SAT is sillier than AAT
Mark Reichert
is less silly than the Savannah Ape Theory. When we are talking about
primitive hominids that didn't have the brain power of their
descendants, they must have physical attributes that are inline with
their environments.
I can't really think of a sillier savannah animal than humans, and
presumably their ancestors. Yes, they have incredible long distance
stamina compared to many animals, but that's hardly a attribute tied
to the savannah. On the other hand, the incredibly water intensive
cooling system of humans would be counterproductive in a savannah
environment in the dry season. The only warm weather environment that
I can think of that would be worse is desert.
There are other attributes that have been discussed, but I'll just end
with another observation and a question. Recent research has cast
substantial doubt on the view of a savannah habitat for early
hominids, finding instead a much more tree rich, and presumably
wetter, environment instead.
The question is: is the Savannah Ape Theory held so rigidly here on
its merits or because it was the status quo for so long and nobody is
willing to give it up until they are forced to?
Bob Keeter
Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/30/02 8:22 PM:
> I'm not a die hard supporter of the Aquatic Ape Theory, but I think it
> is less silly than the Savannah Ape Theory. When we are talking about
> primitive hominids that didn't have the brain power of their
> descendants, they must have physical attributes that are inline with
> their environments.
I also believe "they must have physical attributes that are inline with
their environments". its the issue of what physical attributes you care to
look at, and which you try to consider "advantageous" in various
environments.
> I can't really think of a sillier savannah animal than humans, and
> presumably their ancestors.
If you presume a completely tool-less, quadrupedal ape, similar in size and
physiology to a modern chimp, you are absolutely 100% correct, IMHO anyway!
It would make absolutely no sense. Baboons manage, but they are a very
different kind of monkey (check out a big male mandril when he yawns, and
consider what it would feel like to have ten or twenty of these very toothy
fellows chewing on your ankle!)
Now, we KNOW that the early humans (by the time of the erectines certainly,
probably much earlier) did live outside of forests. We also know within any
kind of reasonable doubt that these early humans did not have baboon
incisors or the physical skeletal structure to run as fast as a baboon. . .
. . . SO. . . . we are left to come up with a logical and reasonable "path"
for this emergence from a forest/jungle existence. AND in the absence of
hard proof otherwise, Mr. Occam and the laws of logic demand that we build
up this puzzling path out of the fewest number of pieces (suppositions,
deductions, hypotheses, and conjectures) possible, and that they should all
interlock "seamlessly". Sometimes we are pretty good at this, sometimes
not.
> Yes, they have incredible long distance
> stamina compared to many animals, but that's hardly a attribute tied
> to the savannah.
Er. . . Is the distance between climbable trees shorter or longer in the
forest?
> On the other hand, the incredibly water intensive
> cooling system of humans would be counterproductive in a savannah
> environment in the dry season. The only warm weather environment that
> I can think of that would be worse is desert.
As is the water-intensive cooling system of all desert mammals. Horses
sweat ( As you would know quite well if you had ever ridden a horse long and
hard. And even though horses can sweat quite profusely, NOBODY tries to say
that a horse is not a 'savanna' creature! Camels sweat! Bovines sweat!
Humans sweat! Meaning. . . . .?)
> There are other attributes that have been discussed, but I'll just end
> with another observation and a question. Recent research has cast
> substantial doubt on the view of a savannah habitat for early
> hominids, finding instead a much more tree rich, and presumably
> wetter, environment instead.
Actually, I think that the latest theories look hard at the "edge of the
forest/start of the savanna". That would be just about the only place where
the right set of "selection factors" would be present to explain the changes
from a tree-dwelling, climbing physiology to the fully upright, obligatory
bipedal tool user that you find in the Apiths and likely other early
hominids. Pure forest lifestiles just dont work, and neither does the idea
that the limb-climber got tossed instantaneously out into the savanna!
> The question is: is the Savannah Ape Theory held so rigidly here on
> its merits or because it was the status quo for so long and nobody is
> willing to give it up until they are forced to?
I thin that the "savanna ape theory" has been drifting around a bit to keep
all of the facts covered (but you see that is the way it is with a theory,
it has to keep in tune with the evidence or be dropped!). Furthermore, the
"changes" are not so much the to the basic premise, i.e. that humans are the
only higher ape to exist on the savanna and that many human qualities are a
product of that environment, as much of the details about how that occured.
Regards
bk
Marc Verhaegen
"Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BA3620BD.232AF%rke...@earthlink.net...
> in article 99e65015.02123...@posting.google.com, Mark Reichert
at
> Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/30/02 8:22 PM:
> > On the other hand, the incredibly water intensive cooling system of
humans would be counterproductive in a savannah environment in the dry
season. The only warm weather environment that I can think of that would be
worse is desert.
> As is the water-intensive cooling system of all desert mammals.
?? As usual making up your own facts? Inform a bit, eg, African hunting dogs
don't sweat, don't salivate & don't even pant.
> Horses sweat ( As you would know quite well if you had ever ridden a horse
long and hard. And even though horses can sweat quite profusely, NOBODY
tries to say that a horse is not a 'savanna' creature! Camels sweat!
Bovines sweat! Humans sweat! Meaning. . . . .?)
This savanna believer apparently has a very simplistic view & doesn't
realise that there are different kinds of sweating (eccrine, apocrine), that
there are different kinds of lowering body temperature through evaporation
(sweating, panting, salivating), that sweating can have different functions
(eg, thermoregulation, communicative, antimicrobial, antislip), that the
amounts of sweating can vary enormously, etc.
Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions on
land.
firstjois
"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.02123...@posting.google.com...
: I'm not a die hard supporter of the Aquatic Ape Theory:
[snip]
Well, Thank goodness for that!
AFAIK there is no SAT.
Now you can spend all your time learning to play Snood. See
Jois
Lorenzo L. Love
[snip]
> Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions on
> land.
Is this from the paper reporting on the observation of a severed sealion
flipper? I've asked this several times before and you never answered. If
you aren't trying to hide something, you could be able to post the
relevant text of this paper.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"One must not assume that an understanding of science is present in
those who borrow its language"
Louis Pasteur
Jason Eshleman
Lorenzo L. Love <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>[snip]
>> Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions on
>> land.
>Is this from the paper reporting on the observation of a severed sealion
>flipper? I've asked this several times before and you never answered. If
>you aren't trying to hide something, you could be able to post the
>relevant text of this paper.
Even if true, it's curious how sweating in a sea lion somehow makes humans
sweating more "aquatic" in that it's a trait shared with but one of the
many species of pinnepeds. There's several terrestrial mammals that sweat
as well.
