Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
Andrew Nowicki
A tool using hominid did not have to be bipedal.
A bipedal savanna hunter was a very slow moving hunter.
Deep water aquatic environment was not conducive to
bipedalism.
Hauling heavy loads, e.g., building secure shelters
from tree branches can not be the cause of bipedalism.
The explanation of this fact is rather complex:
The hominids could haul heavy loads only if they were
hairless and could sweat to cool themselves while they
were hauling the heavy loads. The hairless hominids had
to sleep far away from places where mosquitos swarmed
at night, so they had to sleep in dry, treeless places.
While they were sleeping in dry, treeless place, their
only conceivable protection from predators was the secure
shelter. The bipedal babies were especially vulnerable
at night to quick attacks by leopards. (There is evidence
that leopards preyed on the apiths.) Only bipedal hominids
could haul the tree branches form a gallery forest or a
savanna to the dry, mosquito-free place where the secure
shelter was built. This means that the hominids had to
be bipedal before they were hairless. It is highly
probable that the bipedal hominids carried heavy sticks
all the time and used them as universal tools:
walking sticks, digging sticks, levers to pry stones
(to catch worms hiding under the stones), maces, and
spears. It was only natural for the bipedal hominids to
carry two sticks instead of one when they walked
to a place where they slept at night. Secure shelters
did not exist yet, so the best sleeping place was a
dry, treeless mosquito-free place, not far from the main
food source (gallery forest). Having two sticks at night
made them more secure than having just one stick. If they
always slept at the same place, it was good idea to
leave the extra stick there before they walked back to
the gallery forest next morning. The more sticks they
left at the sleeping place, the more secure they felt
at night. Eventually they had so many sticks at the
sleeping place that this pile of sticks was an impediment
to predators. The next step was to make secure shelter
from the sticks. Making the shelters and digging edible
tubers with digging sticks was hard work that was
made possible by gradually progressing hairlessness
and sweating.
A quadrupedal monkey could also make a pile of sticks
at the sleeping place, but it could carry only one small
stick in its jaws. A bipedal hominid could haul much
bigger sticks and branches in its hands, so it was much
better maker of the secure shelters.
This scenario explains the origins of hairlessness and
sweating but it does not explain the origins of bipedalism.
___________________________________________________________
Wading is the only plausible reason for the origins of
bipedalism. Bipedal hominid wading in clear water could
see and catch enough shellfish to feed itself and it
could see the crocodiles, so it was safe in this aquatic
environment. It is not surprising that we, the descendants
of the wading hominids like to frolic in clear water,
but unlike pigs, we do not wallow in mud.
The presence of wetlands in the vicinity of wading hominids
is not accidental. Although wetlands provided some food,
they were much more important to the wading hominids for
another reason: wetlands are natural filters that transform
dirty or muddy water into clear water. Rivers flowing
through wetlands are clear. Streams coming out of wetlands
are crystal clear. (I know a lot about wetlands because I
have seen lots of them and I co-designed a natural wetland
filter that purifies Hibbing Taconite tailings leachate
in Minnesota, not far from the Boundary Waters.)
The wading, bipedal hominid could see a little more from
his high vantage point than a competing quadrupedal monkey,
but it could not run well on land, so it seems that
bipedalism was not very advantageous. I am not sure who
would win a fight between bipedal hominids and chimps --
my best guess is a draw.
There is only one significant advantage of bipedal wading:
it greatly reduces heat loss. Loosing heat that is not
waste heat is very expensive in terms of additional food
that has to be eaten to compensate for the heat loss.
Ardipithecus ramidus looks to me like the wading hominid.
It lived in heavily forested flood plain and had small,
hominid-like canines. Its small canines suggest that
it could avoid predators, probably by swimming.
Australopithecus anamensis looks to me like a more
terrestrial hominid. It seems that it used its large
canines for defense while it was experimenting with sticks.
Australopithecus afarensis looks to me like the first
hairless, sweating hominid that could defend itself with
sticks and made the secure shelters. I believe that
Australopithecus anamensis was the first creative tool
user.
___________________________________________________________
The rest of this post provides details about the heat
loss of warm blooded, aquatic animals, mostly dolphins.
EXCERPTS
"A more recent theory for human hair loss has to do with a
possible period of bipedal wading in a salt marsh in the
Danakil region of Ethiopia, possibly occurring in the hominid
lineage between 5 and 7 million years ago. As a wading animal,
it was more efficient to develop short body hair and a layer
of subcutaneous fat for streamlining and insulation in the
aquatic environment..."
(source: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Hair)
"Ironically, although oil and water don't mix, crude oil does
mix with the skin oils painstakingly groomed into the fur of
sea mammals and the feathers of sea birds, where the natural
skin oil waterproofs the keratinaceous outgrowths and allows
them to trap air, which acts as an insulator. Crude oil,
however, mixes with the skin oils and mats the hair (feathers)
down flat, eliminating the air space and the insulation."
(source: http://www.marietta.edu/~mcshaffd/aquatic/sextant/physics.htm)
"ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM OIL...
Fur Seals. These seals rely on dense fur as the primary
means of insulation and thermoregulation. Fouling of
one-third of the body surface resulted in a 50 percent
increase in heat loss in fur seals (Kooyman et al., 1976).
Thus, they are susceptible to death by hypothermia and
stress."
(source: http://www.darp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/IAD_AP-D.PDF)
Kooyman, G.L., R.W. Davis, and M.A. Castellini. 1976.
"Thermal Conductance of Immersed Pinniped and Sea
Otter Pelts Before and After Oiling with Prudhoe Bay
Crude," D.A. Wolfe (ed.), Fate and Effects of Petroleum
Hydrocarbons in Marine Ecosystems and Organisms.
Oxford: Pergamon Presses, pp. 151-157.
"A dense, nonwettable fur insulates semiaquatic mammals,
whereas aquatic mammals use a layer of blubber. The fur,
while providing insulation and positive buoyancy, incurs
a high energy demand for maintenance and limits diving depth.
Blubber contours the body to reduce drag, is an energy
reserve, and suffers no loss in buoyancy with depth."
(source: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/318108)
Frank E. Fish, "Biomechanics and Energetics
in Aquatic and Semiaquatic Mammals: Platypus to Whale,"
Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, volume 73 (2000),
pages 683-698, DOI: 10.1086/318108, PubMed ID: 11121343:
"The core of a dolphin s body is well insulated by a
thick layer of blubber. Generally, a blubber layer is
anywhere between 3/4" to 1-1 /4" thick. The thickness
is related to the type of environment the dolphin lives
in. Colder waters require a thicker blubber layer...
Water conducts heat away from the dolphin's body
twenty-five times more efficiently than air."
(source: http://www.dolphins.org/Learn/lmm-phys.htm)
Stromberg, M. W. 1985. Fat Distribution in the
Skin of Bottlenosed Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus
and Tursiops gilli). Jour. Morphol. 186(3):315-326.
"Deep within a dolphin's body it's temperature is
normally 35 degrees to 36.9 degrees, while it's outer
body temperature is usually cooler. In comparison,
man's body temperature is 37.3 degrees."
(source: http://www.indianchild.com/dolphins.htm)
"A bottlenose dolphin's body fat generally accounts for about
18% to 20% of its body weight (Bryden and Harrison, 1986)...
In general, bottlenose dolphins have a higher metabolic rate
than land mammals of similar size. This increased metabolism
generates a great deal of body heat (Ridgway, 1972)...
Mammals lose body heat when they exhale. Because they breathe
less frequently than land mammals, dolphins conserve a
considerable amount of heat (Ridgway, 1972)."
(source: http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Bottlenose/adapaqdol.html)
"Fish are the dolphins main food. Adult Bottlenose Dolphins
eat approximately 4-5% of their body weight in food per day
and have a variety of methods for hunting."
(source: http://www.portenf.sa.gov.au/repository/files/PAE_dolphinbrochureMar2003.pdf)
MY COMMENTS
There are about 2000 calories in my daily food
intake. If all my food were tuna, I would have to
eat 280 grams of tuna to get 2000 calories. My
weight is about 80 kg. If I were a dolphin, my
daily diet would be 4% of 80 kg of tuna, which is
3.2 kg of tuna.
Surface ocean temperature on the west african coast:
summer, South Africa = 15°C
summer, equator = 23°C
winter, South Africa = 20°C
winter, equator = 29°C
Temperature of tropical lakes and rivers is more variable
than surface ocean temperature, especially in relatively
dry habitats where the hominid bones were found.
Thermal conductivity of air is only 0.02454 W/(mK)
Thermal conductivity of water is as much as 0.58 W/(mK)
Specific heat of air (cp) is only 1.005 kJ/(kgK)
Specific heat of water is as much as 4.183 kJ/(kgK)
Density of air is only 1.293 kg/m^3 -- about 3
orders of magnitude less than density of water.
(source: Kurt Gieck, Engineering Formulas, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill)
Heat transmission is described by very complex formulas,
but it is roughly proportional to the temperature gradient
and the fluid velocity. In general, air moves faster
than water, but its thermal conductivity is much lower.
If you stand in a tropical lake or tropical ocean, your
heat loss is comparable to heat loss in the air of the
same temperature. (I ignore sunlight.) If you move through
a tropical water, or stand in a tropical river, your heat
loss is much greater than the heat loss in the air of the
same temperature.
Sunlight warms terrestrial animals but it has little
impact on aquatic animals because most of its energy is
in the infrared part of its spectrum, which is absorbed
by water. The total effect of heat transmission and
sunlight on diurnal (day time) animals is such that
terrestrial animals loose less heat than aquatic animals.
When I was scuba diving in tropical waters, ocean water
temperature was about 24°C, and yet everyone including
myself was wearing wet suit because we would be getting
goose bumps without it. Of course, I saw plenty of
non-diving tourists swimming for a few minutes without
the wet suits.
Algis Kuliukas
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
[snip]
> Wading is the only plausible reason for the origins of
> bipedalism.
[snip]
I'm confused, Andrew. I thought you were arguing against the wading
hypothesis. If I misunderstood that, I apologise, if I didn't I'd be
interested to know why you changed you mind. Either way, obviously, I
agree with this very much.
Algis Kuliukas
mclark
news:1122209964.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Oh look, Algis! You've got an ally! That's certainly
good news for a man in your position. I'll bet you
could find a whole tribe of supporters if you'd look
in the right places. We could start by emptying out
the contents of my bilge bucket --oh look, there's
Andrew Nowicki now.....Oh well, you takes 'em
where you finds 'em.
> Algis Kuliukas
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
--Voltaire
spiznet
but I am glad that Algas MAY have someone to talk to about his topics,
in detail. Andrew seems to know alot about some things, he is full of
references, etc.
It might stop Algas from whining so much, if he were actually
researching his work.
Also, I am very glad there is finally a solution to AAX!!
Andrew Nowicki
> Wading is the only plausible reason for the
> origins of bipedalism.
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> I'm confused, Andrew. I thought you were arguing against the wading
> hypothesis. If I misunderstood that, I apologise, if I didn't I'd be
> interested to know why you changed you mind. Either way, obviously, I
> agree with this very much.
I was wrong and I admitted that in my last
post in the "A critique of the BBC aquatic
ape programme and the transcript" thread.
By the way, I wonder why chimps do not
carry sticks in their jaws. It seems that
quadrupedal chimps armed with the sticks
would be efficient hunters.
firstjois
I'm sure you meant to say that it might stop Algas from whining so much if
Andrew were actually researching Algas work. Right? We are all past
expecting Algas will actually do his own work.
Jois
--
Close your eyes, hands over ears
and sing, very loudly... "la, la la... sorry, need evidence before I'm
opening my eyes ... la, la la!"
Algis Finally understands Science
SAP 030804
Marc Verhaegen
been parttime waders in swamp forests, wetlands etc. But this has nothing
to do with AAT s.s., which is about our ancestors: about Homo, not about
apes or apiths.
AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors were
seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
shell-, crayfish, algae... The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy &
physiology of living humans compared to other animals) explains many
typically Homo traits (not seen in apes or australopiths) a lot better than
dry savanna scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing control,
vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
projecting nose, reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty,
long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs
of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids... In the fossil
& archeological record, this waterside episode is reflected in the
Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian Ocean & African coasts:
1.8-Ma Homo remains come from Algeria, Iran, Kenya, Georgia, Java... always
near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421); in spite of sea level
changes (Ice Ages), Homo much more than australopith remains have been found
amid shells, corals & barnacles, from 1.8 to 0.1 Ma (throughout the
Pleistocene), in coasts all over the Old World (Mojokerto, Terra Amata,
Table Bay, Eritrea...), even on islands that could only be reached by sea
(Flores 0.8 Ma http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ).
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora
--Marc
_______________
"Andrew Nowicki" <and...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42E3639C...@nospam.com...
Jim McGinn
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Wading is the only plausible reason for the origins of
> bipedalism. Bipedal hominid wading in clear water could
> see and catch enough shellfish to feed itself and it
> could see the crocodiles, so it was safe in this aquatic
> environment. It is not surprising that we, the descendants
> of the wading hominids like to frolic in clear water,
> but unlike pigs, we do not wallow in mud.
So, let me get this staight. Despite the fact that otters
have to range over hundreds of square miles to get enough
shellfish to survive over an extended period of time,
hominids, which are about four times as large and part of
larger groups, were able to successfully compete--because
of their bipedal adaptation--with otters and other
shellfish eating species.
You're nuts.
Jim
rmacfarl
firstjois wrote:
> spiznet wrote:
> >> I won't be an ally,
> >> but I am glad that Algas MAY have someone to talk to about his
> >> topics, in detail. Andrew seems to know alot about some things, he
> >> is full of references, etc.
> >> It might stop Algas from whining so much, if he were actually
> >> researching his work.
> >>
> >> Also, I am very glad there is finally a solution to AAX!!
>
> I'm sure you meant to say that it might stop Algas from whining so much if
> Andrew were actually researching Algas work. Right? We are all past
> expecting Algas will actually do his own work.
>
Hey, doesn't Andrew's sub line qualify for automatic loss of
game?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Ross Macfarlane
> "Ok, very clever. You certainly made me look like a fool."
- A new low. Algis forced to acknowledge Paul Crowley as his
intellectual superior (25-Nov-2004).
richard...@yahoo.com
On what evidence do you say - ' the fact that otters
have to range over hundreds of square miles to get enough
shellfish to survive over an extended period of time' ?
Whoever said that : "hominids, which are about four times as large
and part of
larger groups, were able to successfully compete--because
of their bipedal adaptation--with otters and other
shellfish eating species" ?
Whoever said that : "hominids......were able to successfully
compete--because
of their bipedal adaptation
--with lions, leopards, sabre-toothed cats, at least 3 species of
hyaena, beside vultures and scavenging insects
- and other meat eating species" ?
Don't bother answering that question - you'd have to include almost
every palaeoanthropologist who's said anything over the last century
and a half.
regards
Richard
firstjois
>> firstjois wrote:
>>> spiznet wrote:
>>>>> I won't be an ally,
>>>>> but I am glad that Algas MAY have someone to talk to about his
>>>>> topics, in detail. Andrew seems to know alot about some things, he
>>>>> is full of references, etc.
>>>>> It might stop Algas from whining so much, if he were actually
>>>>> researching his work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I am very glad there is finally a solution to AAX!!
>>>
>>> I'm sure you meant to say that it might stop Algas from whining so
>>> much if Andrew were actually researching Algas work. Right? We
>>> are all past expecting Algas will actually do his own work.
>>>
>>
>> Hey, doesn't Andrew's sub line qualify for automatic loss of
>> game?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
>>
>> Ross Macfarlane
I have a horrible feeling that Andrew may end up qualifying for everything.
Well, nearly everything that Algis and a few of "the boys" deserve, anyway.
>>
>>> "Ok, very clever. You certainly made me look like a fool."
>> - A new low. Algis forced to acknowledge Paul Crowley as his
>> intellectual superior (25-Nov-2004).
That's very funny!
I supposed you have guessed by now that Outlook Express refuses to take any
new sig lines? I have to re-define an old one to make it accept anything
at all and I hate to give up any of the ones I already have. ::Sigh::
Jois
Jim McGinn
richard...@yahoo.com wrote:
> How many otters live in Africa?
>
> On what evidence do you say - ' the fact that otters
> have to range over hundreds of square miles to get enough
> shellfish to survive over an extended period of time' ?
>
> Whoever said that : "hominids, which are about four times as large
> and part of
> larger groups, were able to successfully compete--because
> of their bipedal adaptation--with otters and other
> shellfish eating species" ?
>
> Whoever said that : "hominids......were able to successfully
> compete--because
> of their bipedal adaptation
>
> --with lions, leopards, sabre-toothed cats, at least 3 species of
> hyaena, beside vultures
These animals don't compete with apes for food. Apes are primarily
frugivors. These animals are carnivors.
and scavenging insects
>
> - and other meat eating species" ?
>
> Don't bother answering that question
It was a typical dumbass question.
- you'd have to include almost
> every palaeoanthropologist who's said anything over the last century
> and a half.
So you think that since they said something stupid that this serves as
an invitation for you to say something stupider?
Jim
richard...@yahoo.com
insect collecting on the side?
Which of these apes were hominids ?
> - and other meat eating species" ?
> Don't bother answering that question
It was a typical dumbass question.
But it was meant as a 'diplomatic' way of dealing with several typical
dumbass statements - you haven't answered any of the questions about
your statements or reasoning at all.
- you'd have to include almost
>>every palaeoanthropologist who's said anything over the last century
>> and a half.
>So you think that since they said something stupid that this serves as
>an invitation for you to say something stupider?
What exactly did I say that was stupider?
Was it to suggest that claiming hominids could easily compete with top
predators for meat while saying that they couldn't compete with otters
for shellfish ?
Was it stupider than saying 'otters have to range over hundreds of
square miles to get enough shellfish to survive over an extended period
of time'
Have you any idea, for instance, of the huge attrition of shellfish
species in North American rivers due to the 19th century search for
freshwater pearls? And the subsequent 'river-engineering'? Maybe that's
why some otters have to go quite long distances to find what's left.
Who told you that modern otters are in any way comparable to early
humans? Or did you just dream it up yourself?
regards
Richard
Su Solomon
>
> Exactly which apes are or were specialist frugivores, with a bit of
> insect collecting on the side?
Do a google and find out.
But Dick, they are aquatic animals!
Andrew Nowicki
> Sensible talk, Andrew, but not the final solution. I agree apiths might have
> been parttime waders in swamp forests, wetlands etc. But this has nothing
> to do with AAT s.s., which is about our ancestors: about Homo, not about
> apes or apiths.
You believe that apiths are not our ancestors.
I believe that they are our ancestors.
> AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors were
> seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
> shell-, crayfish, algae...
There is no reason to believe that bipedal
hominids were better suited for collecting
this food than quadrupedal monkeys.
> The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy &
> physiology of living humans compared to other animals) explains many
> typically Homo traits (not seen in apes or australopiths) a lot better than
> dry savanna scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing control,
> vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
> projecting nose, reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty,
> long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs
> of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids...
Yes. AAT does explain it better than dry savanna
scenarios, but it does not explain bipedalism.
> In the fossil & archeological record, this waterside episode is reflected in the
> Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian Ocean & African coasts:
> 1.8-Ma Homo remains come from Algeria, Iran, Kenya, Georgia, Java... always
> near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421); in spite of sea level
> changes (Ice Ages), Homo much more than australopith remains have been found
> amid shells, corals & barnacles, from 1.8 to 0.1 Ma (throughout the
> Pleistocene), in coasts all over the Old World (Mojokerto, Terra Amata,
> Table Bay, Eritrea...), even on islands that could only be reached by sea
> (Flores 0.8 Ma http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ).
Keep AAT where it belongs: 1.8-Mya or less.
I believe that hominid evolution was shaped by:
- bipedal wading, more than 4.3 Mya
- stick tools, hard work, secure shelters, digging edible
tubers, sweating and hairlessness, about 2.9-4.3 Mya
- firestick hunting, about 2.4-2.9 Mya
- stone tools, about 1.8-2.4 Mya
- semi-aquatic lifestyle (AAT), less than 1.8 Mya
PS. You are a smart guy, but when your only response
to every problem is AAT, you sound like a parrot.
_________________________________________________________
Note that a very well insulated quadrupedal monkey could
not compete with the wading hominid because the monkey
would overheat (hyperthermia) when it left the water.
_________________________________________________________
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> By the way, I wonder why chimps do not carry sticks in
> their jaws. It seems that quadrupedal chimps armed with
> the sticks would be efficient hunters.
It is possible, but not easy, because the chimps would
have to raise their heads as high as possible to keep
their sticks away from their arms.
Jim McGinn
richard...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Exactly which apes are or were specialist frugivores, with a bit of
> insect collecting on the side?
>
> Which of these apes were hominids ?
>
> > - and other meat eating species" ?
>
> > Don't bother answering that question
>
> It was a typical dumbass question.
>
> But it was meant as a 'diplomatic' way of dealing with several typical
> dumbass statements - you haven't answered any of the questions about
> your statements or reasoning at all.
It's your overwhelming ignorance of ecological realities that prevents
you from realizing that I have answered these questions. Beyond that
I'll only say that your education is not my responsibility.
>
> - you'd have to include almost
>
> >>every palaeoanthropologist who's said anything over the last century
> >> and a half.
