Waterside hypotheses of human evolution

[AlgisKuliukas]

Originally Posted by Peez

That is pretty big. I have a 100-lb GSD bitch (“Ripley”, all black), though she could probably lose 5-10 lbs.

Indeed, it is clearly body size that matters far more than habitat.

It is only a question of time before its value is recognized by the scientific establishment.

I hate dogs. Especially the nasty, vicious breeds that bite children. They should all be put down.

Algis Kuliukas

[AlgisKuliukas]

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

It could have been good, but it wasn't. He wrote the things I've mentioned: he wrote that only humans and aquatic animals exhibit the diving reflex -- something you'd expect a marine biologist to know the facts about some 4 decades or so after it had been discovered, yet not only was he wrong, he said "but now there has come another discovery" as if it were a newly discovered thing. He said that our jaws were shaped like those of frogs, which can only be done by someone who's never bothered to even look at a picture of a frog's jaw. He posited that we'd spent millions of years living in offshore colonies "like those of seals or penguins", for as long or longer than hominids have existed, and when the rest of the world had accepted that the LCA was much earlier than some of them had thought, he lengthened the semiaquatic time period. He invoked the ever popular and ever stupid "race memory" idea:

He says, correctly, that "Aquatic animals which come out of the water in cold and temperate climates have retained their fur for warmth on land" but conveniently forgets, or worse, never bothered to think, that most semiaquatic mammals have "retained their fur" even in tropical climates. He brings up hair tracts and how they lie (if you ignore curly hair) "exactly as the streams of water would pass around the body and meet, when it is swimming forward like a frog" which would be a position that people were incredibly unlikely to have used, and in fact you'd have to forgo the frog kick too -- you're talking about swimming with the crown of your head forward, your arms stationary by your side, and your legs stationary too or else the hair tracts don't do a thing to help you there... and no curly hair like we see in many people (and all people in certain areas, don't we?). He said men and women "All the curves of the human body have the beauty of a well-designed boat. Man is indeed streamlined." Well, I can see where you're convinced there; when you look in the mirror you see the shape of a boat, right? Give me a break.

He looks at our hands and sees what? Our kinship with some hundred plus species of primate with similar hands? No, he sees a raccoon. During his semiaquatic period taking place in the fossil gap (and longer than that gap) he sees us making sharpened stone tools and fire (then apparently forgetting how to do this for millions of years after he says we left the water). He looks at the unusual condition in humans of webbing of fingers and toes and ignores that this is also seen in apes, and that in fact it's the feature that gave the siamang it's scientific name. He uses the case of the competitive swimmers, who he points out "shave off all their body hair before a race", and uses this, as you do, to claim that these millions of years of selection left us in the condition that those competitive swimmers don't want -- and this somehow provides support for his idea. He says we "began to hunt larger marine creatures, spearing large fish", "perhaps even porpoises", then went off to hunt "herds of deer and antelopes". He does acknowledge, the only AAT/H proponent in the idea's first 3 decades to do so, that there were aquatic predators, but offers no suggestion he finds them at all troubling. At least he didn't label them "hypothetical", as Morgan did when she first got around to discussing aquatic predators some 30 years after she began writing on the AAT/H. He, a marine biologist mind you, apparently had no idea that some sharks, like the bull shark, commonly enter fresh water, for many miles, and that some crocodiles, like the Indo-pacific croc and the Nile croc, commonly enter salt water, again for many miles.

So anything good there? Good for a laugh, sure. But we can see why you regularly ask people to consider only his title, and decline to delve into the text that follows. It's because there's little there even you agree with. Let's see, shall we? These are all yes or no questions; a one word "yes" or "no" is required of you:

1. do you agree with Hardy that humans are shaped like boats?

2. do you agree with Hardy that humans and aquatic animals exhibit the diving reflex and that it was a recent discovery in 1977?

3. do you agree with Hardy that our jaws are shaped like frogs' jaws?

