner than most laborotory rodents, although all of them had
continuous access to food and little opportunity to exercise. ... The
minimum fatness recorded for teenage girl athletes is 7%, and for men
5%. Thus most human beings are not only much fatter than most wild and
captive mammals, but women and girls are consistently fatter than men
and boys." Pond (1987:63)

Pond, Caroline M (1987). Fat and Figures. New Scientist Vol:
Pages:62-66

So, again, you're just wrong. Compared to apes we ARE naked and
compared to all primates we're fat. How could that be, Jim? What's
your ecological scenario for explaining that? Is it the
slightly-less-wooded-than-chimp-habitats-but-slightly-more-wooded-than-might-be-labelled-savannahs-because-that-was-a-straw-man-invented-by-Elaine-Morgan
habitat? And if it is why did it have such a drammatic effect?

> well, maybe you don't, but there you go -- are traits "shared" with seals,
> whales, and sirenia. And of course those traits aren't really the same in
> humans as in those other mammals, so that's another problem for the AAT/H
> (and esp. it's claim of parsimony). And of course when we look at
> bipedalism, aquatic anything isn't where it's at, but other primates are.

Blaa blaa - still banging on about seals and whales. Jim, we've moved
on.



> > If hominids waded through water more than ape ancestors they would be
> > more likely to move bipedally. That's not vague.
> >
> > If hominids swam through water more than ape ancestors they would be
> > more likely to gain buoyancy through increased adipocity. That's not
> > vague.
> >
> > If hominids lived in hot tropical water-side habitats they would be
> > more likely to go for dips to keep cool than ape ancestors and evolve
> > sweat cooling mechanisms to supplement it. That's not vague.
>
> It's vague when it doesn't give any sort of time needed to affect these
> changes -- of course, since the features in question are those of virtually
> or completely aquatic mammals which have been aquatic for between 25-50
> million years, there's a really good reason to be vague on your part.

Yes it does - time since the LCA of course. We don't actually know how
long that was but if it was 5.5 Ma or 13Ma, increased selection from
moving through water is going to have some effect isn't it?

I mean your position is either saying:

a) Our ancestors did not move through water more than the ancestors of
chimps since the LCA. (Not backed up by the fossil record and not by
comparative anatomy either)

b) If they did move through water more, then no significant selection
took place. (Illogical since an increased terrestriality has certainly
had traits selected for.)

[..]


> > I want you to do that, Jim. I want you to cite references to the
> > claims you make. That's what you criticse Elaine Morgan for not doing
> > but you rarely do it yourself..
>
> You read that page and you still can't tell where Hardy said what I
> reported? Wow.

You still don't get it, Jim. I can read your page and I have. But I
want you to get into the habit of writing a claim and putting a
reference next to it. The technique goes something like this...

Hardy claimed that the aquatic phase occurred in the fossil gap that
was apparent in 1960. He wrote "It is interesting to note that the
Miocene fossil Proconsul, which may perhaps reprsent approximately the
kind of ape giving rise to the human stock, has an arm and a hand of
very unspecialised form: much more human than that of the modern ape.
It is in the gap of some ten million years or more, between Proconsul
and Australopithecus that I suppose Man to have been cradled by the
sea." Hardy (1960:645)

Hardy, Alister (1960). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?. New
Scientist Vol:7 Pages:642-645

See? It's easy. Now you try...

[..]


> > I know that New Scientist is not peer reviewed but it's a more serious
> > and important journal than Zenith.
>
> How non-serious need one get before they're allowed to spout nonsense and
> have it accepted as acurate science? I say that any science writing,
> especially that which purports to be trying to get a new idea accepted,
> should be accurate, no matter where it's published -- you obviously
> disagree, so again, just how non-serious does one have to get in choice of
> publishing venue before one's work gets accepted uncritically in science?

Ideally every single statement one reads should be absolutely truthful
and fully referenced but, unlike you apparently, I'm not living in
fantasy land.

When you claimed that I'd said that Hardy and Morgan's work was
'absolute trash' I was appauled but, hey, it's only a newsgroup and I
expect you'd had a few - so no probs. If you'd have written the same
thing in the local edition of the Cleveland Telegraph, I'd have been a
little more pissed off - but journalism doesn't have such high
standards either. If it had been in New Scientist I'd have written a
letter of complaint. Of course such a silly statement would never have
got past the editor of such a journal and if it had arrived at a
scholarly journal like AJPA they wouldn't have even opened the
envelope.

Elaine Morgan made errors but so does everyone, even you.

[..]


> > "It may be objected that children have to be taught to swim; but the
> > same is true of young otters, and I should regard them as more aquatic
> > than Man has been. " Hardy (1960:643)
> >
> > "Nobody has suggested that they turned into mermen and mermaids. They
> > would have been water-adapted apes in the same sense that an otter is
> > a water-adapted mustelid. If we knew nothing of the otter except what
> > we can deduce from its bare bones, it would take a clever scientist to
> > detect that it was any more aquatic than its cousins the stoats and
> > the polecats." Morgan (1997:31)
> >
> > "In an environment which combined trees and water ( a flooded forest
> > or an offshore island dwindling as the sea level rose) the more
> > dominant males would have had first call on the diminished reserves of
> > the traditional food source and would have continued to confine
> > themselves to it. In any society, long-established dominance tends to
> > lead to conservatism. The hungrier females could have been driven to
> > seek for less familiar things to eat and would have found them in
> > water." Morgan (1997:100)
>
> Yes, they can say that, but look at the features they say we got as a
> result, and what other creatures have them, and you see that these
> statements you've quoted are disingenuous.

Well yes, let's look at those features and those creatures...

Apes wade bipedally ... and we walk bipedally on land.
Apes don't swim as well as we do ... and they're less buoyant.
Shaving body hair reduces drag in water and helps sweat cooling... we
are more naked than apes.

[..]


> > In the New Scientist paper he cites 10 My. In the Zenith paper he
> > cites twenty. This tells us something about a) the relative quality of
> > the editors, b) how much Hardy had declined in another 17 years after
> > his retirement and c) the determination of Jim Moore to give the worst
> > possible slant on anything to do with this idea.
>
> Ah yes, it's the editors' fault, not Hardy's -- poor fellow. Just as you
> suggested that Morgan's problems with leaving words out of quotes without
> any indication of their absence is her editors' fault... which would mean,
> of course, that her editors also crept into her home or office and altered
> newsgroup posts before she sent them along. Wow -- these editors have a lot
> of power, and the poor author. Well, Algis, let me respectfully submit that
> that theory is bullshit.

You missed out points b and c. Editors are supposed to check the copy
before putting it in to print. I'd have thought that any decent
scientist reading Hardy's 'twenty million year' reference in Zenith
would have known better, wouldn't you? Hardy was 81 at the time, I
think your miserliness of spirit is appauling.



> > [..]
> > > > But is it uninformed and inaccurate? When he wrote that in 1960 10Ma
> > > > could have seemed reasonable. Heck, it even seems reasonable today if
> > > > you take the scepticism about the molecular clock calibration and
> > > > assume Pan-Homo split 10-13Ma.
> > > >
> > > > As usual, you're just scraping the barrel for any bit of dirt you can
> > > > gather against this AAH but, as usual, when you examine it closely the
> > > > only dirt is on Jim Moore himself.
> > >
> > > Again you substitute your "10 my" -- you are not being accurate about
> what
> > > Hardy said -- you should have read more than the title.
> >
> > Look, I'll make it easy for you...
> >
> > Click this link http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Hardy/HardyPage4.htm
> >
> > Scroll down the third column, last but one para, last sentence.
> >
> > Now if I'd made an error like that, or Elaine or any AAH proponent, it
> > would find it's way on Jim Moore's 'Can AATer Research be Trusted?'
> > page.
> >
> > See http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html for the original twists
> >
> > and http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/Quotes.htm for the
> > expose.

