Aquatic Ape - when is it proven?

[CEngelbrecht]

Again we have fallen into confrontational exchange, which was not my intention with this thread. I have to remind myself you are not a--holes, you just have a sound skepticism against the Dan Browns of the world.

But I still must protest against the perspective that AAH should pseudoscience.

Those {...'no fur', 'speech', 'choice of habitat', 'bipedalism', 'nasal hood', 'swimming babies', 'skin fat', ' healthy sea diet', 'sweat'...} have been debunked again and again by others and myself. I'm not going to do it again.

I must insist you give it a try again, because I still haven't accepted the debunction. Come on, I went through your five points one more time. If I am wrong, I would still like to be convinced. I don't want to be religious.

As a last cynical note I would also like to add that at least Copernicus and Wegener did their own research, made the right conclusions and did not use special pleading. Because of this, and because they were right, it was accepted. Scientists (and sceptics) may have one dogma, you adhere to the scientific method or you will be chewed up and spit out.

Why do I have the perspective that it is the exact same case with Hardy and Morgan? I cannot see that either have not lived up to these principles. But no, their works are herecy by default.

Actual research - Peer reviewed, properly cited, academic-quality research papers. They don't have to be in Nature, but something with more credibility than 'Quack Letters' would be good. Popular books aimed at the layman don't count.

Surely, you can't accuse a knighted zoology professor of intentionally writing a 'quack letter'? When it comes to Hardy, I see an old academic being punished brutally by his own for steering outside the corral. Because such an idea would render most people's life work useless. No quest for empirical truth, only fear for carreers. Then it seems that the academic masters are no better than the medieval church.

Real science - Following the Scientific Method would be a good start. That means collecting measurable data and testing hypotheses. Objectivity, specifically avoiding biased interpretations of results, is a key tenet that AAT proponents should take special note of. Full disclosure would be nice. Take a look at the reasonably robust article on the Scientifc Method on wikipedia. While you're there, take a look at Psudoscience and maybe have a think about what category AAT would fall under currently.

To quote from first paragraph about Scientific Method:
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
Remember, Hardy's AAH started as studies of human physiology, of the body hairs. That's where all this started. That would fall under 'observable', right? I mean, the angle of the human body hairs as upposed to chimp body hairs is empirical observation, is it not? And making the conclusion that skin fat and loss of body hair may be a step towards aquatic adaptation is a chain of reasoning, is it not?

From first paragraph about Pseudoscience:
"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
The AAH cannot be said to not adhere to scientific methodology. It cannot be said to lack plausibility, when viewed as a result from waning African jungle appr. 5 mia. years ago.
What it does lack is scientific status, but I still make the case that this is primarily due to academic power games. "Clergy BS".
Human "un-ashamed ballast" freedivers can dive deeper and longer than e.g. sea otters. At the same time we cannot run the same speeds as a savannah baboon. Is that not empirical observation?

 

[Arjen]

But I still must protest against the perspective that AAH should pseudoscience.

Than you have not read the wikipage on pseudoscience that ChrisMar linked to. Read the part on identifying pseudoscience. Almost all points there are appropriate to the AAT/H.

I must insist you give it a try again, because I still haven't accepted the debunction. Come on, I went through your five points one more time. If I am wrong, I would still like to be convinced. I don't want to be religious.

Yes and I replied to in a way I hoped would communicate that the answer was hopelessly lacking.

Read either the page by Jim Moore or the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape"]wikipage on the AAH[/ame]. Both do an excellent job on explaining why it is not science.

Why do I have the perspective that it is the exact same case with Hardy and Morgan? I cannot see that either have not lived up to these principles. But no, their works are herecy by default.

That is because they do not explain anything and are not based on proper peer reviewed publications.

Surely, you can't accuse a knighted zoology professor of intentionally writing a 'quack letter'? When it comes to Hardy, I see an old academic being punished brutally by his own for steering outside the corral. Because such an idea would render most people's life work useless. No quest for empirical truth, only fear for carreers. Then it seems that the academic masters are no better than the medieval church.

Did you know that Isaac Newton had some very strange ideas as well. As did Fred Hoyle. Also both did some amazing work in other areas. So it can happen that people have good and bad ideas. In academic environments, the truth will eventually surface. What academicians do not like is when you bypass the scientific method. And if you have a crazy idea, you have to back it up with evidence. If you don't do that, you will be chewed up and spit out. No matter how acclaimed you are. As was in the case of Fred Hoyle as well.