4. do you agree with Hardy that we spent millions of years living in offshore colonies "like those of seals or penguins"?

5. do you agree with Hardy that there was a discrete semiaquatic period?

6. do you agree with Hardy that this discrete period lasted 8-10, or 20 plus, million years (he said both; do you agree with either?)?

7. do you agree with Hardy that we regularly swam with the crown of our heads forward, our arms stationary by our sides, and our legs doing a frog kick?

8. do you agree with Hardy that going to the beach and swimming and SCUBA diving are holdovers from our semiaquatic past?

9. do you agree with Hardy that during this discrete semiaquatic period we "began to hunt larger marine creatures, spearing large fish", "perhaps even porpoises"?

Blimey, you're excelling yourself in distortion techniques, anthro-lie-guy. Every one an exaggeration. Everyone a distortion of the truth.

Thanks for making it so clear how "seriously" you're taking this idea.

Algis Kuliukas

[AlgisKuliukas]

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

You are claiming that they did not argue for that?

Overall, no. Overall, if one were to assess the entirity of their statemenst on the matter, no. You never do that though. Like a creationist, you find those precious words that seem to make the discrediting point that you want to make and that's what you repeat ad nauseum. You are nothing more than a sleazy journalist.

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

The guys in my sig think I've done some science. You don't. But you're the guy who worships paper credentials (except when you don't) and they've got more than you (other too who aren't in that sig)... so I guess this is one of those times when you say such credentials don't matter. Until the next time you want to pull out yours.

If they think that, they've clearly never read your web site. They're deluding themselves if they think the sleazy journalism you do has anything to do with science.

You're a guy, true. You're interested in anthro, no doubt. But "sci"? No way!

You're anthro-lie-guy.

Algis Kuliukas

[Dlx2]

Hey Algis, please respond to the following question:

State clearly ALL the conditions necessary to observe selection and ALL the conditions necessary for selection to result in non-neutral evolution.

[anthrosciguy]

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

Ok.

Anthrosciguy wrote this to trigger that response...

He got two quotes from me and spliced them together to imply a contradiction. This is quote mining. How on earth do you expect me to delve through the thousands of pages I have written on this and find these quotes? You should be criticising anthrosciguy for not putting in a link to them but, oh no, it's me who gets criticised for criticising him for quote mining. Biased.

He always misquotes people on this. He always tries to make the idea look as bad as possible and will snip and quote mine to do so.

Those two quotes are not contradictory; they both say that your claimed degree of very slight selection "explains all the major phenotypic differences between us and them" (us and African apes). Why do you consider them contradictory? And you must agree with them, as you've been making this claim for years now, including multiple times in the RD forum threads. Are you now trying to claim you didn't mean it? Have you changed your mind about your claim?

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

On Dennett: “Many of the counterarguments seem awfully thin and ad hoc. During the last few years when I have found myself in the company of distinguished biologists, evolutionary theorists, paleo-anthropologists, and other experts, I have often asked them just to tell me, please, exactly why Elaine Morgan must be wrong about the aquatic ape theory. I haven't yet had a reply worth mentioning, aside from those who admit, with a twinkle in their eyes, that they have often wondered the same thing.” Dennett (1995:244)

Dennett, Daniel C (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Pengiun (London)

anthrosciguy doesn't like this quote, because it makes the idea look good, so he prefers the spin another one...

Here, Dan Dennett is attacking intelligent design, arguing that it's defenders should, at least, adopt scientific methodologies like some people who support ideas that are, as yet not mainstream, but are at least going about it the right way.

Out of that statment, which is clearly another argument in favour of the methods of "aquatic ape" proponents the bit I emboldened is the only part anthrosciguy is clinging to, to try to imply that Dennett was being critical of the "AAH".

He cannot accept the material point that Dennett is discriminating between pseudoscience such as ID and plausible ideas which just happened to by controversial and are currently unsupported by the mainstream.

Anthrosciguy doesn't like that. He wants the AAH in the same crazy box as ID and all the other forms of hocus pocus.