Nothing to say there, Jim?

See that? He's very quick to pounce on the slightest error any AAH
proponent makes but when you show that he's just as prone to making
errors (or are they deceptions?) - oops, he just tries to slip away
into the mist.

[..]


> > > Now you're saying it isn't "boringly obvious"? -- that was a quote from
> you,
> > > you know.
> >
> > Yes, Jim. When you quote someone you really should quote more than two
> > words. What was the context of it, do you remember?
>
> It was one of the many times you insisted that all should read only Hardy's
> 1960 title and ignore all the words that followed, a technique I do not
> endorse. ("the question Hardy posed was merely 'was man more aquatic in the
> past?' It is people like you who refuse to consider it in the modest,
> boringly obvious, sense - because then you'd have to concede that there can
> be no serious objection to it at all.")

So are you conceding that I didn't actually claim that Hardy's paper
per se was 'mild and borringly obvious' as you tried to twist?

But see, here's another Moore twist. You know I think I'm going to
start a page of 'Mooreish deceptions' myself.

1. "And what, I wonder, given the above, did Elaine say when you said
that her
work, and Hardy's, was all just incomptetent trash?" Moore
(2004-Aug-30 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory?')

2. "It was one of the many times you *insisted* [my emphasis] that all
should read only Hardy's title and ignore all the words that
followed..." Moore (2004-sep-10 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory?')

3. "I disagree with your idea that one should stop reading after the
title." Moore (2004-sep-03 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory?')

Keep 'em coming, Jim.

[..]


> > I'm saying that when you consider the AAH merely as meaning that 'Man
> > was more aquatic in the past' and by definition therefore more aquatic
> > than ape ancestors, it becomes boringly obvious. That's why you have
> > to take words out of context and twist them into a claim that wasn't
> > made. This is all you do.
>
> Asking us all to ignore everything written by AAT/H proponents except for
> the title of Hardy's 1960 article isn't really sensible, yet if you do read
> more than that it rapidly becomes way less than "obvious" -- not boring
> either, at first, but that feeling creeps up on us after a few exchanges
> from AAT/H proponents denying facts and blaming all the idea's problems on
> editors.

Moore twists. I've quoted many times from the Hardy text. Here's some
more...

"On March 5th [1960] I was asked to address a conference of the
British Sub-Aqua Club at Brighton and chose as my theme "Aquatic Man:
Past, Present and Future"... I ventured to suggest a new hypothesis of
Man's origins from more aquatic ape-like ancestors and then went on to
discuss possible developments of the future" (Hardy 1960:642)

"I have been toying with this concept of Man's evolution for many
years, but until this moment, which suddenly appeared an appropriate
one, I had hesitated because it had seemed perhaps too fantastic; yet
the more I reflected upon it, the more I came to believe it to be
possible, or even likely." (Hardy 1960:642)

"... This history of the emancipation of animal life from the sea is
very well known. I repeat it only because it forms the the background
to another story, one that is not quite so familiar to those who are
not trained as zoologists. .. We see . ... Again and again ...
Over-population resulting in some members being forced back into the
water to make a living because there was not enough food for them on
the land." Hardy (1960:642)

"The suggestion I am about to make may at first seem far-fetched, yet
I think it may best explain the striking physical differences that
separate Man's immediate ancestors (the Hominoidae) from the more
ape-like forms (Pongidae) which have each diverged from a common stock
of more primitive ape-like creatures which had clearly developed for a
time as tree-living forms.
My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by
competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to
hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off
the coast.
I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen
happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining
this happenning in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas
where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods,
that is, several hours at a stretch. I imagine him wading, at first
perhaps still crouching almost on all fours groping about in the
water, digging for shell fish, but becoming gradually more adept at
swimming. Then, in time, I see him becoming more and more of an
aquatic animal going farther out from the shore: I see him diving for
shell fish, prising out worms, burrowing crabs and bivalves from the
sands at the bottom of shallow seas, and breaking open sea-urchins,
and then, with increasing skill, capturing fish with his hands." Hardy
(1960:642)


"Let us now consider a number of points which such a conception might
explain. First and foremost, perhaps, is the exceptional ability of
Man to swim, to swim like a frog, and his great endurance at it. The
fact that some men can swim the English Channel (albeit with
training), indeed that they race across it, indicates to my mind that
there must have been a long period of natural selection improving
man's qualities for such feats. Many animals can swim at the surface
but few terrestrial mammals can rival Man in swimming below the
surface and gracefully turning this way and that in search of what he
may be looking for." Hardy 1960:643)

"It may be objected that children have to be taught to swim; but the
same is true of young otters, and I should regard them as more aquatic

than Man has been." Hardy (1960:642)

"Whilst not invariably so, the loss of hair is a characteristic of a
number of aquatic mamals; for example, the whales, the sirenia and the
hippoptamus. Aquatic mammals which come out of water in cold and
temperate climates have retained their fur for warmth on land, as have
the seals, otters, beavers etc. Man has lost his hair all except on
the head, that part of him sticking out of the water as he swims: such
hair is possibly retained as a guard against the rays of the tropical
sun. Hair, under water, naturally loses its original function...
[keeping body warm by trapping air close to skin] ... The unborn
chimpanzee has hair on its head like man, but little on its body.@
Hardy (1960:643)

"The idea of an aquatic past might also help to solve another puzzle
which Professor Wood Jones stressed so forcibly, that of understanding
how Man obtained his erect posture, and also kept his hands in the
primitive, unspecialised, vertebrate condition. . . . Wading about, at
first paddling... He would naturally have to return to the beach to
sleep and to get water to drink; actually I imagine him to have spent
at least half of his time on the land." Hardy (1960:644)

"Man's hand has all the characteristics of a sensitive, exploring
device, continually feeling with its tentacle-like fingers over the
sea bed; using them to clutch hold of crabs and other crustaceans, to
prize out bivalves from the sand and to break them open, to turn over
stones to find the worms and other creatures sheltering underneath."
Hardy (1960:645)

"Man, no doubt first saw the possibilities of using stones, lying
readiy at hand on the beach, to crack open the enshelled "packages" of
food which were otherwise tantalizingly out of reach; so in far off
days he smashed the shells of the sea urchins and crushed lobsters'
claws to get out the delicacies that we so enjoy today. From the use
of such natural stones it was but a step to split flints to make
fires, perhaps with dried seaweed, on the sea-shore." Hardy (1960:645)

"Man, now erect and a fast runner, was equipped for the conquest of
the continents, the vast open spaces with the herds of grazing game.
Whilst he became a great hunter, we know from the shell middens of
mesolithic Man that shell fish for long remained a favourite food."
Hardy (1960:645)

"In such a brief treatment I cannot deal wit all the aspects of the
subject: I shall do so at greater length and in more detail in a
full-scale study of the problem. I will just here mention one more
point. The students of the fossil record have for so long been
perturbed by the apparent sudden appearance of Man. Where are the
fossils that linked the Hominoidae with their more ape-like ancestors?
... The gap... Is it possible that the gap is due to the period when
Man struggled and died in the sea?" Hardy (1960:645)

"It is interesting to note that the Miocene fossil Proconsul, which
may perhaps reprsent approximately the kind of ape giving rise to the
human stock, has an arm and a hand of very unspecialised form: much
more human than that of the modern ape. It is in the gap of some ten
million years or more, between Proconsul and Australopithecus that I
suppose Man to have been cradled by the sea." Hardy (1960:645) - note,
Jim, TEN million years.