>
> >So you think that since they said something stupid that this serves as
> >an invitation for you to say something stupider?
>
> What exactly did I say that was stupider?
What, now you want me to tell you what you said?
>
> Was it to suggest that claiming hominids could easily compete with top
> predators for meat while saying that they couldn't compete with otters
> for shellfish ?
>
> Was it stupider than saying 'otters have to range over hundreds of
> square miles to get enough shellfish to survive over an extended period
> of time'
>
> Have you any idea, for instance, of the huge attrition of shellfish
> species in North American rivers due to the 19th century search for
> freshwater pearls? And the subsequent 'river-engineering'? Maybe that's
> why some otters have to go quite long distances to find what's left.
So you think this trivial information is making your previous
statements seem less stupid? Think again.
>
> Who told you that modern otters are in any way comparable to early
> humans? Or did you just dream it up yourself?
It appears that you dreamed it up since I never stated such.
Don't quit your day job. Your engineering expertise is no replacement
for the years of study that are necessary to become proficient at
evolutionary theory and ecology.
Jim
Jim McGinn
Su Solomon wrote:
<snip>
> > Who told you that modern otters are in any way
> > comparable to early humans?
>
> But Dick, they are aquatic animals!
<snip>
The really surreal thing about Dick's question here is
that the answer to his question is that he himself is
the one that told us that modern otters are comparable
to early humans. Wonders never cease.
Jim
Marc Verhaegen
>> Sensible talk, Andrew, but not the final solution. I agree apiths might
>> have been parttime waders in swamp forests, wetlands etc. But this has
>> nothing to do with AAT s.s., which is about our ancestors: about Homo,
>> not about apes or apiths.
> You believe that apiths are not our ancestors. I believe that they are our
> ancestors.
Yes, but I have arguments
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html :-)
>> AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors
>> were seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs,
>> turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae...
> There is no reason to believe that bipedal hominids were better suited for
> collecting this food than quadrupedal monkeys.
??
Please try to be relevant. I'm talking about H/P differences.
>> The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy & physiology of living humans
>> compared to other animals) explains many typically Homo traits (not seen
>> in apes or australopiths) a lot better than dry savanna scenarios do:
>> brain size, diving skills, breathing control, vocality, small mouth &
>> chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway, projecting nose,
>> reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty, long legs,
>> body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs of water,
>> sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids...
> Yes. AAT does explain it better than dry savanna scenarios,
OK.
> but it does not explain bipedalism.
So? Did I include bipedalism in the list??
>> In the fossil & archeological record, this waterside episode is reflected
>> in the Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian Ocean &
>> African coasts: 1.8-Ma Homo remains come from Algeria, Iran, Kenya,
>> Georgia, Java... always near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421);
>> in spite of sea level changes (Ice Ages), Homo much more than
>> australopith remains have been found amid shells, corals & barnacles,
>> from 1.8 to 0.1 Ma (throughout the Pleistocene), in coasts all over the
>> Old World (Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea...), even on
>> islands that could only be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma
>> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ).
> Keep AAT where it belongs: 1.8-Mya or less.
AAT s.s., you mean? Not impossible IMO.
> I believe that hominid evolution was shaped by:
Hominid vs pongid, you mean?
> - bipedal wading, more than 4.3 Mya
Parttime? Very likely :
- Oreopith ~8 Ma is claimed to have been bipedal.
- P & G show rudiments of parttime bipedalism.
> - stick tools, hard work, secure shelters, digging edible tubers,
Fairy tales without evidence.
> sweating and hairlessness, about 2.9-4.3 Mya
Sweat & hair fossilise??
> - firestick hunting, about 2.4-2.9 Mya
No good evidence AFAIK.
> - stone tools, about 1.8-2.4 Mya
Possibly much older :
- Early hominid-pongid fossils ~15 Ma were durophagous.
- Orangs & chimps use tools (pongid & hominids split ~15 Ma).
> - semi-aquatic lifestyle (AAT), less than 1.8 Mya
AAT s.s., you mean? Not impossible.
> PS. You are a smart guy, but when your only response to every problem is
> AAT, you sound like a parrot.
1) Smart in comparison to the dry apers at SAP, you mean? Not difficult.
:-D
2) I nowhere said AAT is the answer to every problem.
3) I keep posting here our scenario because
- dry apers keep misrepresenting our view,
- nobody so far has given sensible objections to our scenario. :-)
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1
Andrew Nowicki
> You believe that apiths are not our ancestors.
> I believe that they are our ancestors.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Yes, but I have arguments
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html :-)
Your claim that apiths were more like pongids
than like us does not prove anything, even if
it is true. There are only two ways to prove
your point of view:
- prove that we have more in common with the
pongids than with the apiths
- find bones of hominids that were more similar
to us than the apiths and lived at the same
time as the apiths
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors
> were seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs,
> turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae...
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> There is no reason to believe that bipedal hominids were
> better suited for collecting this food than quadrupedal monkeys.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Please try to be relevant. I'm talking about H/P differences.
?? I do not understand what you mean - hominid/pongid?
H/P means Helwett Packard to me.
(Do not use abbreviations unless you define them.)
Pongids can collect this food as well as bipedal hominids.
> AAT s.s., you mean?
Do you mean Schutzstaffel, social security, supersonic,
or sunday school?
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> - stick tools, hard work, secure shelters, digging edible tubers,
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Fairy tales without evidence.
Nobody doubts that it happened, but it is not
clear when it happened.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> sweating and hairlessness, about 2.9-4.3 Mya
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Sweat & hair fossilise??
No, but there is genetic evidence that hairlessness
is at least 1.2 million years old.
> - firestick hunting, about 2.4-2.9 Mya
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> No good evidence AFAIK.
The only evidence is dry climate in Africa at that time,
presence of Australopithecus africanus in dry habitats,
and presence of carbon-13 in Australopithecus africanus
bones. Carbon-13 probably means that Australopithecus
africanus ate cooked meat - we talked about that already.
This is not strong evidence, but we know that high
temperature (600 degrees Celsius or more) fires were
made in hearths in Africa 1.5 million ago. My definition
of firestick hunting is burning the bush to kill and
injure animals living there. Australian hawks did it,
so early hominids could do it as well.
Paleoanthropologists do not know anything for sure,
so it is important to imagine plausible scenarios
explaining how the hominids lived and evolved.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> I keep posting here our scenario because
> - dry apers keep misrepresenting our view,
> - nobody so far has given sensible objections to our scenario. :-)
You always combine AAT with the claim that
apiths are not our ancestors. AAT seems more
plausible to me than the latter claim.
If Elaine Morgan's AAT leaflet is obsolete,
maybe you should update it. A good HTML leaflet
with illustrations would be more convincing
than your dry list of abbreviations.
spiznet
once opined: "Why not just sell AAT!" or "Why not just sell
apith<>ape!" This would make more sense than trying to conflate these
two heresies together into one.
Well, truthfully as time has gone on, it doesn't make any more sense,
but its just the way these folks are.
"Someone" could sell the AAT without the apith<>ape thing, but Marc's
not going to. I am not sure that there is any other support in AAT for
the apith<>ape theory.
I think it is one of his other researched theories, and is un-linked to
the AAT thing. But it does make the package much harder to sell/buy!!!
-Mark
rmacfarl
spiznet wrote:
> Marc has alot of interesting opinions, many highly researched. As I
> once opined: "Why not just sell AAT!" or "Why not just sell
> apith<>ape!" This would make more sense than trying to conflate these
> two heresies together into one.
>
> Well, truthfully as time has gone on, it doesn't make any more sense,
> but its just the way these folks are.
>
> "Someone" could sell the AAT without the apith<>ape thing, but Marc's
> not going to. I am not sure that there is any other support in AAT for
> the apith<>ape theory.
You would have to be pretty wide-eyed and credulous acolyte of Marc's
to swallow this version of prehistory, now wouldn't you?
Funnily enough, many do, including Algis...
>
> I think it is one of his other researched theories, and is un-linked to
> the AAT thing. But it does make the package much harder to sell/buy!!!
Actually, it seemes to be a central plank of his aquatic delusion...
Ross Macfarlane
I have said it before, and I will say it again: the best argument I've
yet seen for why the AAH must be wrong is the quality of the arguments
made by those who believe it is right...
... Like great apes being descended from australopiths...
Andrew Nowicki
to water. They could not compete against wading
hominids in small, clear streams because food
density in small streams is too low for them.
"Fish is the primary item in the diet of most otters, supplemented
by frogs, crayfish, and crabs; some have become expert at opening
shellfish, and others will take any small mammals or birds that
happen to be available. To survive in the cold waters where many
otters live, the specialised fur is not enough: otters have very
high metabolic rates and burn up energy at a profligate pace:
Eurasian otters, for example, must eat 15% of their body weight a
day; sea otters, 20 to 25%, depending on the temperature. In
consequence, otters are very vulnerable to prey depletion: in water
as warm as 10°C an otter needs to catch 100 g of fish per hour:
less than that and it cannot survive. Most species hunt for 3 to 5
hours a day; nursing mothers up to 8 hours a day."
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otter)
The otter's den known as a 'holt' is another
reason it could not compete against bipedal
hominids in small, clear streams. There is
not enough food in the vicinity of the den
to feed a family of otters. Nomadic hominids
were bigger than the otters and probably able
to defend themselves with sticks or stones,
so they were less vulnerable to predation.
Nomadic hominids were also better suited to
carry their babies around. It is unlikely that
the first nomadic, wading hominids slept in
secure shelters made of tree branches.
Otters have exceptionally long whiskers and highly
developed sense of touch to locate prey in murky
waters. Wading hominids could not find shellfish
in the murky waters, so they did not compete
against otters.
In clear, shallow waters wading hominids could
see more shellfish from their high vantage point
(head) than the otters.
There are three species of african otters:
- Cape clawless otter lives in murky water.
Its food is mostly crabs and some crayfish,
fish, frogs, molluscs, small mammals, birds,
insects, insect larvae, and vegetation.
- Congo clawless otter.
- Spotted-necked otter lives in rather clear
water and eats mostly fish.
- Eurasian otter.
(sources: http://www.otternet.com/habitat/africa.htm,
http://www.otternet.com/ROA/capeclawlessotterinkenya.htm)
Marc Verhaegen
>>> You believe that apiths are not our ancestors. I believe that they are
>>> our ancestors.
>> Yes, but I have arguments
>> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html :-)
> Your claim that apiths were more like pongids than like us does not prove
> anything
I didn't say such a thing! Before trying to comment on something, shouldn't
you read it first??
>, even if it is true.
I said that overall apiths were anatomically more like Afr.apes among
hominids than like humans, but I showed a lot of other things, eg,
- that humans & apiths have no commonly derived features, IOW, the so-called
"humanlike" features in apiths (eg, thick enamel, rel.low ilia, rel.short
arms etc.) are primitive. Many PAs confuse "apelike" & "primitive". In
fact, humans & apes live today, apiths lived a few mill.yrs ago, IOW, humans
& apes (in different directions) in most respects are more derived than
apiths.
- that S.Afr.apiths & chimps have some derived features in common, and that
the large E.Afr.apiths & gorillas have other derived features in common.
- that the S. & the E.Afr.robusts evolved in parallel (IOW, that
"Paranthropus" is paraphyletic).
> There are only two ways to prove your point of view: prove that we have
> more in common with the pongids than with the apiths.
Ridiculous. Pongids have nothing to do with this!
> - find bones of hominids that were more similar to us than the apiths and
> lived at the same time as the apiths.
Don't you even know that erectus lived at the same time as robustus &
boisei??
>>>> AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors
>>>> were seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs,
>>>> turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae...
>>> There is no reason to believe that bipedal hominids were better suited
>>> for collecting this food than quadrupedal monkeys.
>> Please try to be relevant. I'm talking about H/P differences.
> ?? I do not understand what you mean - hominid/pongid?
No following?? See above: Homo-Pan.
I'm wasting my time.
Algis Kuliukas
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > Sensible talk, Andrew, but not the final solution. I agree apiths might have
> > been parttime waders in swamp forests, wetlands etc. But this has nothing
> > to do with AAT s.s., which is about our ancestors: about Homo, not about
> > apes or apiths.
>
> You believe that apiths are not our ancestors.
> I believe that they are our ancestors.
This is an important point, IMO. Even if australopithecines were not
directly on the Homo lineage and, technically, let's face it - the
chances are vanishingly small that any of the hard evidence we have
(i.e. fossil evidence) for australopithecines were, then it still seems
pretty likely that whatever population (or populations) contained those
individuals that were ancestral to Homo around 5-2Mya, were a'pith
like.
If such species were generally bipedal, due largely to wading, then
this clearly places bipedalism squarely into the list of ape-human
differences that might be explained by moving through water. This is
true whether this kind of species was also ancestral to Pan/Gorilla or
not, as it still implies wading was a key factor in bipedal origins
even if P/G subsequently lost that through reduced wading. It is
therefore logical that bipedal origins is a legitimate part of the AAH.
What Marc describes as "AAT s.s." (sensu stricto) I think is his own,
quite recent, unilateral declaration of independence. Clearly, all the
pro AAH texts have included bipedal origins as a major component. Even
his own TREE (2002) paper did. I have repeatedly asked for, but have
not yet received, a clear answer, as to when and why he made this
decision to sever off and effectively dump what has always seemed to me
to be the AAH's strongest card. I find it quite bizarre and very
depressing. Marc has literally shot the AAH in the foot but doing this,
IMO.
> > AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors were
> > seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
> > shell-, crayfish, algae...
Marc, you should make it clear that this is what *your* version of the
AAT says. That's not what Hardy or Morgan argued. You might be right,
and I do agree with big parts of your model as you know, but it is
frustrating when you seem to have taken it upon youself to redefine the
big general idea to be your specific one. When, how and why did that
happen? It certainly doesn't help people to understand what this thing
is.
> There is no reason to believe that bipedal
> hominids were better suited for collecting
> this food than quadrupedal monkeys.
>
> > The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy &
> > physiology of living humans compared to other animals) explains many
> > typically Homo traits (not seen in apes or australopiths) a lot better than
> > dry savanna scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing control,
> > vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
> > projecting nose, reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty,
> > long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs
> > of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids...
>
> Yes. AAT does explain it better than dry savanna
> scenarios, but it does not explain bipedalism.
That is your opinion, based only on your recently concocted neo-AAT =
(and only equals) Homo Littoral Diaspora. In the broadest definition of
the AAH, clearly it *does* attempt to explain *hominid* bipedalism too
(but not, of course, bipedalism generally). Hardy and Morgan make that
very clear indeed and even your own TREE paper of 2002 said that you
found nonwading explanations of human bipedalism unconvincing. You've
tried to put an amazing twist on that sentence now to imply that people
shouldn't actually take this to mean that you found wading explanations
convincing(!) but you cannot, surely, be surprised if 99% of people who
read your tree paper would understand it that way, after all you
mention wading 24 times in just six pages in the context of human
evolution.
Algis Kuliukas
mclark
What if they weren't bipedal *due largely to wading*? And how
can you tell? And what about all that other incipient bipedalism
in the other primates? Does that have an aquatic element as well?
If so, where is it? It's nice to see so much dissension in the ranks
of the wet apes. It adds another element to the cheap, circus-like
atmosphere of your usual shtick.
>
[Marco! Don't leave me! <sob sob>]
Andrew Nowicki
> What if they weren't bipedal *due largely to wading*?
> And how can you tell?
Read the first post of this thread.
> And what about all that other incipient bipedalism
> in the other primates?
And what about incipient bipedalism in goats?
Wading humans still prey on shellfish in shallow,
clear waters and they do it more efficiently than
other species.
spiznet
> What if they weren't bipedal *due largely to wading*?
> And how can you tell?
Read the first post of this thread.
> And what about all that other incipient bipedalism
> in the other primates?
And what about incipient bipedalism in goats?
MRAWK<>MRAWK
Wading humans still prey on shellfish in shallow,
clear waters and they do it more efficiently than
other species.
Like what herons and egrets??
This doesn't look very final anymore...
mclark
> mclark wrote:
> > What if they weren't bipedal *due largely to wading*?
> > And how can you tell?
>
> Read the first post of this thread.
I tried but my eyes glazed over for some
reason...
> > And what about all that other incipient bipedalism
> > in the other primates?
>
> And what about incipient bipedalism in goats?
> MRAWK<>MRAWK
Wouldn't that be BAAAA<>BAAAAA?
> Wading humans still prey on shellfish in shallow,
> clear waters and they do it more efficiently than
> other species.
>
> Like what herons and egrets??
C'mon, water man, herons and egrets don't
eat *shellfish*. You're clearly not as smart
as Andy... :-)
> This doesn't look very final anymore...
No kidding.... :-(
richard...@yahoo.com
otters.
The usual nutters (Su Solomon and Jim McGinn) were content to hide
behind their smirks and throw bullshit around
(sorry - redefine that word - bullshit is talked by someone who knows
what they're talking about, and muleshit is what you and I and anyone
else who disagrees with whatever they think they believe gets).
But sorry Andrew there's no way that any human could beat an otter to a
fish.
regards
Richard
mclark
richard...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Thanks Andrew Nowicki for bothering to find out that there ARE African
> otters.
>
> The usual nutters (Su Solomon and Jim McGinn) were content to hide
> behind their smirks and throw bullshit around
You've already admitted that you don't have the brains that it takes to
figure out the <include original text> thing, now you've gone further.
You've hereby declared to the world that you don't know the difference
between a Su Solomon and a Jim McGinn. In my world (and in many
others), that's like saying <begin Charlie Chan> Left hand not know
what right hand do! </end Charlie Chan>. Tough break, Bucky --it's
gonna take some extraordinary brilliance on your part, now, just to
break even.
[SPEW]
> Richard
JAE
richard...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Thanks Andrew Nowicki for bothering to find out that there ARE African
> otters.
>
> The usual nutters (Su Solomon and Jim McGinn) were content to hide
> behind their smirks and throw bullshit around
Something's amiss when you're lumping Su and McGinn in the same lot.
spiznet
Marc Verhaegen
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:1122427343....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> > Sensible talk, Andrew, but not the final solution. I agree apiths might
>> > have been parttime waders in swamp forests, wetlands etc. But this has
>> > nothing to do with AAT s.s., which is about our ancestors: about Homo,
>> > not about apes or apiths.
>> You believe that apiths are not our ancestors. I believe that they are
>> our ancestors.
> This is an important point, IMO. Even if australopithecines were not
> directly on the Homo lineage and, technically, let's face it - the chances
> are vanishingly small that any of the hard evidence we have (i.e. fossil
> evidence) for australopithecines were, then it still seems pretty likely
> that whatever population (or populations) contained those individuals that
> were ancestral to Homo around 5-2Mya, were a'pith like.
More apith-like than chimp-like, at least.
> If such species were generally bipedal, due largely to wading,
You take your wishes for reality, Algis.
Look at the facts.
What we know about apith locomotion:
- curved phalanges (graciles>robusts) = climbing arms overhead,
- some KWing features (E.Afr.apiths) = parttime KWing,
- Laetoli footprints (E.Africa), if made by apiths = bipedal.
Where do we find such a combination? It's seen in bonobos & lowland
gorillas, but these apes are more KWing & less bipedal (& bonobos more
climbing than gorillas). IMO such a combination can be expected in swamp
forests (graciles) & wetlands (robusts), exactly where we find the fossil &
where their dentition suggests their food was found. I guess they waded on 2
legs in shallow swamps, climbed in trees arms overhead, & KWed in meadows
feeding on fruits, nuts, reeds, papyrus, sedges etc.
(Note this is a recosntruction of how apiths lived. Not of how our ancestors
might have lived.)
> then this clearly places bipedalism squarely into the list of ape-human
> differences that might be explained by moving through water.
??
> This is true whether this kind of species was also ancestral to
> Pan/Gorilla or not, as it still implies wading was a key factor in bipedal
> origins even if P/G subsequently lost that through reduced wading. It is
> therefore logical that bipedal origins is a legitimate part of the AAH.
"legitimate part of AAH" is nonsense, Algis:
1) AAT (human ancestors were more aquatic in the past) is no hypothesis, but
a firmly based theory.
2) Several PAs still have problems with AAT, so how can you speak about
"legitimate"??
3) I have no problems with apiths parttime wading, but this is not directly
about AAT, which is about our ancestors.
> What Marc describes as "AAT s.s." (sensu stricto) I think is his own,
> quite recent, unilateral declaration of independence.
If I declare independance, I must have been dependent once, no? dependent
from what?? :-D
> Clearly, all the pro AAH texts have included bipedal origins as a major
> component. Even his own TREE (2002) paper did.
ah??
> I have repeatedly asked for, but have not yet received, a clear answer,
?? I have repeatedly answered, but for some reason you don't seem to neglect
this.
> as to when and why he made this decision to sever off and effectively dump
> what has always seemed to me to be the AAH's strongest card.
"seemed"... Better use reliable arguments than questionable ones.
> I find it quite bizarre and very depressing.
Yes, we know you do this, but that's your problem, Algis.
> Marc has literally shot the AAH in the foot but doing this, IMO.
IYO.
>> > AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors
>> > were seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs,
>> > turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae...
