He dinnit see it

Comments

20 responses to “He dinnit see it”

1. 

   Feb 8, 2026 7:41 PM

   iknklast

   Pedantic note: This thing about “depicting” people as apes – news flash: we are apes. Chimps and gorillas are our closest relatives. We’re all Hominidae.

   Thanks for saying this…you saved me the trouble! ;-)

   I always get annoyed when I hear people go on about ‘humans and animals’, as if we are somehow not animals. Oh, I know, it’s a trope, and I know what they mean, but it’s careless, and it sets us apart from the world as some sort of ‘other’ being…usually meaning ‘higher’ being.

   Yeah, we’re apes. But we’re not chimps, and that was a damn racist picture. And I don’t believe for a minute Trump didn’t see it, and I don’t believe he didn’t love it. It’s just the sort of thing he gets insanely happy about.
2. 

   Feb 9, 2026 8:23 AM

   Omar

   Pedantic note: This thing about “depicting” people as apes – news flash: we are apes. Chimps and gorillas are our closest relatives. We’re all Hominidae.

   I would go one step further on this, and say that we are aquatic apes, as proposed originally by Sir Alister Hardy, and popularised by Elaine Morgan. But I digress.

   This could well be the start of Trump’s very own Watergate, the issue which terminated the political career of Presidet ‘Tricky Dick’ Nixon. Nothing could be better devised to raise the ire of black Americans, and to turn them against the quack responsible. I would expect it to follow Trump from now on, and wherever he goes, in the manner of the crocodile which followed Captain Hook in The Story of Peter Pan and Wendy, by J.M. Barrie.
3. 

   Feb 9, 2026 10:19 AM

   iknklast

   I would go one step further on this, and say that we are aquatic apes, as proposed originally by Sir Alister Hardy, and popularised by Elaine Morgan. But I digress.

   That hypothesis is not accepted by science; it does not fit the evidence.
4. 

   Feb 9, 2026 1:43 PM

   Omar

   iknklast @ #3: With the greatest of respect, I maintain that it does “fit the evidence,” and better than the traditional and prevailing ‘savannah theory.’ But I do not wish to move off-topic. (Or should that be ‘off-Trump?’)

   Provided that our hostess Ophelia Benson approves, you can contact me privately via https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/contact/, and as a fellow teacher of biology, now retired, I will explain why; by private email, or on some public site or forum if you would prefer.
5. 

   Feb 10, 2026 8:33 AM

   Karen the Chemist

   Re the aquatic ape notion:

   http://www.aquaticape.org
6. 

   Feb 10, 2026 11:10 AM

   Omar

   Karen: Thanks for the link. As you probably know well, scientists confronted with any new theory or contention commonly down through history have responded the same way that the clerics of Mediaeval Catholicism responded to the ‘heresy’ of the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System. Vide also Lavoisier, re his theory of combustion.

   The theory which best fits and explains the known empirical data best is the one which eventually prevails; usually because proponents of older views pass on, and younger minds duly take their place. Such, I maintain, has been the story of science. And I found nothing at http://www.aquaticape.org to cause me to change my mind re AAT.
7. 

   Feb 11, 2026 7:41 AM

   Karen the Chemist

   @ #6

   As you probably know well, scientists confronted with any new theory or contention commonly down through history have responded the same way that the clerics of Mediaeval Catholicism responded to the ‘heresy’ of the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System.

   Not always. I remember the response to Pons and Fleishman’s announcement about cold fusion. I was in graduate school at the time. Plenty of scepticism, yes, but also plenty of excitement. Like kids with a new toy. A not uncommon view was that there was not likely to be something there (it was preliminary data), but it would be really cool (and useful) if there was. There was a rush to replicate the results and study it. My thesis advisor used it as an excuse to tell polywater stories.* :-)

   It doesn’t always take the old guard dying/retiring before a new idea is accepted, and for it to be productive. New ideas can make people’s careers. Eg: Click chemistry, CRISPR. Again, new toys to play with. That’s not to say theories and ideas don’t get modified over time based on data acquired while studying them and working out their details.

   Also, many more theories and hypotheses turn out to be wrong than turn out to be right. There are way more ways to be wrong than to be right.

   *Polywater was debunked when someone ran it through a mass spectrometer and found that it was not pure water.
8. 

   Feb 11, 2026 9:59 AM

   Jim Baerg

   When people were trying to replicate cold fusion, I heard someone comment.