"My thesis is, of course, only a speculation - an hypothesis to be
discussed and tested against further lines of evidence. Such ideas are
useful only if they stimulate fresh inquiries which may bring us
nearer the truth." Hardy (1960:645) - note the modesty of the man.
He's requesting that scientists take an interest in the idea, that's
all. That nobody did is a shocking indictment on the intellectual
independence of a whole generation of paleoanthropologists. It was
left to Elaine Morgan to try expose the stupidity of such ignorance
but even today Jim Moore still can't see it.

[..]


> > Yes, poor souls indeed. Jim expects you to read his whole gigantic,
> > one-sided, masquerading web site to find these extra (extra to the ONE
> > he reports on his 'Can AATer research be trusted' page) errors because
> > he's just not tellin'.
>
> I had to create a web site to list them all, I can't see cutting and pasting
> the whole thing in a newsgroup -- it's far better to offer the link. I know
> it's not the way you're used to seeing things done by, say, Marc, but then
> that's how he got the nickname "macroman". I think that sort of thing is
> bad newsgroup manners.

But you don't give references to the 'errors' except on four ocassions
and even those are just pathetic. If you say there are more... let's
have them - WITH FULL CITATIONS! Can you do that?

[..]


> By all means. There have long been a great many uncritically pro-AAT web
> sites -- literally dozens by now, I think, and having one that takes a more
> critical view (required in science, after all) never seemed so bad to me.
> You disagree, of course, but hey, no one said you have to like science.

I thought two wrongs don't make a right, but then that was Jason's
argument, not yours. It's intersting how people like JE are so silent
about the qualities or otherwise of your web site. Can't quite bring
himself to comment on that, I note. It would put him in a very
difficult position.

[..]


> > While you're there, check how many of his claims have references so
> > you can check them out.
>

> I forgot to mention the business about Algis claiming Morgan deserves praise
> because she tried so hard for so long, even though her tries were blunders
> filled with falsehoods and distortions. In the States we'd call that grade
> an "E for effort", and it isn't a compliment.

Morgan's works were "blunders filled with falsehoods and distortions"
- Jim Moore (2004-sep-10 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory')

... that's one opinion.

"I see Elaine Morgan, through her series of superbly written books,
presenting a challenge to the scientists to take an interest in this
thing, to look at the evidence dispassionately. Not to avert your gaze
as though it were something you that you hadn't ought to hear about or
hadn't ought to see. And those that are honest with themselves are
going to dispassionately examine the evidence. We've got to if we are
going to be true to our calling as scientists. Phillip Tobias 1998
("BBC Documentary 'The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis'").

... there's another. Take your pick.

Algis Kuliukas

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
Sep 11, 2004, 9:08:01 AM9/11/04
to
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message news:<yyh0d.26986$Z14....@news.indigo.ie>...

Thank you, Paul. If only your posting had ended here, your
intellectual credit rating would have risen 100% in my estimation.

> > If hominids waded through water more than ape
> > ancestors they would be more likely to move
> > bipedally. That's not vague.
>
> It's just both wrong and irrelevant -- since
> you disdain to put forward any remotely
> likely theory as how it could have lead
> to terrestrial bipedalism.

Oh yes I have. Many times. Over and over again. As the water's edge of
rivers, lakes, seas - you know - all of em except swimming pools are
characterised by this thing called a gradient of depths, where deep
water, gradually becomes shallow water and shallow water gradually
becomes wet ground - this is *EXACTLY* the place where wading leads to
terrestrial bipedalism.

That's more than putting foreward a remotely likely theory - it's
spelling it out in simple terms a six year old (but apparently not
people who think they're experts in paleoanthropology) can see.

> > If hominids swam through water more than ape
> > ancestors they would be more likely to gain
> > buoyancy through increased adipocity. That's
> > not vague.
>
> It's just wrong. Other terrestrial species
> don't gain 'increased buoyancy' though
> increased adiposity. Nor do humans --
> by and large. I doubt if any of the
> Olympic swimming champions had
> significant levels of fat. Adult males
> and children of about five often have
> little fat, yet can learn to swim well.

The leanest humans are, generally, fatter than the fattest primates.
Arguing that extra bouyancy is not going to be helpful to an animals
that, by I thought your own admission, is not a particularly adept
swimmer, is perverse in the extreme. Obviously, increased adipocity is
likely to be quickly selected for in a group of primates which,
through their largely arboreal past is not very adept at swimming.



> > If hominids lived in hot tropical water-side
> > habitats they would be more likely to go for dips
> > to keep cool than ape ancestors
>
> This is both wrong and ridiculous.
> Native people in hot countries rarely
> do this sort of thing. Nor do the great
> bulk of other mammals. They don't
> have the time nor the energy, and
> insofar as they need to keep cool,
> they find other ways. Human
> mothers with small infants do not
> go into deep water.

Native people are not the same as hominids.

'Human mothers with small infants do not go into deep water'?

http://www.babyswimming.com/

http://www.babyworld.co.uk/information/baby/swimming/swimming_lessons.asp

Just search Google for 'mothers+babies+swimming'.



> > and evolve
> > sweat cooling mechanisms to supplement it.
>
> That's getting even more ridiculous.
> Sweating is essentially an adult male
> phenomenon. (a) The whole of the
> species does not consist of adult males
> (even if that is the working assumption
> of both yourself and standard PA);
> (b) When you find a feature that affects
> only a certain part of the population,
> you explain it by the behaviour (or
> other characteristics) of that part --
> not of the whole.

You keep saying that. Have you any evidence for it? My mum (bless her)
used to sweat cobs and so do my kids, when they're hot and
over-dressed.

Algis Kuliukas

Michael Clark

unread,
Sep 11, 2004, 9:16:44 AM9/11/04
to
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04091...@posting.google.com...

> "J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<I4s0d.366581$M95.320708@pd7tw1no>...

[The little squeaking noises a rat makes when cornered]

Morgan's works were "blunders filled with falsehoods and distortions"
> - Jim Moore (2004-sep-10 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory')
>
> ... that's one opinion.
>
> "I see Elaine Morgan, through her series of superbly written books,
> presenting a challenge to the scientists to take an interest in this
> thing, to look at the evidence dispassionately. Not to avert your gaze
> as though it were something you that you hadn't ought to hear about or
> hadn't ought to see. And those that are honest with themselves are
> going to dispassionately examine the evidence. We've got to if we are
> going to be true to our calling as scientists. Phillip Tobias 1998
> ("BBC Documentary 'The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis'").
>
> ... there's another. Take your pick.

Would that be this Tobias?

(From personal communication, 8/31/2001)

"....Nowhere have I stated, either in print or on a public platform, or on
the media, that I support the AAH!
I hope that makes my position clear. If you wish to have a copy of my
latest paper which is still in the pipeline, based on the Murcia conference,
please will you ask Mrs. White to send a copy to you.

I am interested to learn that you are submitting an article on fringe
theories and I look forward to receiving a copy of it in due course, if you
would be so kind.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

(Professor Emeritus) Phillip V. Tobias"

Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP

unread,
Sep 11, 2004, 8:17:51 PM9/11/04
to

"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04090...@posting.google.com...

> No, you don't need to explain it, Jim. I've read the line of your


> arguments often enough by now. Take the weakest point, exaggerate it
> enough for it to become ridiculous and reject it.

BTW, that's called "Strawman" argument. It's a useful tool for those who
don't have very strong counter-arguments.


Paul Crowley

unread,
Sep 11, 2004, 8:19:10 PM9/11/04
to
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04091...@posting.google.com...

> > You are dead-on here. Jim's site is quite
> > obnoxious, as is Langdon's critique --
> > largely because they set out to conceal
> > the fact that orthodoxy has no answers.
> > They thrash around among the minor
> > byways down which AAT people have
> > gone, pretending that there are no major
> > issues, apparently hoping that no one
> > will notice that they are as utterly lost
> > as any AAT theorist ever was.
>
> Thank you, Paul. If only your posting had ended here, your
> intellectual credit rating would have risen 100% in my estimation.

