Comments on: Waterboarding, Self-Experimentation, and Human Evolution http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/ Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc. Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:45:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Marc Verhaegen http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-102725 Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:44:27 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-102725 Hi all. Nice to see AAT discussed. For recent views please see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm or google "aquarboreal" Hi all. Nice to see AAT discussed. For recent views please see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm or google “aquarboreal”

]]> by: Skeptic http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-94691 Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:39:36 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-94691 I have read Scylla's description, and there is nothing in it that convinces me that the effect of waterboarding is not simply a general reaction to the impairment of proper respiratory function. In a system as essential to life as breathing, natural selection will "build" powerful fail-safe mechanisms. No paleoanthropologist would argue that early human ancestors were not exposed to water -- they probably had to make the same dangerous trip to the water hole that many African mammals do today. But the reaction Scylla describes is probably even more ancient -- likely dating to the first terrestrial vertebrates, as implied in JoeCitizen's post. I have read Scylla’s description, and there is nothing in it that convinces me that the effect of waterboarding is not simply a general reaction to the impairment of proper respiratory function. In a system as essential to life as breathing, natural selection will “build” powerful fail-safe mechanisms. No paleoanthropologist would argue that early human ancestors were not exposed to water — they probably had to make the same dangerous trip to the water hole that many African mammals do today. But the reaction Scylla describes is probably even more ancient — likely dating to the first terrestrial vertebrates, as implied in JoeCitizen’s post.

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-94555 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:29:19 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-94555 "The fear brought on by waterboarding can be simply explained as a reaction to not being able to breathe." No it can't. Waterboarding is considerably more complicated than preventing breathing. As Scylla demonstrates, the details are necessary to produce the effect. “The fear brought on by waterboarding can be simply explained as a reaction to not being able to breathe.” No it can’t. Waterboarding is considerably more complicated than preventing breathing. As Scylla demonstrates, the details are necessary to produce the effect.

]]> by: Skeptic http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-94386 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:40:54 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-94386 JoeCitizen already mentioned this, but the fear brought on by waterboarding can simply be explained as a reaction to not being able to breathe. The fear can't be specifically connected to drowning because drowning falls under the umbrella of "things that inhibit proper respiration." Given that respiration is essential to all terrestrial vertebrates (to mention only one group), it should come as no surprise that natural selection has produced mechanisms that ensure its proper function. Plug your nose and put duct tape over your mouth and a similar reaction will most likely ensue. Supporters of the AAH must demonstrate that ONLY drowning prompts the response in question. Otherwise, the explanation is ad hoc. Ad hoc explanations make for poor science. Only those who already believe will be convinced. JoeCitizen already mentioned this, but the fear brought on by waterboarding can simply be explained as a reaction to not being able to breathe. The fear can’t be specifically connected to drowning because drowning falls under the umbrella of “things that inhibit proper respiration.” Given that respiration is essential to all terrestrial vertebrates (to mention only one group), it should come as no surprise that natural selection has produced mechanisms that ensure its proper function. Plug your nose and put duct tape over your mouth and a similar reaction will most likely ensue. Supporters of the AAH must demonstrate that ONLY drowning prompts the response in question. Otherwise, the explanation is ad hoc. Ad hoc explanations make for poor science. Only those who already believe will be convinced.

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-94322 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:03:05 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-94322 I wouldn't say the description of waterboarding given above implies a response that is "the opposite" of an anti-drowning response. At the risk of stating the obvious, it shows that we get terrified when we get anywhere close to drowning. Perhaps it is this response -- which kicks in long before there is any possibility of drowning -- that lets us have a different response when we run out of air. The terror response has replaced the response you refer to. I wouldn’t say the description of waterboarding given above implies a response that is “the opposite” of an anti-drowning response. At the risk of stating the obvious, it shows that we get terrified when we get anywhere close to drowning. Perhaps it is this response — which kicks in long before there is any possibility of drowning — that lets us have a different response when we run out of air. The terror response has replaced the response you refer to.

]]> by: QrazyQat http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-94270 Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:37:36 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-94270 As I mentioned already, what you see (and expect to see due to evolution) in an aquatic or semi-aquatic animal (or one with such a past) is a response that helps keep one from drowning. We have the opposite, just like other terrestrially-evolved animals and unlike semi-aquatic-evolved animals; especially because we have an automatic urge to inhale when we run out of oxygen even if we're underwater. As I mentioned already, what you see (and expect to see due to evolution) in an aquatic or semi-aquatic animal (or one with such a past) is a response that helps keep one from drowning. We have the opposite, just like other terrestrially-evolved animals and unlike semi-aquatic-evolved animals; especially because we have an automatic urge to inhale when we run out of oxygen even if we’re underwater.

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-93558 Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:06:03 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-93558 Why do I think the AA hypothesis better explains an anti-drowning response than other hypotheses? Because it implies there was more danger of drowning -- thus more selection pressure for an anti-drowning response -- than other hypotheses. Why do I think the AA hypothesis better explains an anti-drowning response than other hypotheses? Because it implies there was more danger of drowning — thus more selection pressure for an anti-drowning response — than other hypotheses.

]]> by: Skeptic http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-93556 Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:59:05 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-93556 Erratum: In my previous post, "disputable" should be "indisputable." Erratum: In my previous post, “disputable” should be “indisputable.”