Dennett urges ID to get in line behind various theories that aren't supported by hard facts, including the AAT/H. He doesn't say ID is in another category, his statement is in fact putting it in the same category as theose ideas. It's quite clear.

I've explained many times, starting in the mid-1990s, the problem with Dennett's first quote: what he insisted be done could not be done with other ideas which are generally, and rightly, thought to be pseudoscience. In my first such explanation I used all the other titles from Elaine's press's Publisher's Weekly ad (except for the knitting book); I said that few people confronted with Dennett's demand could do so with those, and you proved me right by failing to do so with any of them. You also ignore Dennett's context, which is that he used Morgan's ideas as "an illustration of a deeper worry" which is that "adaptionist just-so stories", which is the category he puts Morgan's idea in, are too readily accepted in science and this is something that shouldn't be done.

<spam deleted>

[AlgisKuliukas]

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

They certainly labelled the idea; you've been railing against that label as if someone else did it. And they did define it, if you just bother to read their work. You'd know that if you had read their work, and you claim to have read their work, so that would mean you know you're making an inaccurate claim. And yes, if they hadn't, in over 3 decades of writing on the subject, it would be massive incompetence, since doing so is a first step in doing such work. But I don't think they missed doing it.

You just can't help yourself, can you, anthro-lie-guy?

I said "I think they were wrong not to define and label the idea better" - but never mind that word "better" when you have a discrediting job to do. It's funny how your standards of accuracy with wording are so variable.

Whatever they labelled the idea, however they defined it, whatever they wrote about it - it does not preclude others from taking their ideas and applying them. It shouldn't stop scientist thinking outside their academically enculturated boxes for a moment and questioning if some selection from wading. swimming and diving might help explain human characteristics.

Anthro-lie-guy will keep campaigning to stop that open mindedness though, no doubt. But it's time people started asking who're the real pseudoscientists here.

Algis Kuliukas

[Protinus]

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

You just can't help yourself, can you, anthro-lie-guy?

perhaps there is some anger management care in your area for those that espouse intellectual prowess, but have contempt for any differing idea and anyone around them that might challenge them?

[AlgisKuliukas]

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

So, what is this now... you're claiming you didn't say those things, or that they don't represent your position? Hardy's proposal was radical; yours is even more so because unlike his it doesn't allow for anywhere near enough selection to do what you claim it does. In fact yours says there was virtually no selection at all.

Stitching two quotes together to create the illusion of a contradiction is classic quote mining.

Hardy's idea was radical. My variant is less so because

a) It doesn't require a significant "phase"
b) it requires even less than "several hours at a stretch" in water.
c) It is completely consistent with all the evidence and not contradicted by any.

When you wrote "it doesn't allow for anywhere near enough selection to do what you claim it does" you either knew what you were writing was untue (and hence qualify, yet again, as a liar by your own definition) or you have chosen to pretend away the simple formula from Kimura that I have presented and the evolution simulator I had written to demonstrate this simple fact to the gullible fools whose personal incredulity still determines their thinking.

If s > 1 /2Ne there was enough selection. That is the simple point that you appear to be too dumb to understand.

Algis Kuliukas

[anthrosciguy]

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

Blimey, you're excelling yourself in distortion techniques, anthro-lie-guy. Every one an exaggeration. Everyone a distortion of the truth.

Thanks for making it so clear how "seriously" you're taking this idea.

Algis Kuliukas

It seems you're reluctant to make clear that you don't agree with Hardy on any of his claims, other than his title, that his idea, which you claim is the best idea in human evolution since Darwin, is in fact one you disagree with on virtually every point. Of course you can alter this perception by going back and answering each of the questions with a "yes". Do you agree with him? Do I really have to pull quotes for each and every one of these Hardy claims?

Okay:

1. do you agree with Hardy that humans are shaped like boats?