   ‘They’ve tried it with heavy water and with light water. Have they tried it with polywater?”
9. 

   Feb 11, 2026 12:01 PM

   iknklast

   Karen, thanks for providing that link; it was the same one I was going to provide. And I would like to reiterate, though scientists do sometimes (not always) resist new ideas that go against “conventional wisdom” that we already established by evidence, more often than not they are right to resist it.

   A lot of people love arguments that go against standard science; they love thinking that these really smart men* are wrong. A lot of times the proposed idea sounds better than the one they have heard before, and they rush to accept it. I read Elaine Morgan; she’s a good writer, and lays her ideas out in lucid, interesting prose. I almost accepted her hypothesis, but I checked the scientific literature. It’s easy to be converted by someone who is passionate and lucid, but in the end, I gave up the idea of aquatic apes. (That’s when I decided to become a trans-otter ;-).

   *I say men on purpose, because no matter how many women do cutting edge science, most people still think of scientists as men. Men in lab coats. Men with glasses. Men who are white.
10. 

    Feb 12, 2026 4:34 AM

    Omar

    Karen:

    As you probably know well, scientists confronted with any new theory or contention commonly down through history have responded the same way that the clerics of Mediaeval Catholicism responded to the ‘heresy’ of the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System.

    I did say “commonly,” and I agree with you when you say: “Not always.”

    However, I put it to you that the theory which convinces the most other scientifically-inclined people is the one which wins out in the end; and again, I cite heliocentrism vs geocentrism as a prime example. But ‘savannah theory’ cannot explain the high intermembral index featured by us hominids:

    From AI, and a google search for intermembral indices for humans and great apes:

    The intermembral index (IMI)—the ratio of arm length to leg length distinguishes human obligate bipedalism from ape suspensory or quadrupedal locomotion. Humans have a low index (approx. 68–72), indicating longer legs, while great apes have higher indices (>100), reflecting longer arms for climbing and swinging.

    Intermembral Indices

    Homo sapiens (Humans): ~68–72 (adapted for efficient, long-distance bipedal walking)

    Pan paniscus (Bonobo): ~102 (knuckle-walking/arboreal)

    Pan troglodytes (Chimpanzee): ~106 (knuckle-walking/arboreal)

    Gorilla gorilla (Gorilla): ~116 (terrestrial knuckle-walking)

    Pongo (Orangutan): Very high (specialized brachiator/arboreal)

    Interpretation of Values

    IMI 100: Indicates longer forelimbs (brachiation, knuckle-walking, or climbing).

    The transition from a high index in early hominin ancestors to a low index in modern humans represents a significant shift in locomotor adaptation.

    Our low IMI puts us at a disadvantage when climbing trees to escape any of the numerous species of large carnivores found on the African savannah. We are no match for them in tree-climbing or at running. But we are excellent rock-climbers and mountaineers, as they go. Also, (bipedal) kangaroos have long been known here in Australia for dealing with predators (eg, dingoes, wild dogs) in pursuit of them by heading for water, turning, and facing their pursuers, and holding their heads under until they drown.

    Kangaroos have a documented, highly effective, and sometimes deadly, defensive strategy against predators—particularly dingoes and dogs—that involves retreating into deep water. While they are typically peaceful herbivores, they can use their immense strength, long tails, and powerful legs to stand in chest-deep water, and if pursued, they will grab the dog and hold its head under the surface until it drowns.

    Key Aspects of This Defensive Behaviour:

    The “Trap” Strategy: When chased, kangaroos often flee toward the nearest large body of water, such as a river, dam, or the ocean. This is a survival instinct that allows them to escape, but it turns into a tactical trap if the predator follows them in.

    Physical Advantages: In water, kangaroos have the advantage of being able to stand on their strong, long hind legs while the pursuing dog must swim. This restriction in mobility makes it easier for the kangaroo to grab the dog with its forelimbs and push its head underwater.

    Documented Incidents: While some consider it a myth, wildlife experts confirm this behavior happens, often as a last resort. There are many recorded instances of kangaroos killing dingoes and domestic hunting dogs (such as bull terriers or staffies) in this manner.

    Defensive vs. Offensive: Researchers suggest that while kangaroos do not consciously “lure” predators in with malice, they are highly intelligent and will absolutely turn and fight if forced into a corner. It is a defensive reaction to being pursued, not typically a planned attack.