> Marc, you should make it clear that this is what *your* version of the AAT
> says.
Do you disagree with it? Then I'd like to know your arguments for
disagreeing. It's exactly what Hardy said (except for the time frame, of
course: PAs then thought that H & P split 10-15 Ma).
> That's not what Hardy or Morgan argued. You might be right, and I do agree
> with big parts of your model as you know, but it is frustrating when you
> seem to have taken it upon youself to redefine the big general idea to be
> your specific one. When, how and why did that happen? It certainly doesn't
> help people to understand what this thing is.
Time to make it clear?
>> There is no reason to believe that bipedal hominids were better suited
>> for collecting this food than quadrupedal monkeys.
How said this? Not me.
>> > The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy & physiology of living
>> > humans compared to other animals) explains many typically Homo traits
>> > (not seen in apes or australopiths) a lot better than dry savanna
>> > scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing control, vocality,
>> > small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
>> > projecting nose, reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late
>> > puberty, long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur
>> > loss, high needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty
>> > acids...
>> Yes. AAT does explain it better than dry savanna scenarios, but it does
>> not explain bipedalism.
(I didn't say this last sentence -MV)
> That is your opinion, based only on your recently concocted neo-AAT = (and
> only equals) Homo Littoral Diaspora. In the broadest definition of the
> AAH, clearly it *does* attempt to explain *hominid* bipedalism too
Nonsense!
AAT s.s. has nothing to do with *hominids*!
FYI:
- pongids = Pongo = orang,
- hominids = Pan, Homo, Gorilla.
AAT s.s. is about the differences between H & P.
> (but not, of course, bipedalism generally). Hardy and Morgan make that
> very clear indeed
I don't know what they made clear, but we know more than 40-30 years ago.
Continental drift is not the same as plate tectonics.
> and even your own TREE paper of 2002 said that you found nonwading
> explanations of human bipedalism unconvincing.
Yes.
> You've tried to put an amazing twist on that sentence now to imply that
> people shouldn't actually take this to mean that you found wading
> explanations convincing (!)
Can't you read?? You're becoming as hair-splitting as the dry apers. No
wonder you seem to like "discussions" with them. The sentence means exactly
what is says.
> but you cannot, surely, be surprised if 99 % of people who read your tree
> paper would understand it that way, after all you mention wading 24 times
> in just six pages in the context of human evolution. --Algis Kuliukas
In case you hadn't noticed, the paper was on:
- Miocene ape lifestyle ("aquarboreal"),
- apith lifestyle, see above,
- Homo lifestyle, see below (from our TREE paper):
Were Homo ancestors waterside omnivores?
Late Plio- or early Pleistocene human ancestors could have migrated to or
remained near the coast and exploited marine resources. Dolphins and seals
have larger brains than terrestrial relatives of equal size31 and human
brains are three times those of chimpanzees. The long-chain, polyunsaturated
lipid ratios of shellfish and fish are more similar to the ratios in the
human brain than are any other food source known32. This highly nutritious
diet is argued to have been important for building and fuelling large
brains32.
Hard-shelled foods, e.g. shellfish and nuts, generally require thick enamel,
which is typically seen in sea-otters27, capuchin monkeys33 and the majority
of living and fossil hominids-pongids (see Box 1 and Table 2). Walker wrote
that if 'a mammalogist were asked which mammalian molars most resembled
those of Australopithecus, the answer would probably be orang-utan molars.
If asked to look outside the order Primates, the answer would probably be
the molars of the sea otter (Enhydra lutra). This species possesses small
anterior teeth, and large, flat molars with thick enamel'27. A recent
study34 indicated that A. or H. habilis microwear resembled that of
chimpanzees (and orangutans35), H. ergaster resembled that of capuchins
(more hard or brittle foods), and neither taxon specialized on raw
meat34,35. Sea-otters, capuchins and chimpanzees all open shells by
hammering them with hard objects. The most dextrous mammals, besides humans,
are raccoons, otters, capuchins and chimpanzees. Conceivably,
human-chimpanzee ancestors, like mangrove capuchins33, used stones to remove
and open coconuts growing on palm-trees and oysters on mangrove roots (Fig.
1). If chimpanzee ancestors moved inland, stone-use might have become
confined to nut-cracking, but for coastal human ancestors stone use would
have become more important, and the long association with coastal foods
might explain the later Stone-Age industries.
Today, breath-hold diving is practised by human subsistence
cultures that gather shellfish or seaweed. Diving mammals, such as cetaceans
and pinnipeds, are able to take a deep breath whenever they intend to dive
and comparative data suggest that voluntary breath-control in humans is much
better developed than in monkeys, apes, dogs and pigs5,36,37. Many tree-
(e.g. gibbons) and water-dwellers (e.g. otters, dolphins and humpback
whales) have well-developed sound-producing capabilities36. Vocal
communication might have been important during wading activities, when smell
and body language would have been less effective5. Along with voluntary
breath-control and a large brain, this could have contributed to the
evolution of human speech5.
Anatomically (H. rudolfensis) and archaeologically (Oldowan tools), the
genus Homo appears in East Africa c. 2.5 Mya, at about the beginning of the
Pleistocene, when increased glaciation was locking large amounts of water in
the ice-caps and causing sea-levels to drop. If the coastal lagoons produced
more food for a tool-using omnivore than the decreasing forests, it could
explain why Homo reduced its climbing abilities, evolved diving abilities
and dispersed along the Indian Ocean. If Homo lived in such environments
during glaciations their remains would have been deposited at Pleistocene
beaches which in most cases are now some hundred metres below sea-level.
Archaic Homo fossils, footprints and tools have been discovered near coasts
all over the Old World17, from Boxgrove (UK) and Hopefield (South Africa),
to Mojokerto (Indonesia). The Mojokerto fossil, found amid barnacles, corals
and molluscs38 in a river delta probably c. 1.8 Mya, might be among the
oldest H. erectus fossils ever discovered. Archaeological evidence suggests
that H. erectus crossed a 19 km-wide strait to reach the Indonesian island
of Flores more than 0.8 Mya, well before any evidence of boat-building3.
Stone-tools found in 0.12 My-old Eritrean reefs39 support the idea that Homo
spp. have a long history of coastal resource exploitation.
Arguably, modern humans evolved from beach-combers who gradually became more
suited to wading and diving (Fig. 1), developing more linear bodies, longer
legs, larger brains and tool-using skills. This coastal phase could help
explain furlessness, subcutaneous fat and voluntary breath-control -
features unique among primates but common to walruses, seacows, babirusas,
hippos, whales and dolphins4,5. It could also help explain why humans are
more efficient swimmers-divers than other primates4,5,37,40.
We propose that several Homo populations, including H. sapiens, returned to
a more terrestrial existence, colonized coastal areas and river valleys in
Africa and Eurasia, exploited waterside plants and animals including
waterfowl, turtles, stranded whales, antelope and hippo, but were unable to
adopt a more chimpanzee-like form of quadrupedalism because whereas
knuckle-walking gorillas and chimpanzees evolved directly from short-legged
waders-climbers, Homo already had long legs and a more linear build.
Terrestrial bipedalism is slower than quadrupedalism and leads to backaches,
hip and knee problems but also 'frees' the hands for communication and the
manipulation and transport of food, water, weapons, tools and babies.
_________
AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors were
seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
shell-, crayfish, algae... The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy &
physiology of living humans compared to other animals) explains many
typically Homo traits (not seen in apes or australopiths) a lot better than
dry savanna scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing control,
vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
projecting nose, reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty,
long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs
of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids...
In the fossil & archeological record, this waterside episode
is reflected in the Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian
Ocean & African coasts: 1.8-Ma Homo remains come from Algeria, Iran, Kenya,
Georgia, Java... always near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421); in
spite of sea level changes (Ice Ages), Homo much more than australopith
remains have been found amid shells, corals & barnacles, from 1.8 to 0.1 Ma
(throughout the Pleistocene), in coasts all over the Old World (Mojokerto,
Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea...), even on islands that could only be
reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm).
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1
AAT s.s. = Homo littoral diaspora
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Sensible talk, Andrew, but not the final solution. I agree apiths might have
> been parttime waders in swamp forests, wetlands etc. But this has nothing
> to do with AAT s.s., which is about our ancestors: about Homo, not about
> apes or apiths.
>
> AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors were
> seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
> shell-, crayfish, algae... The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy &
> physiology of living humans compared to other animals) explains many
> typically Homo traits (not seen in apes or australopiths) a lot better than
> dry savanna scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing control,
> vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
> projecting nose, reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty,
> long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs
> of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids... In the fossil
> & archeological record, this waterside episode is reflected in the
> Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian Ocean & African coasts:
> 1.8-Ma Homo remains come from Algeria, Iran, Kenya, Georgia, Java... always
> near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421); in spite of sea level
> changes (Ice Ages), Homo much more than australopith remains have been found
> amid shells, corals & barnacles, from 1.8 to 0.1 Ma (throughout the
> Pleistocene), in coasts all over the Old World (Mojokerto, Terra Amata,
> Table Bay, Eritrea...), even on islands that could only be reached by sea
> (Flores 0.8 Ma http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ).
>
> http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1
>
> AAT = Homo littoral diaspora
Inland sites are dated earlier than coastal sites, this implies
dispersal to the coasts, not away from them. Northwest Africa is poorly
dated, but obviously much younger than the inland sites (Clark
1992:24).
Fossilization is a very rare event and preservation is biased by the
availability of water, so it is hardly surprising that Homo fossils are
found near former water sources, since without it bones would seldom be
fossilized at all (Verhaegen et al. 2002:213). Since fossilized remains
account for only a tiny minority of the total amount of evidence left
behind by homo, the fact that fossils are found near water sources is a
meaningless observation and can not be used to draw inferences as to
bias waterside use by Homo.
Artifacts found amid shells, corals & barnacles is another observation
that can not stand up to careful scrutiny.
First, like fossilized bones, these sites are rare and make up only a
tiny fraction of the total number of Homo inland-savanna sites found.
Second, a typical example of stone tools found with shells comes from
Morocco. Clark (1992:22): "Here, a heavily abraded Pebble Culture
Stage IV with pointed, bifacially worked cobbles is found in gravel
with marine shells and sands."
Is there any relationship between the shells and the tools? No. Clark:
"Unfortunately, most of these stages are represented by artifacts in
secondary context so that little can be said about behavioral
implications."
Heavily abraded is a clue that the artifacts were washed downstream, by
freshwater action, onto the beach from higher on the plateau.
Clark: "Stage III is found in an adjacent quarry-called S.T.I.C.-and is
in a primary context. The artifacts occur with vertebrate fauna in a
limestone layer overlying the regressive Maarifian beach gravel. The
activity area is associated with a freshwater stream that drained onto
the beach nearby. The faunal remains all come from large terrestrial
mammals and there is no indication, at this or any other site in
Morocco, that marine fauna was made use of."
In Algeria, site called Ain Hanech (near a once large lake), contains
the remains of "extinct elephants, the three toed horse, early pigs,
bovids, giraffe and hippo" all associated with a Oldowan/Pebble
Culture says Clark. Again, no marine utilization present.
Clark, J. Desmond, 1992 The Earlier Stone Age/Lower Paleolithic in
North Africa and the Sahara.
New Light on the Northeast African Past
Africa Praehistorica 5
Edited by: KLEES, Frank & Rudolph Kuper
Heinrich Barth Institut, Kööln.
The same tools demonstrated to be associated with savanna butchery
sites earlier inland are found near coastal/large lakes in northwest
Africa and associated with savanna fauna, not clams.
Associations between these tools and the butchery of savanna fauna are
proven by cut marks on the bones and spirally fractured bones. No such
evidence exists that these same tools were used to exploit marine
resources (at least until much later in time when such associations
become irrelevant to our biological evolution).
Gamble (1994:128) Dmanisi in the Caucasus mountains of Georgia: "Simple
stone tools and a rich fauna with ostrich and extinct bears, wolves,
rhinos, and horses were also found." Dated 1.6 My ago (another words,
late and after the fact in Africa).
Mojokerto, lots of controversy and no substance.
Zhoukoudian http://www.unesco.org/ext/field/beijing/whc/pkm-site.htm
Deer on the menu, not clams.
Terra Amata,
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/europe/terraamata.html
"The coprolites found in and around the dwellings were analyzed to
determine the components of the diet of the occupants of Terra Amata.
There were many seeds found in these samples that grow in the late
spring to early fall." And: "Judging from the size of the bones found,
the smaller, less dangerous of these animals were most frequently
taken. In addition to these larger food sources, there was an abundance
of smaller, but more agile animals. Remains of deer, stag, rabbit, and
wild boar were all found at the site."
All the sites offered by AAT (always near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003
JHE 45:421) as associations for marine utilization are in fact
evidence for terrestrial fauna utilization, just the opposite of what
would be predicted by using the comparative data of AAT. In short,
there is no fossil or archaeological evidence that backs up AAT
conclusions.
>
>
>
> --Marc
>
> _______________
<snip>
Jim McGinn
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> The otter's den known as a 'holt' is another
> reason it could not compete against bipedal
> hominids in small, clear streams. There is
> not enough food in the vicinity of the den
> to feed a family of otters. Nomadic hominids
> were bigger than the otters and probably able
> to defend themselves with sticks or stones,
> so they were less vulnerable to predation.
Otters are quick, stealthy, fierce, and incredibly
good swimmers. Their relatively small body size and
small group size allows them to survive on the
relative scarce resources associated with freshwater
streams and rivers. The supposition that early
hominids had any of the traits/behaviors necessary to
directly compete with them indicates brain damage on
the part of anybody that would suggest such siliness.
> Nomadic hominids were also better suited to
> carry their babies around. It is unlikely that
> the first nomadic, wading hominids slept in
> secure shelters made of tree branches.
Andrew, my advice is for you to get in touch with a
local chapter of Glue Sniffers Anonymous as soon as
possible.
Jim
Marc Verhaegen
>>>>>etc. But this has nothing to do with AAT s.s., which is about our
>>>>>ancestors: about Homo, not about apes or apiths.
>>>>Andrew Nowicki: You believe that apiths are not our ancestors. I believe
>>>>that they are our ancestors.
>>>Algis Kuliukas: This is an important point, IMO. Even if
>>>australopithecines were not directly on the Homo lineage and,
>>>technically, let's face it -
the chances are vanishingly small that any of the hard evidence we have
(i.e. fossil evidence) for australopithecines were, then it still seems
pretty
likely that whatever population (or populations) contained those individuals
that were ancestral to Homo around 5-2Mya, were a'pith like.
>> More apith-like than chimp-like, at least.
> Ok, so also more bipedal, agreed? and what IYO was the root cause of that
> bipedality? Climbing-Wading, right?
Yes, not unlikely (eg, our TREE paper).
>>> If such species were generally bipedal, due largely to wading,
>> You take your wishes for reality, Algis. Look at the facts. What we
>> know about apith locomotion: curved phalanges (graciles>robusts) =
>> climbing arms overhead, some KWing features (E.Afr.apiths) = parttime
>> KWing, Laetoli footprints (E.Africa), if made by apiths = bipedal.
>> Where do we find such a combination? It's seen in bonobos & lowland
>> gorillas, but these apes are more KWing & less bipedal (& bonobos more
>> climbing than gorillas). IMO such a combination can be expected in swamp
>> forests (graciles) & wetlands (robusts), exactly where we find the fossil
>> & where their dentition suggests their food was found. I guess they waded
>> on 2 legs in shallow swamps, climbed in trees arms overhead, & KWed in
>> meadows feeding on fruits, nuts, reeds, papyrus, sedges etc. (Note this
>> is a recosntruction of how apiths lived. Not of how our ancestors might
>> have lived.)
> Ok, please let me rephrase then: If such species [apiths? MV] were
> generally bipedal when they were not climbing, this would have been
> largely due to wading, agreed?
No:
1) I'm not sure whether all apiths were more bipedal than KWing when they
were not climbing. Chimps also walk on 2 legs on wet ground. Gorillas often
stand & even wade on 4 legs in shallow water. KWing adaptations have
already been described in Lucy & anamensis. Bipedal features in apiths are
assumed because of resemblances with Homo (but IMO these resemblances are
primitive, eg, low ilia (also in monkeys), long femoral necks & valgus
knees, flatter feet etc. - but I can't imagine that, eg, longer fem.necks
(abduction!) are for better cursorialism).
2) If it were so (not impossible), it would not have largely due to wading
IMO: mammals wade on 4 legs: tapirs, hippos, racoons, babirusa, capibara,
waterbuck...
3) Climbing is no doubt more important than wading in how our bipedalism
began. Bipedal animals usu.(if not always?) descend from arboreals. Primates
are arboreal. Indris on the ground are bipedal. Gibbons on branches are.
Tarsiers hop vertically...
>>> then this clearly places bipedalism squarely into the list of ape-human
>>> differences that might be explained by moving through water.
>> ??
> Hominid bipedalism, of course, it what I'm talking about here - not
> kangaroos, or birds, agreed?
No: if you discuss "bipedalism" in whatever species, you have to look at
bipedal animals. What else??
But my "??" meant that your sentence is not very understandable, eg, "moving
through water" = swimming? "bipedalism squarely into ape-human
differences"??
>>> This is true whether this kind of species was also ancestral to
>>> Pan/Gorilla or not, as it still implies wading was a key factor in
>>> bipedal origins even if P/G subsequently lost that through reduced
>>> wading. It is therefore logical that bipedal origins is a legitimate
>>> part of the AAH.
>> "legitimate part of AAH" is nonsense, Algis: 1) AAT (human ancestors
>> were more aquatic in the past) is no hypothesis, but a firmly based
>> theory. 2) Several PAs still have problems with AAT, so how can you
>> speak about "legitimate"?? 3) I have no problems with apiths parttime
>> wading, but this is not directly about AAT, which is about our ancestors.
>Whether the AAT/H is a theory or an hypothesis is a moot point, here, Marc.
OK, let's talk about AAT then.
> What I meant by 'legitimate' is that human bipedalism has been part of the
> AAH literature from day one (Hardy 1960, Morgan 1972, 1991, 1994, 1998 and
> Verhaegen et al 2002) and remained there until you unilaterally decided,
> for some strange reason, it wasn't any more.
?? I have nothing to decide here, Algis.
> If our ancestors were a'pith-like (and hence perhaps bipedal whilst
> wading) then of course bipedal origins is part of the AAH.
Our locomotion is part of our evolution, of course, but that doesn't mean
that bipedalism has to be explained by wading. In fact, we argued (TREE)
that P & G also had parttime wading ancestors. Can they be called "bipedal"
IYO??
>>> What Marc describes as "AAT s.s." (sensu stricto) I think is his own,
>>> quite recent, unilateral declaration of independence.
>> If I declare independance, I must have been dependent once, no?
>> dependent from what?? :-D
> I meant your new definition ... AAT = (and only equals) Homo littoral
> diaspora, and not bipedal origins. Hardy didn't argue that, Morgan didn't
> argue that and neither did you in your TREE paper.
I don't know what Hardy & Morgan argued, but I do know that our TREE paper
was about 1) aquarboreal Miocene apes, 2) wading-climbing apiths (ie, not
about us), 3) wading-diving Homo. We gave our arguments why IOO this has to
be like that. So far, nobody (dry apers, Algis...) has given convincing
objections.
>>> Clearly, all the pro AAH texts have included bipedal origins as a major
>>> component. Even his own TREE (2002) paper did.
>> ah??
> See the quote below.
OK, I will.
>>> I have repeatedly asked for, but have not yet received, a clear answer,
>> ?? I have repeatedly answered, but for some reason you don't seem to
>> neglect this.
(omit "don't")
>When and why did you decide the AAH didn't include bipedal origins any
>more? When did you answer that?
Don't be ridiculous: I never "decided (!!) the AAH (??) didn't include
bipedal origins (?)"! Why on earth should I produce such a nonsensical
sentence?? I can say (if you want something from me here) that, as in other
bipeds, our "bipedal origins" were clearly in our arboreal past.
>>> as to when and why he made this decision to sever off and effectively
>>> dump what has always seemed to me to be the AAH's strongest card.
>> "seemed"... Better use reliable arguments than questionable ones.
> Put it this way: Take an ape and place it in waist deep water and it moves
> bipedally. There is no other such ape-human difference than can be
> demonstrated so clearly and predictably by water.
Take an ape & place it on land: bipedal?? Put it in ankle deep water. Put it
in neck deep water. Algis, Algis... You don't have to prove that we like
most primates often stand on 2 legs in waist-deep water, you have to tell us
why you think we differ from other primates in standing on 2 legs on land.
>>> I find it quite bizarre and very depressing.
>> Yes, we know you do, but that's your problem, Algis.
>>> Marc has literally shot the AAH in the foot but doing this, IMO.
>> IYO.
>>>>> AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors
>>>>> were seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs,
>>>>> turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae...
>>> Marc, you should make it clear that this is what *your* version of the
>>> AAT says.
>> Do you disagree with it? Then I'd like to know your arguments for
>> disagreeing. It's exactly what Hardy said (except for the time frame, of
>> course: PAs then thought that H & P split 10-15 Ma).
> No, as I say in my very next sentence, I agree with much of it. Hardy also
> said that he thought wading lead to our upright posture.
Good thought. But proven??