Jim McGinn
<snip>
I'll just end
> with another observation and a question. Recent research has cast
> substantial doubt on the view of a savannah habitat for early
> hominids, finding instead a much more tree rich, and presumably
> wetter, environment instead.
Yes, it was more of a "monsoon" habitat, as we see currently in India.
>
> The question is: is the Savannah Ape Theory held so rigidly here on
> its merits or because it was the status quo for so long and nobody is
> willing to give it up until they are forced to?
Pretty tough question to answer. I don't think anybody would argue
that any kind of consensus exists on just what is "the" savanna ape
hypothesis.
Moreover SAT has become especially vaporous as of late.
Jim
Michael Clark
news:ac6a5059.02123...@posting.google.com...
> Mark_R...@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) wrote
[snip]
>
> Moreover SAT has become especially vaporous as of late.
Learn a new word, Jimmy? Admit it --someone's been
describing your posts, right?
> Jim
Marc Verhaegen
"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:3E10F0C1...@thegrid.net...
> > Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions
on land.
> Is this from the paper reporting on the observation of a severed sealion
flipper? I've asked this several times before and you never answered.
I've answered this several times, eg, A. R. Hoelzel ed.2002 "Marine mammal
biology" Blackwell Publishing Oxford.
> If you aren't trying to hide something, you could be able to post the
relevant text of this paper.
I did, man, I did. Look it up. Why would I answer an idiot whose only
arguments are insults?
Marc Verhaegen
"Jason Eshleman" <j...@vidi.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:auqrsg$t6u$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions on
land.
> Even if true, it's curious how sweating in a sea lion somehow makes humans
sweating more "aquatic" in that it's a trait shared with but one of the many
species of pinnepeds.
Eshleman again with his imbecilic comments:
1) One?? As far as is known, all sealions.
2) Why do you think somebody is arguing how sweating in sealions would make
humans sweating more "aquatic"??
> There's several terrestrial mammals that sweat as well.
Apparently you haven't followed the discussion. You savanna believers have
very simplistic views of mammal physiology & don't realise that there are
different kinds of sweating (eccrine, apocrine), that there are different
kinds of lowering body temperature through evaporation (sweating, panting,
salivating), that sweating can have different functions (eg,
thermoregulation, communicative, antimicrobial, antislip), that the amounts
of sweating can vary enormously, etc.
Again: abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans &
sealions on land.
Mark Reichert
> Yes, it was more of a "monsoon" habitat, as we see currently in India.
Ah. That would make water more readibly available in the dry season
where there are cuts down into the water table. I've read that
inexpensive human driven but still efficient pumps are allowing more
agriculture in that region during the dry season because a lot of that
monsoon water gets stored not far below the surface.
> Pretty tough question to answer. I don't think anybody would argue
> that any kind of consensus exists on just what is "the" savanna ape
> hypothesis.
Well, the ferocity of some of the people here towards the aquatic ape
theory has led them to deny the gaping holes pointed out to them in
the view that hominids were adapted to the savannah. Or at least
that's what I've seen in a number of threads.
Michael Clark
news:99e65015.02123...@posting.google.com...
Earth to Mark, Earth to Mark, come in Mark.... Those passengers
sitting on the left side of the cabin will see the bright lights coming
from several straw men scattered in the fields below. It seems that
the local wet apes have set these flimsy facsimiles aflame and are
attracting quite a crowd.
Yawn. No, proto-humans were not Gnu's. More's the pity.
--------
Michael Clark
bit...@spammer.com
"You don't build hypotheses on the basis of unsupported conjecture."
--Jim McGinn
Mark Reichert
> physiology to a modern chimp, you are absolutely 100% correct, IMHO anyway!
> It would make absolutely no sense. Baboons manage,
I agree on baboons, I just want to point out that baboons kept their
hair as protection against solar radiation. Humans, and in the SAT,
hominids are the *only* animal making any sort of living around the
savannah that completely exposed their skin to the sun.
> Er. . . Is the distance between climbable trees shorter or longer in the
> forest?
I was thinking of wetter grasslands, but it just occured to me that
long distance stamina might be a more recently acquired attribute
after bipedalism had reached something near its present stage. A
period in which being able to walk down your prey would have had more
survival advantages than it did to primitive foraging hominids.
There's also the variability of food ripening that one sees in the
forests of Africa where chimpanzees have to cover a fair distance to
get to trees with food at its best stage. Early hominids may have
similar treks, bypassing nearer trees and plants because the food
wasn't yet at the best time to collect it.
> As is the water-intensive cooling system of all desert mammals.
Does that include gerbils and kangaroo rats? Seriously, humans have
several attributes that are actually maladapted to living in any
prolonged hot and dry environment. There doesn't seem to have been
any adaptations to actually help humans live in such an environment,
therefore it is doubtful they ever spent any great amount of time in
such an environment.
Lorenzo L. Love
Still won't provide the relevant text. What are you hiding?
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"A fool can no more see his own folly than he can see his ears."
William Makepeace Thackeray
Bob Keeter
> Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<BA3620BD.232AF%rke...@earthlink.net>...
>> If you presume a completely tool-less, quadrupedal ape, similar in size and
>> physiology to a modern chimp, you are absolutely 100% correct, IMHO anyway!
>> It would make absolutely no sense. Baboons manage,
>
> I agree on baboons, I just want to point out that baboons kept their
> hair as protection against solar radiation. Humans, and in the SAT,
> hominids are the *only* animal making any sort of living around the
> savannah that completely exposed their skin to the sun.
>
Well, there is this thing about "body size" that starts entering into the
equation. Im going to invent a term and try to define it. Call it thermal
mass. Its a function of metabolic level and body size, roughly proportional
to exposed surface area and internal heat generation. Heat generation would
be closely related to the "volume" contained within the skin, and exposed
area is closely related to skin "area". At some point you have to start
looking at different cooling approaches as size or metabolic rate increase.
(Consider a nice definitive savanna animal, like the African elephant. Do
you think that those big ear flaps are for better hearing or to provide heat
"radiators"? In contrast, consider the Asian elephant that exists in a more
"treed" environment, with at least some shelter from the sun; smaller ears
right? and Wooly Mammoths (found preserved in permafrost) have almost
insignificant little external ears!
IF a human and a baboon had the same "metabolic rate" per unit volume, and
the human was larger, I would expect to see some differences in cooling
arrangements. Note the capitalized "IF"! Not an accident! I seem to
remember that the human brain produces something around 25% of the total
calories metabolized for a human, totally out of proportion to its
comparitive size with respect to the rest of the body. Humans, and
presumably proto-humans had bigger brains than a baboon and thus at least
logically a higher metabolic caloric production rate, even when "sitting
still". Again another "reason" for a different or more capable
thermo-regulation system.