    Warning to Pet Owners: Wildlife experts advise keeping dogs away from kangaroos, particularly near water, as a large male kangaroo can easily injure or kill a dog that chases it.

    Although rare, this behavior is a striking example of how kangaroos can turn a desperate flight for survival into a “battle” where they gain the upper hand.

    BUT AS WELL, and this I regard as the clincher: All savannah-dwelling mammals EXCEPT us humans, have excellent night vision. (This causes their eyes to shine like those of a cat when lit up by an electric torch or something similar, due to the highly reflective tapetum lucidum at the back of the eye.) We hominids appear to have traded night vision for enhanced colour vision; a great aid in searching for ripe fruits amongst green foliage, but necessitating having a secure place for our ancestors to retreat to at night which predators with excellent night vision would find difficult or impossible to reach. I suggest that rocky islands reached only by long-legged swimmers are just such places, and certainly not open plains or trees.

    Again, courtesy of AI:

    Great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and humans) have poor night vision, similar to that of humans, because they are diurnal (active during the day) and lack a tapetum lucidum, a reflective layer in the eye that aids low-light vision in many animals. They rely on daytime vision, specifically trichromatic color vision, to find food and navigate.

    Key Facts on Night Vision in Great Apes:

    No Tapetum Lucidum: Unlike many nocturnal animals, apes lack this reflective tissue behind the retina, which would otherwise enhance vision in low light.

    Diurnal Lifestyle: As they are adapted for daytime activity, their eyes are not designed for seeing in the dark.

    Nocturnal Vulnerability: Because of their poor night vision, apes are generally inactive at night, preferring to rest in built, elevated nests to avoid predators like leopards.

    Comparison to Other Primates: While great apes cannot see well at night, some other primates, such as lemurs, lorises, and tarsiers, have evolved specific adaptations—including the tapetum lucidum or enlarged eyes—for superior nocturnal vision.

    In contrast, nocturnal monkeys like the owl monkey have specialized, large, rod-rich retinas for navigating and foraging in the dark.

    Finally, we alone among the great apes, can swim, and delight in doing so. (See https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/23702729#:~:text=Great%20apes%20are%20not%20known,water%20moats%20to%20confine%20them.)

    Karen the Chemist: I rest my case.
11. 

    Feb 12, 2026 4:42 AM

    Ophelia Benson

    Omar, dammit, knock it off. This post was not an invitation to you to write an essay about your crank theory. Have some manners for a change.
12. 

    Feb 12, 2026 8:19 AM

    Bjarte Foshaug

    As I have previously said on the subject of climate change, I never quite cease to be amazed by how easy people seem to think it is to refute a strong scientific consensus, or even just to think of something that the whole community of scientists with relevant expertise have failed to consider (“The climate has changed in the past, you say? Gee, never thought of that!”).

    The proper way to challenge the scientific consensus is not to tell lay-people on a blog your pet-theory, but to do the relevant research, present your findings in a scientific article, submit it to a recognized peer-reviewed journal, do whatever revisions are required to get it published, and engage with the scientific community until the main questions have been answered, the most serious objections have been overcome, and the old theory leaves more to be explained away than the new one. And remember, the strength of a theory is measured by its ability to predict the result of observations that haven’t been made yet, not by the ease with which the established facts can be pieced together into a compelling story in retrospect.
13. 

    Feb 12, 2026 8:29 AM

    Bjarte Foshaug

    (Sorry,Ophelia, if my comment is further derailing. If so, feel free to delete.)
14. 

    Feb 12, 2026 8:37 AM

    Ophelia Benson

    Your comment is excellent.
15. 

    Feb 12, 2026 12:57 PM

    Omar

    OB: This whole discussion arose out of an observation made by you in the threadstarter:

    Pedantic note: This thing about “depicting” people as apes – news flash: we are apes. Chimps and gorillas are our closest relatives. We’re all Hominidae.

    It then proceeded through the various comments to your injunction to me: “Omar, dammit, knock it off. This post was not an invitation to you to write an essay about your crank theory. Have some manners for a change.”

    I put it to you that if I advised any other participant in the discussions of ‘all the things’ on this site to “have some manners for a change,” you would be down on me like a ton of bricks, and rightly so. I have always, since I first started participating here shortly after you began it back in 2002, and as a financial donor via Patreon, treated other participants with respect, and have never been abusive to anyone. If you think I am wrong on that, please show me where.