]]> by: Skeptic http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-93553 Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:54:57 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-93553 SETH SAID: "If I remember correctly the fossil record was in the beginning not on the side of conclusions drawn from mitochondrial DNA analysis about when humans diverged from other primates. But eventually it was conceded that the DNA was right and the fossils wrong." Actually, the argument you are referring to was not about mtDNA. Check out this link for a quick summary of Sarich and Wilson's classic study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Sarich In any event, the reluctance of paleoanthropologists to accept the molecular evidence was due in part to the fact that many assumed a priori that the divergence between humans and apes must have been very, very deep, given the marked differences between these two groups. It wasn't based on any fossil evidence in particular. The assumption of a deep split led paleoanthropologists to "search" for human ancestors in the earliest fossil record of apes (e.g., Proconsul, Kenyapithecus), way back in the early and middle Miocene. The molecular evidence was only accepted after paleoanthropologists demonstrated that fossil species believed to be human ancestors were in fact fossil apes (google "Ramapithecus"), and that the human lineage could not be traced back into the middle and early Miocene. Long story short -- your comparison between this issue and the aquatic-ape hypothesis is a non sequitur; as soon as paleoanthropologists realized that the fossil evidence could not sustain the deep-split hypothesis, it was abandoned. If there was an aquatic phase in human evolution, there is absolutely zero evidence for it in the current fossil record, which is of course incomplete, but it is also the most studied fossil record of any organism that ever walked, crawled, swam, flew, floated, or just sat on earth. If someone could point to a single disputable piece of fossil evidence that supports the AAH, then they would have by now. The article is in the email. Please let me know if you don't receive it. SETH SAID: “If I remember correctly the fossil record was in the beginning not on the side of conclusions drawn from mitochondrial DNA analysis about when humans diverged from other primates. But eventually it was conceded that the DNA was right and the fossils wrong.”

Actually, the argument you are referring to was not about mtDNA. Check out this link for a quick summary of Sarich and Wilson’s classic study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Sarich

In any event, the reluctance of paleoanthropologists to accept the molecular evidence was due in part to the fact that many assumed a priori that the divergence between humans and apes must have been very, very deep, given the marked differences between these two groups. It wasn’t based on any fossil evidence in particular. The assumption of a deep split led paleoanthropologists to “search” for human ancestors in the earliest fossil record of apes (e.g., Proconsul, Kenyapithecus), way back in the early and middle Miocene. The molecular evidence was only accepted after paleoanthropologists demonstrated that fossil species believed to be human ancestors were in fact fossil apes (google “Ramapithecus”), and that the human lineage could not be traced back into the middle and early Miocene.

Long story short — your comparison between this issue and the aquatic-ape hypothesis is a non sequitur; as soon as paleoanthropologists realized that the fossil evidence could not sustain the deep-split hypothesis, it was abandoned. If there was an aquatic phase in human evolution, there is absolutely zero evidence for it in the current fossil record, which is of course incomplete, but it is also the most studied fossil record of any organism that ever walked, crawled, swam, flew, floated, or just sat on earth. If someone could point to a single disputable piece of fossil evidence that supports the AAH, then they would have by now.

The article is in the email. Please let me know if you don’t receive it.

]]> by: JoeCItizen http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-93450 Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:30:12 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/12/22/waterboarding-self-experimentation-and-human-evolution/#comment-93450 Seth, "I said this observation favored one hypothesis over another because one hypothesis explains it much more easily than the other. " Gee, I must of missed that. I see an assertion on your part, but thats all. WHY do you think the AA hypothesis better explains the drowning response? You offer no reason for your assertion. Why would a close proximity to water make an air-breathing vertebrate more averse to drowning than an arid-habitat-living species? Both of them share the same physiological fact - taking water into the lungs will kill them. And as to the phyogenetic argument. Do you think that all air-breathing vertebrates that havent had a semi-aquatic phase in the history of their individual species would simply drown peacefully if you put water into their lungs? I don't think the AA hypothesis offers any insight whatsoever into the drowning response. If you catch a fish and toss it into your boat, it will have a similar response to someone who is being waterboarded - does this support the terrestrial fish evolutionary hypothesis? I checked out your link in your response to Whispers. Wow. A defense of just-so stories! Have you just given up on doing the hard work of science - i.e. actually committing to testing hypotheses before you grant them credibility? Coming up with hypotheses is fun, and easy. Sure its better than doing nothing, but once you do it, all you have is an unsupported hypothesis. Its only value is that it lays out for you the next phase, the hard work - i.e. it gives you something to test. It deserves no credibility whatsoever until that is done. Thats why they are mocked and deried when they show up in scientific literature - its not that they shouldn't exist on the face of the earth, its just that no rational person should grant them credibility until they are tested. Seth,

“I said this observation favored one hypothesis over another because one hypothesis explains it much more easily than the other. ”

Gee, I must of missed that. I see an assertion on your part, but thats all.
WHY do you think the AA hypothesis better explains the drowning response?

You offer no reason for your assertion. Why would a close proximity to water make an air-breathing vertebrate more averse to drowning than an arid-habitat-living species? Both of them share the same physiological fact - taking water into the lungs will kill them.

And as to the phyogenetic argument. Do you think that all air-breathing vertebrates that havent had a semi-aquatic phase in the history of their individual species would simply drown peacefully if you put water into their lungs?

I don’t think the AA hypothesis offers any insight whatsoever into the drowning response.

If you catch a fish and toss it into your boat, it will have a similar response to someone who is being waterboarded - does this support the terrestrial fish evolutionary hypothesis?

I checked out your link in your response to Whispers. Wow. A defense of just-so stories! Have you just given up on doing the hard work of science - i.e. actually committing to testing hypotheses before you grant them credibility?
Coming up with hypotheses is fun, and easy. Sure its better than doing nothing, but once you do it, all you have is an unsupported hypothesis. Its only value is that it lays out for you the next phase, the hard work - i.e. it gives you something to test. It deserves no credibility whatsoever until that is done. Thats why they are mocked and deried when they show up in scientific literature - its not that they shouldn’t exist on the face of the earth, its just that no rational person should grant them credibility until they are tested.

]]>