I'm sure you would approve of slavish
agreement.

> > > If hominids waded through water more than ape
> > > ancestors they would be more likely to move
> > > bipedally. That's not vague.
> >
> > It's just both wrong and irrelevant -- since
> > you disdain to put forward any remotely
> > likely theory as how it could have lead
> > to terrestrial bipedalism.
>
> Oh yes I have. Many times. Over and over again.

I've never seen it. You don't seem to
be aware that selection has to operate:
i.e. those better able to walk bipedally
on land must have more descendants
than others in the population.

So Generation X is _for_some_distinct_
and_well_defined_reason_ more bipedal
on land than Generation X-1.

> As the water's edge of
> rivers, lakes, seas - you know - all of em except swimming pools are
> characterised by this thing called a gradient of depths, where deep
> water, gradually becomes shallow water and shallow water gradually
> becomes wet ground - this is *EXACTLY* the place where wading leads to
> terrestrial bipedalism.

Through a sort of process of osmosis?

> That's more than putting foreward a remotely likely theory - it's
> spelling it out in simple terms a six year old (but apparently not
> people who think they're experts in paleoanthropology) can see.

Somehow I just can't see any 'spelling out'.

> > > If hominids swam through water more than ape
> > > ancestors they would be more likely to gain
> > > buoyancy through increased adipocity. That's
> > > not vague.
> >
> > It's just wrong. Other terrestrial species
> > don't gain 'increased buoyancy' though
> > increased adiposity. Nor do humans --
> > by and large. I doubt if any of the
> > Olympic swimming champions had
> > significant levels of fat. Adult males
> > and children of about five often have
> > little fat, yet can learn to swim well.
>
> The leanest humans are, generally, fatter than the fattest primates.
> Arguing that extra bouyancy is not going to be helpful to an animals
> that, by I thought your own admission, is not a particularly adept
> swimmer, is perverse in the extreme.

Extra buoyancy may well be helpful.
But (a) it does not seem essential;
(b) even if it is, it could be achieved
far more easily by creating extra air-
spaces in the body (or the head) of
the animal. Unlike fat, air-spaces
weigh nothing, and cost nothing,
they will not slow the animal down
and they require no maintenance.

> Obviously, increased adipocity is
> likely to be quickly selected for in a group of primates which,
> through their largely arboreal past is not very adept at swimming.

Nope. It's not. If increased adiposity
was entirely cost-free, you might have
a case.

> > > If hominids lived in hot tropical water-side
> > > habitats they would be more likely to go for dips
> > > to keep cool than ape ancestors
> >
> > This is both wrong and ridiculous.
> > Native people in hot countries rarely
> > do this sort of thing. Nor do the great
> > bulk of other mammals. They don't
> > have the time nor the energy, and
> > insofar as they need to keep cool,
> > they find other ways. Human
> > mothers with small infants do not
> > go into deep water.
>
> Native people are not the same as hominids.

If you had a serious argument, then we'd
see natives of hot countries regularly
taking 'cooling dips'. We don't.

> 'Human mothers with small infants do not go into deep water'?
>
> http://www.babyswimming.com/
>
> http://www.babyworld.co.uk/information/baby/swimming/swimming_lessons.asp
>
> Just search Google for 'mothers+babies+swimming'.

You find all manner of nonsense with
that method.

> > > and evolve
> > > sweat cooling mechanisms to supplement it.
> >
> > That's getting even more ridiculous.
> > Sweating is essentially an adult male
> > phenomenon. (a) The whole of the
> > species does not consist of adult males
> > (even if that is the working assumption
> > of both yourself and standard PA);
> > (b) When you find a feature that affects
> > only a certain part of the population,
> > you explain it by the behaviour (or
> > other characteristics) of that part --
> > not of the whole.
>
> You keep saying that. Have you any evidence for it? My mum (bless her)
> used to sweat cobs and so do my kids, when they're hot and
> over-dressed.

Only superficially. Go into the changing
rooms of a group of adults after they've
played a game of football, and compare
them (and their shirts) with a group of
children (and their shirts) who've played
as long on the same day. There will be no
comparison in the degree of sweating.


Paul.


J Moore

unread,
Sep 11, 2004, 10:08:00 PM9/11/04
to

Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04091...@posting.google.com...

Again, you look at the features they say we share with these "more aquatic
than apes" mammals and you have seals, whales, and sirenia. That tells you
they're not actually talking about wading about or a little "less than an
otter" swimming, unless you're suggesting some sort of "homeopathy theory of
human evolution" where the magic power of water creates changes in inverse
proportion to contact with it.

> [..]
> > > You've missed the plot. Morgan's 'list of aquatic traits' were
> > > speculations. Some of them are more speculative than others. The
> > > hymen, the ventro-ventral copulation and the salt tears arguments are
> > > cases in point. It is easy to focus in on those and claim that you've
> > > exposed a great fallacy. Langdon did the same thing. He listed out the
> > > dreaded 23 traits with equal weighting and equal ridicule. This is
> > > just not fair. Morgan (1997) didn't do that. She had four chapters
> > > just on bipedalism for instance. Anyone that critiques this hypothesis
> > > fairly has to give appropriate weightings to the traits which are
> > > claimed may have a more aquatic explanation. Why we walk, why we're
> > > naked and why we're fat are the three biggest ones. Your critique, and
> > > Langdon's, simply don't do that. They clearly have an agenda to focus
> > > in on the more minor, weaker, points.
> >
> > The "naked" (we aren't, you know)
>
> What amount of body hair (that is number of hairs x average length)
> does an adult male human have compared to an average male chimpanzee?
> Make the same comparison for females and then for all people at
> different ages. Repeat for different ethnic groups. Add the data all
> up and work out an average. If it failed to reach even 0.5% (which I
> doubt) then, to the nearest integer, we're naked compared to chimps.

You at least have to look at the fact that we aren't naked, that we have
lots of head hair (and far longer than apes) and that the way it varies
between the sexes and during the lifespan shows clearly that it's a sexually
selected trait rather than due to convergence. This same is true of fat,
btw.

> > and fat (not all humans are, you know) --
>
> Not all but even the least fattest humans are typically fatter than
> primates. Your own Caroline Pond says so.
> "More than half the 31 captive monkeys that we examined were less than
> 5% fat, thinner than most laborotory rodents, although all of them had
> continuous access to food and little opportunity to exercise. ... The
> minimum fatness recorded for teenage girl athletes is 7%, and for men
> 5%. Thus most human beings are not only much fatter than most wild and
> captive mammals, but women and girls are consistently fatter than men
> and boys." Pond (1987:63)
>
> Pond, Caroline M (1987). Fat and Figures. New Scientist Vol:
> Pages:62-66
>
> So, again, you're just wrong. Compared to apes we ARE naked and
> compared to all primates we're fat. How could that be, Jim? What's
> your ecological scenario for explaining that? Is it the
>
slightly-less-wooded-than-chimp-habitats-but-slightly-more-wooded-than-might
-be-labelled-savannahs-because-that-was-a-straw-man-invented-by-Elaine-Morga
n
> habitat? And if it is why did it have such a drammatic effect?

Both features are quite obviously sexually selected, and in amount of fat I
agree with Pond that this is something one expects to see in an animal which
hasn't had to deal with much predation (for quite some time now) just as you
see with other animals. Again, if it were an aquatic trait, then you are
comparing us to seals, whales, and sirenia, plus you would see an incredibly
different pattern of differences between the sexes and during the lifespan.