    Otherwise, I’m out of here.
16. 

    Feb 12, 2026 4:10 PM

    Ophelia Benson

    Omar:

    1. No this discussion did not “arise” from what I said in the post. (They’re not “threadstarters”; they’re posts.) You interjected it. It was a diversion, aka off topic.

    2. No it did not then “proceed” through the various comments to my telling you to knock it off. You diverted the comments to the off-topic subject of “aquatic apes” and you kept pushing the subject despite the fact that no one else is interested in it.

    3. Maybe I would be annoyed if one commenter told another to have some manners for a change, but maybe I wouldn’t. It would depend on what the commenter in question had said.

    4. But in any case the situation is not parallel, because I’m the one who monitors the comments on this particular blog, so if someone is displaying a flagrant lack of manners, it may be my job to say so.

    5. I didn’t say you were abusive. I don’t entirely agree that it’s treating other commenters with respect for you to keep harping on a crankish theory when it is very clear that no one else is interested.

    6. Your comment @ 10 is very long and very off-topic and yes I do think it’s rude to dump it on us.

    7. However I did think I had already asked you to stop, but on re-reading the comments I see that I hadn’t, so I’ll agree that that was too harsh.

    8. But you did say (comment 4) “But I do not wish to move off-topic.” You should have stuck with that! Or, maybe, stuck with a back and forth of reasonable length and value. Your comment @ 10 was just rudely over the top. It annoyed me. I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, but you do push the off-topic envelope sometimes.
17. 

    Feb 13, 2026 7:23 AM

    Karen the Chemist

    @ #8:

    teehee

    @ #10:

    However, I put it to you that the theory which convinces the most other scientifically-inclined people is the one which wins out in the end; and again, I cite heliocentrism vs geocentrism as a prime example.

    It’s the data and evidence for a theory that convinces scientists that a theory has merit.

    @ #9 and #12:

    good points
18. 

    Feb 13, 2026 5:04 PM

    Omar

    OB: The laptop on which I cruise the Internet sits on my desk here in my study, whose walls are adorned with a lifetime’s collection of books (in bookcases I made myself after doing a course in fine woodworking.) I only need turn around, and there is my copy of Why Truth Matters, by you and Jeremy Stangroom, published by Continuum in 2006. I regard it as excellent, and confess that I am right now fascinated by the marginal notes I made in it during my read through it straight after buying it.

    It deals in part with the then ‘fashionable nonsense’ (your own term, as I recall) for postmodernism; before the Sokal hoax pretty-well pulled the chain on PoMo in the proven-fallible realm of academe.

    On pp. 92-93 we find a passage on Stephen J. Gould’s response to William Jennings Bryan’s position on Darwinism, which he feared would promote the social effects of a rise in selfishness, militarism and moral decay, and he believed that accordingly, it should not be taught to the youth…” and that “… many of these insidious and harmful misinterpretations had been promoted by scientists.”

    Science is included within the wider field of philosophy, which in turn covers all of human knowledge. Its practitioners have no alternative but to search for the truth, and to go wherever that search demands and leads. (Ironically, the followers of the various religions and their prophets are engaged in a similar quest, though on a less-than-empirical basis.)

    These days, we have space travel, AI and all the rest of it. To have that, and at the same time to be wrong about our own origin as a species, could have consequences; though what they might be I cannot say. But I was once religious, and of the non-evangelical persuasion. In my late teens abandoned that for empiricism, where I have remained ever since, no matter where and in what “crankish” direction, as perceived by others, it leads me. Because truth matters.
19. 

    Feb 13, 2026 6:03 PM

    Ophelia Benson

    Well, that’s a nice heart-warming comment, with a touch of nostalgia.

    The Sokal hoax was well before Why Truth Matters – he was one of our inspirations in fact.

    William Jennings Bryan – fun fact – he was a dinner guest at my maternal grandparents’ house in small-town Iowa. They couldn’t stand him. (My grandmother was Secretary of [Iowa] State and my grandfather was the editor of the local paper and a Chatauqua lecturer. I never knew them; wish I could have.)

    I do find it interesting that humans swim and other apes don’t, I just didn’t (and still don’t) think the subject needed exploring on this thread. Always keep in mind Miscellany Room, where anything and everything belongs.

    I’m glad you’re not leaving.
20. 

    Feb 14, 2026 9:15 AM

    Omar

    OB: Glad likewise, and to oblige.