Rhinos, Pigs, and selective evidence

There are four genera of rhinoceros, with five species: in Africa there are the black rhino and the white rhino -- neither is either black or white, by the way, the white rhino got it's name from an Afrikaans word: weit ("wide"), referring to its mouth, and the black rhino either got it's name from the dark soil it usually rolls in, or because it's slightly darker than the white rhino. In Asia there are the Indian, Javan, and Sumatran rhinos.

Rhinos enter into the AAT/H because some AAT/H proponents attempt to use them as examples of hairlessness due to an aquatic adaptation. What, you didn't know rhinos were aquatic? Well, that's because they're not, but a little problem like that isn't enough to stop a dedicated paradigm shifter. Some AAT/H proponents use wallowing in mud or water puddles as examples of aquaticness, for instance, and say that this degree of aquaticness is enough to account for these animals' lack of hair. (They say this about wild pigs too, despite the fact that most wild pigs also have plenty of hair.) The funny thing is that the different species of rhinos actually do show differing acclimation to water, and one species is actually a very good swimmer which spends a lot of time in swamps. To top it off, this species of rhino, the Sumatran rhino, also varies dramatically from the other rhinos in its degree of hairlessness. How so? I'll give you a hint: it's also commonly called the Hairy Rhinoceros.

That's right, rhinos are a clear refutation of the AAT/H notion that related species which differ in degree of acclimation to water will differ in hairlessness, with the more water-acclimated species being more hairless. What's more, the Sumatran rhino has more hair on its lower body, the part that's in the water more, which is the opposite of what AAT/H proponents say should happen when they look at humans.

Wild pigs often come in for the "they're aquatic cause they wallow" treatment from AAT/H proponents, which they consider important because AAT/H proponents often claim wild pigs are mostly hairless (they aren't). There are two types of wild pig which swim more readily than other types: African Bush Pig, or Red River Hog, an excellent swimmer (and extremely hairy), and the Babirusa, an excellent swimmer (and sparsely haired). Aquatic ape proponents often mention the sparely haired Babirusa and its propensity for swimming yet never seem to mention the extremely hairy African Bush Pig and its similar propensity for swimming. For that matter, they only bother mentioning one subspecies of babirusa, the one most commonly found in zoos, Babyrousa babyrussa celebensis. Why not mention Babyrousa babyrussa babyrussa as well? Like the Sumatran rhino, perhaps one of the common names of Babyrousa babyrussa babyrussa gives us a clue: the Hairy babirusa (it's also sometimes called the Golden babirusa). Yes, subspecies of babirusas vary in amount of body hair but not in habitat or habits -- just like subspecies of mole rats -- yet AAT/H proponents ignore those which don't support their idea. Using only one as an example, as AAT/H proponents do, is an example of their selective use of evidence, using only evidence which supports them and ignoring equally valid contradictory evidence.