Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,509 Year: 6,766/9,624 Month: 106/238 Week: 23/83 Day: 2/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the evolution of clothes?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 151 of 161 (183195)
02-04-2005 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by contracycle
02-04-2005 9:29 AM


NOT {sexual selection process definition}
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
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by contracycle, posted 02-04-2005 9:29 AM contracycle has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 152 of 161 (183255)
02-05-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by contracycle
02-04-2005 9:29 AM


Back to {sexual selection process definition}
okay, so we've had another tit-for-tat session ( and which I expect youto carry on doing).
For this message it is time to put that aside (leave it to the other message reply) and get to the question of defining the sexual selection process.
What do you think it is, how do you think it operates, and what function does it serve for long term species survival?
You can start with "If sexual selection were occuring this is what I would expect to see from it" and any other caveats you wish to throw in.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by contracycle, posted 02-04-2005 9:29 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by contracycle, posted 02-07-2005 6:04 AM RAZD has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 161 (183642)
02-07-2005 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by RAZD
02-05-2005 10:23 AM


Re: Back to {sexual selection process definition}
quote:
okay, so we've had another tit-for-tat session ( and which I expect youto carry on doing).
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
quote:
For this message it is time to put that aside (leave it to the other message reply) and get to the question of defining the sexual selection process.
Except it has absolutely no relevance to the discussion, does it?
Your insistence that there were no other possibilityies to consider has been falsified. That was the only point I made, and I am now done with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2005 10:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2005 10:34 PM contracycle has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18651
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 154 of 161 (183855)
02-08-2005 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by coffee_addict
01-03-2005 2:15 AM


Jacen writes:
Now the question of why we became "ashamed" of our nakedness is a whole other issue. Perhaps EvC's sociologists could fill us on this one.
The nakedness was actual AND also metaphorical. The prior covering was Gods Spirit. As an analogy, it is a known fact that Hi Voltage linemen have an action known as "powering up" where they actually have electricity surrounding them so as to minimize the shock effect of the hi voltage. Gods Spirit protected people from the metaphorical shock of interaction with other spirits. Of course I have absolutely no proof of this or any way of proving it. Just call it my 2 cents worth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 01-03-2005 2:15 AM coffee_addict has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 155 of 161 (184023)
02-08-2005 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by contracycle
02-07-2005 6:04 AM


Re: Back to {sexual selection process definition}
contracycle writes:
...and the horse you rode in on.
The horse I rode in on was logic and rational thinking.
Your insistence that there were no other possibilityies to consider has been falsified. That was the only point I made, and I am now done with it.
The only problems with that are (1) I never insisted there were no other possibilities, and (2) falsifying that strawman does not falsify the argument that sexual selection offers a better explanation of the observed facts than does the running ape model for the extent, variations in location and sexual dimorphism.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by contracycle, posted 02-07-2005 6:04 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by contracycle, posted 02-21-2005 5:25 AM RAZD has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 161 (187145)
02-21-2005 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by RAZD
02-08-2005 10:34 PM


Re: Back to {sexual selection process definition}
quote:
The horse I rode in on was logic and rational thinking.
Nonsense, it was zealous and dogmatic insistence that only one possibility be considered.
quote:
The only problems with that are (1) I never insisted there were no other possibilities, and (2) falsifying that strawman does not falsify the argument that sexual selection offers a better explanation of the observed facts than does the running ape model for the extent, variations in location and sexual dimorphism.
1) you certainly did, claiming that sexual selection BLOCKED the running ape model, and that hairlessness had to be explained becuase it was maladaptive. I suggest you actually review your own writings or acquire a reputation for lying deliberately.
2) It might, to you, but does not to me. Unfortunately thats clearly not a position you want to discuss, were it even one I were able to discuss, as you have a priori ruled out all answers bu the one you favour.
quote:
Enjoy.
And once again, I say unto you my child, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2005 10:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2005 7:49 AM contracycle has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 157 of 161 (187154)
02-21-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by contracycle
02-21-2005 5:25 AM