You are also displaying one of the telltales why this is pseudoscience:

• Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[55]
• Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem"]Ad hominem fallacy[/ame]).[54]

To quote from first paragraph about Scientific Method:
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
Remember, Hardy's AAH started as studies of human physiology, of the body hairs. That's where all this started. That would fall under 'observable', right? I mean, the angle of the human body hairs as upposed to chimp body hairs is empirical observation, is it not? And making the conclusion that skin fat and loss of body hair may be a step towards aquatic adaptation is a chain of reasoning, is it not?

From first paragraph about Pseudoscience:
"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
The AAH cannot be said to not adhere to scientific methodology. It cannot be said to lack plausibility, when viewed as a result from waning African jungle appr. 5 mia. years ago.
What it does lack is scientific status, but I still make the case that this is primarily due to academic power games. "Clergy BS".
Human "un-ashamed ballast" freedivers can dive deeper and longer than e.g. sea otters. At the same time we cannot run the same speeds as a savannah baboon. Is that not empirical observation?

There is so much wrong with these statements I do not even know where to begin. If you read and understand the pages I linked to on the debunking, you will understand why.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Read either the page by Jim Moore or the wikipage on the AAH. Both do an excellent job on explaining why it is not science.

We can only agree to disagree. That criticism section is important, and I have read it again and again, but I simply do not agree with the majority of the list.

You are also displaying one of the telltales why this is pseudoscience:

• Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.
• Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims

I am gonna have to give you that one. Guilty as charged.

Than you have not read the wikipage on pseudoscience that ChrisMar linked to. Read the part on identifying pseudoscience. Almost all points there are appropriate to the AAT/H.

And almost all points there are appropriate to the savannah theory, too. So if that is the base of the hominid not being a water ape, then it ain't a savannah ape either. What the hell are the hominid then??? A mountain ape? A forest ape? A divine being's play-doh, or a scientific experiment by a visiting alien civilization, what?

The lacking piece here is that the fossil remains from the suggested period leave little to go by in terms of defining empirical ethology. The savannah people and the water people will both claim that the bipedalist angle of the pelvis on Lucy favors their interpretation.

The fossils are aparently lousy sources to base these hypothesises on, so you're back to studying modern physiology and behavior for clues. And when doing that, the AAH ends with fewer assumptions than savannah.

If one could read isotopes out of the fossils' bones to see potential differences in general food consumption (land food/sea food have variations in carbon isotopes), that could be a breakthrough. (Yeah, I know that doesn't work on fossilised remains.)

:head

Ok, what about the habitat? New to me is that now they can read bipedalism in fossils before the African savannah was even created. What was the Great Rift Valley like before the creation of the savannah, around 5 mia years ago? Which ever type of habitat might hold a clue. Mountains? Forests? Floods? Can anyone find any reference to that? I've failed.

 

[wet]

Good to see you contributing in such a meaningful way.

http://forums.deeperblue.com/images/smilies/new/yaya.gif

 

[TimoP]

This thread is named:
Aquatic Ape - when is it (scientifically) proven?

Doesn't look good. It's not only a lack of scientific facts and methods, but much worse: misleading even with purpose, false facts, wrong citing of scientific sources etc.

Just one example (I leave it here), which interests me and maybe other freedivers, parents and lifesavers too:

The fact of (unique!) swimming human babies arises time to time here in AAH threads. Baby swimming is a common hobby for families. But as we know without practising babies keep underwater waving their legs, arms and head and if not helped they don't come up for purpose to breath themselves. Not a very good strategy for surviving, as Mullins said in another AHH thread. So I wondered where this fact of human babies owning unique talent of swimming comes from?

Just remember this is just one thing, and I haven't interest to continue with this AAH (Arjen maybe...), because I see that somebody WANT to BELIEVE in that anyway, is it "true" or not.

A (little shortened) quote from Swimming babies
--------------------
Quote-
The "Swimming Babies" reference

You might wonder,(...) why do so many babies drown in bathtubs and swimming pools each year,(... as the same time) AAT/H proponents tell us, as evidence for their theory, that human babies naturally hold their breath and swim.

This (...) has been used for quite some time by many AAT/H proponents (including Hardy, Morgan, and Verhaegen). This time they usually actually give the reference: "M. McGraw, Journal of Pediatrics, 1939:485-490.", so one might assume they've read this research paper and know what it says. They always seem to mention the human infants and how their movements are usually "rhythmical and organized" and are "ordinarily sufficiently forceful to propel the baby a short distance through the water". So far so good. But they don't seem to ever mention the fact that the same study looked at other mammalian infants (opossum, rat, kitten, rabbit, guinea pig, and rhesus monkey) and found that they behaved the same way: "these rhythmical movements of the human infant are quite similar to those of other young quadrupeds in water".