> > well, maybe you don't, but there you go -- are traits "shared" with
seals,
> > whales, and sirenia. And of course those traits aren't really the same
in
> > humans as in those other mammals, so that's another problem for the
AAT/H
> > (and esp. it's claim of parsimony). And of course when we look at
> > bipedalism, aquatic anything isn't where it's at, but other primates
are.
>
> Blaa blaa - still banging on about seals and whales. Jim, we've moved
> on.

If you've moved on, why are you still using as evidence features found only
in seals, whales, and sirenia and claiming theose features are similar to
humans?

> > > If hominids waded through water more than ape ancestors they would be
> > > more likely to move bipedally. That's not vague.
> > >
> > > If hominids swam through water more than ape ancestors they would be
> > > more likely to gain buoyancy through increased adipocity. That's not
> > > vague.
> > >
> > > If hominids lived in hot tropical water-side habitats they would be
> > > more likely to go for dips to keep cool than ape ancestors and evolve
> > > sweat cooling mechanisms to supplement it. That's not vague.
> >
> > It's vague when it doesn't give any sort of time needed to affect these
> > changes -- of course, since the features in question are those of
virtually
> > or completely aquatic mammals which have been aquatic for between 25-50
> > million years, there's a really good reason to be vague on your part.
>
> Yes it does - time since the LCA of course. We don't actually know how
> long that was but if it was 5.5 Ma or 13Ma, increased selection from
> moving through water is going to have some effect isn't it?
>
> I mean your position is either saying:
>
> a) Our ancestors did not move through water more than the ancestors of
> chimps since the LCA. (Not backed up by the fossil record and not by
> comparative anatomy either)
>
> b) If they did move through water more, then no significant selection
> took place. (Illogical since an increased terrestriality has certainly
> had traits selected for.)

Since you are using as evidence features found only in seals, whales, and
sirenia I don't think the idea seems very sensible, especially since the
featrues in humans are dramatically different in differences between the
sexes and during the lifespan, indicating that they are sexually selected
rather than due to convergence.

> [..]
> > > I want you to do that, Jim. I want you to cite references to the
> > > claims you make. That's what you criticse Elaine Morgan for not doing
> > > but you rarely do it yourself..
> >
> > You read that page and you still can't tell where Hardy said what I
> > reported? Wow.
>
> You still don't get it, Jim. I can read your page and I have. But I
> want you to get into the habit of writing a claim and putting a
> reference next to it. The technique goes something like this...
>
> Hardy claimed that the aquatic phase occurred in the fossil gap that
> was apparent in 1960. He wrote "It is interesting to note that the
> Miocene fossil Proconsul, which may perhaps reprsent approximately the
> kind of ape giving rise to the human stock, has an arm and a hand of
> very unspecialised form: much more human than that of the modern ape.
> It is in the gap of some ten million years or more, between Proconsul
> and Australopithecus that I suppose Man to have been cradled by the
> sea." Hardy (1960:645)
>
> Hardy, Alister (1960). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?. New
> Scientist Vol:7 Pages:642-645
>
> See? It's easy. Now you try...

Check out his later statement then -- what did he say then? Did he mean
what he said then, or not? If so, you have a statement that it was 20 plus
million years, far longer than hominids have existed; if not, you're stuck
now saying that he was so incompetent that he couldn't even remember or read
what he'd said previously. Either one is damning, yet on the basis of that
you think he should have been taken seriously.

> [..]
> > > I know that New Scientist is not peer reviewed but it's a more serious
> > > and important journal than Zenith.
> >
> > How non-serious need one get before they're allowed to spout nonsense
and
> > have it accepted as acurate science? I say that any science writing,
> > especially that which purports to be trying to get a new idea accepted,
> > should be accurate, no matter where it's published -- you obviously
> > disagree, so again, just how non-serious does one have to get in choice
of
> > publishing venue before one's work gets accepted uncritically in
science?
>
> Ideally every single statement one reads should be absolutely truthful
> and fully referenced but, unlike you apparently, I'm not living in
> fantasy land.

How many untruthful things are you allowed to have uncritically accepted in
science? Does it vary by venue, or age, or whether one has grandchildren,
as many AAT/H proponents over the years have insisted in newsgroups? I'm
getting on now, I have a grandchild -- can I now write up something in an
appropriately unserious venue and have it uncritically accepted as
scientific fact, as you suggest?

> When you claimed that I'd said that Hardy and Morgan's work was
> 'absolute trash' I was appauled but, hey, it's only a newsgroup and I
> expect you'd had a few - so no probs. If you'd have written the same
> thing in the local edition of the Cleveland Telegraph, I'd have been a
> little more pissed off - but journalism doesn't have such high
> standards either. If it had been in New Scientist I'd have written a
> letter of complaint. Of course such a silly statement would never have
> got past the editor of such a journal and if it had arrived at a
> scholarly journal like AJPA they wouldn't have even opened the
> envelope.
>
> Elaine Morgan made errors but so does everyone, even you.

I'm not insisting that scientists accept my radical new theory -- and I've
got a grandkid! Where do I apply for "my I'm an old grandpa get into
science free" card?

If you wish to have the AAT/H simply be one of many entries in a long list
of things that hominids did when bipedal, you would have no argument and,
incidentally, no hypothesis -- just one item in a long list. But that's not
really the AAT/H, is it? And look at the hair reduction business -- a) from
the presumed ancestral condition, it seems from the evidence that we could
have done well to either become more hairy or completely non-hairy -- we did
neither. Swimmers use two methods when it comes to hair -- they remove it,
which shows that the condition we find ourselves in is not good for swimming
fast, and nowadays they often use bodysuits which mimic the boundary layer
effects seen in dolphin's dermal riges or seals' hairy skin. The one thing
they don't do is to leave us as we are -- and don't even look at head hair
and swimming speed. (But then AAT/H proponents don't, do they?)

> [..]
> > > In the New Scientist paper he cites 10 My. In the Zenith paper he
> > > cites twenty. This tells us something about a) the relative quality of
> > > the editors, b) how much Hardy had declined in another 17 years after
> > > his retirement and c) the determination of Jim Moore to give the worst
> > > possible slant on anything to do with this idea.
> >
> > Ah yes, it's the editors' fault, not Hardy's -- poor fellow. Just as
you
> > suggested that Morgan's problems with leaving words out of quotes
without
> > any indication of their absence is her editors' fault... which would
mean,
> > of course, that her editors also crept into her home or office and
altered
> > newsgroup posts before she sent them along. Wow -- these editors have a
lot
> > of power, and the poor author. Well, Algis, let me respectfully submit
that
> > that theory is bullshit.
>
> You missed out points b and c. Editors are supposed to check the copy
> before putting it in to print. I'd have thought that any decent
> scientist reading Hardy's 'twenty million year' reference in Zenith
> would have known better, wouldn't you? Hardy was 81 at the time, I
> think your miserliness of spirit is appauling.

Again, where do I apply for my "my I'm an old grandpa get into science free"
card? I am not an ageist as you are, Algis, when you attempt to excuse
errors by Hardy and/or Morgan by referring to their age.

I haven't looked at your site's critiques yet, Algis, and as I've said
before, I don't want to assume they are all so facile and ridiculous as your
complaints about my URL. On the contrary, I hope that some might be the
sort of valid criticsm that does me a favor, as the Carl Sagan quote on my
opening page puts it. Of course, having seen you claim that I found only "4
tiny errors" makes me wonder if I will be disappointed in your efforts --
but I'll keep my hopes up; I'm an optimist by nature.

Here the assumption is that scientists didn't take a look at it; the ones I
knew in the field did, and they didn't find it to be sensible -- you can
take a look at all sorts of claims and not feel they're worth the time to
painstakingly dissect them in print -- it's far easier to spout speculations
backed up by "false facts" than it is to take them apart.