>> Er. . . Is the distance between climbable trees shorter or longer in the
>> forest?
>
> I was thinking of wetter grasslands, but it just occured to me that
> long distance stamina might be a more recently acquired attribute
> after bipedalism had reached something near its present stage. A
> period in which being able to walk down your prey would have had more
> survival advantages than it did to primitive foraging hominids.
Aint hard to outrun a qumquat! 8-)
> There's also the variability of food ripening that one sees in the
> forests of Africa where chimpanzees have to cover a fair distance to
> get to trees with food at its best stage. Early hominids may have
> similar treks, bypassing nearer trees and plants because the food
> wasn't yet at the best time to collect it.
>
Actually, lets think of the seasonal fruit availability! In a true tropical
jungle there is probably some fruit, berrries, soft shoots, etc available
year round. Move out to a "forest" (not jungle) and the seasonal
variability might just be much more pronounced with MONTHS where there
simply is no ripened fruit! We know that chimps (and even some very early
chimps(proto-humans?) ate nuts; we have found their piles of nut crackers!
but even hard shelled nuts are not impervious to the elements for months on
end. What kind of FOOD is available in the forest, edge of the forest, and
savanna year round? Hmmmmmmm. . . . . bet its some kind of food animal that
eats the basic vegitation, i.e. grasses, shoots, brush, twigs, etc. 8-)
>> As is the water-intensive cooling system of all desert mammals.
>
> Does that include gerbils and kangaroo rats?
Strange that you might decide to discuss rodents! Nice spread of critters
across a lot of biomes. On one hand you have very desert oriented animals
(like the kangaroo rats!) and aquatic adapted versions in the beavers! 8-)
Perhaps it might just be instructive to look at these little furry fellows a
bit closely. 8-) (Yes, this is a trick question! ;-) )
First: What is the most nearly obligate bipedal rodent, and what
environment is it found in? Why do you suppose that might be? Being
nocturnal, does it need its fur to protected it from the sun?
Second: In what is probably the most aquatic adapted of the rodents, i.e.
the beaver, is it hairless? Does it have webbed feet? Does it dive under
water and have flaps that close its nostrils and ears to the water when
diving? Does it have hip structure that allows it to walk bipedally on
extended legs?
> Seriously, humans have
> several attributes that are actually maladapted to living in any
> prolonged hot and dry environment. There doesn't seem to have been
> any adaptations to actually help humans live in such an environment,
> therefore it is doubtful they ever spent any great amount of time in
> such an environment.
All mammals have attributes that are seriously "maladaptive" to a prolonged
hot and dry environment. Some have modified these attributes or compensated
when unavoidable to become less "maladaptive" but. . . . For example,
endothermia, one of the hallmarks of mammals, is maladaptive to a hot
environment! Reptiles are much more "at home" in the desert than in the
temporate forest or arctic tundra.
Still, go back to your examples above and the rodents. What are the
adaptations to an aquatic environment in the beaver? What are the
adaptations to a hotter and more arid environment in the kangaroo rat?
Which of these adaptations do you wish to consider in the human animal? 8-)
Regards
bk
Jason Eshleman
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >
> > "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E10F0C1...@thegrid.net...
> >
> > > > Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions
> > on land.
> >
> > > Is this from the paper reporting on the observation of a severed sealion
> > flipper? I've asked this several times before and you never answered.
> >
> > I've answered this several times, eg, A. R. Hoelzel ed.2002 "Marine mammal
> > biology" Blackwell Publishing Oxford.
> >
> > > If you aren't trying to hide something, you could be able to post the
> > relevant text of this paper.
> >
> > I did, man, I did. Look it up. Why would I answer an idiot whose only
> > arguments are insults?
>
> Still won't provide the relevant text. What are you hiding?
Marc's psychosis is strange indeed. He's more than willing to repost
the same macro passages over and over and over again, yet when someone
asks him a question which would require that he cite only a single
source, he steadfastly refuses, claiming he's already done so, doesn't
need to do it again, and has no reason to "answer an idiot." Curious,
very curious. Clearly repetition isn't his problem, else he wouldn't
repost the same things over and over again. Why is it that only the
posts that reveal his sources are taboo for multiple posts?
I've filtered Marc because he's shown himself to be even less of a
human being than a scientist, but if he actually does bother to come
up with a source about sweaty sea lions, could someone be sure to let
me know?
Richard Wagler
Jason Eshleman wrote:
Marc's ref is an artricle by Bartholomew and Wilke
entitled 'Body Temperature in Northern Fur Seals"
in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating
from their flippers but go out of their way to point
out how limited is the ability of these seals to handle
heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would
chivy the bachelor males away from the main rookery
with the females and pups before shooting them and
processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and
they're stickin' to it - it was not uncommon for these
seals to become overheated and even die during a
trip of a few hundred yards.They do not provide any
data re volume of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt
to cite this for his claim that humans and fur seals are the
'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept.
Dave Kreger of UPenn got into all this with Marc on the
Yahoo AAT board back in October. Give it a look see.
Rick Wagler
Jason Eshleman
Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Jason Eshleman wrote:
>> I've filtered Marc because he's shown himself to be even less of a
>> human being than a scientist, but if he actually does bother to come
>> up with a source about sweaty sea lions, could someone be sure to let
>> me know?
>
>Marc's ref is an artricle by Bartholomew and Wilke
>entitled 'Body Temperature in Northern Fur Seals"
>in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
>pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating
>from their flippers but go out of their way to point
>out how limited is the ability of these seals to handle
>heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would
>chivy the bachelor males away from the main rookery
>with the females and pups before shooting them and
>processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
>very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and
>they're stickin' to it - it was not uncommon for these
>seals to become overheated and even die during a
>trip of a few hundred yards.They do not provide any
>data re volume of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt
>to cite this for his claim that humans and fur seals are the
>'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept.
Hmmm. So what you're saying is the reference to sweaty sea lions is from
an observation in a single fur seal species (which are at least
monophyletic with the other sea lions) and that reference is 40something
years old and hasn't been followed up on?
>
>Dave Kreger of UPenn got into all this with Marc on the
>Yahoo AAT board back in October. Give it a look see.
>
>Rick Wagler
Thanks. I'll check it out. I think I need the entertainment.
Jim McGinn
> > Yes, it was more of a "monsoon" habitat, as we see
> > currently in India.
