Again, no attempt to even begin a defining statement of the theory on sexual selection. Again, I state that if you cannot state the theory you are arguing against then you cannot understand it. I am willing to work with you here.
contracycle in msg #148 writes:
All I said was that THERE IS ANOTHER THEORY. You have contended that there is not, and my claims that there was were being "sucked out of my thumb".
my reply:
Except that I never said either of those statements. In fact if you look back I wager you will see that not only do I consider there two be more than one theory, I consider there to be more than two and now contracycle in msg #150 writes:
Ahuh. Do you still maintain that:
unreferenced RAZD message:
attributing our {rare} loss of hair to our {unique} long-distance ability in this regard is a logical (causal) fallacy -- they are not necessarily connected. Yes or no?
First off, that statement was not a contention that the "running ape" theory was not a theory (it is questioning whether it is a good theory), nor does that statement say there was only one valid theory, nor does it refer to you having it ""sucked out of my thumb"" (those are your words, not mine) so either you are equivocating or you are misrepresenting again.
Second, in fact, yes I do still maintain that there is insufficient information to draw a conclusive link between "our {rare} loss of hair" and "our {unique} long-distance ability" and that insisting on a causal link without such evidence is a logical fallacy.
It is entirely possible that both evolved from some other cause or that they happened at different times independently or even at the same time from different causes, or it could be that the hairlessness enabled the running ability to evolve. You have a theory, the question is whether it explains the evidence, or is there another theory that does a better job?
do you still assert that an effectiveness improvement through hair loss is "blocked" by sexual selection? Yes or no?
Golly, I never said that either. Blocked? Is this some new evolutionary element that features can be "blocked" from evolving? No, the argument is which of the {several} theories that we know about regarding the thinness of human hair best explains the evidence of the thinness of human hair. If one theory explains 8 out of 10 pieces of evidence and another theory explains the other two, does either one "block" the other? If one explains 7 out of 10 pieces and another 6 out of the 10 (overlapping on 3), does one "block" the other?
No, I do not want to discuss the aqatic ape theory, becuase a) I find it less compelling than the runnning ape model, and b) it was the specific argument to hairlessness in the running ape model WHICH WAS RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD. The one about clothes, you may recall.
Gosh, the "aquatic ape" theory is about hair loss similar to that observed in other animals with an aquatic {past\present} and which are {so far} the only other examples of "hairless" animals (as one of your links pointed out) ... and it is not relevant to the argument about hairlessness? (Or does the "aquatic ape" theory have the same problems with specific hair patterns that the "running ape" theory has?)
There's that "less compelling" again ... I wonder if the sun would stop going around the earth if you found the heliocentric theory "less compelling" than the flat earth theory.
No, the real question is whether the physical, behavioral and cultural evidence points to one theory explaining the facts better than the others or whether there is just insufficient information to make anything more than an educated guess.
Yes, meaningless. It's a suitable explanation for a feature that is otherwise inexplicable. It is not suitable for feature that can otherwise be explained. Because that model adds no information, it should be a last resort only adopted when all other possible analyses have been exhausted. I have already explained this.
Again, you cannot criticize a theory that you cannot define. All you have demonstrate so far is
your inability to explain it. This gets back to the long hair issue, and why there are valid reasons to select for long hair as a marker of fitness. We can explore this single issue more if you are willing to discuss it.
contracycle in msg #148 writes:
Do you now finally acknowledge the existance of a rival argument as to the origin of hairlessness in humans?
my reply:
As noted above, this is your latest strawman argument. Have you stopped beating your best friend? I recognize that many rival theories exist, the question is which theory is best at explaining the evidence. and now contracycle in msg #150 writes:
It is not a straw man argument; if that were true, your various attacks on the running ape model and my comprehgension of sexual selection would be senseless.
No, your claim that I deny the existence of any other theory is a strawman, as this is demonstrably not the case, you are either equivocating or misrepresenting again. My argument against the "running ape" theory is based on relevance to the facts and the evidence and not to being closed minded on the issue.
You demonstrate a lack of comprehension of sexual selection by your inability or refusal to define it. I defined your theory in one post, and you have yet to attempt a definition of either my theory as it applies to the issue of bareness of humans or a general definition of the mechanism of sexual selection, even with a feature (long hair) that you agree is a sexually selected feature.
Yes, bait - it was completely manipulative, attempting to hold me to a process and methodology with which I am totally unfamiliar.
It's called science and the scientific method. Observe, theorize, test, refine.
It was an overt attempt to bait me on to ground of your choosing where I can be destroyed at leasure, and I correctly declined that bait.
We are discussing theories of how bareness came to be so prevalent in the human species and how the evidence supports or fails to support the various theories. Frankly I don't see how that can be construed as a personal attack or become one with any validity. All it takes is an honest discussion of the facts and their relationship to the different theories.
Please note I have never done anything similar; even when arguiuing against McCarthyist slanders of communism, I have not suggested that I will only discuss matters if the other side adopts the historical-materialist dialectical method and constructs its arguments accordingly.
You, like, totally lost me there, man.
RAZD comment:
Or to pick up on an earlier {comment\suggestion} -- why should someone with long hair be chosen over someone without long hair purely as a marker for {past\current} fitness? Well by your own argument, the very question of "why" is irrelevant if this was produced by recursive sexual selection. There is no why.
No, there is a very specific "why" sexual selection features exist and it has to do with how they demonstrate fitness.
You might start with this article from Wikipedia:
Sexual selection - Wikipedia
I don't think it fully explains the process, but I note that among other things that it says:
An example of sexual selection in human evolutionary history is humans' hairlessness relative to the other great apes. This is part of a general physiological resemblance between adult humans and adolescent chimpanzees (adult humans resemble young chimpanzees to a greater extent than they resemble young humans or adult chimpanzees). This youthful appearance may have evolved because males prefer young-looking mates (a young female is more likely to survive pregnancy). Blond hair lasting into adulthood is another example of a trait that makes a human look younger.
Richard Dawkins also discusses run-away sexual selection in the matter of a long tailed bird in "
The Blind Watchmaker" and other books.
Take long hair as an example: in order to have an attractive head of long hair, the owner has to be (1) well nourished (2) healthy and (3) fit in order for the hair to grow that long, as {undernourished\unhealthy} will make the hair weak (pull out), brittle (breaks shorter), dull and irregular, and unfit will mean that predators attracted by it will succeed.
Thus long hair not only demonstrates more complete fitness characteristics than (say) the ability to run, but that they have applied to the individual for some time: that the individual is consistently a successful survivor and healthy and a good mate prospect is visible in a glance without need to appraise any other characteristic.
Enough for now.
((edited to change subtitle to keep subthreads clearly defined}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 02-05-2005 10:24 AM
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
™ Version 4.2