Then why do you and Marc and Elaine complain so when someone does take a
look at the evidence?

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
Sep 12, 2004, 6:57:28 AM9/12/04
to
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message news:<10k5um4...@corp.supernews.com>...

Yes, it would be. The same Tobias, in fact, that also wrote these...

"The AAH was largely ignored by Hardy's contemporaries and it has
received little attention from succeeding generations, until recently.
. . Sadly few scientists had lingered long enough over this AAH to
give it fair-minded thought and analysis. In 1997, John Langdon of
Indianapolis made a critical analysis of the AAH. Of 32 features he
culled [! - quite right!] from the literature, and which had been
proposed as aquatic traits, he concluded that 3 were possible aquatic
adaptations, whist 7 were "consistent with AAH". Of these 7, 4 may be
read from the fossil record. ...


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 (2002:15)

"1) The AAH highlights a real problem that needs to be addressed. I am
not yet convinced that the AAH is correctly applied to all of the the
traits that its proponents have listed, but for at least some of the
enumerated characters it may well provide the most reasonable, or
perhaps the only, explanation which has yet been proposed.
2) We should not telescope too many phases and charactersistics of
hominid evolution into this single, over-arching hypothesis.
3) Those traits for which there are sounder and better-supported,
alternative explanations, should be expunged from the AAH.
4) What is left may still be substantial enough to warrant more
research. We need new investigations such as by fresh, open-minded
research students or post-doctoral fellows.
5) Above all, let us keep our thought processes open to changes of
paradigms, and especially to the change which would be necessitated if
some aspects of the AAH proved to be valid. In sum, the role of water,
while long appreciated and emphasised by ecologists, has been sadly
neglected by human evolutionists." Tobias (2002:16)

"This is a plea for the heavy, earth-bound view of hominid evolution
to be lightened and leavened by a greater emphasis upon the role of
water and waterways in hominid development, survival, diversification
and disemination." Tobias (2002:16)

"TRIBUTE AND THANKS
Hereby, I express my personal tribute, admiration and felicitations to
Mrs Elaine Morgan. I am grateful to Professor Letten Saugstad and
Professor Ole M. Sejersted for inviting me to the Oslo Fest in honour
of Elaine Morgan and, even though illness prevented me from attending,
for insisting that I provide this slight offering for publication. I
am grateful to Professor Michael Crawford. As always my thanks are
extended to Mrs Heather White." Tobias (2003:16)

Want to get into a pissing contest? I make the score 5-1 so far.

No-one has ever claimed that Tobias *supports* the AAH, you great
wally. The fact that you keep trotting out your little response from
him to prove that every time I quote him shows how way off the mark
you are on this. The point I was making amd the point I always make
when citing Tobias on Morgan was that, unlike your magnus opus hero,
he actually rates Elaine Morgan's work quite highly and values her
input into the debate on human evolution.

Whereas Moore seems obsessed with performing a one-man character
assasination of Morgan's work to bring this damned AAH thing down once
and for all, no matter how he does it, Tobias has no problem
recognising the value of her espousal of an alternative view. Moore
cannot bring himself to admit Morgan did anything right and sleazily
twists and distorts all four (or was it just one) of her tiny errors
into shock-horror massive fraudulent deceptions whereas Tobias is
generous in his praise of the 'superb' quality of her books.

A bit of a contrast, I'd say. Moore twists, Tobias praises - as I
suggested, people will make their own minds up. Just like here with
your little posting. One the one hand we have what Tobias said on
camera in a BBC documentary interview and what he has published in the
literature and on the other we have a snippet of a personal
correspondence from him to you. We don't know what else he wrote just
before the 'Nowehere...' bit, or what you wrote to him to invoke such
a response. People will make their own minds up as to which is the
more significant.

Algis Kuliukas

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
Sep 12, 2004, 8:31:26 AM9/12/04
to
"J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4cO0d.396323$gE.286961@pd7tw3no>...

> Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.04091...@posting.google.com...
[..]

> > So when you claimed that I'd said their work was 'absolute trash'
> > what, exactly, was that? Was it a lie or just sloppyness? As this is
> > limit of the big, terrible claims you make against Elaine Morgan
> > doesn't this put you firmly and squarely in the same boat as her?

Nothing to say there, Jim? If I'd have done that you'd have leapt on
me from high above and maybe it would have ended up on your 'Can AATer
research be trusted?' page. It's just one rule for you and one rule
for us, isn't it?

[..]


> > In five books and several articles it is posible to find a couple of
> > words and quote them out of context to prove that the authors meant
> > anything you fancy, Jim. But if you were to change the habit of a
> > lifetime and be fair and reasonable for half an hour or so and read a
> > whole chapter of any of Morgan's books or Hardy's whole article and
> > get a feel for the broad context that they are referring to, you'd
> > have to agree that they're not postulating anything more than humans
> > merely being more aquatic than our ape cousins. All you have done is
> > to hunting for slight errors and misrepresnted them as fraudulent.
> > You've filtered out the more ambiguous phrases and exaggerated them
> > into 'humans were like whales' claims. It's just sleazy crap, Jim. You
> > ought to try to get a job as science correspondant for the UK rag, The
> > Sunday Sport.
>
> Again, you look at the features they say we share with these "more aquatic
> than apes" mammals and you have seals, whales, and sirenia. That tells you
> they're not actually talking about wading about or a little "less than an
> otter" swimming, unless you're suggesting some sort of "homeopathy theory of
> human evolution" where the magic power of water creates changes in inverse
> proportion to contact with it.

Amazing. The author of aquaticape.org just never got the whole point
all along.

[..]


> > > The "naked" (we aren't, you know)
> >
> > What amount of body hair (that is number of hairs x average length)
> > does an adult male human have compared to an average male chimpanzee?
> > Make the same comparison for females and then for all people at
> > different ages. Repeat for different ethnic groups. Add the data all
> > up and work out an average. If it failed to reach even 0.5% (which I
> > doubt) then, to the nearest integer, we're naked compared to chimps.
>
> You at least have to look at the fact that we aren't naked, that we have
> lots of head hair (and far longer than apes) and that the way it varies
> between the sexes and during the lifespan shows clearly that it's a sexually
> selected trait rather than due to convergence. This same is true of fat,
> btw.

The head hair happens to be largely out of water whilst swimming the
breast stroke. If it was purely sexual selection how come both men and
women have lost their body hair? If sc fat was sexual selected how
come even the leanest males are generally still fatter than the
fattest primates? There may be an element of sexual selection going on
but it can hardly explain male hairlessness or male sc fat.

[..]


> > So, again, you're just wrong. Compared to apes we ARE naked and
> > compared to all primates we're fat. How could that be, Jim? What's
> > your ecological scenario for explaining that? Is it the
> >
> slightly-less-wooded-than-chimp-habitats-but-slightly-more-wooded-than-might
> -be-labelled-savannahs-because-that-was-a-straw-man-invented-by-Elaine-Morga
> n
> > habitat? And if it is why did it have such a drammatic effect?
>
> Both features are quite obviously sexually selected, and in amount of fat I
> agree with Pond that this is something one expects to see in an animal which
> hasn't had to deal with much predation (for quite some time now) just as you
> see with other animals. Again, if it were an aquatic trait, then you are
> comparing us to seals, whales, and sirenia, plus you would see an incredibly
> different pattern of differences between the sexes and during the lifespan.

You completely avoided my question. What ecological scenario would
have allowed this sexual selection positive feedback loop to cause
such a marked difference between humans and chimps?

No I'm not comparing to seals and whales. People that are fatter are
less likely to drown than people who are thinner. It's called
buoyancy.

