Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aquatic Ape theory?
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 6 of 138 (98355)
04-07-2004 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by SweeneyTodd
04-07-2004 2:45 AM


SweeneyTodd writes:
All righty then...the Aquatic Ape theory, from what I understand, basically states that early humans evolved aqautic envioronments instead of a more widely accetped savannah approach.
The "savannah" approach is not really the "other" approach.
This invocation of "savannah" is a kind of strawman commonly invoked by Morgan; it is often given in terms suggestive of an arid and treeless plain.
Morgan's model has no legs, scientifically speaking. There are excellent reasons why it has been mostly ignored by serious anthropologists, except a few people who enjoy refuting bad science.
A good site which debunks the aquatic ape in some detail is Jim Moore's Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim.
The major problem is unconstrained invocation of adaptionism to explain just about everything, with little attempt to test the hypothesis, and with poor research in developing the facts that are used in the explanation.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by SweeneyTodd, posted 04-07-2004 2:45 AM SweeneyTodd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Denesha, posted 04-07-2004 5:47 AM Sylas has replied
 Message 60 by artturi, posted 06-10-2005 2:47 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 8 of 138 (98363)
04-07-2004 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cynic1
04-07-2004 4:24 AM


Cynic1 writes:
You forgot the breathing aspect of the theory, in that we are the only land mammal with breath control and a descended larynx, which are telling indications of a possible aquatic ancestor.
Also, the only other animal with a perpendicular gait is aquatic (the penguin).
We waste a great deal of salt to sweat, which would seem detrimental in the savannah.
No other land animal cries, but the walrus, otter, and various marine birds and reptiles do.
Our glands which secrete oil are huge compared to chimps, and these oil glands are often used for waterproofing.
The kinds of control which arise from a descended larynx have nothing to do with breathing in water; it is fairly plainly linked to vocalization. Furthermore, the larynx is not descended at birth; but comes later in childhood; but the breath control which Morgan also like to invoke is present from birth. The human larynx is nothing much like the larynx of truly aquatic animals. Fossil evidence also indicate that this arose much after the development of bipedalism.
The comparison with a penguins proposed as a line of evidence is hilarious. Have you seen a penguin walk?
The invocation of sweat is interesting; why would an aquatic animal need to sweat? The answer proposed by Morgan is that they need to get rid of salt (assuming salt water lifestyles). This is contradicted by the evidence, which shows that human sweat does not in fact have any excessive concentration of salt as is found in animals where salt secretion is an adaption.
The claim about animals crying is wrong. Most vertebrates shed tears. Morgan originally tried to distinguish "emotional" tears; but the association of this subtle distinction with acquatic adaptions is odd and ridiculous; and even the sources she was using proposed examples of other animals shedding emotional tears.
Morgan has indeed publically retracted some of her arguments about sweating and tears in response to various counter examples. See this Usenet post from May 1996. This is not, alas, prevent the recurrence of this rather dreadful argument.
I have not heard the one about oil before; but I'll bet that there is no credible basis or argument for thinking that humans ever had glands for water proofing or any need for such a thing. I'll look into it if you can give a reference.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cynic1, posted 04-07-2004 4:24 AM Cynic1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Cynic1, posted 04-07-2004 8:02 AM Sylas has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 9 of 138 (98367)
04-07-2004 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Denesha
04-07-2004 5:47 AM


Denesha writes:
Sylas writes:
The "savannah" approach is not really the "other" approach.
I'm unfortunately not knowledgable in primates ethology but I can't believe that aquatic was a safe place to live in the context of he is exposed. The Savannah was also under the rule of large predators but the space was wide open.
You can't reach the same conclusion near or in a pool. Never heard about crocodiles, thirsty felidae?
Sorry, I don't quite understand this question. My point is that "savannah" is usually invoked by Morgan in the context of a kind of strawman of an arid treeless plain to set against her own even more absurd ideas.
There are various notions for the kind of environment in which humans developed. The notion of a treeless savannah is not a serious contender.
As for your point about predators... it is absolutely correct. Morgan has been known to invoke escape from predators as one of the reasons for an aquatic phase in human evolution. This shows a startling ignorance of how to keep away from predators, and fails to account for how ludicrously ill adapted we are for using water as an escape route.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Denesha, posted 04-07-2004 5:47 AM Denesha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by SRO2, posted 04-07-2004 6:40 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 16 by Denesha, posted 04-07-2004 8:41 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 17 of 138 (98394)
04-07-2004 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cynic1
04-07-2004 8:02 AM


