PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Discussions about Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution or any other topic related to human evolution.

Moderator: CEngelbrecht

PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:52 pm

I've just noticed that for the first time, my post at PZ Myers' blog was not accepted straight away but is "awaiting moderation".

Chris, are you finding this now, too.

Incredible to think that after such a childish and ignorant sneering session he might now be censoring out any criticism.

Algis
Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Postby CEngelbrecht » Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:07 pm

Maybe, just maybe, he wants to stop the Talkrational-esque mudwrestling by moderating it, 'cause no one else has postings there for a number of hours now. Those 1100 posts are already achieving as little as on TR.
User avatar
CEngelbrecht
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:10 pm
Location: Scania, Sweden

Re: PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:12 pm

Mmm... don't think so.

Michael Clark has posted one of his brilliant "Got any evidence today?" posts since mine was held up.

Algis
Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Postby CEngelbrecht » Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:39 am

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-645071

So I was censored from the blog, too. Not by PZ Myers, but Chris Clarke for some reason.
It's always the liutenant making the excessive panic decision on behalf of the general, ain't it?


This is what I was replying before I was blocked, if anyone is interested:
1410. Tigger: And why are you asking other people to do the research that YOU ought to be doing, gladly, if you truly believed in the aquatic ape scenario?


I can't get access to those bones, I'm not a member of that brotherhood. I was lucky that a lady geologist showed me an Oreopithecus skull (she even went into the basement after it).

And besides if I actually did this, and the spikes came back as "clams" or something, you'd just cry falsified research, wouldn't ya? Actually, somebody neutral need to do this. (Or will they just be thrown onto the bonfire along with the other AAH-heretics, if they dare to find anything inconvenient?)

Look, let me put it this way: Right now I'm presenting the testable prediction, that if Homo erectus saw an expansion in brain size because of a transition to a saline-aquatic, DHA and iodine rich proteine-diet, then the isotopic indicators you're talking about from their fossilized teeth would show levels similar to that of these types of seafoods.
Wouldn't it be lovely if those tests came back and refuted that possibility? Then the AAH mongers would be struck a blow, right?

But all you naysayers also need to ask yourselves what you are gonna do, if those isotopes comes back as oysters. What are you gonna do, Myers? Clarke? What the hell are y'all gonna do?

---
But whatever, they are not gonna read it now.
User avatar
CEngelbrecht
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:10 pm
Location: Scania, Sweden

Re: PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:40 pm

Thanks Chris

Algis
Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Postby CEngelbrecht » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:27 pm

User avatar
CEngelbrecht
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:10 pm
Location: Scania, Sweden

Re: PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:48 pm

CEngelbrecht wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/28/best-response-to-the-aquatic-ape-nonsense-yet/comment-page-1/#comments
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

So ...

What did that accomplish?


To my mind, the best way of exposing the strengths or weaknesses of ideas is to see them challenged openly and honestly by people who know what they are talking about.

PZ Myers and his fan club are a collection of people used to - and very good at - arguing with creationists and so they see themselves as hard-core skeptics. I would be there with them too on 99% of issues but, bizarrely, as PZ has come down so heavily (in my view through ignorance) against these ideas I had to go there to oppose him.

I feel it is a duty to put ones ideas up against the most hostile and knowledgable people one can think of to see if there are any gaping holes in them.

At the end of the day, if someone had come up with a really good argument against my modest waterside ideas I'd drop them straight away. The closest they came was Amphiox citing the Myoglobin paper. It's a brilliant piece of work which should cause those people who argue for a lot of diving in human ancestry to really think again, in my view. The manattee/dugong outlier is a let off but the point about their "slow metabolism" cannot be dismissed easily if one is postulating a lot of diving for Homo erectus. My view is that humans did only a little diving, so there is no need to postulate any reason for our myoglobin to have evolved along the same lines as other more aquatic mammals, but the result of the paper was still rather surprising. I'd expect humans to be closer to aquatics than chimps, but it's the opposite. The paper mentioned that it is possible that there might be a reversal in the trend at first, before real selection for diving kicked in but I don't think any of us can pretend this is not a damaging paper to waterside ideas. If the results had shown manatees and dugongs as also very different from humans, I think I'd be seriously thinking about dropping the whole idea now.

Apart from that, fortuitous for them, paper that just happenned to be published during the discussions, I don't think the aquaskeptic lobby came away looking good from an informed, neutral point of view. Out of about 2,000 posts, mosts showed denial of what I consider the most blatant evidence imaginable - we do swim and dive better than chimps. Many were bent on simply distorting the ideas - again and again, despite repeated corrections. And in the end the refuge of their group think sneering was to sneer and to throw hostile names as us.

I see that part of it as a victory. Even if 100 PZ fans had turned up to deny the evidence, twist the arguments and throw slurs to discredit, it wouldn't make their argument one bit stronger. Unfortunately for us, the Myoglobin paper did that and I for one have to admit that this damages the "diving made us human" idea quite severely.

If any diving proponents read this and can think of something I've missed I'd be pleased to read it.

Algis
Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Postby CEngelbrecht » Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:56 pm

Could you perhaps abstract for me, what the gist of these Myoglobin observations are? What do they indicate in terms of diving ability from sirenians to apes? And what are the levels of key ape and key aquatic mammal taxa?
I have to say, I got lost in the 2,000 PZ posts and the usual heckling an' stuff, also I don't have access to full academic papers most times.

If Myoglobin should somehow show that chimps are potentially better divers than humans, I find that very hard to couple with the factual observations of inherent human diving ability. Just last week a Croatian gentleman pushed the world record in dynamic apnea to 281 meters in an Olympic pool.
User avatar
CEngelbrecht
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:10 pm
Location: Scania, Sweden

Re: PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:46 pm

CEngelbrecht wrote:Could you perhaps abstract for me, what the gist of these Myoglobin observations are? What do they indicate in terms of diving ability from sirenians to apes? And what are the levels of key ape and key aquatic mammal taxa?
I have to say, I got lost in the 2,000 PZ posts and the usual heckling an' stuff, also I don't have access to full academic papers most times.

If Myoglobin should somehow show that chimps are potentially better divers than humans, I find that very hard to couple with the factual observations of inherent human diving ability. Just last week a Croatian gentleman pushed the world record in dynamic apnea to 281 meters in an Olympic pool.


I've started a thread specifically on the Mirceta et al paper here.
I can send you the paper if you like.

Yes, it's hard to couple with the behavioural evidence,absolutely. But it's not good for the "humans are adapted to diving" argument.

Algis
Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: PZ Myers' Ignorant Blog

Postby CEngelbrecht » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:44 am

I would very much like to read that paper, yes, if you have my mail address.
User avatar
CEngelbrecht
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:10 pm
Location: Scania, Sweden


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest

cron