"All the curves of the human body have the beauty of a well-designed boat."
"Now look at the remarkable stream-line shape of the human form in fig. B; how different from any other of the primates are the beautiful curves of the body helped incidentally by the layers of subcutaneous fat-they are like the curves of a boat, so loved by many men."

2. do you agree with Hardy that humans and aquatic animals exhibit the diving reflex and that it was a recent discovery in 1977?

"This would really clinch the matter, but now there has come another discovery which is almost as conclusive as the fossil evidence, or so I believe. It has been found experimentally that man has the remarkable adaptation which is found only among mammals and birds that dive under water. It is called the diving reflex and now solves the puzzle of how sponge and pearl divers can remain below so long. It only happens if a man's face is submerged; it won't occur if he wears a mask."

3. do you agree with Hardy that our jaws are shaped like frogs' jaws?

"The rounding of the human jaw, fig. C, unique among the primates, has always been a puzzle to anatomists: it is shaped like the jaws of a frog."

4. do you agree with Hardy that we spent millions of years living in offshore colonies "like those of seals or penguins"?

"possibly Homo aquaticus was only able to survive and evolve with the help of a number of small sandy or rocky islands stretching up the tropical coasts or margins of lakes where he could live in large colonies, like those of seals or penguins, and where his only enemies were sharks and killer whales in the sea or crocodiles in lakes and rivers."

5. do you agree with Hardy that there was a discrete semiaquatic period?

6. do you agree with Hardy that this discrete period lasted 8-10, or 20 plus, million years (he said both; do you agree with either?)?

"It is in the gap of some ten million years, or more, between Proconsul and Australopithecus that I suppose Man to have been cradled in the sea."

"So after some twenty million years or more of living a semi-aquatic life -- I must make it clear that I do not suppose man spent more than perhaps five or six hours in the water at a time -- Homo aquaticus left the sea (or lake) a very different creature from when he first entered it."

7. do you agree with Hardy that we regularly swam with the crown of our heads forward, our arms stationary by our sides, and our legs doing a frog kick?

"While discussing hair it is interesting to point out that what are called the "hair tracts" -- the direction in which the hairs lie on different parts of the body-are different in Man from those in apes; particularly to be noted are the hairs on the back, which are all pointing in lines to meet diagonally toward the mid-line, exactly as the streams of water would pass around the body and meet, when it is swimming forward like a frog."

8. do you agree with Hardy that going to the beach and swimming and SCUBA diving are holdovers from our semiaquatic past?

"Does the idea perhaps explain the satisfaction that so many people feel in going to the seaside, in bathing, and in indulging in various forms of aquatic sport? Does not the vogue of the aqua-lung indicate a latent .urge in Man to swim below the surface?"

9. do you agree with Hardy that during this discrete semiaquatic period we "began to hunt larger marine creatures, spearing large fish", "perhaps even porpoises"?

"He now began to hunt larger marine creatures, spearing large fish, which he could not have caught before, then perhaps even porpoises. So he became a hunter in the sea."

Now answer the questions; yes or no, agree or disagree. It's simple, it's binary, an IT guy should find it right up his alley.

[anthrosciguy]

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

Overall, no. Overall, if one were to assess the entirity of their statemenst on the matter, no. You never do that though. Like a creationist, you find those precious words that seem to make the discrediting point that you want to make and that's what you repeat ad nauseum. You are nothing more than a sleazy journalist.

You are seriously arguing that Hardy, for instance, was not arguing for a much more extensive and intensive amount of semiaquaticism than you are?

Hardy:

"So after some twenty million years or more of living a semi-aquatic life -- I must make it clear that I do not suppose man spent more than perhaps five or six hours in the water at a time -- Homo aquaticus left the sea (or lake) a very different creature from when he first entered it." He had earlier said it was in the gap of 10 million years (but he obviously changed his mind about the length of time) and "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 his time on land" and "I am imagining this happening 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."