The lifespan differences are not so hard to explain. Infants are most
vulnerable to drowning hence it makes sense for them to establish a
thick layer of sc fat at birth and in the early months. Later in life,
the argument that they are to show sexual maturity is not incompatible
with a more aquatic lifestyle. The function of advertising to the
opposite sex that you are mature need not have involved nakedness
and/or fat (it didn't in any other primate, did it?) and it is
certainly an odd and very expensive method to use for a hominid that
is supposed to have been moving into more open and arid habitats. It
makes perfect sense, however if these hominids were spending a
significant part of their lives in water. Seen in this light extra
female sc fat might be seen as advertising to males that they are
relatively fit in water (more buoyuant and hence less likely to drown)
and therefore a better bet for a male to invest in, and vice versa
with females too.

[..]


> > Blaa blaa - still banging on about seals and whales. Jim, we've moved
> > on.
>
> If you've moved on, why are you still using as evidence features found only
> in seals, whales, and sirenia and claiming theose features are similar to
> humans?

I don't need fully aquatic animals to show that more fat in humans
makes you more bouyant and less likely to drown.

I don't need them to show that shaving body hair off a human reduces
drag significantly in water and that hair reduction aids dip/sweat
cooling.

[..]


> > I mean your position is either saying:
> >
> > a) Our ancestors did not move through water more than the ancestors of
> > chimps since the LCA. (Not backed up by the fossil record and not by
> > comparative anatomy either)
> >
> > b) If they did move through water more, then no significant selection
> > took place. (Illogical since an increased terrestriality has certainly
> > had traits selected for.)
>
> Since you are using as evidence features found only in seals, whales, and
> sirenia I don't think the idea seems very sensible, especially since the
> featrues in humans are dramatically different in differences between the
> sexes and during the lifespan, indicating that they are sexually selected
> rather than due to convergence.

You can keep repeating that all you like, Jim, but as I said, we've
moved on. The aquatic mammals were only an analogy, a wake-up call for
Hardy to realise what might be going on. It seems, Jim, that you've
just never understood that. What a waste of time, then, your attempted
character assination of Elaine Morgan has been. Any increased
aquaticism in humans as compared to chimps would predict increased
adipocity and reduced body hair irrespective of what's going on in
aquatic animals. They're almost irrelevant. They only act to show that
in mammalia, as an order, nakedness and fat are most likely associated
with aquatic factors.

[..]


> Check out his later statement then -- what did he say then? Did he mean
> what he said then, or not? If so, you have a statement that it was 20 plus
> million years, far longer than hominids have existed; if not, you're stuck
> now saying that he was so incompetent that he couldn't even remember or read
> what he'd said previously. Either one is damning, yet on the basis of that
> you think he should have been taken seriously.

The later reference was clearly an error. An error made by an 81 year
old that had retired 17 years earlier. An error he and the editor of
the student magazine it was published in should have picked up on. As
usual Jim Moore tries to twist simple errors into something much
worse. It's all he has done. It's sleazy and dishonest just like his
URL, www.aquaticape.org.

Anyone reading this will see that you have a clear agenda to use the
worst possible AAH material every time to twist and distort into the
worst possible light.

[..]


> > Ideally every single statement one reads should be absolutely truthful
> > and fully referenced but, unlike you apparently, I'm not living in
> > fantasy land.
>
> How many untruthful things are you allowed to have uncritically accepted in
> science? Does it vary by venue, or age, or whether one has grandchildren,
> as many AAT/H proponents over the years have insisted in newsgroups? I'm
> getting on now, I have a grandchild -- can I now write up something in an
> appropriately unserious venue and have it uncritically accepted as
> scientific fact, as you suggest?

Well that's what you *have* done, Jim. It's called www.aquaticape.org.
It's ok, now, suddenly, I'm beginning to understand.



> > When you claimed that I'd said that Hardy and Morgan's work was
> > 'absolute trash' I was appauled but, hey, it's only a newsgroup and I
> > expect you'd had a few - so no probs. If you'd have written the same
> > thing in the local edition of the Cleveland Telegraph, I'd have been a
> > little more pissed off - but journalism doesn't have such high
> > standards either. If it had been in New Scientist I'd have written a
> > letter of complaint. Of course such a silly statement would never have
> > got past the editor of such a journal and if it had arrived at a
> > scholarly journal like AJPA they wouldn't have even opened the
> > envelope.
> >
> > Elaine Morgan made errors but so does everyone, even you.
>
> I'm not insisting that scientists accept my radical new theory -- and I've
> got a grandkid! Where do I apply for "my I'm an old grandpa get into
> science free" card?

Try www.aquaticape.org. I think that qualifies you.

[..]


> > Apes wade bipedally ... and we walk bipedally on land.
> > Apes don't swim as well as we do ... and they're less buoyant.
> > Shaving body hair reduces drag in water and helps sweat cooling... we
> > are more naked than apes.
>
> If you wish to have the AAT/H simply be one of many entries in a long list
> of things that hominids did when bipedal, you would have no argument and,
> incidentally, no hypothesis -- just one item in a long list. But that's not
> really the AAT/H, is it?

It's more than that, Jim, and you know it. The wading hypothesis is
the strongest on that list. The one that is most causative, the one
with the most evidence in extant apes and in the fossil record.

> And look at the hair reduction business -- a) from
> the presumed ancestral condition, it seems from the evidence that we could
> have done well to either become more hairy or completely non-hairy -- we did
> neither.

How do you know that? Perhaps Homo erectus or early Homo sapiens was
completely without body hair. How would we know?

> Swimmers use two methods when it comes to hair -- they remove it,
> which shows that the condition we find ourselves in is not good for swimming
> fast, and nowadays they often use bodysuits which mimic the boundary layer
> effects seen in dolphin's dermal riges or seals' hairy skin. The one thing
> they don't do is to leave us as we are -- and don't even look at head hair
> and swimming speed. (But then AAT/H proponents don't, do they?)

But how do you know that more body hair wouldn't make us worse in
water? It seems a logical enough interpretation and until that study
has been done, it must remain a plausible hypothesis. The body suit
evidence isn't that great actually. From my discussions with experts
in swimming exercise physiologists in WA (they know their swimming
here in Australia) they apparently reduce drag only to about the same
level that shaving would.

It's just not been looked at properly yet. There's been, what? three
studies done. None of them quantified the hair removed and so
attempted to see if there was a correlation between hair removed and
reduced drag, none of them continued the study as the hair re-grew.

What you are basically arguing is that to get any drag reduction in
water you need *absolute* hair reduction. Going by that, if a single
hair was left unshaven anywhere on the body, or if some hair was left
only half shaven, then the *entire* benefit would be lost. That is
clearly a ludicrous position. There are likely to be some body
surfaces where having hairs present, orientated in a certain way,
would actually benefit the swimming stroke. The hairs on the back of
one's arm are a good case in point. Whilst swimming the breast stroke
the orientation of the hair (laterally towards the midline when arms
are held down at the sides in a supine position) would cause greater
friction in the water during the power stroke but not in the recovery
stroke. No-one has studied this effect, or any other specific region
of body hair for that matter.

It is fair enough to be sceptical about this but that's not what
you're doing - you're just trying desperately to rubbish the whole
thing, using whatever snippets you think you can find to do so. In
doing this, you're actually doing exactly what you claim Morgan did.

You still missed my point c. (Gosh, it's hard getting you to see any
fault in your own reasoning) Hardy was an FRS and his 1960 paper was
written when he was at the peak of his career. It was written just
after his Brighton speech and published in a reasonably reputable
magazine. The Zenith paper was written 17 years later when he was long
into retirement and, at 81, not of certain good health. It's not being
ageist to suggest that the earlier paper is the more significant, just
fair minded. It's instructive that you *refuse* to use the ten million
year quote from the earlier paper, but insist on using the twenty
million year one from the second - just to make his argument look that
much weaker. I still haven't even got an admission from you that the
1960 paper was saying ten million years, you even tried to deny that!