>>> That's not what Hardy or Morgan argued. You might be right, and I do
>>> agree with big parts of your model as you know, but it is frustrating
>>> when you seem to have taken it upon youself to redefine the big general
>>> idea to be your specific one. When, how and why did that happen? It
>>> certainly doesn't help people to understand what this thing is.
>> Time to make it clear?
>>>> There is no reason to believe that bipedal hominids were better suited
>>>> for collecting this food than quadrupedal monkeys.
>> Who said this? Not me.
>That was Andrew, I think.
Yes. I don't understand what he means by that. Uncomprehensable.
>>>>> The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy & physiology of living
>>>>> humans compared to other animals) explains many typically Homo traits
>>>>> (not seen in apes or australopiths) a lot better than dry
savanna scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing control,
vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
projecting nose, reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use,
late puberty, long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur
loss, high needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids...
>>>> Yes. AAT does explain it better than dry savanna scenarios, but it does
>>>> not explain bipedalism.
>> (I didn't say this last sentence -MV)
> Really? So who did, Andrew? I thought he was arguing that wading was part
> of the AAH. So anyway do you disagree with it? Are you now saying that you
> *do* think the AAT explains hominid bipedalism? Please, can we be clear on
> this point.
Yes, Andrew I think. I don't know what he meant by that. IMO, AAT (Homo
more aquatic than Pan) is an important element of the explanation of our
locomotion. What had you thought I had thought?
>>> That is your opinion, based only on your recently concocted neo-AAT =
>>> (and only equals) Homo Littoral Diaspora. In the broadest definition of
>>> the AAH, clearly it *does* attempt to explain *hominid* bipedalism too
>> Nonsense!
> Apparently you do not disagree with it, then!
??
It's not my opinion!
>> AAT s.s. has nothing to do with *hominids*!
> What, exactly *is* "AAT s.s"? When was that decided, and by whom?
"decided"??
s.s. & s.l. are meant to make things clearer:
- AAT sensu stricto is about Plio-Pleistocene Homo (basically littoral),
IOW, why we differ from apes (what Hardy & Morgan tried to explain).
- AAT sensu lato is about Mio-Pliocene hominids-pongids (basically
aquarboreal), IOW, how it evolved.
>> FYI: pongids=Pongo=orang, hominids=Pan,Homo,Gorilla. AAT s.s. is
>> about the differences between H & P.
> Yes and one of the biggest and most obvious differences is that we are
> bipedal and they are not [too categoric] and one of the clearest [no] and
> most demonstrable [no] reasons is wading in water, so why is bipedal
> origins suddenly nothing to do with the AAH, IYO?
Stop misrepresenting me. I've answered this 1000 times, but I'm afraid
you'll never get it.
>>> (but not, of course, bipedalism generally). Hardy and Morgan make that
>>> very clear indeed
>> I don't know what they made clear, but we know more than 40-30 years ago.
>> Continental drift is not the same as plate tectonics.
> Hardy (1960:644) "The idea of an aquatic past might also help to solve
> another puzzle ... how man obtained his upright posture..."
"might help", yes, excellent. As we said 1000 times, we don't have the
slightest problem with this. Hardy: "I see him becoming more & more of an
aq.animal going further out of the shore; I see him diving for shellfish,
prising out worms, burrowing crabs & bivalves frm the sand at the bottom of
shallow seas, breakingopen sea-urchins, & then, with increasing skill,
capturing fish with his hands" (capturing fish with the hands is done by
some Oceanic populations, but I think shell-crayfish collection etc. wer
more important).
> Morgan (1998) wrote four chapters on it. and...
>>> and even your own TREE paper of 2002 said that you found nonwading
>>> explanations of human bipedalism unconvincing.
>> Yes.
>>> You've tried to put an amazing twist on that sentence now to imply that
>>> people shouldn't actually take this to mean that you found wading
>>> explanations convincing (!)
>> Can't you read?? You're becoming as hair-splitting as the dry apers. No
>> wonder you seem to like "discussions" with them. The sentence means
>> exactly what is says.
> It's you who are being hair splitting and pedantic. I'm reading your
> sentence and coming to the conclusion that 99% of people reading would
> have. How foolish of me to think it meant you actually found wading
> explanations *convincing*. Silly me. I should have realised it was just a
> riddle that *actually* meant you didn't find any explanations convincing,
> not even wading ones.
Why do you care what "we find"? Why don't you look at the facts & think for
your own?? Feeling better if I rephrase the sentence: "Explaining human
locomotion without involving (at least some) wading is not very convincing
IOO"?
>>> but you cannot, surely, be surprised if 99 % of people who read your
>>> tree paper would understand it that way, after all you mention wading 24
>>> times in just six pages in the context of human evolution. --Algis
>>> Kuliukas
In case you hadn't noticed, the paper was on:
- Miocene ape lifestyle ("aquarboreal") = AAT s.l.,
- apith lifestyle, see above,
- Homo lifestyle = AAT s.s.: from our TREE paper:
Were Homo ancestors waterside omnivores? - Late Plio- or early Pleistocene
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1
spiznet
Underwater push-ups!
Marc Verhaegen
Nobody ever claimed that the fossil or archeol.record proved AAT. AAT is
proven by the comparative data (see my post "reconstructing our evol.past:
comparative & analytic method"), and it's obvious that the fossil &
archeol.data in no way contradict this.
--Marc
________
"Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122566236.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
richard...@yahoo.com
spiznet wrote:
> He sounds like a "lumper ".
From: Mclark
You've hereby declared to the world that you don't know the difference
between a Su Solomon and a Jim McGinn. In my world (and in many
others), that's like saying <begin Charlie Chan> Left hand not know
what right hand do! </end Charlie Chan>. Tough break, Bucky --it's
gonna take some extraordinary brilliance on your part, now, just to
break even.
From: JAE
Something's amiss when you're lumping Su and McGinn in the same lot.
From: spiznet:
He sounds like a "lumper ".
Maybe I'm not as 'into' this group psyche as I should be. Perhaps I was
just a naive young innocent, who thought that it was a forum for
rational discussion (disregarding Ed Conrad) of interesting subjects.
Perhaps I should have spent time beforehand, classifying the 'constant
doubters and putter-downers' of this incestuous small-time chat shop so
'I would know the difference between a Su Solomon and a Jim McGinn'.
When I first joined this group, Su Solomon graciously advised me to
study an Indian burial site - I dug my first Roman/Briton pottery waste
dump at the age of 12, (and became an 'expert' in Belgic/Samian, etc
pottery styles) and have been a close observer or participant in
archaeological sites in Malta, Cyprus, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan.
Since then, as (perhaps) I didn't thank her profusely for her
profoundly wise advice, she has limited her comments on whatever I post
(here or elsewhere) to very personal pronouncements on my morals (which
are no better then anyone else's), my habits (which are no better then
anyone else's) and my lack of academic expertise (which is no better
then anyone else's).
from the above-quoted comments (Mclark, JAE, and spiznet) I would infer
that she probably has a bunch of groupies.
regards
Richard
mclark
>news:1122683601.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> spiznet wrote:
>> He sounds like a "lumper ".
>
>
> from the above-quoted comments (Mclark, JAE, and spiznet) I would infer
> that she probably has a bunch of groupies.
She should be so lucky. Look, Dick, you waded in here
and immediately sidled up to the wet apes, declared various
and sundry slights to a wide variety of professionals, professed
to be oblivious of accepted usenet protocols, and then got
*uppity* about it. To me, that merely confirms and re-
inforces my first impressions of you. Then, in a great flourish
of bravado, you pronounce Su and Jimmy joined at the hip.
Are you unhinged?
You'll excuse me if I don't get too excited.
> regards
>
>
> Richard
spiznet
find 2-4 species.
I have nothing but good things to say about you, I was just making a
paleo-hominid joke.
By the way, you should look up Jim's "ecological gatekeeper hypothesis"
and compare it to the publication history of Su.
-Mermark
Marc Verhaegen
Clarks, Crowleys etc.etc. --Marc
__________
<richard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122683601.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
firstjois
[snip]
>> Perhaps I should have spent time beforehand, classifying the
>> 'constant doubters and putter-downers' of this incestuous small-time
>> chat shop so
>>
[snip]
I did tell you in the beginning when you first started posting that it was
smart to study a group before jumping in with two feet. But I was
surprised to find you already posted quite nicely and very politely in the
Yahoo groups. Gave me the feeling that you already knew that you could do
as you wished here but had to behave in the Yahoo groups. It pretty much
seems that you get what you ask for here. (I think you have gotten a few
warnings from the mods in the Yahoo groups, right? And you didn't hop up
and down with another muddy post either, right")
There is no reason why anyone should read the Jim McGinn posts or Paul's
posts either (and I shouldn't even have to mention Ed's).
And if you think this is "constant doubters and putter-downers' of this
incestuous small-time chat shop" for crying out loud, why the heck are you
hanging around? Just go glean a little abuse? Change your name to Algis
or Marco and have a grand time.
Jois
Oh, what's my name? Tell me how many times you've asked that question the
the Yahoo groups? Better yet, don't bother, I think I know the answer
already.
Ready?
Jois
Marc Verhaegen
>>>>>australopithecines were not directly on the Homo lineage and,
>>>>>technically, let's face it - the chances are vanishingly small that any
>>>>>of the hard evidence we have (i.e. fossil evidence) for
>>>>>australopithecines were, then it still seems pretty likely that
>>>>>whatever population (or populations) contained those individuals that
>>>>>were ancestral to Homo around 5-2Mya, were a'pith like.
>>>>MV: More apith-like than chimp-like, at least.
>>> Ok, so also more bipedal, agreed? and what IYO was the root cause of
>>> that bipedality? Climbing-Wading, right?
>> Yes, not unlikely (eg, our TREE paper).
>So, do you agree that wading was a major part of human bipedal origins, or
>not?
Yes, of course, and of chimps & gorillas. Your question is silly, Algis: we
all (all sensible people at least, except the few dry apers left) know that
wading was a major part of human origins, but I see no reason to think it
was a major part of bipedalism. Again (for the Xth time?) my present view on
lour locomotor evolution schematically:
1) early hominids-pongids ~15-10 Ma: surface-swimming + climbing in coastal
forests peri-Tethys,
2) early hominids ~10-5 Ma: idem + vertical wading-climbing (incl. lake Chad
:-)),
3) early Homo ~5-1 Ma: littoral incl.diving Afr.& Ind.ocean coasts, +-no
climbing any more,
4) early sapiens ~1-0 Ma: predom.bipedal wading-walking.
In our TREE paper, we didn't stress the possibility of surface-swimming (eg,
in the early hominids-pongids? but possibly still a lot in early hominids?),
but several animals swim to islands near the coast (eg, capuchin, proboscis,
macaques, babirusa) or to other trees in flooded forests (sloths). Wading on
2 legs IMO is a good solution for standing upright while collecting cattails
or parts of reeds or papyrus in water of 50-100 cm deep I guess (you know
this better than I do), but not much for faster locomotion in water?
Gorillas often KW in very shallow water, and swim (sort of breast-stroke) in
deeper water.
>>> Ok, please let me rephrase then: If such species [apiths? MV Yes. AK]
>>> were generally bipedal when they were not climbing, this would have
been largely due to wading, agreed?
>> No: 1) I'm not sure whether all apiths were more bipedal than KWing when
>> they were not climbing. Chimps also walk on 2 legs on wet ground.
Gorillas often stand & even wade on 4 legs in shallow water. KWing
adaptations have already been described in Lucy & anamensis. Bipedal
features in apiths are assumed because of resemblances with Homo (but IMO
these resemblances are primitive, eg, low ilia (also in monkeys - low,
apith-like ilia in monkeys? Where did you get that idea from? AK), long
femoral necks & valgus knees, flatter feet etc. - but I can't imagine that,
eg, longer fem.necks (abduction!) are for better cursorialism).
> This sounds like you're now backing away from the 'aquarboreal' idea,
> Marc.
Certainly not. Perhaps you're still misunderstanding a few things?
- Aquarboreal = aqua + arbor = swim &/or wade + climb. Aqua=water,
arbor=tree.
- Aquarborealism is about hominoids & hominids (AAT s.l.), not about Homo
(AAT s.s.): AFAICS there are no traces of climbing any more in Homo ~2 Ma
(IMO "habilis"s.s., eg, OH-62, was a gracile apith).
> I would have thought that for a wading-climbing hominid, when it's not
> climbing it's likely to be wading. Apparently, you don't think so any
> more.
See above.
>> 2) If it were so (not impossible), it would not have largely due to
>> wading IMO: mammals wade on 4 legs: tapirs, hippos, racoons, babirusa,
capibara, waterbuck...
> But apes wade on two legs. We're apes, Marc. Not hippos etc.
So? Is it only today that you realise not being a hippo?? Want to say
something, Algis?
You're never grasp it. Read my post "reconstructing evol.histories".
>> 3) Climbing is no doubt more important than wading in how our bipedalism
>> began. Bipedal animals usu.(if not always?) descend from arboreals.
Primates are arboreal. Indris on the ground are bipedal. Gibbons on branches
are. Tarsiers hop vertically...
> No one is disputing that climbing is important. But, clearly, it's not
> enough on its own otherwise all arboreal primates would be bipedal. We are
> the only obligate bipedal primate. We are apes. Apes wade bipedally at
> depths where every other mammal either moves quadrupedally or swims.
> Therefore wading would appear to be the key extra factor required to make
> a large ex-arboreal primate make the switch to obligate bipedalism.
I answered this 1000 times. Gorilla in water often on 2, on land on 4 legs,
okidoki?
>>> Hominid bipedalism, of course, it what I'm talking about here - not
>>> kangaroos, or birds, agreed?
>> No: if you discuss "bipedalism" in whatever species, you have to look at
>> bipedal animals. What else??
> How about apes? You know, the clade from which we are descended? How about
> looking at when *they're* most predictably bipedal?
Read my post mentioned above.
>> But my "??" meant that your sentence is not very understandable, eg,
>> "moving through water" = swimming? "bipedalism squarely into ape-human
>> differences"??
> Wading is also moving through water.
Yes.
>>> What I meant by 'legitimate' is that human bipedalism has been part of
>>> the AAH literature from day one (Hardy 1960, Morgan 1972, 1991, 1994,
>>> 1998 and Verhaegen et al 2002) and remained there until you unilaterally
>>> decided, for some strange reason, it wasn't any more.
>> ?? I have nothing to decide here, Algis.
> If you have always thought that wading should not be part of the AAH,
?? I never used the word "AAH"!
> that is up to you but my point is that I think it is pretty clear that
> Hardy, Morgan and even your own literature on the subject have placed it
> there. It seems odd that you (sometimes) seem to be now
arguing to have it erased from the list of ape-human differences that the
AAH explains.
?? Idem. I never erased anything from any list. Stop misrepresenting me. No
dry ape methods, Algis! If you really want to spend your time on what I
said, quote what I said. If you read something that you find curious, why
don't you simply ask: "What do you mean by that?" instead of fabricating the
most far-fetched ideas about it?
>>> If our ancestors were a'pith-like (and hence perhaps bipedal whilst
>>> wading) then of course bipedal origins is part of the AAH.
>> Our locomotion is part of our evolution, of course, but that doesn't mean
>> that bipedalism has to be explained by wading. In fact, we argued (TREE)
>> that P & G also had parttime wading ancestors. Can they be called
>> "bipedal" IYO??
> No, probably because their ancestors, unlike ours, did less wading.
Not impossible perhaps, but purely wishful thinking AFAICS.
>>>>> What Marc describes as "AAT s.s." (sensu stricto) I think is his own,
>>>>> quite recent, unilateral declaration of independence.
>>>> If I declare independance, I must have been dependent once, no?
>>>> dependent from what?? :-D
>>> I meant your new definition ... AAT = (and only equals) Homo littoral
>>> diaspora, and not bipedal origins. Hardy didn't argue that, Morgan
>>> didn't argue that and neither did you in your TREE paper.
>> I don't know what Hardy & Morgan argued, but I do know that our TREE
>> paper was about 1) aquarboreal Miocene apes, 2) wading-climbing apiths
>> (ie, not about us), 3) wading-diving Homo. We gave our arguments why IOO
>> this has to be like that. So far, nobody (dry apers, Algis...) has given
>> convincing objections.
> Why don't you know what Hardy and Morgan argued? Haven't you read their
> work?
I had better written: "Whatever H & M argued, our TREE paper was about 1)
aquarboreal Miocene apes, 2) wading-climbing apiths (ie, not about us), 3)
wading-diving Homo." You better comment on this instead of talking about
papers written tens of years ago. There's no Holy-Hardy as there is a
Saint-Savanna.
> Putting aside that sentence in the TREE paper ('nonwading explanations of
> human bipedalism unconvincing'), just look at what you wrote there: 1)
> aquarboreal (=wading-climbing, right?) Miocene apes, and 3) wading-diving
> Homo. In other words wading was *the* key factor in our evolution
> according to this little snippet.
?? I think you need a few lessons in logics, Algis.
> And yet in the next breath you're claiming that bipedalism (the most
> predictable factor induced by wading in apes) shouldn't be part of the
> AAH. Are you surprised I'm confused?
See above.
>>> When and why did you decide the AAH didn't include bipedal origins any
>>> more? When did you answer that?
>> Don't be ridiculous: I never "decided (!!) the AAH (??) didn't include
>> bipedal origins (?)"! Why on earth should I produce such a nonsensical
>> sentence?? I can say (if you want something from me here) that, as in
>> other bipeds, our "bipedal origins" were clearly in our arboreal past.
> You've been arguing that bipedalism was not part of the AAH, Marc.
Nonsense. Are you really incapable of making the difference with using it as
an argument pro wading??
> You seem to change your mind from one sentence to the next.
That's because you can't read, I'm afraid.
>>>>> as to when and why he made this decision to sever off and effectively
>>>>> dump what has always seemed to me to be the AAH's strongest card.
>>>> "seemed"... Better use reliable arguments than questionable ones.
>>> Put it this way: Take an ape and place it in waist deep water and it
>>> moves bipedally. There is no other such ape-human difference than can be
>>> demonstrated so clearly and predictably by water.
>> Take an ape & place it on land: bipedal?? Put it in ankle deep water. Put
>> it in neck deep water. Algis, Algis... You don't have to prove that we
>> like most primates often stand on 2 legs in waist-deep water, you have to
>> tell us why you think we differ from other primates in standing on 2 legs
>> on land.
> Because traits which are likely to be favoured by bipedal wading (e.g.
> longer legs, flatter feet, lumbar lordosis, anterior foramen magnum) are
> more likely to make a hominids bipedal on land too, of
course.
For once, try to analyse what you said:
- longer legs: yes, but also in ostriches,
- flatter feet: wading birds mave more splayed feet, no?
- lumbar lordosis?? ever seen an ostrich or kangaroo with LL?
- ant.for.magnum: tarsier = bipedal IYO?
This is only the first part of your sentence... The 2d part is even more
nonsense.
>>>>> Yes. AAT does explain it better than dry savanna scenarios, but it
>>>>> does not explain bipedalism.
>>>> (I didn't say this last sentence -MV)
>>> Really? So who did, Andrew? I thought he was arguing that wading was
>>> part of the AAH. So anyway do you disagree with it? Are you now saying
>>> that you *do* think the AAT explains hominid bipedalism? Please, can we
>>> be clear on this point.
>> Yes, Andrew I think. I don't know what he meant by that. IMO, AAT (Homo
>> more aquatic than Pan) is an important element of the explanation of our
>> locomotion. What had you thought I had thought?
> I'm trying to find out. So do you, or do you not, think that part of the
> AAT/H explains human bipedalism?
Sigh. First try to make sensible questions, Algis:
1) If you say "do you or do you not", you're already making unallowed
presuppositions, eg, that I know the answer, and that the possible answers
are mutually exclusive.
2) What part of AAT? swimming? wading?
3) "human bipedalism"??
If I have to explain the bipedal part of our locomotion, arborealism is by
far the most important factor AFAICS.
>>>>> That is your opinion, based only on your recently concocted neo-AAT =
>>>>> (and only equals) Homo Littoral Diaspora. In the broadest definition
>>>>> of the AAH, clearly it *does* attempt to explain *hominid* bipedalism
>>>>> too
>>>> Nonsense!
>>> Apparently you do not disagree with it, then!
>> ?? It's not my opinion!
> I give up!! It's like trying to talk to the Riddler in Batman!
I don't know the Riddler in Batman, but don't expect to get clear reactions
on fuzzy statements.
>>>> AAT s.s. has nothing to do with *hominids*!
>>> What, exactly *is* "AAT s.s"? When was that decided, and by whom?
>> "decided"?? s.s. & s.l. are meant to make things clearer: AAT sensu
>> stricto is about Plio-Pleistocene Homo (basically littoral), IOW, why we
>> differ from apes (what Hardy & Morgan tried to explain). AAT sensu lato
>> is about Mio-Pliocene hominids-pongids (basically aquarboreal), IOW, how
>> it evolved.
> Ok. That's clear, thank you. People wouldn't have got that definition from
> reading Hardy, Morgan or even your own published work, though.
It's clear that there was no "aquatic" past. Evolution is gradual, IOW,
every phase has to evolve gradually into the next one. If we want to
reconstruct our past, we have to discern different overlapping phases:
obviously "s.s." is about Homo only. But I think we can discern now a lot
more hypothetical phases (eg, 5? see above: climb+swim, + wade, +dive,
+walk, +run).