>
> Ah. That would make water more readibly available in
> the dry season where there are cuts down into the
> water table. <snip>
I agree. And this set up a whole host of other factors
for these earliest of all hominids:
1) Patchiness of their remaining treed habitat. (And, as
is seen in extant seasonal environments, these remaining
patches of treed habitat would tend to be located near
sources of perrenial: water, rivers, lakes, ponds, streams,
etc.)
2) The dry season produced ecological stresses (lack of
water and food) and thereby became the most significant
selective factor in this new habitat. (Simply put, those
that has access to food and water through the dry season
survived, those that did not did not.)
3) The above mentioned ecological stresses would be
magnified by herds of inmigrating species that would, if
not stopped or dissuaded, completely overrun and deplete
the resources (food) in these patches of treed habitat.
It's pretty important to be aware of just how dramatic
was the shift in selective factors that took place with
the shift from a rainforest habitat to a monsoon habitat.
In the rainforest habitat their main concerns were sex
and avoiding the occasional predator. In this new
monsoon habitat they had to evolve strategies to prevent
the inmigration of herds of other species or else their
treed patch would become depleted and they'd be unable
to survive through the dry season. Not surprisingly
communalism, territorialism, and mob-oriented threat
displays (directed against the inmigrating species) were
the strategies that emerged to deal with these new
selective factors.
>
> > Pretty tough question to answer. I don't think
> > anybody would argue that any kind of consensus exists
> > on just what is "the" savanna ape hypothesis.
>
> Well, the ferocity of some of the people here towards
> the aquatic ape theory has led them to deny the gaping
> holes pointed out to them in the view that hominids were
> adapted to the savannah. Or at least that's what I've
> seen in a number of threads.
Oh yeah, it's pretty comical. Conventional theorist are
pretty stuck on this notion that early hominids were
hunting/scavenging, supposedly following herds of prey
around in a bipedal stance. The lifestyle they describe
is more like that of hyena rather than the slow moving,
slight of build A'piths that still maintained tree
climbing adaptations and can hardly be described as
optimized for treeless savanna habitat. From a biological
perspective this is pretty idiotic. But I guess it is not
altogether surprising in a discipline that so thoroughly
shuns biology.
Jim
Marc Verhaegen
"Jason Eshleman" <j...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:b7af43cb.0212...@posting.google.com...
> Marc's psychosis is strange indeed. He's more than willing to repost the
same macro passages over and over and over again, yet when someone
"someone"?? = people like you whose only arguments are insults, but who
can't give 1 valid argument in favor of the savanna nonsense, and can't give
1 argument against our scenario:
In 1960 Alister Hardy ("Was Man more aquatic in the past?" New Scientist)
described how a sea-side lifestyle - incl. wading, swimming, collecting
edible shells, turtles, crabs, coconuts, seaweeds etc. - could explain many
typically human features that are absent in our nearest relatives the
chimps, and that are unexplained by savanna scenarios: reduction of
climbing skills, very large brain, greater breathing control (=
preadaptation for speech), very dextrous hands (stone tool use to open
shells or nuts), reduction of fur, thicker fat tissues, longer legs, more
linear body build, high needs of iodine, sodium, poly-unsaturated fatty
acids etc.
IMO, Hardy was only wrong in thinking this seaside phase happened more than
10 Ma. Homo ergaster-erectus fossils or tools are found in Israel, Algeria,
E.Africa, Georgia, Java ca.1.8 Ma, IOW, they spread along the Mediterranean
& Indian Ocean coasts early Pleistocene or earlier. Although most
Pleistocene coasts are some 100 m below the present sea level and it's
mostly the inland Homo populations (entering the continents along the
rivers) that are represented in the fossil and archeological record, Homo
remains have frequently been found amid shells, corals, barnacles etc., from
1.8 Ma (Mojokerto) to 0.1 Ma (Eritrea), as well as on islands which could
only be reached oversea (Flores 0.8 Ma).
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
> asks him a question which would require that he cite only a single source,
he steadfastly refuses, claiming he's already done so
I have.
>, doesn't need to do it again, and has no reason to "answer an idiot."
Yes.
Marc Verhaegen
news:3E120145...@shaw.ca...
> Marc's ref is an article by Bartholomew and Wilke entitled 'Body
Temperature in Northern Fur Seals" in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating from their flippers
but go out of their way to point out how limited is the ability of these
seals to handle heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would chivy
the bachelor males away from the main rookery with the females and pups
before shooting them and processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and they're stickin' to
it - it was not uncommon for these seals to become overheated and even die
during a trip of a few hundred yards. They do not provide any data re volume
of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt to cite this for his claim that
humans and fur seals are the 'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept.
Rick Wagler
Thanks, Wagler, at least you've done your homework. Fair comment except for
the last sentence: not my fault that there are few data. The most recent
info I read is AR Hoezel ed.2002 "Marine mammal biology" Blackwell, p.87:
"sweat glands on the flippers of otariids aid in heat transfer. On hot days
sea lions & fur seals can often be seen fanning their flippers & increasing
evaporative heat loss at these sites" (Blix cs.1979 Am.J.Phys.236:R188). WN
Mcfarland cs.1979 "Vertebrate life" Collier p.773: "tps that rise to only
10°C during the day. ... Almost any activity on land causes the seals to
pant & raise their hind flippers (abundantly supplied with sweat glands) &
wave them about." When somebody can give me info on eccrine thermoregulatory
sweating in other mammals (or interesting info on sweating in general:
apocrine or eccrine, amounts, possible functions...), I'll be grateful, but
so far I haven't seen any. IOW, I don't have to change 1 letter of what I
said:
- AFAIK the most abundant thermoactive eccrine sweating is seen in human &
sealions.
- Suggesting that our sweating evolved to cope with hot savanna conditions
is ridiculous nonsense. Wishful thinking, typical of some (not you, Wagler)
people here: sacvanna believers who have not more arguments in favour of
their belief that creationists have in favor of theirs.
deowll
"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.02123...@posting.google.com...
One thing that the no trees in the savannah crowd keep missing is that some
land classed as savannah looks like thorn tree scrub forest to a boy from
Tennessee and not much of a grassland at all. The center of the field as I
understand it has bipids first show up in the forest which has smaller trees
than the jungle and enough of a dry season to cause problems like food
shortages or some such.
My personal guess is that once enough dust gets blown away for things to
clear up bipids will show up in the brush land PDQ after they show up as
fossils if they don't show up their first. Running around in a completely
treeless landscape had to wait a while.
Right now we are pretty much in the postion of saying that hominds lived in
or near the locations we have found the few remains known and trying to work
out what the local flora and climate were at the time the remains lived.
That is hardly a complete picture but at least it isn't total guess work.
Jim McGinn
> > Still won't provide the relevant text. What are you hiding?