AAT/H proponents consistently report only the info about human infants, and state that they react in a unique manner, ignoring the contrary facts the study reports regarding non-human infants, even though the info about both human and non-human infants is reported on the same page. Coincidence?

Note that an older chimpanzee was also tested and, just like older human infants, was inactive when placed in the water.

Note too that this study found that "at no time did any baby show himself capable of raising his head above the water level for the purpose of breathing". So that's the sad secret of the drowning infants; what we actually find here is not so much "swimming babies" as infant mammals slowly drowning without a struggle.
-Quote
------------

But human babies can be taught by practising to flip over and then to back float, but they don't do that by nature. Here are 2 videos about that. BTW In the second video there says that in the named states of US drowning is the no1 cause of death for babies and children under 5 years, so it's a very good reason for PRACTISING (it can be a long way) them to flip over and to back float for surviving:


http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0mUPr68x2U

______

We have a 5 months old (dog) puppy, whom we have taught already to do many things, which surely a wolf doesn't do by nature

These are facts and could have been scientific tested if needed:
One of our dogs was a really good swimmer (as a dog), it's paws were like little fins, because there were skin between toes. Sometimes I dived after that swimming dog an admired it's effective swimming style with those "fins". We never had taught it to swim, it came by nature. It went into water whenever it was possible and didn't want to come out from water even if it was cold (means here COLD like as low as 0-15 C). It even jump from a moving boat to water to swim. It was a real "water-dog"!
This thinking is not a FACT or SCIENCE:
"Because of that dog an idea of an aquatic dog arises into my mind...interesting...hmm...so has there been an aquatic wolf?...maybe!...fascinating...I want to believe that...It's obvious there has been an aquatic wolf, in fact I'm sure about that! I want to tell it to everybody! I could write a book, I WANT find and I'LL find the facts telling I'm right!"
(Ps. And I will ignore facts telling there hasn't been one.)

See also:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis[/ame]
http://www.aquaticape.org/

 

[Arjen]

That criticism section is important, and I have read it again and again, but I simply do not agree with the majority of the list.

If you do not agree, than explain why. Simply not agreeing is not how science works. You have to say at which points you don't agree and you have to tell why you don't agree, how you think it is and give evidence for that. You also have to prove why other mechanisms that are proposed are not correct. For instance the fat distribution, you not only have to explain how that happened because of an aquatic adaptation, you will also have to explain that it can not have happened only through sexual selection. You have to explain why our fat distribution, which is almost identical to chimps, has been the result of an aquatic adaptation and the chimps is not. And you have to explain the big differences in fat distribution between males and females. This only to begin with.

And almost all points there are appropriate to the savannah theory, too.

The savannah theory as you think it is, does not exist any more. It has changed beyond recognition to what you perceive it to be, because additional research has been done and knowledge was added. That changed the theory, because that is how science works.

If you would have read carefully you would have found: Morgan has presented the AAH as an alternative to the "savanna model", which portrays protohumans as moving out from forested environments and into a hot dry savannah. However, this idea has been called a caricature of the actual environments in which protohumans are thought to have evolved, and presents a false dichotomy as more recent theories propose a tree or forest-based habitat providing the driving forces for adaptation.

But we are diverging from the central question you posted again. So back to that. The AAT/H (if it is right) can only be proven by doing the research and following the scientific method. If you are not willing or able to do that, I am under no obligation to either accept the idea or to have respect for it. In fact I will point that out and make damn sure that anybody with half a brain will see that as well.

 

[Arjen]

Just remember this is just one thing, and I haven't interest to continue with this AAH (Arjen maybe...), because I see that somebody WANT to BELIEVE that in anyway, is it "true" or not.

I have no interest in continuing these discussions as well, but I have certain flaws that keep triggering me to post on these kinds of threads. I love a good discussion and I detest these kinds of unscientific mumbo jumbo.

 

[JennyWren]

Arjen - shiny star for the xkcd reference!

This thread should probably reside in the 'science' section (ok, maybe not, but it should be in the same pseudoscience section with the other AAT thread).

 

[ReefTroll]

Although not really relevant to the actual topic of aquatics etc, I did find the article in national geographic interesting that humans and neanderthals were entirely different strems of evolution...

 

[Arjen]

Arjen - shiny star for the xkcd reference!

Thanks

Although not really relevant to the actual topic of aquatics etc, I did find the article in national geographic interesting that humans and neanderthals were entirely different strems of evolution...

And it is hugely interesting. So why muddle it up with nonsense when the reality is infinitely more beautiful and intricate than we ever can make or dream up?