>>> Yes and one of the biggest and most obvious differences is that we are
>>> bipedal and they are not [too categoric] and one of the clearest [no]
>>> and most demonstrable [no] reasons is wading in water, so why is bipedal
>>> origins suddenly nothing to do with the AAH, IYO?
>> Stop misrepresenting me. I've answered this 1000 times, but I'm afraid
>> you'll never get it.
>No, I don't think I ever will.
I've done my best, Algis. :-(
>>>>> (but not, of course, bipedalism generally). Hardy and Morgan make that
>>>>> very clear indeed
>>>> I don't know what they made clear, but we know more than 40-30 years
>>>> ago. Continental drift is not the same as plate tectonics.
>>> Hardy (1960:644) "The idea of an aquatic past might also help to solve
>>> another puzzle ... how man obtained his upright posture..."
>> "might help", yes, excellent. As we said 1000 times, we don't have the
>> slightest problem with this. Hardy: "I see him becoming more & more of an
>> aq.animal going further out of the shore; I see him diving for shellfish,
>> prising out worms, burrowing crabs & bivalves frm the sand at the bottom
>> of shallow seas, breakingopen sea-urchins, & then, with increasing skill,
>> capturing fish with his hands" (capturing fish with the hands is done by
>> some Oceanic populations, but I think shell-crayfish collection etc. were
>> more important).
> But Marc, Hardy's espousing the view that wading in the shallows was a key
> factor in the evolution of human bipedalism. Do you agree with that, or
> not?
I don't know & don't care whether Hardy espoused that view, but the rest
I've answered above. And please don't ask questions with yes or no: this is
asking for wrong answers.
>>> Morgan (1998) wrote four chapters on it. and...
> Nothing to say about Elaine's contribution?
Sorry, no: no time to re-read them now.
>>>>> and even your own TREE paper of 2002 said that you found nonwading
>>>>> explanations of human bipedalism unconvincing.
>>>> Yes.
>>>>> You've tried to put an amazing twist on that sentence now to imply
>>>>> that people shouldn't actually take this to mean that you found wading
>>>>> explanations convincing (!)
>>>> Can't you read?? You're becoming as hair-splitting as the dry apers. No
>>>> wonder you seem to like "discussions" with them. The sentence means
>>>> exactly what is says.
>>> It's you who are being hair splitting and pedantic. I'm reading your
>>> sentence and coming to the conclusion that 99% of people reading would
>>> have. How foolish of me to think it meant you actually found
wading explanations *convincing*. Silly me. I should have realised it was
just a riddle that *actually* meant you didn't find any explanations
convincing, not even wading ones.
>> Why do you care what "we find"? Why don't you look at the facts & think
>> for your own?? Feeling better if I rephrase the sentence: "Explaining
>> human locomotion without involving (at least some) wading is not very
>> convincing IOO"?
> I do think for myself thankyou. It would have helped if you'd have written
> that you didn't think wading explanations for human bipedalism were
> convincing, if that was what you thought, rather than
writing cryptic riddles where people had to double guess what your really
thought. Algis Kuliukas
I don't see why you would try to guess anything here, Algis. Can't you spend
your time in a better way? You know my view that our Homo ancestors were
seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, turtles, shell-, crayfish
etc., & dived a lot (in fact, human speech only became possible through
voluntary breath-holding).
--Marc
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
Lee Olsen
> I thought I had answered this, but here it is again, in short:
>
> Nobody ever claimed that the fossil or archeol.record proved AAT.
I'm not sure where you think I made such an accusation. In science,
prove is not really the best choice of words, since one really doesn't
prove, but merely falsifies a hypothesis or a portion of it. I
occasionally will use the term prove, more or less as an expression
than anything else, being well aware of the difference.
AAT is
> proven by the comparative data (see my post "reconstructing our evol.past:
> comparative & analytic method"),
IYO
and it's obvious that the fossil &
> archeol.data in no way contradict this.
Well then, your work is cut out for you. I would like to see that
statement, as written, in a peer-reviewed journal (and preferably not
in the opinion department).
After stone tools turn up in the record (c 2.6 My), the archaeological
data falsifies any notion of there being a lakeside or seaside phase in
the evolution of Homo.
<snip>
Rick Wagler
to really understanding what he is claiming when he
talks of a coastal phase. He seems to think that all
the inland sites do not argue against early Homo
occupying coastal areas. But this is not what he is
actually arguing. He might think he is arguing this but
I doubt it since he goes on to list of every major anatomical
feature of Homo as an adaptation to sea shore wading
and diving. You will find you.ve run into a brick wall, Lee.
And beware the virus argument. This Todaro paper is an
early one - 1975 which is ancient in the virology timescale.
It is commonly known as the Baboon C virus and subsequent
research has demonstrated that it is never found in hominoid
apes.
Rick Wagler
Marc Verhaegen
> After stone tools turn up in the record (c 2.6 My), the archaeological
> data falsifies any notion of there being a lakeside or seaside phase in
> the evolution of Homo.
1) still confusing fossils & ancestors?
2) a lot of fossils-tools-footsteps are found lake & seaside
Rick Wagler
"Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:42ec06c4$0$17721$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122756364....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> After stone tools turn up in the record (c 2.6 My), the archaeological
>> data falsifies any notion of there being a lakeside or seaside phase in
>> the evolution of Homo.
>
> 1) still confusing fossils & ancestors?
> 2) a lot of fossils-tools-footsteps are found lake & seaside
>
****phase***** - look the damn word up! -in
the evolution of Homo.
Rick Wagler
Marc Verhaegen
Again, my boy:
Our anatomical features prove we were totally unlike all savanna dwellers.
To the contrary, they suggest we were littoral.
You know: eating coconuts, shell-crayfish, turtle eggs, stranded animals...
Now:
Listen carefully:
Homo "suddenly" appears all over the world, from Java to Algeria c 1.8 Ma.
Do you think they flew??
Do you think they climbed mountains??
Do you believe all the way fro Algeria to Java you savannas?
Do you deny they were waterways all the way between all these points?
Do you have any indication they did not follwo the water??
Why am I losing my time with you??
You don't even listen...
AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors were
seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
shell-, crayfish, algae... The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy &
physiology of living humans compared to other animals) explains many
typically Homo traits (not seen in apes or australopiths) a lot better than
dry savanna scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing control,
vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
projecting nose, reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty,
long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs
of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids...
In the fossil & archeological record, this waterside episode
is reflected in the Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian
Ocean & African coasts: 1.8-Ma Homo remains come from Algeria, Iran, Kenya,
Georgia, Java... always near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421); in
spite of sea level changes (Ice Ages), Homo much more than australopith
remains have been found amid shells, corals & barnacles, from 1.8 to 0.1 Ma
(throughout the Pleistocene), in coasts all over the Old World (Mojokerto,
Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea...), even on islands that could only be
reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm).
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora
"Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:r3VGe.69704$5V4.25425@pd7tw3no...
Marc Verhaegen
________
"Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:UNSGe.71018$s54.1666@pd7tw2no...
Rick Wagler
> Wagler, inform: there are more recent papers on the retrovirus data.
Then cite them. Is or is not the Baboon C virus found in
hominoids?
Rick Wagler
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122756364....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > After stone tools turn up in the record (c 2.6 My), the archaeological
> > data falsifies any notion of there being a lakeside or seaside phase in
> > the evolution of Homo.
>
> 1) still confusing fossils & ancestors?
Divide the issue into two separate parts.
1) Before stone tools turn up (BST)
2) After stone tools (AST)
As far as fossil evidence BST, I agree with you that we don't really
know for sure who is related to whom (or some fossils may be just plain
missing). So as far as the line of Homo, there really isn't an
archaeological record, fossil or artifactual. The record here is moot.
So argue as you wish about comparative evidence BST because there is no
archaeology to conflict with it.
AST the record is clear, there is no preference for tools to be found
seaside or lakeside. Tools are found consistently in association with
terrestrial animals, next to lakes/seas or away from them. Homo was
exploiting savanna animals and animals gravitate to water sources (no
need to be diving in after them). This exploitation of savanna fauna
took place around either large lakes or small springs. Homo utilized
entire lake basins, not just edges of large lakes or seas. Homo was
fixed as a savanna dweller with no aquatic preferences demonstrated in
the record, so aquatic evolution (assuming the was such a thing in the
first place) was over from this point in time (even if it were the case
3 million years before).
I used to live by the sea, seldom got my feet wet, I eat clams, and
I'm not developing web feet. At some point even you have to admit there
was no more AAT influence on our evolution. The buck stops with savanna
Homo, his exploitation of savanna fauna, and the zero evidence for
exploitation of marine resources.
> 2) a lot of fossils-tools-footsteps are found lake & seaside
Not one tenth the evidence demonstrated for inland utilization. The
Karari Escarpment is 15 miles from lake Turkana. FxJj 50: the 50 means
50 named sites in that area alone. I don't know how many have been
found and documented since that one was named. That's just small area
in a very large basin, there are many more inland sites with the same
distribution of artifacts.
Marc Verhaegen
>
> "Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:42ec20ff$0$24101$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
>> Wagler, inform: there are more recent papers on the retrovirus data.
>
> Then cite them.
Do your own homework, Wagler.
Andrew Nowicki
> All the sites offered by AAT (always near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003
> JHE 45:421) as associations for marine utilization are in fact
> evidence for terrestrial fauna utilization, just the opposite of what
> would be predicted by using the comparative data of AAT. In short,
> there is no fossil or archaeological evidence that backs up AAT
> conclusions.
___________________________________________________________________________
"Early evidence for shellfish consumption:
At present, the earliest evidence for shellfish consumption comes from
a 300 000 year old site in France called Terra Amata. This is a
'hominid site' as modern Homo sapiens did not appear until around
50 000 years ago...
...New evidence has just shown that Neanderthals gathered and ate
shellfish as well. Ordinarily, evidence for the consumption of
molluscs and generic marine exploitation comes from material
evidence at the site (e.g. deposits of shells and fish bones, the
presence of fishhooks, and artefacts manufactured from shell).
However, new scientific methods enable us to analyse ancient hominid
bones themselves, and assess how much of the diet came from marine
sources versus terrestrial sources. Marine protein sources have a
slightly different chemical composition to terrestrial protein sources,
and through the analysis of stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen
stored in human bone collagen, analysts are able to determine what
proportion of protein food was coming from either source. It has been
found that, although Neanderthals occasionally utilised marine resouces,
their main focus was on large terrestrial game. Homo sapiens on the
other hand, had a considerably broader diet, and coastal populations
have higher frequencies of marine-derived isotopes in their bones. The
broader diet of Homo sapiens may have been one of the reasons why they
lived on when Neanderthals did not - in times of scarcity or resource
pressure, it is much easier to survive and succeed as a species if one
can exploit a wide range of food sources."
Andrew Nowicki
> Sea-otters, capuchins and chimpanzees all open shells by
> hammering them with hard objects. The most dextrous mammals, besides humans,
> are raccoons, otters, capuchins and chimpanzees. Conceivably,
> human-chimpanzee ancestors, like mangrove capuchins33, used stones to remove
> and open coconuts growing on palm-trees and oysters on mangrove roots (Fig.
> 1). If chimpanzee ancestors moved inland, stone-use might have become
> confined to nut-cracking, but for coastal human ancestors stone use would
> have become more important, and the long association with coastal foods
> might explain the later Stone-Age industries.
There was much more food for primitive hominids
in clear streams than on the coasts. The coasts
provide lots of food only if you use boats and
modern fishing technology.
> Arguably, modern humans evolved from beach-combers who gradually became more
> suited to wading and diving (Fig. 1), developing more linear bodies, longer
> legs, larger brains and tool-using skills. This coastal phase could help
> explain furlessness, subcutaneous fat and voluntary breath-control -
> features unique among primates but common to walruses, seacows, babirusas,
> hippos, whales and dolphins4,5. It could also help explain why humans are
> more efficient swimmers-divers than other primates4,5,37,40.
Thermal arguments in favor of bipedal wading are very
convincing to me -- this is the root cause of our bipedality.
Hominids were too smart to depend on a single source of food.
They were nomads in search of food, water, and mosquito-free
environment. Roads did not exist yet, so they migrated along
shores of streams, rivers, lakes, and seas. They walked along
a beach or waded in shallow water wherever it was possible.
They swam if they had to swim. It was only natural for them
to collect shellfish along the way. Their ability to migrate
through dry savanna and dry bush was limited by sweating and
the need to drink water. Their presence on the coasts is due
to their migration routes rather than their total reliance on
coastal foods.
Andrew Nowicki
> If such species were generally bipedal, due largely to wading,
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> You take your wishes for reality, Algis. Look at the facts. What we
> >> know about apith locomotion: curved phalanges (graciles>robusts) =
> >> climbing arms overhead,...
Are you saying that the apiths held their arms overhead
most of the time?
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> some KWing features (E.Afr.apiths) = parttime KWing,
It not clear if the apiths walked on their knuckles.
One paper (B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait, Nature 404,
23 Mar 2000, vol. 382.) claims that Australopithecus anamensis
and Australopithecus afarensis walked in their knuckles.
On the other hand, the new 3.3 million-year-old apith found in
Sterkfontein, South Africa (catalogue name: StW 573) did not
walk on its knuckles.
Two older papers (McHenry, Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 15
pp. 177-91, 1986) and (Stern and Susman, JHE, vol. 60, pp. 284,
1983) claim that apiths did not walk on their knuckles.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> 3) Climbing is no doubt more important than wading in how our bipedalism
> began.
Can you prove it?
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> If our ancestors were a'pith-like (and hence perhaps bipedal whilst
> wading) then of course bipedal origins is part of the AAH.
Indeed. Our bipedalism is much more conspicuous than
our aquatic adaptations. This implies that hominids in
general waded and walked much more often than they swam
or dived.
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> Really? So who did, Andrew? I thought he was arguing that wading was part
> of the AAH. So anyway do you disagree with it? Are you now saying that you
> *do* think the AAT explains hominid bipedalism? Please, can we be clear on
> this point.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Yes, Andrew I think. I don't know what he meant by that. IMO, AAT (Homo
> more aquatic than Pan) is an important element of the explanation of our
> locomotion. What had you thought I had thought?
Yes, I said that. There are strong, thermal arguments in
favor of wading origin of bipedalism. Swimming and diving
are natural extensions of wading.
Swimming is important skill if you are a nomad and have to
cross a river or a lake occasionally. Diving is less
important for a poor swimmer like the hominid.
(Some monkeys can swim and they enjoy diving from a tree
branch on a hot day.)
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> - AAT sensu stricto is about Plio-Pleistocene Homo (basically littoral),
> IOW, why we differ from apes (what Hardy & Morgan tried to explain).
I would say riparian and littoral.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> - AAT sensu lato is about Mio-Pliocene hominids-pongids (basically
> aquarboreal), IOW, how it evolved.
How can you prove that these ancient hominids
were more aquatic than the monkeys?
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> FYI: pongids=Pongo=orang, hominids=Pan,Homo,Gorilla. AAT s.s. is
> about the differences between H & P.
According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary:
pongid = any anthropoid primate of the family Pongidae, comprising
the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan; a great ape
Rick Wagler
>
> "Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:RyVGe.69840$5V4.67977@pd7tw3no...
>>
>> "Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>> news:42ec20ff$0$24101$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
>>> Wagler, inform: there are more recent papers on the retrovirus data.
>>
>> Then cite them.
>
> Do your own homework, Wagler.
>
A Pubmed search of 'Baboon C retrovirus'
produces amongst others the following
: J Virol. 2000 Feb;74(3):1578-86.
Papio cynocephalus endogenous retrovirus among old
world monkeys: evidence for coevolution and ancient
cross-species transmissions.
Mang R, Maas J, van Der Kuyl AC, Goudsmit J.
To study the evolutionary history of Papio
cynocephalus endogenous retrovirus (PcEV),
we analyzed the distribution and genetic
characteristics of PcEV among 17 different
species of primates. The viral pol-env and
long terminal repeat and untranslated region
(LTR-UTR) sequences could be recovered from
all Old World species of the papionin tribe,
which includes baboons, macaques, geladas,
and mangabeys, but not from the New World monkeys
and hominoids we tested.
[rest of abstract snipped]
I note a change of terminology and this is not
the only recent paper that notes that this virus
is not found in any modern hominoid. I think
this Baboon marker virus thing can be put to
rest. In a field like virology an article from
1976 is *really* ancient. But I'm not well informed
about virology - to put it in the best possible
light - so I am open to the possibility
that another virus is being discussed. But a
single article from a quarter of a century ago
is a pretty thin reed with which to support
an argument about virology.
There. I've done my homework. Got any cites
that indicate the Todaro / Benveniste paper
went anywhere at all? No? Then stop with this
nonsense. Read and profit from the section
in Jim Moore's site about false facts. Surely
you would not want your little magnum opus
to be reliant upon them.
Rick Wagler
Rick Wagler
Lee Olsen
Sorry if the word "All" caused some confusion, the time frame we were
discussing has been consistently early rather than late, as per:
MV: "You know there was a marine ingression in the Rift c 1.8 Ma
(Feibel), I would not be surprised if at that time there were a lot of
other ingressions at other places (explaining the sudden appearance of
fossils - tools at that time), eg, that Dennell's "palaeo-shore
deposits of a vast shallow Late Plio/Early Pleist.ocene lake" in Iran
was connected to the sea."
Rick Wagler
"Andrew Nowicki" <and...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42ECF090...@nospam.com...
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
>> If such species were generally bipedal, due largely to wading,
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
>> >> You take your wishes for reality, Algis. Look at the facts. What we
>> >> know about apith locomotion: curved phalanges (graciles>robusts) =
>> >> climbing arms overhead,...
>
> Are you saying that the apiths held their arms overhead
> most of the time?
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
>> some KWing features (E.Afr.apiths) = parttime KWing,
>
> It not clear if the apiths walked on their knuckles.
>
> One paper (B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait, Nature 404,
> 23 Mar 2000, vol. 382.) claims that Australopithecus anamensis
> and Australopithecus afarensis walked in their knuckles.
>
or are you relying on some wet apers hatchet job
of an interpretation of what R / S actually wrote?
To be brief they claim evidence that anamensis is
descended from a knuckle walker based on the
vestigial presence of features found in kw'ers.
Rick Wagler
Andrew Nowicki
> AST the record is clear, there is no preference for tools to be found
> seaside or lakeside. Tools are found consistently in association with
> terrestrial animals, next to lakes/seas or away from them. Homo was
> exploiting savanna animals and animals gravitate to water sources (no
> need to be diving in after them). This exploitation of savanna fauna
> took place around either large lakes or small springs. Homo utilized
> entire lake basins, not just edges of large lakes or seas. Homo was
> fixed as a savanna dweller with no aquatic preferences demonstrated in
> the record, so aquatic evolution (assuming the was such a thing in the
> first place) was over from this point in time (even if it were the case
> 3 million years before).
Before 2 m.y.a. hominids lived near lakes, streams, and rock
outcrops (source: Larick, R., & Ciochon, R. L. "The African
emergence and early Asian dispersal s of the genus Homo,"
American Scientist, vol. 84(6), pp. 538-551, 1996). After
2 m.y.a. they lived in many habitats. They lost fur at
least 1.2 m.y.a. Having no fur, they had to sleep in dry
places that were free of mosquitoes. Being sweating animals
they had to drink water at least once a day. Being bipedal
animals, they could not travel easily through dense forests --
it was easier for them to wade or to walk through savanna.
Andrew Nowicki
> One paper (B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait, Nature 404,
> 23 Mar 2000, vol. 382.) claims that Australopithecus anamensis
> and Australopithecus afarensis walked in their knuckles.
Rick Wagler wrote:
> This is absolutely false. Did you read the paper
> or are you relying on some wet apers hatchet job
> of an interpretation of what R / S actually wrote?
> To be brief they claim evidence that anamensis is
> descended from a knuckle walker based on the
> vestigial presence of features found in kw'ers.
I read only a small part. Here is excerpt from the paper:
“Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to
Australopithecus anamensis (KNMER-20419) and A. afarensis
(AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated
with knuckle-walking”
I gave wrong volume and page numbers. Here is the correction:
Brian G. Richmond, and David S. Strait, “Evidence that Humans
Evolved from a Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,” Nature, volume 404,
pages 382-385, March 23 2000.
BBC page on the same topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/687341.stm
Lee Olsen
Andrew Nowicki wrote: nothing germane to the issue.
<snip>
Andrew Nowicki
ancestors." I agree with most of the paper but I disagree
with the following parts:
"Body enlargement and tail reduction would hinder agile
arborealism, whereas a larger body is more easily
supported in water and helps reduce heat loss
(explaining why aquatic mammals are larger than related
terrestrial forms)."
Correct except that body size is not related to
its buoyancy. Buoyancy is determined by density of
the floating object, and, for very small object,
by its surface tension.
"The australopiths and ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees
might have lived near swampy forests and preserved
their climbing abilities, whereas hominid populations
that remained near or returned to the coast could have
given rise to the various Homo spp.: big-brained, longlegged
waders and divers who were able to take full advantage of
the resources associated with coastal environments."