>
>
> Marc's psychosis is strange indeed.
What about your own psychosis?
He's more than willing to repost
> the same macro passages over and over and over again,
At least he posts something. Why don't you tell us your theory on the
origins of hominid bipedalism? Afterall, you think you got if figured
out, right? If not then why are you so sure Marc is wrong?
yet when someone
> asks him a question which would require that he cite only a single
> source, he steadfastly refuses,
And you steadfastly refuse to provide your own thinking on this
subject. I mean, what makes you think there's any difference at all
between Marc's tactics and your tactics?
claiming he's already done so, doesn't
> need to do it again, and has no reason to "answer an idiot."
Hey, if the shoe fits . . .
Curious,
> very curious. Clearly repetition isn't his problem, else he wouldn't
> repost the same things over and over again. Why is it that only the
> posts that reveal his sources are taboo for multiple posts?
>
> I've filtered Marc because he's shown himself to be even less of a
> human being than a scientist,
That you would even bother to throw invectives at Marc shows how
deluded you are about the fact that you yourself have nothing better
than what Marc has.
Also, people that are confident about their own thinking have no need
for filters.
but if he actually does bother to come
> up with a source about sweaty sea lions, could someone be sure to let
> me know?
If you ever come up with a hypothesis on the origins of hominid
bipedalism be sure to let us know. It ought to be good for a few
laughs.
Jim
Marc Verhaegen
"deowll" <deo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6UEQ9.9252$us1....@news.bellsouth.net...
> One thing that the no trees in the savannah crowd keep missing
Whether or not savannas have trees is not so relevant. The point is: the
savanna believers used to think (not any more I hope?) that human ancestors
once walked over the African plains & evolved there nakedness, better sweat
glands, larger brains etc. You keep missing that this view is nonsense.
Richard Wagler
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
The only thing that has been "overthrown" is the idea
that hominids evolved from day one in savannah
environments which is to say bipedalism since that
is pretty much the defining characteristic of hominids
though it is probably not exclusive to them - depending
on how bipedal Oreopithecus actually is. Big brains,
tool-making etc etc probably were evolved in savannah/
forest margin habitats. Since the environments of **all**
the hominid sites can be described thusly why is it such
a hair-raising leap of faith to say that early hominids
lived and evolved in these sorts of habitats? You have yet
to identify a limiting factor which keeps hominds out of
savannah/bushland/ forest margin habitats. The fact that
hominoid apes don't take the same approach to things as
gnus and gazelles does not indicate what this limiting
factor might be. What is it?
Rick Wagler
Lorenzo L. Love
I sent Dr Hoelzel an email asking "Can you please clear up question?
Marc Verhaegen, an infamous advocate of the Aquatic Ape Theory of human
evolution is citing your work in ed.2002 "Marine Mammal Biology"
Blackwell Publishing Oxford as being in support the Aquatic Ape Theory.
Do you in any way support the Aquatic Ape Theory?". Today he answered:
"Hi, Our book doesn't deal with this question at all, much less offer
any
support for the theory. Best, Rus Hoelzel"
A bit of advice for Verhaegen, if you are going to misrepresent other
peoples work, do it with dead people who can't refute your distortions.
Lorenzo L. Love
If they didn't deliberately misrepresent the savanna as a treeless,
waterless desert, they wouldn't have an argument. So we can expect the
"no trees in the savannah crowd" to just keep on lying so as to bolster
an otherwise thin argument. That's the modus operandi of
pseudoscientists, if the facts don't support you, make stuff up.
firstjois
Another great sig line:
I sent Dr Hoelzel an email asking "Can you please clear up question?
Marc Verhaegen, an infamous advocate of the Aquatic Ape Theory of human
evolution is citing your work in ed.2002 "Marine Mammal Biology"
Blackwell Publishing Oxford as being in support the Aquatic Ape Theory.
Do you in any way support the Aquatic Ape Theory?". Today he answered:
"Hi, Our book doesn't deal with this question at all, much less offer
any
support for the theory. Best, Rus Hoelzel"
A bit of advice for Verhaegen, if you are going to misrepresent other
peoples work, do it with dead people who can't refute your distortions.
Lorenzo L. Love
--------------------------------
Lorenzo, haven't you found a way to wake the dead, yet? Just getting them
a message that Marco is using their work in support of his own personal
religion should do the trick!
Jois
Jason Eshleman
Jim McGinn <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>j...@ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote
>
>> > Still won't provide the relevant text. What are you hiding?
>>
>>
>> Marc's psychosis is strange indeed.
>
>What about your own psychosis?
You mean the one that makes me respond to something like this?
>
>He's more than willing to repost
>> the same macro passages over and over and over again,
>
>At least he posts something. Why don't you tell us your theory on the
>origins of hominid bipedalism? Afterall, you think you got if figured
>out, right? If not then why are you so sure Marc is wrong?
This is curious. Your criticism is on false grounds in at least two
aspects. A) Nowhere have I ever claimed that I've got the origins of
hominid bipedalism figured out. I'm perplexed as to what gave you that
idea. B) Having no alternative that I pimp here doesn't in any way make a
what a whacko like Marc posts.
[snip]
>Also, people that are confident about their own thinking have no need
>for filters.
I filter pea-brains like Verhaegen because he wastes band width while
going out of his way to attack me personally. I'm confident that I've
seen nothing in his posts to indicate that I'm missing anything
scientifically substantive. Curious why you've decided to take up baiting
me as well. Not curious enough to keep reading however. "Marc, meet Jim.
Jim, Marc. Filter file's getting a bit crowded, but y'all should be right
at home here."
Marc Verhaegen
> > > One thing that the no trees in the savannah crowd keep missing
> > Whether or not savannas have trees is not so relevant. The point is: the
savanna believers used to think (not any more I hope?) that human ancestors
once walked over the African plains & evolved there nakedness, better sweat
glands, larger brains etc. You keep missing that this view is nonsense.
> The only thing that has been "overthrown" is the idea that hominids
evolved from day one in savannah environments which is to say bipedalism
since that is pretty much the defining characteristic of hominids though it
is probably not exclusive to them - depending on how bipedal Oreopithecus
actually is.
You still believe in fairy tales, Wagler. I thought you were smarter. Great
disappointment.
- Bipedalism: The early hominids (=Pan+Homo+Gorilla vs pongids=Pongo) were
already (short-legged) bipedals(+climbers). Both Sahelanthr.& Orrorin are
claimed to have been bipedal, 7-6 Ma, ie, at the time of the Homo-Pan split.
But this we had already predicted several years ago, based on comparative
data.
- Nakedness: not seen in medium-sized savanna dwellers.