Cynic1 writes:
I was operating off of her original book, and her theory sounded interesting. I just wanted to fill in the rest of the tenets of the theory that were missed. I apologize for posting falsified data, I haven't read it for a while.
Hey, no problem. It's good to post questions and comments, and on a web forum it is fine to post material off the cuff. References are good if you have them, but there is nothing wrong with posting ideas from not quite remembered old sources and throwing them into the mix.
I'm a bit brusque with the theory; but that does not carry over to people who bring them up for discussion!
I'll welcome engagement with anyone who would like to defend the model in more detail; it might be illuminating. I won't pull punches on ideas; but they'll be aimed at ideas, not at people who bring them up for us to discuss.
I'll do some research on that oil thing, independent of Morgan, but I doubt I'll find anything. The penguin comparison was hers, by the way, and I almost left it out. I didn't really think the comparison between a human and a bird was relevant, but she seemed to think it was important.
Most (all?) of the aquatic ape stuff appears to have this character; odd and usually strained parallels with aquatic animals. If they were better founded this could be a legitimate basis for a real scientific model; parallels are okay. But the penguin one was amusing... by all means see if you can find something on oil glands.
Best wishes -- Sylas
(Edit to add the first quote. Don't know how it got left off.)
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-07-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cynic1, posted 04-07-2004 8:02 AM Cynic1 has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 46 of 138 (103539)
04-28-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by redwolf
04-23-2004 2:27 PM


Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
redwolf writes:
Neanderthal DNA has been described as "halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee" ...
Off topic warning. I just want to point out the redwolf has been corrected on this several times before. The above erroneous description was taken from an Indian newspaper, which was citing scientific work that said no such thing. Details on google in this thread, and also showing the actual scientific data that the expressindia reporter misrepresented.
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-28-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by redwolf, posted 04-23-2004 2:27 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2004 10:37 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 48 by redwolf, posted 04-30-2004 11:26 PM Sylas has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 50 of 138 (104503)
05-01-2004 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by redwolf
04-30-2004 11:26 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
redwolf writes:
A number of different scientists have described neanderthal dna as being about halfway between ours and that of a chimp. You could pretty much do your own google search and take your pick.
Wrong again. I did a search on "halfway Neanderthal chimpanzee DNA"; and what you find is...
  • Anjali Mody, the reporter who made an honest mistake.
  • Ted Holden, a well known Usenet crank. One page shows Ted repeating the claim that you can find quotes of scientists saying Neanderthals are halfway between us and chimpanzees. No examples, of course; just characteristic bluster.
  • The international bigfoot society.
  • Tim Roufs, who also apparently misunderstands the Cell paper. Roufs comes close, except that he is a sociologist and cultural anthropologist in the liberal arts; not in science.
  • redwolf, because Google also finds these pages in EvC.
I stopped looking after 20 or so pages. It gets boring. If I had found an example, I would have given it. Perhaps you could find a scientist saying something like this, if they were not directly involved in the research... because even if you did find someone saying that, they would still be wrong. The data in question shows plainly that Neanderthals are just as far from being chimpanzees as we are. If anything, they were very slightly further from chimpanzees than we are. The claim that Neanderthal is halfway between human and chimpanzee is analogous to saying Seattle is halfway between Los Angeles and New York. It's wrong.
I can understand that someone who doesn't know much about evolution or genetics might make the error. But continuing to insist on expressing the matter so incorrectly, on the imagined authority of unknown scientists, and in direct conflict with the actual data which shows the error, is rather amusing and typical.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by redwolf, posted 04-30-2004 11:26 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 8:14 PM Sylas has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 53 of 138 (104647)
05-01-2004 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by redwolf
05-01-2004 8:14 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
Much better, redwolf. This is how to try and support your assertions. Unfortunately, none of your examples actually support your claim. There is one other journalist; and then either sources I cited last time from my Google source, or else papers which do not make the error.
Your examples are, in order:
  1. Maggie Fox; correspondent. The incorrect phrase is not quoted from scientists, but is her own text.
  2. International bigfoot society, which I mentioned previously as also making the error. Not scientists.
  3. Tim Roufs, whom I mentioned previously as also making the error. Sociologist and cultural anthropologist.
  4. Your fourth extract is correct, and does not make the stated error. The editorial insertion added by you is flatly wrong, and not an implication of the results.
  5. Your fifth extract is correct, and does not make the stated error. It quotes numbers for the human-neandertal distance, and numbers for the human-chimpanzee difference. This says nothing whatsoever about which, if any, is "in between" the others.
  6. Your sixth extract says nothing remotely similar to the quoted error. The link provided gave me a 404 error, due to a problem in the way UBBforums tries to construct hyperlinks. The following link may work better: http://www.findarticles.com/..._86/70362289/p2/article.jhtml
  7. The seventh extract does not make the stated error.
Bear in mind the claim. The incorrect claim is the one which appears in Message 48 and others of redwolf's and Holden's writing.
A number of different scientists have described neanderthal dna as being about halfway between ours and that of a chimp.
Maggie Fox is the only new example you give of someone who gives this erroneous description. Indeed, it is possible that Anjali Mody was repeating her error. Comparing the Maggie Fox's report, Reuters with Anjali Mody's report contains textual clues that Mody was actually using Fox's report. There are several cases of shared text, including the erroneous phrase. Fox may well be the original source of the error, unless an earlier source can be found.
Redwolf uses this data to argue that Neandertals were not our ancestors. That is also the view of the authors of the study; and I agree as well. There do remain a small number of scientists who still dispute the strength of this inference; as in your sixth extract, and I consider this unlikely, but not completely settled.
Your fourth extract reveals plainly what is going on here.
You wrote, as a quote from the PSU press release
When the researchers looked at the Neandertal sequence with respect to 994 human mitochondrial DNA lineages including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, Australians and Pacific Islanders, they found the number of base pair differences between the Neandertal sequence and these groups was 27 or 28 for all groups. [i.e. halfway to being a chimpanzee]
The press release states the matter correctly, and makes no implication of any association to a chimpanzee. All the differences cited are examples of purely human diversity, and none of them is suggestive of "halfway to being a chimpanzee". The text in cyan is redwolf's editorial insertion, not a quote from any scientist. Scientists are most unlikely to make that mistake. It is a bit surprising that Maggie Fox made this simple error; but such mistakes in science journalism are ubiquitous, and easily resolved by looking at the actual research rather than second hand journalist reports.
That is what we should do; not go trolling through the net looking to see if any actual scientist repeats the phrase. Look at the data, and you can see that the phrase is wrong, whoever says it.
I've started a new thread which looks at the actual research, and illustrates what the research actually indicates. Added in edit: for discussion of the research itself, go to Message 1.
Cheers — Sylas
PS. Hi NosyNed I saw your reply come on-line as I was writing this one, but decided to post anyway.
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 8:14 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2004 10:17 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 55 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 10:19 PM Sylas has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 56 of 138 (104663)
05-01-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by redwolf
05-01-2004 10:19 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
redwolf writes:
I'd interpret the dna findings as meaning that a neanderthal was about halfway from a chimp to us and apparently others do as well and I have seen that comparison in a number of places from a number of authors at one point or another.
Fixing this would not make a big difference to the rest of your discussion; and indeed I mostly agree with the rest of your post.
The problem with the interpretation given above is that it tends to suggest the old failed idea of a kind of ladder of nature, in which other living forms are all ranked in a sequence with humans at the top.
The error in describing Neandertals as halfway to chimpanzee is exactly the same error as describing Negros as a fifth of the way to chimpanzee. It's incorrect, because in fact no human "race" -- Neadertals included -- is any closer to chimpanzees than any other "race". I'd really recommend that you fix the web page to phrase the matter more accurately.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 10:19 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 11:26 PM Sylas has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 58 of 138 (104679)
05-01-2004 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by redwolf
05-01-2004 11:26 PM


Re: Off topic. The old halfway distortion again.
I'll respond to this in the other thread. Sorry about taking this one so far of topic. Thanks redwolf... agree with much of what you say on human homogeneity; although my original comment remains completely accurate. I'll explain with more data in the other thread in a day or so.
Added in edit... see Message 6. This presents comparisons with diversity between subspecies of chimpanzee, from the same Krings et al research group that was indirectly used in Ted's Neandertal pages. This data suggests that Neandertals were most likely a plainly identifiable subspecies, but closer to modern humans than subspecies of common chimp are to each other.
[This message has been edited Sylas, 05-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by redwolf, posted 05-01-2004 11:26 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024