Coastal hominids could climb tidal mangrove trees and
palm trees growing there. The only significant difference
between the coastal habitats and the clear stream habitats
is that clear streams can support much larger population
of primitive hominids. I do not understand why you keep
talking about the coasts, but never mention the streams.
Your figure 1 is confusing.
Andrew Nowicki
> BBC page on the same topic:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/687341.stm
Here are interesting excerpts from this web page:
"Lucy's stiff wrists suggest that her ancestors - and
ours - walked on their knuckles..."
"Lucy, who lived in Africa between 4.1 and 3 million
years ago, did walk upright. Her hip and leg bones
make that clear. But she did not have the flexible
wrists that allowed later humans to throw spears and
make tools..."
"Humans came to walk upright, leaving their hands free
to gather and carry things, while apes did not. "It
is thought that knuckle walking is something that
allows these animals to retain long fingers that allow
them to climb in trees, but to also walk using their
forearms," Dr Richmond said. "But for that you need a
very stable wrist joint. Chimpanzees and gorillas have
a special locking mechanism that prevents the wrists
from cocking back very far." Lucy has it too. Dr
Richmond said it was not until Australopithecus africanus
emerged, about 2.5 million years ago, that the wrist
became mobile like that of modern humans."
_____________________________________________________________
My comment: Australopithecus afarensis lived too long
to be called transitional species and yet it was both
bipedal and quadrupedal. Maybe it was bipedal in water
and quadrupedal on land?
Why did Australopithecus africanus need much more
dexterous hands than Australopithecus afarensis?
I can imagine Australopithecus afarensis digging edible
tubers with digging stick, walking bipedally with the
stick, and making secure shelters from tree branches.
Australopithecus africanus looks to me like the first
hominid that could throw spears and burning wood at its
predators.
Paul Crowley
> Divide the issue into two separate parts.
> 1) Before stone tools turn up (BST)
> 2) After stone tools (AST)
>
> As far as fossil evidence BST, I agree with you that we don't really
> know for sure who is related to whom (or some fossils may be just plain
> missing). So as far as the line of Homo, there really isn't an
> archaeological record, fossil or artifactual. The record here is moot.
> So argue as you wish about comparative evidence BST because there is no
> archaeology to conflict with it.
>
> AST the record is clear, there is no preference for tools to be found
> seaside or lakeside. Tools are found consistently in association with
> terrestrial animals
Nonsense. Stone tools are found in all
sorts of places. The 'association' with the
bones of animals is not much better than
chance.
> next to lakes/seas or away from them. Homo was
> exploiting savanna animals
Foolish nonsense. Of course, homo
butchered the occasional savanna animal.
But to suggest that homo lived off them
as a matter in routine, and could compete
successfully with their usual predators
(lions, hyenas. etc.) is next to insane.
> Homo was fixed as a savanna dweller
Ridiculous. How did homo infants and
children survive at night in the presence
of enormous numbers of nocturnal
predators.
> with no aquatic preferences demonstrated in
> the record, so aquatic evolution (assuming the was such a thing in the
> first place) was over from this point in time (even if it were the case
> 3 million years before).
>
> I used to live by the sea, seldom got my feet wet, I eat clams, and
> I'm not developing web feet. At some point even you have to admit there
> was no more AAT influence on our evolution. The buck stops with savanna
> Homo, his exploitation of savanna fauna,
The AAT is nonsense. Its only justification
lies in the absurdity of the savanna story.
> > 2) a lot of fossils-tools-footsteps are found lake & seaside
>
> Not one tenth the evidence demonstrated for inland utilization. The
> Karari Escarpment is 15 miles from lake Turkana. FxJj 50: the 50 means
> 50 named sites in that area alone.
They are sites with a few stone tools
(or, more likely, weapons) accumulated in
such places over a few million years.
Paul.
Rick Wagler
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:pLbHe.3232$R5....@news.indigo.ie...
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122774896....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Divide the issue into two separate parts.
>> 1) Before stone tools turn up (BST)
>> 2) After stone tools (AST)
>>
>> As far as fossil evidence BST, I agree with you that we don't really
>> know for sure who is related to whom (or some fossils may be just plain
>> missing). So as far as the line of Homo, there really isn't an
>> archaeological record, fossil or artifactual. The record here is moot.
>> So argue as you wish about comparative evidence BST because there is no
>> archaeology to conflict with it.
>>
>> AST the record is clear, there is no preference for tools to be found
>> seaside or lakeside. Tools are found consistently in association with
>> terrestrial animals
>
> Nonsense. Stone tools are found in all
> sorts of places. The 'association' with the
> bones of animals is not much better than
> chance.
>
being worked with stone tools the element of chance
is removed.
>> next to lakes/seas or away from them. Homo was
>> exploiting savanna animals
>
> Foolish nonsense. Of course, homo
> butchered the occasional savanna animal.
> But to suggest that homo lived off them
> as a matter in routine, and could compete
> successfully with their usual predators
> (lions, hyenas. etc.) is next to insane.
>
Why? We *know* that modern stone age people
became the apex predator. Did early Homo have
a diet consisting of large savannah animals only? No.
No one suggests this.
>> Homo was fixed as a savanna dweller
>
> Ridiculous. How did homo infants and
> children survive at night in the presence
> of enormous numbers of nocturnal
> predators.
>
Simple. There were not enormous numbers of nocturnal
predators. There never are. One of your beloved TV programs
almost certainly talks of "the balance of nature" from time
to time. Pay attention. All your "Homo the Sitting Duck" arguments
apply equally to baboons but there they are. And by the
way bumblebees do so fly....
>> with no aquatic preferences demonstrated in
>> the record, so aquatic evolution (assuming the was such a thing in the
>> first place) was over from this point in time (even if it were the case
>> 3 million years before).
>>
>> I used to live by the sea, seldom got my feet wet, I eat clams, and
>> I'm not developing web feet. At some point even you have to admit there
>> was no more AAT influence on our evolution. The buck stops with savanna
>> Homo, his exploitation of savanna fauna,
>
> The AAT is nonsense. Its only justification
> lies in the absurdity of the savanna story.
>
Except the "savannah story" is not absurd. It is
the prevailing paradigm for a reason. [Insert raving
anti-PA dementia here, Pauly]
]
>> > 2) a lot of fossils-tools-footsteps are found lake & seaside
>>
>> Not one tenth the evidence demonstrated for inland utilization. The
>> Karari Escarpment is 15 miles from lake Turkana. FxJj 50: the 50 means
>> 50 named sites in that area alone.
>
> They are sites with a few stone tools
> (or, more likely, weapons) accumulated in
> such places over a few million years.
>
You've read the site reports have you?
No, I thought not...
Rick Wagler
Andrew Nowicki
> How did homo infants and children survive at night
> in the presence of enormous numbers of nocturnal predators.
Rick Wagler wrote:
> Simple. There were not enormous numbers of nocturnal
> predators. There never are...
Lions, hyenas, and leopards hunt mostly at night.
firstjois
>> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>>
>>> If such species were generally bipedal, due largely to wading,
>>
>> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>>>>> You take your wishes for reality, Algis. Look at the facts.
>>>>> What we know about apith locomotion: curved phalanges
>>>>> (graciles>robusts) = climbing arms overhead,...
>>
>> Are you saying that the apiths held their arms overhead
>> most of the time?
>>
that.
Jois
spiznet
and larger brain sizes....
Rick Wagler
Lions, hyenas and leopards do not exist
in "enormous numbers". Early hominids
could have used trees or rocky outcrops
like baboons and later on fire and barricades
of thorn bush and the like. Face it. Homo
lived in the savannahs. How dangerous this
was is interesting to speculate about but
clearly neither predators nor anything else
represented a limiting factor which restricted
the range of Homo.
Rick Wagler
firstjois
>> Deodorant originated with A'pith also, which began the spiral of
>> larger and larger brain sizes....
And smaller noses?
Spiznet, it's your turn to come up with two new topics! (Think of it as
being a tag game.)
Jois
Jim McGinn
Rick Wagler wrote:
Early hominids
> could have used trees or rocky outcrops
> like baboons and later on fire and barricades
> of thorn bush and the like. Face it. Homo
> lived in the savannahs. How dangerous this
> was is interesting to speculate about but
> clearly neither predators nor anything else
> represented a limiting factor which restricted
> the range of Homo.
Depends what you mean by savannah. Look at the climate/environment of
present day India. Can we call this savannah? To the extent that we
can call this savannah then, yes, Homo can be said to have resided in a
savannah. But the more we narrow our definition of savannah to the
classic and relatively dry savannah of present day east Africa the less
we can say that Homo resided in savannah. The savannah/environment of
present day east Africa, where homo fossils are found, has too short a
dry season and is too treeless to support much of a homo population.
Jim
rmacfarl
...
> >
> > Do your own homework, Wagler.
> >
>
> A Pubmed search of 'Baboon C retrovirus'
> produces amongst others the following
>
> : J Virol. 2000 Feb;74(3):1578-86.
>
> Papio cynocephalus endogenous retrovirus among old
> world monkeys: evidence for coevolution and ancient
> cross-species transmissions.
>
> Mang R, Maas J, van Der Kuyl AC, Goudsmit J.
>
>
> To study the evolutionary history of Papio
> cynocephalus endogenous retrovirus (PcEV),
> we analyzed the distribution and genetic
> characteristics of PcEV among 17 different
> species of primates. The viral pol-env and
> long terminal repeat and untranslated region
> (LTR-UTR) sequences could be recovered from
> all Old World species of the papionin tribe,
> which includes baboons, macaques, geladas,
> and mangabeys, but not from the New World monkeys
> and hominoids we tested.
...
> There. I've done my homework.
...
Outstanding! Rarely has a bluff been called so handsomely!
Judging by the author list, Marc should even have a good chance of
picking up a copy in his first language. Happy reading Marco!
Ross Macfarlane
> "If I wrote that at the time, I meant that. Whether it was correct
> is something else."
- Marc Verhaegen, Jan 11, 2005.
rmacfarl
mclark wrote:
> <richard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1122683601.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > spiznet wrote:
> >> He sounds like a "lumper ".
> >
> [righteous indignation]
Hmm. Yes Richard, maybe you're not into this "group psyche" thing as
much as you might be, but it's not for want of clues. In case you can't
recall, I posted the following primarily in response to something you
wrote last year when you were a SAP "newbie":
[insert edited highlights]
"
> > >How do certain members of Homo sapiens sapiens evolve to become 'anti'...
> > >- I've come across a number of them here (almost always anti-AAT) who
> > >contribute nothing more than smart arse answers to a perfectly
> > >reasonable theory - I have never come across a single positive
> > >contribution to human thought from any of them - but then I'm new here
> > >- so maybe they had one once.
...
The truth of the matter is that after a lot more than 5 years of
endeavouring to highlight what is neither perfect nor reasonable about
this "theory", the regular contributors who hold alternate viewpoints
have given up trying to debate on the basis of facts and logic, to
which Algis, Marc & others like them are singularly immune, and
generally resort to entertaining ourselves and others of like minds by
making good sport out of our resident AAH "loons".
...
Algis won't like my criticisms, and I don't propose to engage yet
again in a game of claim and counter-claim with him over them, because
I and others have done it before, and it is ultimately futile trying
to engage in dialogue with a closed mind. Perhaps that is not the same
with Richard01. We'll see..."
[end insert]
Richard, you post some interesting information & throw up some things
that provoke interesting discussion around here, which for mine makes
you a welcome contributor. However, there are well-established pro- &
anti-AAH camps here - have been from year 1, day 1. Fence-sitting is
tolerated :-), but if you line up with the pro-AAH side just remember
that sci.archaeology has pro- & anti-Heyerdahl camps, & talk.origins
has pro- & anti-creation science camps.
And I don't use those groupings by accident...
Ross Macfarlane
Marc Verhaegen
>> One paper (B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait, Nature 404, 23 Mar 2000, vol.
>> 382.) claims that Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus
>> afarensis walked in their knuckles.
> This is absolutely false. Did you read the paper or are you relying on
> some wet apers hatchet job of an interpretation of what R / S actually
> wrote? To be brief they claim evidence that anamensis is descended from a
> knuckle walker based on the vestigial presence of features found in
> kw'ers. Rick Wagler
Why don't you use your brain, Wagler, instead of blindly following just-so
interpretations of the facts??
- facts: Lucy & anamensis showed KWing features,
- R+S interpretation: KWingin apiths is vestigial.
There's no the slightest indication that these KWing features in Lucy &
anamensis were vestigial. All we know is that they had them! Now, there are
no indications of KWing early hominids. Some *extant* hominids OTOH (Pan &
Gorilla) are KWers. IOW, everythging suggests KWing features were evolving
in Lucy & anamensis. And there nothing that contradicts this! Okidoki? Or
too difficult for you??
As you know, this completely confirms our scenario:
a) early hominids = vertical wader-climbers in swamp forests,
b) apiths = wading+climbing+KWing,
c) Afr.apes = KWing + vert.climibing.
:-)
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
richard...@yahoo.com
firstjois wrote:
> richard...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> Perhaps I should have spent time beforehand, classifying the
> >> 'constant doubters and putter-downers' of this incestuous small-time
> >> chat shop so
> >>
> [snip]
>
> I did tell you in the beginning when you first started posting that it was
> smart to study a group before jumping in with two feet.
And I (only now) thank you for the advice - a bit late but all the more
genuine for being so.
I only have limited access to the internet - for maybe half the year
only - I just don't have enough time to lurk and find out what's up -
I've only just discovered, for instance that threads that seem to pop
up from nowhere (take: Teouma skeletons) have already been discussed at
length and quite sensibly elsewhere, and only reach here when they
suddenly mutate into name-calling.
But I was
> surprised to find you already posted quite nicely and very politely in the
> Yahoo groups.
Yes...but... see paleoanthro
Gave me the feeling that you already knew that you could do
> as you wished here but had to behave in the Yahoo groups. It pretty much
> seems that you get what you ask for here. (I think you have gotten a few
> warnings from the mods in the Yahoo groups, right? And you didn't hop up
> and down with another muddy post either, right")
>
> There is no reason why anyone should read the Jim McGinn posts or Paul's
> posts either (and I shouldn't even have to mention Ed's).
>
> And if you think this is "constant doubters and putter-downers' of this
> incestuous small-time chat shop" for crying out loud, why the heck are you
> hanging around? Just go glean a little abuse?
No - I'm really not into masochism - I'd like to find a way of gleaning
(and discussing) the thoughts of some of the brighter contributors
before they descend into name-calling
Change your name to Algis
> or Marco and have a grand time.
Well, I respect some of both their views, but I really feel that both
have pathological masochistic tendencies - maybe they enjoy it - I
wouldn't.
>
> Jois
>
> Oh, what's my name? Tell me how many times you've asked that question the
> the Yahoo groups? Better yet, don't bother, I think I know the answer
> already.
>
> Ready?
Not ready for spats, if that's what you're referring to. We used to
have a cartoonist, HE Bateman, whose subject was normally 'The Man
Who....Farted During the National Anthem, Spoke to an Older Member
Immediately After Lunch' or made some such other dire social gaffe,
which he couldn't necessarily be expected to know about. In this (and
other groups) I feel very much like that.
Groucho Marx famously said he wouldn't join any club that would have
the likes of him as a member - perhaps that's why I'm still hanging
around.
(No I don't get the logic of that either, but as I've just said it, I'm
sure it's very apt and to the point).
Won't ask you about your name again.
regards
Richard
richard...@yahoo.com
mclark wrote:
> <richard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1122683601.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > spiznet wrote:
> >> He sounds like a "lumper ".
> >
> [righteous indignation]
> >
> > that she probably has a bunch of groupies.
>
> She should be so lucky. Look, Dick, you waded in here
> and immediately sidled up to the wet apes,
Because I am actually convinced that a lot of their explanations make
more sense than the 'conventional theories' or 'accepted paradigm' or
whatever you like to call them. I do note that the 'accepted paradigms'
in this field last for a very, very long time - usually, as I have seen
remarked in other forums, until the person who has defended them for so
long has finally taken off.
declared various
> and sundry slights to a wide variety of professionals,
in a context that daily produces a series of interpersonal insults
professed
> to be oblivious of accepted usenet protocols, and then got
> *uppity* about it.
Not professed - was
To me, that merely confirms and re-
> inforces my first impressions of you. Then, in a great flourish
> of bravado, you pronounce Su and Jimmy joined at the hip.
In the manner of some of their ad hominem attacks, yes, but I also note
that Jim's are somewhat less condescending
> Are you unhinged?
>
> You'll excuse me if I don't get too excited.
I really don't expect you to.
Paul Crowley
> Lions, hyenas and leopards do not exist
> in "enormous numbers". Early hominids
> could have used trees or rocky outcrops
> like baboons and later on fire and barricades
> of thorn bush and the like. Face it. Homo
> lived in the savannahs. How dangerous this
> was is interesting to speculate about but
> clearly neither predators nor anything else
> represented a limiting factor which restricted
> the range of Homo.
That must be why the human population
of Africa around 1800 AD was over three
billion, and why humans were spread
into every corner of the continent, and
fully adapted to the savanna, and as
resistant to all parasites (such as the
tsetse fly) as any of the native species.
Yes. It all makes sense.
Isn't science great?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> > Nonsense. Stone tools are found in all
> > sorts of places. The 'association' with the
> > bones of animals is not much better than
> > chance.
> >
> When those bones show unmistakeable signs of
> being worked with stone tools the element of chance
> is removed.
An infinitesimally small fraction do.
> >> next to lakes/seas or away from them. Homo was
> >> exploiting savanna animals
> >
> > Foolish nonsense. Of course, homo
> > butchered the occasional savanna animal.
> > But to suggest that homo lived off them
> > as a matter in routine, and could compete
> > successfully with their usual predators
> > (lions, hyenas. etc.) is next to insane.
> >
> Why? We *know* that modern stone age people
> became the apex predator.
Completely false. Where on earth did you
acquire such 'knowledge'? An apex predator
eats all the rest. When did you last hear of
anyone eating lion? Or hyena? Or leopard.
In fact, their livers (usually the most
nutritious organ for a predator) are intensely
poisonous to humans.
> Did early Homo have
> a diet consisting of large savannah animals only? No.
> No one suggests this.
You do -- above -- in your use of term
'apex predator'. Name any other apex
predator in any other ecological system
that has an omnivorous diet. Or name
any other predator in any other ecological
system that is omnivorous.
Your knowledge of ecological systems
(and your ablity to apply it to humans
and their ancestors) would disgrace an
intelligent seven-year-old. You must
be a professional PA.
> >> Homo was fixed as a savanna dweller
> >
> > Ridiculous. How did homo infants and
> > children survive at night in the presence
> > of enormous numbers of nocturnal
> > predators.
> >
> Simple. There were not enormous numbers of nocturnal
> predators. There never are.
In savanna there are more than enough
to take out all the infants and children
of extremely slow-maturing species, who
are night-blind and have no natural
defences.
> One of your beloved TV programs
> almost certainly talks of "the balance of nature" from time
> to time. Pay attention. All your "Homo the Sitting Duck" arguments
> apply equally to baboons but there they are.
Baboons sleep high up in trees, safe
from lions and hyenas, and liable
only to attack by leopards, but they
are protected by males with huge
canine teeth, of which leopards are
rightly afraid. Gelada baboons sleep
on rock faces in enormous groups in
locations remote from any savanna,
and where there are no lions or hyena,
and where they can defend themselves
from their only predator: leopards.
Homo did none of those things.
> And by the way bumblebees do so fly....
So anything is possible in your world.
Your motto: never question, never seek
explanations, abolish science. You
must definitely be a professional PA.
> > The AAT is nonsense. Its only justification
> > lies in the absurdity of the savanna story.
> >
> Except the "savannah story" is not absurd.
That's why humans are as well adapted
to the savanna as any savanna species.
That's why we never have problems
with anything like the tsetse fly.
> It is the prevailing paradigm for a reason.
It used to be. It died -- although
I appreciate that you have not noticed.
Paul.
mclark
news:1122893004.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I'm reminded of some small child arguing on a playground
with other small children. It goes something like this: "Is!"
"Is not!" You don't seem to be internalizing any of this and
are instead *reacting*. It is a sin to be supportive of the
wet apes in this newsgroup --not because you've violated
some sacred charter or insulted the SAP good-old-boys,
but merely because you've given aid and comfort to all of
pseudoscience. "..convinced that a lot of their explanations make
more sense...", are yas? I laugh at you. (BTW, if you're
gonna go running for Thomas Kuhn's apron strings, you
should at least read him first and then apply some of your
new-found insights to the world of the wet ones. Here:
http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=3007243&pr=1383996 )
Here's some help with your obliviousness:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=profess
Finally, the difference between JM and SS can be
compared to that of night and day, up and down,
left and right, yes and no, black and white. That you
continue to confuse the two, as you do in this post,
speaks volumes about your ability to discern the others.
--
"You don't build hypotheses on the
basis of unsupported conjecture."
--Jim McGinn
Whitedog
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>You do -- above -- in your use of term
>'apex predator'. Name any other apex
>predator in any other ecological system
>that has an omnivorous diet. Or name
>any other predator in any other ecological
>system that is omnivorous.
You just've thrown your teddy out of the pram with the other toys
during that rant Paul. Oh yes, teddy...bears?