[AlgisKuliukas]

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

I did call you a liar, and because I demonstrated that you were lying the mods didn't take action on any of your "snidey Reports to Sir" (your term). The opposite happened when you called me one. Why was that? Your answer, as usual for you, is that the world is against you for some irrational reason. That you are wrong is too painful perhaps for you to acknowledge.

Gasp. Why am I surprised?

I demonstrated, again and again, how by your own ridiculous definition you were also lying but they chose to warn, and rthen suspend me. I always hesitated to call you a liar. I always phrased it "if I'd have said that you'd have called me a liar" but, nevertheless, God's gift to anthropology, anthro-lie-guy always gets away with it.

"Irrational reason"? I had a paper rejected five times for no reason. Here, and on RD.net I am in a clear minority because I am crazy enough to think Hardy might have been right, whereas all you guys "know" he was wrong.

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

But you have done so at times; you finally admitted you were wrong about many seals being hairless. Grudgingly at first, and slowly, but in that one the real mystery is why you didn't learn the facts before you made the claim, since this was one of your points in what you had been studying for some years, had done a masters in, and were doing a PhD quest in... yet you hadn't apparently bothered to even crack a book or spend 2 minutes online checking it out.

D2D as usual.

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

And that's why these quotes from you are important, both the old and the new. They demonstrate your attitutde toward science, toward others, and toward data. You've made claims about seal hair, about drift, about many things, that demonstrate that you hadn't even bothered to crack a book or do 5 minutes of online work beofre making the claim, even though it's a part of your chosen subject which you had been studying at the post-graduate level for years. To expect others to be swayed by arguments made on the basis of that incredible lack of rigor is absurd.

Bipedalism is my chosen subject.

I have admitted that I'm not an expert. That's another thing you like to throw at me. But I've learned enough to realise that this idea is plausible and should be inestigated further.

You're just a slimy journalistic sleaze bag whose only "contribution" has been to try to discredit those whose only "crime" has been to take the idea seriously (something you have lied about doing for years).

Your tactics are even more out of order with me. You've tried to discredit someone who's actually gone and done some science on it (something the field of anthro have not done in 50 years) when this was one o the big criticism against proponents for years.

We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.

Algis Kuliukas

[Dlx2]

Originally Posted by Dlx2

Hey Algis, please respond to the following question:

State clearly ALL the conditions necessary to observe selection and ALL the conditions necessary for selection to result in non-neutral evolution.

[AlgisKuliukas]

Originally Posted by anthrosciguy

You are seriously arguing that Hardy, for instance, was not arguing for a much more extensive and intensive amount of semiaquaticism than you are?

Hardy:

No, not really.

"Was Man More aquatic in the past?" Hardy (1960)

Algis Kuliukas

[Dlx2]

Originally Posted by Dlx2

[Dlx2]

Algis, I'm going to drag you kicking and screaming through the prelims you never completed.

[anthrosciguy]

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

Gasp. Why am I surprised?

I demonstrated, again and again, how by your own ridiculous definition you were also lying but they chose to warn, and rthen suspend me. I always hesitated to call you a liar. I always phrased it "if I'd have said that you'd have called me a liar" but, nevertheless, God's gift to anthropology, anthro-lie-guy always gets away with it.

"Irrational reason"? I had a paper rejected five times for no reason. Here, and on RD.net I am in a clear minority because I am crazy enough to think Hardy might have been right, whereas all you guys "know" he was wrong.

I find it hard to believe you weren't given any reasons; usually the editors and reviewers responses to papers are given to the authors (with any identifying info from the reviewers removed). So why don't you post the editors' and reviewers' responses here, in full, so we can see if your paper was rejected for no reason.

As for Hardy, you declined to answer any of the questions where you were asked if you agreed with Hardy on anything beyond his title. You don't seem to actually think he was right on much of anything re his AAT.

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

D2D as usual.

Bipedalism is my chosen subject.

I have admitted that I'm not an expert. That's another thing you like to throw at me. But I've learned enough to realise that this idea is plausible and should be inestigated further.