- Sweat glands: humans & sealions: not savanna.
- Larger brains: not in savanna.
- Etc.
> Big brains, tool-making etc etc probably were evolved in savannah/forest
margin habitats.
:-D Man, go home. Ridiculous: there are no tool-using savanna mammals. No
big-brained ones. Please no just-so stories. Facts!
> Since the environments of **all** the hominid sites can be described
thusly
No, no. First, try to make the difference between apiths & Homo: apiths had
no big brains, were no (good) tool-users. Are you talking about hominids or
about Homo?? Don't mix up things.
1) apiths, eg, KE Reed 1997 JHE 32:289-322: "Reconstructed habitats show
that Australopithecus species existed in fairly wooded, well-watered
regions. Paranthropus species lived in similar environs and also in more
open regions, but always in habitats that include wetlands."
2) Homo ca.1.8 Ma: from Algeria to Java - no specific relation to savanna.
> why is it such a hair-raising leap of faith to say that early hominids
lived and evolved in these sorts of habitats?
Because it's nonsense. Based on a misinterpretation of Dart.
> You have yet to identify a limiting factor which keeps hominds out of
savannah/bushland/ forest margin habitats.
The comparative data, man. Which you neglect.
> The fact that hominoid apes don't take the same approach to things as gnus
and gazelles does not indicate what this limiting factor might be. What is
it? Rick Wagler
Lots of limiting factors: skin, fat, kidneys, locomotion, sweat glands...
About everything shows that hominids & Homo are/were no savanna dwellers.
Nature 325:305-306, 1987: "... it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors
ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant.
Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have thermo-insulative subcutaneous
fat layers, which are never seen in savanna mammals. We have a water- and
sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a
dry environment (5). Our maximal urine concentration is much too low for a
savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need much more water than other primates,
and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink
large quantities at a time (7-8)."
Bob Keeter
lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 1/1/03 9:47 PM:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Snippage. . . . .
>> I did, man, I did. Look it up. Why would I answer an idiot whose only
>> arguments are insults?
>
> I sent Dr Hoelzel an email asking "Can you please clear up question?
> Marc Verhaegen, an infamous advocate of the Aquatic Ape Theory of human
> evolution is citing your work in ed.2002 "Marine Mammal Biology"
> Blackwell Publishing Oxford as being in support the Aquatic Ape Theory.
> Do you in any way support the Aquatic Ape Theory?". Today he answered:
>
> "Hi, Our book doesn't deal with this question at all, much less offer
> any
> support for the theory. Best, Rus Hoelzel"
>
> A bit of advice for Verhaegen, if you are going to misrepresent other
> peoples work, do it with dead people who can't refute your distortions.
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
Looks like the facts, the great and uncompromising enemies of
unsubstanciated conjectures, strike again! Must be that great conspiracy
out there discovering all of these truths that for some unknown reason
deliberately portray the AAH and the credibility of its shrillest proponents
in the wrong light again!
Good job, Lorenzo! Marc, more mail to answer? 8-)
Still dont buy in to the fanciful feline farce! ;-)
Regards
bk
Jim McGinn
> The only thing that has been "overthrown" is the idea
> that hominids evolved from day one in savannah
> environments which is to say bipedalism since that
> is pretty much the defining characteristic of hominids
There is no such thing as "a defining characteristic of hominids."
Bipedalism is one of many traits associated with hominids.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> >At least he posts something. Why don't you tell us your theory on the
> >origins of hominid bipedalism? Afterall, you think you got if figured
> >out, right? If not then why are you so sure Marc is wrong?
>
> This is curious. Your criticism is on false grounds in at least two
> aspects. A) Nowhere have I ever claimed that I've got the origins of
> hominid bipedalism figured out.
Well, at least your honest, which is more than we can say for most of
the conventional proponents in this NG.
I'm perplexed as to what gave you that
> idea. B) Having no alternative that I pimp here doesn't in any way make a
> what a whacko like Marc posts.
If you have no alternative then shouldn't you be looking for one? If
you are so sure AAT is whacko then why do you keep the issue alive?
>
> [snip]
> >Also, people that are confident about their own thinking have no need
> >for filters.
>
> I filter pea-brains like Verhaegen because he wastes band width while
> going out of his way to attack me personally.
Well that's great. But keep it to yourself. We have about as much
need to know that you filter Marc, or anybody, as we do to know that
you wipe yourself after you take a crap.
I'm confident that I've
> seen nothing in his posts to indicate that I'm missing anything
> scientifically substantive.
How long did it take you to figure that out?
Curious why you've decided to take up baiting
> me as well. Not curious enough to keep reading however. "Marc, meet Jim.
> Jim, Marc. Filter file's getting a bit crowded, but y'all should be right
> at home here."
Jim
Mark Reichert
> First: What is the most nearly obligate bipedal rodent, and what
> environment is it found in? Why do you suppose that might be? Being
> nocturnal, does it need its fur to protected it from the sun?
No, it needs it's fur because the desert gets cold at night due to the
heat radiating out to space through the clear dry air.
> Second: In what is probably the most aquatic adapted of the rodents, i.e.
> the beaver, is it hairless?
Why are we talking about the beaver? Never have the proponents of the
AAT ever said that man's ancestors were a truly aquatic animal. The
polar bear spends a good deal of time in the sea and makes its living
off animals who are at home in the sea but no one would ever call it
aquatic.
Besides, I stated that I wasn't supporting the argument that the AAT
was true, just that the SAT was sillier. You are giving me the same
response you have for any proponent of the AAT. It makes it clear to
me that your support of the SAT isn't based on any merits, just a
reactionary clinging to an outmoded view.
> All mammals have attributes that are seriously "maladaptive" to a prolonged
> hot and dry environment.
Bullshit. You obviously don't understand the term maladaptive.
> when unavoidable to become less "maladaptive" but. . . . For example,
> endothermia, one of the hallmarks of mammals, is maladaptive to a hot
> environment!
Which is why, unlike mad dogs and Englishmen, they don't stand outside
in the noon sun if they can avoid it. The endothermia actually
becomes useful at night.
Humans have a problem here because they don't have the fur that would
keep heat in during the night and they don't have the senses needed to
be finding food at night, and presumably none of their ancestors had
any of that either.
> Still, go back to your examples above and the rodents. What are the
> adaptations to an aquatic environment in the beaver? What are the
> adaptations to a hotter and more arid environment in the kangaroo rat?
> Which of these adaptations do you wish to consider in the human animal?
Why are you asking me questions? Oh yeah, that's a classic technique
to cover the weaknesses of your arguments by not actually saying
anything.