--
.--~~,__
:-....,-------`~~'._.'
`-,,, ,_ ;'~U'
_,-' ,'`-__; '--.
(_/'~~ ''''(;
Whitedog
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>Completely false. Where on earth did you
>acquire such 'knowledge'? An apex predator
>eats all the rest. When did you last hear of
>anyone eating lion? Or hyena? Or leopard.
>In fact, their livers (usually the most
>nutritious organ for a predator) are intensely
>poisonous to humans.
Competing predators usually are careful to avoid each other for good
reason. Lions kill and sometimes eat hyenas, hyenas would happily eat
lions or anything else, leopards and cheetahs know to steer clear of
lions and hyenas too. Sometimes lions will come across another cat and
kill it, they don't always eat what they kill and neither do humans.
All these predators respect the ability of another to cause disabling
harm, if not death, they've learned to fear humans for the same
reasons.
Marc Verhaegen
>I have just read Marc Verhaegen's paper titled "Aquarboreal ancestors." I
>agree with most of the paper but I disagree with the following parts: "Body
>enlargement and tail reduction would hinder agile arborealism, whereas a
>larger body is more easily supported in water and helps reduce heat loss
>(explaining why aquatic mammals are larger than related terrestrial
>forms)." Correct except that body size is not related to its buoyancy.
>Buoyancy is determined by density of the floating object, and, for very
>small object, by its surface tension.
?? We didn't talk about buoyancy!! We said that animals that spend more
time in water tend to become bigger.
> "The australopiths and ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees might have
> lived near swampy forests and preserved their climbing abilities, whereas
> hominid populations that remained near or returned to the coast could have
> given rise to the various Homo spp.: big-brained, longlegged waders and
> divers who were able to take full advantage of the resources associated
> with coastal environments." Coastal hominids could climb tidal mangrove
> trees and palm trees growing there. The only significant difference
> between the coastal habitats and the clear stream habitats is that clear
> streams can support much larger population of primitive hominids. I do not
> understand why you keep talking about the coasts, but never mention the
> streams.
Can you read?? "We propose that several Homo populations, including H.
sapiens, returned to a more terrestrial existence, colonized coastal areas
and river valleys in Africa and Eurasia..."
> Your figure 1 is confusing.
For some people apparently.
Marc Verhaegen
>> BBC page on the same topic
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/687341.stm
> Here are interesting excerpts from this web page: "Lucy's stiff wrists
> suggest that her ancestors - and ours - walked on their knuckles..."
The BBC page tells nonsense: Lucy's stiff wrists suggest that s/he might
have walked (a bit) on the knuckles. It says nothing about Lucy's ancestors.
And certainly not about us: there's nothing that uniquely connects Lucy to
us: Lucy had no very legs, no iliac reorientation, no very short toes etc.
Lucy's so-called "humanlike" features are primitively hominid (eg, valgus
knees, long femoral necks, short ilia...).
> "Lucy, who lived in Africa between 4.1 and 3 million years ago, did walk
> upright. Her hip and leg bones make that clear.
Incorrect again: Lucy's hindlimbs have some humanlike features, but these
features are arguably primitive. Moreover, they don't suggest frequent
cursorialism, eg, Lucy had a very broad pelivs, very valgus knees & very
long femoral necks, obviously not suited for running ahead, but rather for
abduction of the thighs. If something makes clear that there was bipedalism
at the time, it's the Laetoli footprints (which we don't know belonged to
Lucy).
> But she did not have the flexible wrists that allowed later humans to
> throw spears and make tools..."
?? Chimps are KWers with presumably even less flexible wrist, but they do
make tools & can throw very accurately.
> "Humans came to walk upright, leaving their hands free to gather and carry
> things, while apes did not.
Chimps can easily "free" their hands to transport something.
> "It is thought that knuckle walking is something that allows these animals
> to retain long fingers that allow them to climb in trees, but to also walk
> using their forearms," Dr Richmond said. "But for that you need a very
> stable wrist joint. Chimpanzees and gorillas have a special locking
> mechanism that prevents the wrists from cocking back very far." Lucy has
> it too.
IOW, Lucy KWed (at least sometimes): what else??
>[BBC] Dr Richmond said it was not until Australopithecus africanus emerged,
>about 2.5 million years ago, that the wrist became mobile like that of
>modern humans."
Nonsense, see above: Lucy is not our ancestor!
> [AN] My comment: Australopithecus afarensis lived too long to be called
> transitional species and yet it was both bipedal and quadrupedal. Maybe it
> was bipedal in water and quadrupedal on land?
Good thinking, AN! That's what we are saying for years.
> Why did Australopithecus africanus need much more dexterous hands than
> Australopithecus afarensis? I can imagine Australopithecus afarensis
> digging edible tubers with digging stick, walking bipedally with the
> stick, and making secure shelters from tree branches. Australopithecus
> africanus looks to me like the first hominid that could throw spears and
> burning wood at its predators.
Not totally impossible perhaps, but IMO based on no facts.
--Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
Marc Verhaegen
news:1122774896....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > After stone tools turn up in the record (c 2.6 My), the archaeological
>> > data falsifies any notion of there being a lakeside or seaside phase in
>> > the evolution of Homo.
>> 1) still confusing fossils & ancestors?
> Divide the issue into two separate parts. 1) Before stone tools turn up
> (BST) 2) After stone tools (AST)
No reason to divide: if littoral populations left tools inland 2.6 Ma,
there's no reason why other populations didn't do this 4 Ma or 1 Ma. IOW,
you're confusing ancestors & fossils. Our evidence is about our ancestors.
Your evidence nowhere contradicts this. Several apes use tools. The problem
is: why did our ancestors delevop this skill much more than chimp ancestors?
Our answer from comparative data: it's to be expected when our ancestors (at
least a lot more than chimp ancestors) were littoral once (as shown by
comparative data), before 2.6 Ma &/or after that time.
> As far as fossil evidence BST, I agree with you that we don't really know
> for sure who is related to whom (or some fossils may be just plain
> missing). So as far as the line of Homo, there really isn't an
> archaeological record, fossil or artifactual. The record here is moot. So
> argue as you wish about comparative evidence BST because there is no
> archaeology to conflict with it. AST the record is clear, there is no
> preference for tools to be found seaside or lakeside. Tools are found
> consistently in association with terrestrial animals, next to lakes/seas
> or away from them. Homo was exploiting savanna animals and animals
> gravitate to water sources (no need to be diving in after them). This
> exploitation of savanna fauna took place around either large lakes or
> small springs. Homo utilized entire lake basins, not just edges of large
> lakes or seas. Homo was fixed as a savanna dweller with no aquatic
> preferences demonstrated in the record, so aquatic evolution (assuming
> the was such a thing in the first place) was over from this point in time
> (even if it were the case 3 million years before).
Chimps use stone tools to open nuts etc., IOW, your AST might have been at
least 5 Ma.
J.Mercader cs.2002 "Excavation of a Chimpanzee Stone Tool Site in the
African Rainforest" Science 296:1452
G.Vogel 2002 "Can Chimps Ape Ancient Hominid Toolmakers?" Science 296:1380
"...The researchers argue that the chimps' leavings bear some resemblance to
some of the simplest artifacts left by hominids millions of years ago -
although not all anthropologists agree."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/5572/1380a
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5572/1452
"An archaeol.dig in W.Africa has revealed evidence that chimps used
primitive tools as long as 5 Ma ... The evidence is in the form of 479
fragments of rudimentary stone hammers that the chimps used to crack open
nuts at the close of the Miocene, when Ice Age conditions cooled the planet,
according to their report in Science. The fragments - found at a site in Tai
Nat.Park in the Ivory Coast - closely resemble similar tools used by hominid
spp about the same time..."
> I used to live by the sea, seldom got my feet wet, I eat clams, and I'm
> not developing web feet.
?? You're feeling well, Lee? Why on earth should you develop web feet??
:-D Perhaps you believe that "aquatic" animals must have web feet?? No,
no: webbed toes (if it's that what you mean) are seen in siamangs, gorillas,
indris etc.etc. If you mean the feet themselves, you do know, I hope, that
humans, of all primates, have the longest metatarsals & the rel.shortest
toes? This is not fur running: cursorials have *lengthened toes* as you
might know.
> At some point even you have to admit there was no more AAT influence on
> our evolution. The buck stops with savanna Homo, his exploitation of
> savanna fauna, and the zero evidence for exploitation of marine resources.
1) "Savanna Homo" never existed: otherwise we had had a much better
olfaction, no full plantigrady, no SC fat, a higher speed, strong dependence
on regular drinking water, low body temperature, very low temp.fluctuations,
etc.etc.etc. exactly the opposite of what we find. The whole savanna
nonsense goes back to Dart who found his so-called human ancestor (Taung) at
the "fringes of the Kalahari desert" & believed (1925): "South Africa, by
providing a vast open country with occasional wooded belts and a relatively
scarcity of water, together with a fierce and bitter mammalian competition,
furnished a laboratory such as was essential to this penultimate phase of
human evolution. ... It will appear to many a remarkable fact that an
ultra-simian and pre-human stock should be discovered, in the first place,
at this extreme southern point in Africa, and, secondly, in Bechuanaland,
for one does not associate with the present fringe of the Kalahari desert an
environment favourable to higher primate life. It is generally believed by
geologists (AW Rogers 1922 "Post-Cretaceous Climates of S.Africa"
Afr.J.Sci.xix) that the climate has fluctuated within exceedingly narrow
limits in this country since Cretaceous times." IOW, Dart was convinced
that Taung had lived in savanna conditions, but Partridge later showed that
the climate then was much wetter. IMO this whole nonsensical savanna idea
has retarded PA for at least half a century& is still retarding a lot of
people here apparently. We have no problems with waterside Homo populations
in savannas, but you can't call them "savanna Homo".
2) I think you shold at least hove known that littoral exploitations
continue to show up until 125 ka (Eritrea)??
>> 2) a lot of fossils-tools-footsteps are found lake & seaside
> Not one tenth the evidence demonstrated for inland utilization. The Karari
> Escarpment is 15 miles from lake Turkana. FxJj 50: the 50 means 50 named
> sites in that area alone. I don't know how many have been found and
> documented since that one was named. That's just small area in a very
> large basin, there are many more inland sites with the same distribution
> of artifacts.
Are you claiming there was no water? Whether they lived in Europe or Java (I
hope you don't call all this "savanna"?), the comparative evidence shows
they always needed lots of water, and there's not the slightest indication
they could not have dispersed along watercourses, as we propose *on
comparative grounds*: brain size, diving skills, breathing control,
vocality, small mouth, masticatory reduction (MYH16), hyoid descent, longer
airway, projecting nose, reduced olfaciton, handiness, late puberty, long
legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs of
water, Na, I & PUFAs. This obvious littoral past (where else IYO can you
combine all the fore-mentioned features?) is clearly reflected in the fossil
record in the "unexpected" (if savanna) sudden appearence of fossils & tools
all over the world. There must have been a lot of Homo populations (not
necessarily our ancestors!) at the coasts of Africa & the Indian Ocean (not
found in the fossil record, of course: sea levels etc.).
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora
Marc Verhaegen
> of thorn bush and the like. Face it. Homo lived in the savannahs. ...
Nonsense: they have no features whatsoever of typical of savanna dwellers.
If they regularly lived in savannas, why did they have an atrophied sense of
smell?? why were they plantigrade?? why do humans need lots of water?? need
to drink regularly in small amounts?? need a lot of things that are scarse
in the savanna: iodine, sodium, PUFAs... etc.etc.etc.etc. Some Homo
populations have been found at riversides or so in savannas, but this in no
way characterises our genus. Homo populations might have followed the rivers
& lakes inland in savannas & elsewhere, but the comparative data show that
Homo was basically littoral.
--Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
Marc Verhaegen
>
> Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>> Lee Olsen wrote:
>>
>> > All the sites offered by AAT (always near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003
>> > JHE 45:421) as associations for marine utilization are in fact
>> > evidence for terrestrial fauna utilization, just the opposite of what
>> > would be predicted by using the comparative data of AAT. In short,
>> > there is no fossil or archaeological evidence that backs up AAT
>> > conclusions.
>> ___________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> "Early evidence for shellfish consumption:
>> At present, the earliest evidence for shellfish consumption comes from
>> a 300 000 year old site in France called Terra Amata. This is a
>> 'hominid site' as modern Homo sapiens did not appear until around
>> 50 000 years ago...
>> ...New evidence has just shown that Neanderthals gathered and ate
>> shellfish as well. Ordinarily, evidence for the consumption of
>> molluscs and generic marine exploitation comes from material
>> evidence at the site (e.g. deposits of shells and fish bones, the
>> presence of fishhooks, and artefacts manufactured from shell).
>> However, new scientific methods enable us to analyse ancient hominid
>> bones themselves, and assess how much of the diet came from marine
>> sources versus terrestrial sources. Marine protein sources have a
>> slightly different chemical composition to terrestrial protein sources,
>> and through the analysis of stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen
>> stored in human bone collagen, analysts are able to determine what
>> proportion of protein food was coming from either source. It has been
>> found that, although Neanderthals occasionally utilised marine resouces,
>> their main focus was on large terrestrial game. Homo sapiens on the
>> other hand, had a considerably broader diet, and coastal populations
>> have higher frequencies of marine-derived isotopes in their bones. The
>> broader diet of Homo sapiens may have been one of the reasons why they
>> lived on when Neanderthals did not - in times of scarcity or resource
>> pressure, it is much easier to survive and succeed as a species if one
>> can exploit a wide range of food sources."
>>
>> (source: http://www.manandmollusc.net/history_food.html)
>
> Sorry if the word "All" caused some confusion, the time frame we were
> discussing has been consistently early rather than late, as per:
>
> MV: "You know there was a marine ingression in the Rift c 1.8 Ma
> (Feibel), I would not be surprised if at that time there were a lot of
> other ingressions at other places (explaining the sudden appearance of
> fossils - tools at that time), eg, that Dennell's "palaeo-shore
> deposits of a vast shallow Late Plio/Early Pleistocene lake" in Iran
> was connected to the sea."
OK. My view is that the early hominids-pongids 15-10 Ma were "basically"
coastal forest dwellers along the Tethys. They split into hominids (western
Tethys, incl lake Chad?) & pongids (eastern Tethys & Asian Indian Ocean
shores). There were of course lots of sidebranches that ventured inland
along forested swamps, rivers, lakes... The early hominids 10-5 Ma
(incl.Sahelanthr, Orrorin...) seem to have been predom.vertical
waders-climbers (comparative data, see our TREE paper). The apiths were
inland branches in swamp forests (early gracile apiths) & later in more open
wetlands (robusts), but I guess Homo remained "basically" at the coasts
(that explains their remarkable dispersal to other continents & islands),
later mostly deforested coasts, possibly along the Indian Ocean, Red Sea or
so. A lot of Homo populations kept venturing inland along lakes or rivers,
of course, and when sea-levels rose, they went further inland. Marine
transgressions (sorry about the terms: could be wrong: I don't know anything
on geology) happened ~1.8 Ma in E.Africa (even Rift, see Feibel), but there
might have been earlier transgressions. Our direct ancestors IMO remained
(always?) coastal (more specifically estuaria, deltas?) until the sapiens
LCA 200-150 ka, eg, we're still strongly water/sodium/iodine/PUFA-dependent.
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
Andrew Nowicki
nomadic hominids:
They had to wade in clear water to see shellfish
and crocodiles. Ocean water is always clear, but it
would not make sense for the wading hominids to spent
all their lives on the coast for several reasons:
- The hominid pack could claim only part of the ocean
beach as its private property. Walking back and
forth along the beach is not efficient strategy
of exploring it because when you reach the end of
the beach, you have to turn back and you are in a
place that you have just explored.
- Ocean waves make you wet, so you loose too much
heat.
- There is no drinking water in the ocean.
Ocean wading made sense only if it was part of a
longer, closed-loop route that included clear streams.
Clear streams are associated with wetlands because
wetlands purify muddy waters. Wetlands are created
by the presence of water and the absence of trees.
In the tropical climate the absence of trees is
the result of insufficient or irregular rainfall.
Trees kill wetlands because they shade the wetland
plants -- these plants do not tolerate shade. All
these facts mean that streams flowing through dry
bush or desert create wetlands which purify these
streams.
Typical closed-loop route of the wading, nomadic
hominids included coastal habitat, up-stream trip
along a clear stream, a short trip to another clear
stream (either through a wetland or dry bush),
down-stream trip along another clear stream, and,
finally, a trip along the coastal habitat, which
closed the loop.
Whitedog
wrote:
>Here are my thoughts about the habitat of the wading,
>nomadic hominids:
>
>They had to wade in clear water to see shellfish
>and crocodiles. Ocean water is always clear, but it
>would not make sense for the wading hominids to spent
>all their lives on the coast for several reasons:
> - The hominid pack could claim only part of the ocean
> beach as its private property. Walking back and
> forth along the beach is not efficient strategy
> of exploring it because when you reach the end of
> the beach, you have to turn back and you are in a
> place that you have just explored.
Actually you might be on to something regarding efficiency. Wading is
hard work even in a calm, waveless sea; is there anyone here up to
calculating the energy expenditure compared to the gain from shallow
water scavenging?
>
> - Ocean waves make you wet, so you loose too much
> heat.
There's nearly always a breeze along coasts as cool air is drawn
inland by rising convection currents (IIRC??) This will speed the rate
of cooling a wet body.
The usual argument against this is to note that the Indian Ocean is
tropical. Divers frequently suffer hypothermia in tropical water but
we'll have to ignore that.
<snip>
>Typical closed-loop route of the wading, nomadic
>hominids included coastal habitat, up-stream trip
>along a clear stream, a short trip to another clear
>stream (either through a wetland or dry bush),
>down-stream trip along another clear stream, and,
>finally, a trip along the coastal habitat, which
>closed the loop.
You may have forgotten avoiding being eaten by predators between
streams and having to compete with larger and possibly aggressive
animals for suitable crossing or access points to the water.
Streams are likely to be seasonal too unless fed by mountains and will
vanish at certain times of the year.
Wading by the beach could mean treading on sharp corals and shells,
encountering stonefish, jellyfish and lethel stinging coneshells. I
suppose low tide pools might be of use but then they could be accessed
without recourse to bipedal activity at all....
Andrew Nowicki
> OK. My view is that the early hominids-pongids 15-10 Ma were "basically"
> coastal forest dwellers along the Tethys. They split into hominids (western
> Tethys, incl lake Chad?) & pongids (eastern Tethys & Asian Indian Ocean
> shores). There were of course lots of sidebranches that ventured inland
> along forested swamps, rivers, lakes... The early hominids 10-5 Ma
> (incl.Sahelanthr, Orrorin...) seem to have been predom.vertical
> waders-climbers (comparative data, see our TREE paper). The apiths were
> inland branches in swamp forests (early gracile apiths) & later in more open
> wetlands (robusts), but I guess Homo remained "basically" at the coasts
> (that explains their remarkable dispersal to other continents & islands),
> later mostly deforested coasts, possibly along the Indian Ocean, Red Sea or
> so. A lot of Homo populations kept venturing inland along lakes or rivers,
> of course, and when sea-levels rose, they went further inland. Marine
> transgressions (sorry about the terms: could be wrong: I don't know anything
> on geology) happened ~1.8 Ma in E.Africa (even Rift, see Feibel), but there
> might have been earlier transgressions. Our direct ancestors IMO remained
> (always?) coastal (more specifically estuaria, deltas?) until the sapiens
> LCA 200-150 ka, eg, we're still strongly water/sodium/iodine/PUFA-dependent.
For reasons explained in my latest post in this
thread I cannot imagine one species living only
on the ocean beaches and another species living only
along swamps, streams, rivers, and lakes. All these
habitats were similar and linear, so the wading
hominids had to be nomads to explore them efficiently.
What would prevent a wading hominid to go upstream?
PS. You cannot take for granted that everyone knows
what "our TREE paper" means.
richard...@yahoo.com
Paul - occasionally you talk sense, and upset the 'professional' PAs
more than somewhat.
('Professional PAs' presumably means people who have taken a degree in
the subject, and gone on to take it up as a trade).
Here in England, we revere our next king, Charles, because he took a
'degree' at Cambridge in this very subject and is therefore highly
professional, knowledgeable on 'something', has a few publications, and
might have even been cited by someone or other.
However, his opinions on this, as on most other matters, seem to be
treated with the apathy that might greet his telling us the time of day
(probably, in the context of the Savannah Theory, wrongly).
So the English don't really listen to anything he says.
To say that Africa had 3 billion people in 1800 is a slight
exaggeration, by an order of magnitude, or two. If all 3 billion of
them were resistant to tsetse fly, you still have to explain why they
gave the photogenic animals of the Serengeti even a small chance to
survive.
regards
Richard
Andrew Nowicki
> Actually you might be on to something regarding efficiency. Wading is
> hard work even in a calm, waveless sea; is there anyone here up to
> calculating the energy expenditure compared to the gain from shallow
> water scavenging?
Good point. There were several papers about the
efficiency of bipedal walking. I imagine that the
same authors would be interested in extending
their computer programs to wading.
Wading downstream is much easier than wading upstream.
Also, wading in the trough of ocean wave is easier
than wading in the crest of the wave.