Admin forum guidelines
Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.
All I have done is show that the evidence supports sexual selection as a mechanism better than it supports the running ape theory.
All I have asked is that you present the theory of sexual selection as you see it, because I don't think you understand it at all and have continually misrepresented it (and my posts, as repeated here). If you do not understand the theory well enough to state it then how can you argue against it?
Note that I answered your complaint on my understanding the theory of the running ape by posting that in one post that you had no problems with.
This attitude of yours is unnacceptable in an honest debate, and if this is the extent of your logical process in this regard then it appears that we have plumbed the depths of your ability for rational debate.
Sad that it took you this long to reply and that this is the sum of your reply.
oh yes,
enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by contracycle, posted 02-21-2005 5:25 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by contracycle, posted 02-21-2005 9:21 AM RAZD has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 161 (187167)
02-21-2005 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by RAZD
02-21-2005 7:49 AM


Re: Admin forum guidelines
quote:
Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.
Pot -> Kettle
quote:
All I have done is show that the evidence supports sexual selection as a mechanism better than it supports the running ape theory.
Thats off topic. The topic is "the evolution of clothes" as I have pointed out to you previously. Please stick to the topic instead of trolling about your specialty.
quote:
If you do not understand the theory well enough to state it then how can you argue against it?
I have not argued against ity - in fact I have specifically refused to argue against it and will not be drawn into your pissing contest.
quote:
Note that I answered your complaint on my understanding the theory of the running ape by posting that in one post that you had no problems with.
So what? That was necessary for your argument - I insisted that you acknowledge the running ape hypothesis, and you have grudgingly done so. Thats all there was; previously your argument asserted that there WAS no other theory.
quote:
This attitude of yours is unnacceptable in an honest debate, and if this is the extent of your logical process in this regard then it appears that we have plumbed the depths of your ability for rational debate.
And I will not be lectured by a fuckwit who cannot do something as simple as acknowledge a contrary position, and who then seeks to lie about their own statements to cover up this mistake.
{Fixed one quote box - AM}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-21-2005 19:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2005 7:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2005 7:17 PM contracycle has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 159 of 161 (187304)
02-21-2005 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by contracycle
02-21-2005 9:21 AM


Re: Admin forum guidelines continued violations by contracycle
(1) I have not been forced to "grudgingly" admit that the running ape theory is a theory, as I have accepted that from the start. What I have not accepted (and what you have not been able to show) is that the evidence is more persuasive support for the running ape theory than for any other theory in general and for the theory of sexual selection in particular. What I have shown is that the evidence is more persuasive support for the sexual selection theory. Your inability to comprehend this theory is shown by your continued posts where you refuse to even state a broad outline of the theory. This inability also prevents you from seeing the facts as presented do favour the sexual selection theory over the running ape theory. That is not my problem, it is yours. I am not responsible for any lack on your part.
(2) The issue of bareness relates directly to the issue of wearing clothes, because it is the lack of warm {fur\hair} that makes it necessary in the first place. The fact that this forces clothes to be a compensatory adaptation to the bareness is part and parcel of the question that must also be answered by any theories relating thereto.
(3) You have now sworn in the last 3 if not more posts directed to me. I am not really counting, but I find the pattern hard to ignore. The fact that I have never sworn on this forum to say nothing about in any post to you goes a long way to showing who is the more adult participant in this matter -- another point where your accusations do not match the facts. I see no reason for any poster on this forum to be subject to such language, regardless of the argument, and that is the way I conduct my affairs. The plain fact is that this is against the forum guidelines.
(4) You continue to make personal attacks instead of addressing the matter at hand. That too is against forum guidelines. I welcome any audit by admin of all of these posts to ascertain who is in violation of forum guidelines.
(5) You appear to be more interested in being rude and abusive than in either debating a topic or learning about it.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by contracycle, posted 02-21-2005 9:21 AM contracycle has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2561 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 160 of 161 (187310)
02-21-2005 7:41 PM


Closing for Review
I haven't been following this thread and hopefully another admin who has will step in here.
Right now, I am closing the thread until I can read through it and see just where the problem is.
Please be patient or search for an admin more familiar with the thread.
Any problem with how I am handling this take to the appropriate forum in my sig.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 161 (187347)
02-21-2005 9:19 PM


Closing permanently
After reviewing this I think it has simply degenerated to the I said - He said stage. If anyone has anything else of import, please start a norrowly set PNT and we'll see about promoting it.
Thanks to all participants.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024