As for the kangaroo rat: They drink very little or no water, deriving
free water as a by-product of carbohydrate metabolism and from any
water present in their food. Their efficient kidneys (four times as
efficient as those of humans) enable them to produce a very
concentrated urine. They do not perspire or pant and convoluted nasal
passages condense most of the moisture from their exhaled breath.
I'd think at the very least humans would have more efficient kidneys
that would allow them to concentrate their urine better. An awful lot
of water leaves the human body when voiding the bladder, and that's
not the sign of an animal that had to make living in hot, dry
environment without the help of a big brain.
Here's some adaptations some fairly large animals have made to living
in a hot, dry environment: http://enhg.4t.com/b/b11/11_24.htm
I have to point out that the animals that have a fatty layer to
prevent heat gain also have fur that makes sure the skin is not
directly exposed to the sun. If hominids were using that device, they
must not have lost their fur yet, which still points out a weakness in
the SAT which claims that the fur was lost to promote temperature
control through evaporation, which leads us right back to the enormous
amounts of water humans require for this.
All these animals have adaptations to the environment of which there
are no signs of having been in early hominids. Granted that is desert
and we've been talking about the savannah, but the savannah in the dry
season gets as dry as a desert, particularly in drought years. I'd
show the adaptation savannah animals have made for surviving the dry
season but I can't find a single web page that discusses the subject,
beyond the fact that large savannah animals move around a lot in
search of watering holes. Problem is that predators like to lay in
wait around those holes to grab a meal.
Fortunately, recent discoveries make the matter moot by showing that
the early hominids were not living in a savannah environment, even if
reactionaries here keep wanting to cling to the idea.
Once again, I am not saying that the AAT is true, in any of its forms,
just that the hominids look less silly as foragers of aquatic food
from shallow waters than foragers of scarce food and water in a
savannah dry season.
Mark Reichert
> Earth to Mark, Earth to Mark, come in Mark.... Those passengers
> sitting on the left side of the cabin will see the bright lights coming
> from several straw men scattered in the fields below.
I don't speak gibberish. Could you provide a translation?
Mark Reichert
> was the shift in selective factors that took place with
> the shift from a rainforest habitat to a monsoon habitat.
> In the rainforest habitat their main concerns were sex
> and avoiding the occasional predator. In this new
> monsoon habitat they had to evolve strategies to prevent
> the inmigration of herds of other species or else their
> treed patch would become depleted and they'd be unable
> to survive through the dry season. Not surprisingly
> communalism, territorialism, and mob-oriented threat
> displays (directed against the inmigrating species) were
> the strategies that emerged to deal with these new
> selective factors.
I've never run across this argument in the documentaries I've seen or
the books or web pages I've read. Do you have any suggested books or
web pages I should check out?
It just occured to me that a monsoon habitat might also explain why
humans are such strong swimmers for an animal that spends most of its
time out of water. These patches would likely flood during the wet
season and strong swimming skills would be necessary to get around
safely. That and any other thought I have on the subject is sheer
speculation, but I have a problem believing that the swimming skills
of humans arose from dumb luck, without ever having been even the
slightest bit useful for survival.
Richard Wagler
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:3E120145...@shaw.ca...
>
> > Marc's ref is an article by Bartholomew and Wilke entitled 'Body
> Temperature in Northern Fur Seals" in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
> pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating from their flippers
> but go out of their way to point out how limited is the ability of these
> seals to handle heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would chivy
> the bachelor males away from the main rookery with the females and pups
> before shooting them and processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
> very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and they're stickin' to
> it - it was not uncommon for these seals to become overheated and even die
> during a trip of a few hundred yards. They do not provide any data re volume
> of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt to cite this for his claim that
> humans and fur seals are the 'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept.
> Rick Wagler
>
> Thanks, Wagler, at least you've done your homework. Fair comment except for
> the last sentence: not my fault that there are few data.
No but you are responsible for backing up your claims. You
should have accumulated your data before you made the claim
that humans and furseals are the 'sweatiest of mammals'. Having
discerned a paucity of data you should realize that you are in
no position to make that claim. Belatedly throwing in the
qualifier 'eccrine' really doesn't solve the problem. You are
now in the position of having to explain why eccrine sweating
for thermoregulation is importantly different from apocrine
sweating for thermoregulation. I don't know how much work
has gone into measuring the sweating of prairie dogs and
mountain goats and how effective it is but then I don't really
care. How does it work for humans? Quite well. In fact
handling heat stress is something humans do remarkably
well. Furseals, as we both agree, don't do it very well at
all. This orders of magnitude difference is noteworthy is
it not?
> The most recent
> info I read is AR Hoezel ed.2002 "Marine mammal biology" Blackwell, p.87:
> "sweat glands on the flippers of otariids aid in heat transfer. On hot days
> sea lions & fur seals can often be seen fanning their flippers & increasing
> evaporative heat loss at these sites" (Blix cs.1979 Am.J.Phys.236:R188). WN
> Mcfarland cs.1979 "Vertebrate life" Collier p.773: "tps that rise to only
> 10°C during the day. ... Almost any activity on land causes the seals to
> pant & raise their hind flippers (abundantly supplied with sweat glands) &
> wave them about." When somebody can give me info on eccrine thermoregulatory
> sweating in other mammals (or interesting info on sweating in general:
> apocrine or eccrine, amounts, possible functions...), I'll be grateful, but
> so far I haven't seen any. IOW, I don't have to change 1 letter of what I
> said:
>
> - AFAIK the most abundant thermoactive eccrine sweating is seen in human &
> sealions.
Except that this statement is supported by nothing but
anecdotal evidence. The authors of works on sea mammal
physiology did not, it seems, think it worth the effort to
compile comparative data from other terrestrial orders.
They simply content themselves with noting that however
much sweating sealions do it is rather ineffective. Your
AFAIK hides the ugly fact that you have squat for data
and your assertion is baseless. Leaving aside the question
of whether there is any significant functional difference
between apocrine and eccrine sweating as it pertains to
thermoregulation. I hope you agree that a horse that is
all lathered up after a hard ride is engaged in themo-
regulatory sweating.
>
>
> - Suggesting that our sweating evolved to cope with hot savanna conditions
> is ridiculous nonsense. Wishful thinking, typical of some (not you, Wagler)
> people here: sacvanna believers who have not more arguments in favour of
> their belief that creationists have in favor of theirs.
Why is it ridiculous nonsense? As I said humans handle
heat stress rather well. What selective pressure does
a swamp provide to help evolve that? Especially since
human esc is most effective at humidity of 50% or less.