> There's nearly always a breeze along coasts as cool air is drawn
> inland by rising convection currents (IIRC??) This will speed the rate
> of cooling a wet body.
> The usual argument against this is to note that the Indian Ocean is
> tropical. Divers frequently suffer hypothermia in tropical water but
> we'll have to ignore that.
True. Tropical breeze cannot cause hypothermia.
Warm tropical water is cooler than hominid body
and it conducts heat 25 times better than the air,
so it can cause hypothermia.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Typical closed-loop route of the wading, nomadic
> hominids included coastal habitat, up-stream trip
> along a clear stream, a short trip to another clear
> stream (either through a wetland or dry bush),
> down-stream trip along another clear stream, and,
> finally, a trip along the coastal habitat, which
> closed the loop.
Whitedog wrote:
> You may have forgotten avoiding being eaten by predators between
> streams and having to compete with larger and possibly aggressive
> animals for suitable crossing or access points to the water.
There was no way to avoid big predators, no
matter where the hominids lived.
Whitedog wrote:
> Streams are likely to be seasonal too unless fed by mountains and will
> vanish at certain times of the year.
True, but the hominids could dig water holes in dry
stream beds and in wetlands. Another strategy was to
explore streams in wet season, and lakes and rivers
in dry season.
> Wading by the beach could mean treading on sharp corals and shells,
> encountering stonefish, jellyfish and lethel stinging coneshells.
I was a tropical, recreational scuba diver long time
ago. These dangers do not frighten scuba divers.
Whitedog wrote:
> I suppose low tide pools might be of use but then they could
> be accessed without recourse to bipedal activity at all....
True. Tidal pools are usually made by corals,
which do not exist next do rainforests. Corals
are killed by the silt which abounds in rainforest
rivers and streams. Corals exist next to dry lands
(Australia) and wetlands (Florida). Modern baboons
exploit the tidal pools, so they could compete with
ancient hominids. The hominids won the competition
because most of the beach habitat was easier to
exploit by good waders, namely hominids.
Whitedog
wrote:
>Whitedog wrote:
>
>> Actually you might be on to something regarding efficiency. Wading is
>> hard work even in a calm, waveless sea; is there anyone here up to
>> calculating the energy expenditure compared to the gain from shallow
>> water scavenging?
>
>Good point. There were several papers about the
>efficiency of bipedal walking. I imagine that the
>same authors would be interested in extending
>their computer programs to wading.
>
>Wading downstream is much easier than wading upstream.
>Also, wading in the trough of ocean wave is easier
>than wading in the crest of the wave.
You can't do one or the other though, if you're in the sea then you
have to deal with wave crests and troughs and the energy expenditure
of pushing your body through calm water.
>> There's nearly always a breeze along coasts as cool air is drawn
>> inland by rising convection currents (IIRC??) This will speed the rate
>> of cooling a wet body.
>> The usual argument against this is to note that the Indian Ocean is
>> tropical. Divers frequently suffer hypothermia in tropical water but
>> we'll have to ignore that.
>
>True. Tropical breeze cannot cause hypothermia.
>Warm tropical water is cooler than hominid body
>and it conducts heat 25 times better than the air,
>so it can cause hypothermia.
>
>Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>
>> Typical closed-loop route of the wading, nomadic
>> hominids included coastal habitat, up-stream trip
>> along a clear stream, a short trip to another clear
>> stream (either through a wetland or dry bush),
>> down-stream trip along another clear stream, and,
>> finally, a trip along the coastal habitat, which
>> closed the loop.
>
>Whitedog wrote:
>
>> You may have forgotten avoiding being eaten by predators between
>> streams and having to compete with larger and possibly aggressive
>> animals for suitable crossing or access points to the water.
>
>There was no way to avoid big predators, no
>matter where the hominids lived.
Trees or other climbable surfaces, like rocks. That's how all primates
deal with predation or threats from large mammals and that includes
me. I've climbed to escape a savaging from a range of potential
aggressors in my life and I'm still here to validate its effectiveness
as a strategy.
>
>Whitedog wrote:
>
>> Streams are likely to be seasonal too unless fed by mountains and will
>> vanish at certain times of the year.
>
>True, but the hominids could dig water holes in dry
>stream beds and in wetlands. Another strategy was to
>explore streams in wet season, and lakes and rivers
>in dry season.
Digging a hole to access water wouldn't access food and you could do
that as a quadruped.
>> Wading by the beach could mean treading on sharp corals and shells,
>> encountering stonefish, jellyfish and lethel stinging coneshells.
Lethel? My spelling needs a slap!
>
>I was a tropical, recreational scuba diver long time
>ago. These dangers do not frighten scuba divers.
That's good, however the earliest bipedal hominids didn't have
wetsuits or foot protection or the advantage of an education in what
kills and what's good to eat.
>Whitedog wrote:
>
>> I suppose low tide pools might be of use but then they could
>> be accessed without recourse to bipedal activity at all....
>
>True. Tidal pools are usually made by corals,
>which do not exist next do rainforests. Corals
>are killed by the silt which abounds in rainforest
>rivers and streams. Corals exist next to dry lands
>(Australia) and wetlands (Florida). Modern baboons
>exploit the tidal pools, so they could compete with
>ancient hominids. The hominids won the competition
>because most of the beach habitat was easier to
>exploit by good waders, namely hominids.
There are tidal pools in a lot of different situations, not exclusive
to coral reef areas. Simple erosion of local stone can result in pools
at low tide, this is not unusual. The wading example is not at all
useful in these situations, it's not a case of competition more an
unlikely scenario.
richard...@yahoo.com
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Whitedog wrote:
>
> > Actually you might be on to something regarding efficiency. Wading is
> > hard work even in a calm, waveless sea; is there anyone here up to
> > calculating the energy expenditure compared to the gain from shallow
> > water scavenging?
>
> Good point. There were several papers about the
> efficiency of bipedal walking. I imagine that the
> same authors would be interested in extending
> their computer programs to wading.
About time - if they can do it for Lucy, (see recent reports) then they
should do it for us
>
> Wading downstream is much easier than wading upstream.
> Also, wading in the trough of ocean wave is easier
> than wading in the crest of the wave.
>
> > There's nearly always a breeze along coasts as cool air is drawn
> > inland by rising convection currents (IIRC??) This will speed the rate
> > of cooling a wet body.
> > The usual argument against this is to note that the Indian Ocean is
> > tropical. Divers frequently suffer hypothermia in tropical water but
> > we'll have to ignore that.
>
> True. Tropical breeze cannot cause hypothermia.
> Warm tropical water is cooler than hominid body
> and it conducts heat 25 times better than the air,
> so it can cause hypothermia.
Not always - when the tide comes back in over a sun-baked mud or sand
flat, it can be almost uncomfortably hot.
> Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>
> > Typical closed-loop route of the wading, nomadic
> > hominids included coastal habitat, up-stream trip
> > along a clear stream, a short trip to another clear
> > stream (either through a wetland or dry bush),
> > down-stream trip along another clear stream, and,
> > finally, a trip along the coastal habitat, which
> > closed the loop.
>
> Whitedog wrote:
>
> > You may have forgotten avoiding being eaten by predators between
> > streams and having to compete with larger and possibly aggressive
> > animals for suitable crossing or access points to the water.
>
> There was no way to avoid big predators, no
> matter where the hominids lived.
Quite right, Whitedog, but if those hominids who didn't know nuffink
walked up and across between streams and got eaten, they left survivors
who acquired an inbred cautionary stance by being the ones not eaten.
> Whitedog wrote:
>
> > Streams are likely to be seasonal too unless fed by mountains and will
> > vanish at certain times of the year.
That's only true of very dry areas (a large part of the world) but
there are lots of coastlines where incoming streams and rivers are
perennial.
> True, but the hominids could dig water holes in dry
> stream beds and in wetlands.
Possibly - other animals do it - but most people don't think early
hominids had the brains to conceive of such a thing as to dig a hole in
a dry place and find water.
>Another strategy was to
> explore streams in wet season, and lakes and rivers
> in dry season.
>
> > Wading by the beach could mean treading on sharp corals and shells,
> > encountering stonefish, jellyfish and lethel stinging coneshells.
In the Philippines, I do this every day - it was, until it got f****d
up by too much people, and too much fishing, one of the richest
tropical sea ecologies in the world. Even now, it still is.
Cone shells are very very venomous, but the only person I've ever
encountered who got speared by one was Inting, who brought me a
Geographer Cone, wrapped up in the fold of his T shirt just above the
waist. He had a big red patch on his belly for 2 -3 days, but he
survived.
> I was a tropical, recreational scuba diver long time
> ago. These dangers do not frighten scuba divers.
>
> Whitedog wrote:
>
> > I suppose low tide pools might be of use but then they could
> > be accessed without recourse to bipedal activity at all....
>
> True. Tidal pools are usually made by corals,
> which do not exist next do rainforests.
Well, actually they do. A virgin rain forest gives nothing away - not
even its waste water.
>Corals
> are killed by the silt which abounds in rainforest
> rivers and streams.
Which is a very big problem nowadays, because deforestation (cutting
the buggers down) leaves slopes free for erosion, and lets the silt
wash down and smother the coral reefs. This didn't happen so much
before people started cutting or burning the trees down.
>Corals exist next to dry lands
Notably, now, all along the Red Sea coast - the land doesn't matter too
much but the sea certainly does.
> (Australia) and wetlands (Florida). Modern baboons
> exploit the tidal pools, so they could compete with
> ancient hominids. The hominids won the competition
> because most of the beach habitat was easier to
> exploit by good waders, namely hominids.
See all the current fuss (in this group) about the BBC film on
shark-egg-eating baboons in South Africa.
Baboons are still scared of water, but early humans got over that
problem. Baboons have been mostly terrestrial for some millions of
years. Humans haven't.
I would be very hard-pressed to think of any other animal who could
start on the immediate 'behind-beach' and exploit coconuts, other
palm-nuts, and other fruit-bearing trees (tamarind, banana, etc)
resulting from washed-up seeds, and therefore concentrated in that
zone.
Then go a yard or two further, and see the holes made on the beach by
clams, crabs and worms, and dig the things up and eat them.
You don't have to have the intelligence of a chimpanzee to work out
that a strange, regular hole has something underneath it. If you're a
bit cleverer, then you might work out that between a 'suck' hole and a
'blow' hole there might be a big juicy clam sitting just at the bottom
of the U.
And the whole ecological zone is just about 100 metres wide - it
stretches from South Africa to the Ryukyu Islands, just short of Japan.
A whole lot better place to find lunch than the 'Savannah' where you
might have to spend a week or two finding a carcass left over by lions
and hyaenas, with just about enough calories to keep you going until
tonmorrow.
regards
Richard
see: www.coconutstudio.com to see how our ancestors might have survived
a bit better on the seashore thatn they did in the Serengeti.
Marc Verhaegen
> Here are my thoughts about the habitat of the wading, nomadic hominids:
I think you have to discuss wading with Algis, not with me. Nevertheless, a
few comments.
> They had to wade in clear water to see shellfish and crocodiles.
I don't know about crocodiles, but the Sea Gypsies easily see shellfish when
they dive.
> Ocean water is always clear, but it would not make sense for the wading
> hominids to spent all their lives on the coast for several reasons:
Then how manage the Sea Gypsies to live there all their lives?
> - The hominid pack could claim only part of the ocean beach as its private
> property. Walking back and forth along the beach is not efficient strategy
> of exploring it because when you reach the end of the beach, you have to
> turn back and you are in a place that you have just explored. - Ocean
> waves make you wet, so you loose too much heat.
As I already told you: swimming in tropical coastal sea water is thermally
neutral for humans.
> - There is no drinking water in the ocean.
There are fruits & coconuts at the beach. And there is the Bombard
experiment.
> Ocean wading made sense only if it was part of a longer, closed-loop route
> that included clear streams. Clear streams are associated with wetlands
> because wetlands purify muddy waters. Wetlands are created by the presence
> of water and the absence of trees. In the tropical climate the absence of
> trees is the result of insufficient or irregular rainfall. Trees kill
> wetlands because they shade the wetland plants -- these plants do not
> tolerate shade. All these facts mean that streams flowing through dry bush
> or desert create wetlands which purify these streams.
Interesting.
> Typical closed-loop route of the wading, nomadic hominids included coastal
> habitat, up-stream trip along a clear stream, a short trip to another
> clear stream (either through a wetland or dry bush), down-stream trip
> along another clear stream, and, finally, a trip along the coastal
> habitat, which closed the loop.
Good thinking, Andrew, but this might apply to early sapiens IMO, not to
"hominids"!!
- pongids = Pongo = orangutan,
- hominids = Pan + Homo + Gorilla.
--Marc
Paul Crowley
news:405se1d2ee685hph9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:30:39 +0100, "Paul Crowley"
> <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>
> >Completely false. Where on earth did you
> >acquire such 'knowledge'? An apex predator
> >eats all the rest. When did you last hear of
> >anyone eating lion? Or hyena? Or leopard.
> >In fact, their livers (usually the most
> >nutritious organ for a predator) are intensely
> >poisonous to humans.
>
> Competing predators usually are careful to avoid each other for good
> reason.
Fair enough. It would be less unreasonable
to describe homo as a 'competing predator'.
'Apex predator' is just part of the regular self-
congratulatory bullshit that dominates PA.
But hominids are quite incapable of coping
with levels of Vitamin-A that are routine for
regular predators. It is manifest that they
NEVER adapted to more than the very
occasional consumption of meat.
That is a blindingly obvious fact. Is it in
the standard PA books? Naah.
> Lions kill and sometimes eat hyenas, hyenas would happily eat
> lions or anything else, leopards and cheetahs know to steer clear of
> lions and hyenas too. Sometimes lions will come across another cat and
> kill it, they don't always eat what they kill and neither do humans.
> All these predators respect the ability of another to cause disabling
> harm, if not death, they've learned to fear humans for the same
> reasons.
Sure -- they've found out that humans have
guns. But stone-age homo (and earlier
hominids) would have been dominant in
certain locations, where the local fauna
would have feared them. But the key is to
identify those locations. They were never
a part of the "African savanna".
Paul.
JAE
Paul Crowley wrote:
>
>
> That is a blindingly obvious fact. Is it in
> the standard PA books? Naah.
How would you know? You don't read anything in the field.
Marc Verhaegen
> No reason to divide: if littoral populations left tools inland 2.6 Ma,
> there's no reason why other populations didn't do this 4 Ma or 1 Ma.
Sorry, wrong formulation: I meant: if ex-littoral populations...
Rick Wagler
> "Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:bS6He.72514$%K2.41229@pd7tw1no...
>
>>> One paper (B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait, Nature 404, 23 Mar 2000, vol.
>>> 382.) claims that Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus
>>> afarensis walked in their knuckles.
>
>> This is absolutely false. Did you read the paper or are you relying on
>> some wet apers hatchet job of an interpretation of what R / S actually
>> wrote? To be brief they claim evidence that anamensis is descended from a
>> knuckle walker based on the vestigial presence of features found in
>> kw'ers. Rick Wagler
>
> Why don't you use your brain, Wagler, instead of blindly following just-so
> interpretations of the facts??
>
of an interpretation of what R / S actually wrote" You don't
disappoint, Marc. You crawl under the bar no matter how
low I set it.
> - facts: Lucy & anamensis showed KWing features,
> - R+S interpretation: KWingin apiths is vestigial.
>
> There's no the slightest indication that these KWing features in Lucy &
> anamensis were vestigial. All we know is that they had them!
Oh sure. I have the choice between two competent
specialists in the field who have examined the material
first hand and some alleged MD who hasn't been
within a thousand miles of them.
Now, there are
> no indications of KWing early hominids. Some *extant* hominids OTOH (Pan
> & Gorilla) are KWers. IOW, everythging suggests KWing features were
> evolving in Lucy & anamensis. And there nothing that contradicts this!
> Okidoki? Or too difficult for you??
>
Yes. Flights of fancy founded on illogic and ignorance
are entirely too difficult for me to accept at face value.
Try this over on your Yahoo group. Calling a sow's ear
a silk purse is an attribute much in evidence over there.
Rick Wagler
Lee Olsen
>
> > Divide the issue into two separate parts.
> > 1) Before stone tools turn up (BST)
> > 2) After stone tools (AST)
> >
> > know for sure who is related to whom (or some fossils may be just plain
> > missing). So as far as the line of Homo, there really isn't an
> > archaeological record, fossil or artifactual. The record here is moot.
> > So argue as you wish about comparative evidence BST because there is no
> > archaeology to conflict with it.
> >
> > AST the record is clear, there is no preference for tools to be found
> > seaside or lakeside. Tools are found consistently in association with
> > terrestrial animals
>
> sorts of places. The 'association' with the
> bones of animals is not much better than
> chance.
.....says Crowley, sap's own inhouse-scientifically-challenged
illiterate.
Isaac says different.
Page 90, table 7. For 9 sites excavated thru 1977 the association of
tools with animal bones was nine for nine, 100%.
OLORGESAILIE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES OF A MIDDLE PLEISTOCENE LAKE BASIN
IN KENYA by Glynn Ll. Isaac, assisted by Barbara Isaac
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977. Pp. xiv, 272.
Actually, Binford lists 17 sites in his book review of the above work.
His table 1 shows 17 for 17 (also 100%) association
of tool sites with bones. This does not mean all associations are from
human actions of course, but merely confirms my statement above: "Tools
are found consistently in association with terrestrial animals" (as
opposed to seashells etc., which was what I was referring to in the
discussion with Marc).
>
> > next to lakes/seas or away from them. Homo was
> > exploiting savanna animals
>
> Foolish nonsense. Of course, homo
> butchered the occasional savanna animal.
> But to suggest that homo lived off them
> as a matter in routine,
>From One Look Dictionary:
Exploit: "use or manipulate to one's advantage."
It seems impossible that anyone could get from "exploited" to "But to
suggest that homo lived off them
as a matter in routine." Who said "lived off them"? Who said
"routine"? They may have been exploiting the bones for tendons or
digging sticks for all anybody knows, many were shaped by percussion
into pointed ends at MNK (Olduvai). Some of the bones have been smashed
to get at the marrow, but that really isn't saying they were living
"off them." I would normally suggest at this point for a person to go
back and read for comprehension, but that would be a waste of time in
your case, since you are not capable of comprehension; instead, best
check yourself into the nearest mental insitution.
and could compete
> successfully with their usual predators
> (lions, hyenas. etc.) is next to insane.
You just got through saying above "Stone tools are found in all
sorts of places." So who do you think (since Homo couldn't compete in
your feeble mind) carried in all the stone tools found in the same
areas as the lions teeth, and amongst the giant-glenda bones, the
lions or the baboons?
>
> > Homo was fixed as a savanna dweller
>
> Ridiculous. How did homo infants and
> children survive at night in the presence
> of enormous numbers of nocturnal
> predators.
http://tinyurl.com/bykw2
"Lions are considered a threat to cattle, which are enclosed in
protective bomas of thorn at night."
Cattle can be protected, but Homo babies can't? (Lord, where do idiots
like Crowley come from?)
>
> > with no aquatic preferences demonstrated in
> > the record, so aquatic evolution (assuming the was such a thing in the
> > first place) was over from this point in time (even if it were the case
> > 3 million years before).
> >
> > I used to live by the sea, seldom got my feet wet, I eat clams, and
> > I'm not developing web feet. At some point even you have to admit there
> > was no more AAT influence on our evolution. The buck stops with savanna
> > Homo, his exploitation of savanna fauna,
>
> The AAT is nonsense. Its only justification
> lies in the absurdity of the savanna story.
The only justification for ignorance as complete as yours is insanity.
>
> > > 2) a lot of fossils-tools-footsteps are found lake & seaside
> >
> > Not one tenth the evidence demonstrated for inland utilization. The
> > Karari Escarpment is 15 miles from lake Turkana. FxJj 50: the 50 means
> > 50 named sites in that area alone.
>
> They are sites with a few stone tools
FxJj 50 tools = 1405 + 76 manuports (plus 2100 bone fragments Bunn et
al,1989)
http://tinyurl.com/7j2qc
"Fourth, there are sometimes great numbers at a single location. For
instance at Olorgesailie Main Site excavation DE/89 B in a concentrated
area of only 12-15 meters in diameter, M. and L. Leakey and Glynn Isaac
found 504 large cutting tools, including 304 handaxes, 182 cleavers,
and 10 picks. Isaac interprets the site as an aggregate of "a series of
initially more scattered occupation assemblages . . . accumulated
during a limited time span . . . stylistically homogenous, and that
repeated pursuit of [gelada] baboons was involved" but notes that some
geologists surmised that it was not an aggregation but a single
assemblage (Isaac 1977:57)."
http://tinyurl.com/8e7fm
Within the boarders of the catwalk site = 550 handaxes. (Isaac
1977:134)
For a detailed review of the substantial fauna/tools associations at
Olduvai see Potts:
http://tinyurl.com/75oo6
Gona "thousands of well flaked artifacts" (Semaw 2000:1210)
> (or, more likely, weapons) accumulated in
> such places over a few million years.
Wrong for the last time (only because that is where you ended your
post).
At most of sites above, the tools were found on individual land
surfaces, with the scatter of artifacts only one layer deep. This
suggests a very limited time of use. Each individual site-find then,
was not deposited over "a few million years."
>
>
> Paul.