You're just a slimy journalistic sleaze bag whose only "contribution" has been to try to discredit those whose only "crime" has been to take the idea seriously (something you have lied about doing for years).

Your tactics are even more out of order with me. You've tried to discredit someone who's actually gone and done some science on it (something the field of anthro have not done in 50 years) when this was one o the big criticism against proponents for years.

We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.

Algis Kuliukas

I thought your subject was something on the order of the title of this thread, and the thread you started at RD forums. You're claiming that this is not so, that your claim that your degree of aquaticism you suggest is repsonsible for all the major phenotypic differences between us and African apes is not what you actually claims?

[anthrosciguy]

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

No, not really.

"Was Man More aquatic in the past?" Hardy (1960)

Algis Kuliukas

Now maybe it's just me (please, anyone feel free to chime in on your take) but it seems to me that those statements from Hardy look a lot different from "0.4%" water use or "100% (to the nearest integer) terrestrial locomotion". Hardy's statements looks the same as yours to you? Really?

[Dlx2]

Originally Posted by Dlx2

[ericv00]

Originally Posted by Dlx2

You are aware of Algis' uber Morton's demon, yes? If not, you are now.

I must say. It is making itself very well known in the past few days, especially. All the most relevant questions don't make it through the filter, at all. In fact, it seems as if the only information his Morton's demon lets through is the word 'Anthrosciguy' and the thought 'antichrist' (of the aqua-religion anyway).

[Dlx2]

I'm going to keep asking til I get a response.

[makouli]

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

Stitching two quotes together to create the illusion of a contradiction is classic quote mining.

Hardy's idea was radical. My variant is less so because

a) It doesn't require a significant "phase"
b) it requires even less than "several hours at a stretch" in water.
c) It is completely consistent with all the evidence and not contradicted by any.

When you wrote "it doesn't allow for anywhere near enough selection to do what you claim it does" you either knew what you were writing was untue (and hence qualify, yet again, as a liar by your own definition) or you have chosen to pretend away the simple formula from Kimura that I have presented and the evolution simulator I had written to demonstrate this simple fact to the gullible fools whose personal incredulity still determines their thinking.

If s > 1 /2Ne there was enough selection. That is the simple point that you appear to be too dumb to understand.

Algis Kuliukas

Eeeeek! Here's a good one:

"That is the simple point that you appear to be
too dumb to understand." Algis Kuliukas 02/08/2010

=========================
"A sideways wading mode was found to generate less
drag in humans than frontal wading, suggesting that
if our sideways propulsion were stronger it would
be the optimal method."--Algis Kuliukas 10/17/2001

[ericv00]

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

I hate dogs. Especially the nasty, vicious breeds that bite children. They should all be put down.

Algis, the longer these threads go on, the more dangerous you seem to me. You are also very clearly obsessed with anthrosciguy. This is not healthy.

[ericv00]

Originally Posted by Dlx2

I'm going to keep asking til I get a response.

Understood. In fact, I think the rest of us should hold back a bit to make it harder for Algis to ignore.

We should probably do this each in turn for all the big things. Mine being falsification. But for now, I second your inquiry.

[MrFungus420]

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

I hate dogs.

I am not the least bit surprised...

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

Especially the nasty, vicious breeds that bite children. They should all be put down.

Algis Kuliukas

So we can see another thing that you are ignorant about.

It is owners that make dogs that way.

[eversbane]

Originally Posted by AlgisKuliukas

I hate dogs. Especially the nasty, vicious breeds that bite children. They should all be put down.

"Troll, troll, troll your boat.."

Everybody!

"Gently down the stream."

Just the ladies, now!

"Throw your babies in the pool.."

Now the aquaskeptics!

"Watch them trash and struggle, look into their little eyes pleading silently as they founder, "Why, mummy?! Daddy! Why are you doing this to me?"

Now the failed PhDs!

"Lalalalalalalala..."

All together now for the big finish!

"Evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence..."

ah, who give's a fuck.