Can you admit that you were wrong, Jim? Ever?

[..]


> > > > Look, I'll make it easy for you...
> > > >
> > > > Click this link http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Hardy/HardyPage4.htm
> > > >
> > > > Scroll down the third column, last but one para, last sentence.
> > > >
> > > > Now if I'd made an error like that, or Elaine or any AAH proponent, it
> > > > would find it's way on Jim Moore's 'Can AATer Research be Trusted?'
> > > > page.
> > > >
> > > > See http://www.aquaticape.org/quotes.html for the original twists
> > > >
> > > > and http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/Quotes.htm for the
> > > > expose.
> >
> > Nothing to say there, Jim?
> >
> > See that? He's very quick to pounce on the slightest error any AAH
> > proponent makes but when you show that he's just as prone to making
> > errors (or are they deceptions?) - oops, he just tries to slip away
> > into the mist.
>
> I haven't looked at your site's critiques yet, Algis, and as I've said
> before, I don't want to assume they are all so facile and ridiculous as your
> complaints about my URL. On the contrary, I hope that some might be the
> sort of valid criticsm that does me a favor, as the Carl Sagan quote on my
> opening page puts it. Of course, having seen you claim that I found only "4
> tiny errors" makes me wonder if I will be disappointed in your efforts --
> but I'll keep my hopes up; I'm an optimist by nature.

Sorry, but you missed my point. My earlier link was to a scanned image
of Hardy's whole paper which I put on my web site so that people could
access the whole original article very easily rather than just take
the headline (another Moore twist was that I "insisted" people only
read the title.) I was kind of hoping that you'd concede that in the
1960 paper Hardy actually cited a figure of 10 My, not 20 My. I was
kind of hoping that the great Jim Moore might admit that even he makes
mistakes. I know this is difficult for you, Jim, and that it kind of
destroys your whole argument. After all, if you make as many mistakes
as Elaine Morgan does, it makes all that self-righteousness (what was
it? 'you won't find those here'?) all seem a bit silly.

I want to see if you can admit that you were wrong. The Hardy (1960)
quote clearly refers to ten million years.

As to the critiques of your web site. Blimey, still haven't read them
five months on. Seems to me that you're not really very interested in
getting any feedback positive or otherwise. Not much of scientific
critique that.

A link to my critique would be enough to regain some credibility. Can
you do that?

[..]


> > So are you conceding that I didn't actually claim that Hardy's paper
> > per se was 'mild and borringly obvious' as you tried to twist?

Jim's not saying.

> > But see, here's another Moore twist. You know I think I'm going to
> > start a page of 'Mooreish deceptions' myself.
> >
> > 1. "And what, I wonder, given the above, did Elaine say when you said
> > that her
> > work, and Hardy's, was all just incomptetent trash?" Moore
> > (2004-Aug-30 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory?')
> >
> > 2. "It was one of the many times you *insisted* [my emphasis] that all
> > should read only Hardy's title and ignore all the words that
> > followed..." Moore (2004-sep-10 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory?')
> >
> > 3. "I disagree with your idea that one should stop reading after the
> > title." Moore (2004-sep-03 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory?')
> >
> > Keep 'em coming, Jim.

No comment there, either.

[..snipped a tonne of Hardy quotes in response to Moore's amazing
claim that I insisted that people only read his title - something of
course I've never done, I've even put a scanned copy of Hardy's
original paper on my web site in full so people can read it all for
themselves.]

http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Hardy/HardyPage1.htm

> Here the assumption is that scientists didn't take a look at it; the ones I
> knew in the field did, and they didn't find it to be sensible -- you can
> take a look at all sorts of claims and not feel they're worth the time to
> painstakingly dissect them in print -- it's far easier to spout speculations
> backed up by "false facts" than it is to take them apart.

Rubbish. When you say they 'took a look at it' - what? you mean over a
coffee, or whilst they were sat on the toilet? I meant, of course, a
proper scientific investigation of the kind I'm doing now, 44 years
later.

I thought in science we publish thoughts on hypotheses in peer
reviewed journals not bitch about them in corridors or write one-sided
web sites. Save Langdon 1997 and those aquasceptic chapters in Roede
et al (1991) - exactly where is this great AAH refutation? It
certainly is not your one-sided whitewash of a masquerading web site.
When it comes to the AAH it has been dismissed on the grounds of
misunderstandings, gossip, rumor, sleaze and no science.

You are as guilty (if not more) of spouting false facts as Elaine ever
was.

[..]


> > But you don't give references to the 'errors' except on four ocassions
> > and even those are just pathetic. If you say there are more... let's
> > have them - WITH FULL CITATIONS! Can you do that?

Apparently not.

[..]


> > Morgan's works were "blunders filled with falsehoods and distortions"
> > - Jim Moore (2004-sep-10 sap 'What is the Aquatic Ape Theory')
> >
> > ... that's one opinion.
> >
> > "I see Elaine Morgan, through her series of superbly written books,
> > presenting a challenge to the scientists to take an interest in this
> > thing, to look at the evidence dispassionately. Not to avert your gaze
> > as though it were something you that you hadn't ought to hear about or
> > hadn't ought to see. And those that are honest with themselves are
> > going to dispassionately examine the evidence. We've got to if we are
> > going to be true to our calling as scientists. Phillip Tobias 1998
> > ("BBC Documentary 'The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis'").
> >
> > ... there's another. Take your pick.
>

> Then why do you and Marc and Elaine complain so when someone does take a
> look at the evidence?

You're quoting selectively again, Jim. Did you notice? He said 'look
at the evidence *DISPASSIONATELY*.' (you snipped that word out,
conveniently.) You have made it abundantly clear that this is not what
you have done. Hardy (1960) "ten million years", Hardy (1977) "twenty
million years" - which one do you take?, the later - simply because it
makes Hardy look like a fool. Anyone looking at his claims
*dispassionately* would have given him the benefit of the doubt.
Another example: Morgan's (1997) book has four chapters on bipedal
origins. Wading is the biggest claim in the AAH and yet you only
stress the miniscule, teeny-weeny-itsie-bitsie change in emphasis over
Morgan's reporting of the Aldosterone evidence out of Ganong and twist
it into another shock-horror deception rather than discuss the bulk of
Morgan's treatment or the block of evidence that is growing all the
time for it. Langdon's treatment was almost as bad. If you were
looking at the evidence dispassionately you'd have considered the
wading hypothesis full on, and not tried to twist it like you have
into another straw man.

Algis Kuliukas

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
Sep 12, 2004, 10:58:21 AM9/12/04
to
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message news:<10k5um4...@corp.supernews.com>...
[..]
> (From personal communication, 8/31/2001)
>
> "...I am interested to learn that you are submitting an article on fringe
> theories and I look forward to receiving a copy of it in due course, if you
> would be so kind.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> (Professor Emeritus) Phillip V. Tobias"

So, did you ever write your article on "fringe theories" then,
Michael? Or was that just a ploy to embarass Tobias into giving you
the words you were looking for?

Let's see this great article. Is it published anywhere? If not, what
about a draft of it on your computer. You surely must have written
something by now. I mean this was over three years ago.

While you're at it, how about letting us see the full text of the
letter you sent to Phillip Tobias? I think scientific objectivity
requires that people see how you managed to put him in such a
situation that he felt obliged to state that he had never supported
the AAH - something no-one has any doubts over in any case. You trot
this treasured piece out often enough, I think the public have the
right to see the full context, don't you?

Algis Kuliukas

Rick Wagler

unread,
Sep 12, 2004, 12:40:43 PM9/12/04