And why bring seals into it at all? What do they
contribute? You stoutly deny that hominds ever
lived in habitats or engaged in a lifeway remotely
resembling that of a furseal so what the hell does
it matter what they do? Eccrine sweating in sealions
and humans is obviously not a case of similar selective
pressures producing similar adaptive responses so
what's the point?
Here's something to take a look at
Hanna, Joel M; Brown, Danial A. Human Heat Tolerance:
Biological and Cultural Adaptations
Yrbk Phys Anthropol 1979 22 163-186
Rick Wagler
Richard Wagler
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
"Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3E1351BA...@shaw.ca...> > > One thing that the no trees in the savannah crowd keep missing
> > Whether or not savannas have trees is not so relevant. The point is: the
savanna believers used to think (not any more I hope?) that human ancestors
once walked over the African plains & evolved there nakedness, better sweat
glands, larger brains etc. You keep missing that this view is nonsense.> The only thing that has been "overthrown" is the idea that hominids
evolved from day one in savannah environments which is to say bipedalism
since that is pretty much the defining characteristic of hominids though it
is probably not exclusive to them - depending on how bipedal Oreopithecus
actually is.You still believe in fairy tales, Wagler. I thought you were smarter. Great
disappointment.
- Bipedalism: The early hominids (=Pan+Homo+Gorilla vs pongids=Pongo) were
already (short-legged) bipedals(+climbers). Both Sahelanthr.& Orrorin are
claimed to have been bipedal, 7-6 Ma, ie, at the time of the Homo-Pan split.
But this we had already predicted several years ago, based on comparative
data.
Sahelanthropus and Orrorin are very new. Who these guys
were and what they were up to is still up in the air.
- Nakedness: not seen in medium-sized savanna dwellers.
It's not seen in anything else either....except small whales.
And whales say what about human evolution?
- Sweat glands: humans & sealions: not savanna.
All mammals sweat. How much and how big a role
it plays in any species particular heat management
strategy is the question. The comparison of humans
and sealions only emphasizes the orders of magnitude
difference between them.
- Larger brains: not in savanna.
Sea mammals, right? Baboons are very
bright. Whales devote an awful lot of their
brain to echolocation a entire sensory
system which humans do not possess
in the slightest degree. Humans live in
savannahs so some savannah dwellers have
rather large brains.
- Etc.> Big brains, tool-making etc etc probably were evolved in savannah/forest
margin habitats.:-D Man, go home. Ridiculous: there are no tool-using savanna mammals. No
big-brained ones. Please no just-so stories. Facts!
Define savannah. "Plains, whatever' was an instant
Verhaegen classic. Prepared to ride with that??
> Since the environments of **all** the hominid sites can be described
thuslyNo, no. First, try to make the difference between apiths & Homo: apiths had
no big brains, were no (good) tool-users. Are you talking about hominids or
about Homo?? Don't mix up things.
I'm saying that a'piths were not ancestral chimps and it
is very likely that one of them gave rise to Homo.
Whic means that a whole lot of modern human
characters were started in a'piths. Too difficult to
understand?
1) apiths, eg, KE Reed 1997 JHE 32:289-322: "Reconstructed habitats show
that Australopithecus species existed in fairly wooded, well-watered
regions. Paranthropus species lived in similar environs and also in more
open regions, but always in habitats that include wetlands."
This same article makes the claim that Homo was more
adapted to drier, more open environments. If you're
going to take the one you should take the other...
2) Homo ca.1.8 Ma: from Algeria to Java - no specific relation to savanna.
And what was the Sahara in its good times if not a
savannah?
> why is it such a hair-raising leap of faith to say that early hominids
lived and evolved in these sorts of habitats?Because it's nonsense. Based on a misinterpretation of Dart.
> You have yet to identify a limiting factor which keeps hominds out of
savannah/bushland/ forest margin habitats.The comparative data, man. Which you neglect.
> The fact that hominoid apes don't take the same approach to things as gnus
and gazelles does not indicate what this limiting factor might be. What is
it? Rick WaglerLots of limiting factors: skin, fat, kidneys, locomotion, sweat glands...
About everything shows that hominids & Homo are/were no savanna dwellers.
Nature 325:305-306, 1987: "... it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors
ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant.
Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have thermo-insulative subcutaneous
fat layers, which are never seen in savanna mammals. We have a water- and
sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a
dry environment (5). Our maximal urine concentration is much too low for a
savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need much more water than other primates,
and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink
large quantities at a time (7-8)."
All this proves is that you haven't a clue what ecologists
and biogeographers mean when they refer to a 'limiting
factor' which determines the extent of an organism's
range and habitat. Look it up. I might suggest that you
ask the world class evolutinary theorist who has again
graced this ng with his presence but that would be mean.
All the best in the new year
Rick Wagler
firstjois
:
: Once again, I am not saying that the AAT is true, in any of its forms,
: just that the hominids look less silly as foragers of aquatic food
: from shallow waters than foragers of scarce food and water in a
: savannah dry season.
In the most recent issue of Discover (Page 11) there is a little section
titled "The Ancient Atkins Diet" which says that because European
settlements from around 10,000 B.C. are primarily found along coasts and
rivers, archaeologists assumed their inhabitants survived mostly on fish
and plants. Eh, eh, eh, chemical analysis of an unearthed bone showed
that the previous owner ate an almost exclusively carnivorous diet.
Remains of animals nearby...no fish or plant remains.
Silly must be a relative thing.
Jois
Bob Keeter
wrote on 1/2/03 9:27 AM:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
Snippage. . . . .
> I might suggest that you ask the world class evolutinary theorist who has
> again graced this ng with his presence but that would be mean.
>
Afraid that Marc probably doesnt care too much about the credentials for
anyone who does not instantly agree with his AAH concepts. Too bad. Its
entirely possible that some of the features he champions might actually be
worthy of consideration (not so much for the AAH as for the real reasons the
characteristics developed). With the "stigma" attached, I suppose it would
take a "world class" scientist to even raise the issues without seeming to
support AAH (and even sometimes the reputation is not sufficient shield!).
8-(
Still, its nice to know that at least some "important people" are listening
in. Just wish that they would comment more. 8-)
> All the best in the new year
>
> Rick Wagler
>
And a truely grand new year to you, Rick!
From the iced in confines of Northern Massachusetts. . . . . . .
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
firstjo...@hotmail.com wrote on 1/2/03 3:51 PM:
Oh, "silly" might just be a REALLY bad choice of words! 8-)
Seriously, had not read the article; will fix that with todays mail I hope!
;-)
There is another "factor" perhaps. The area along a coastline or
river/lake/pond is often a biome very dense in animal protein. If you
happen to be a carnivore, your hunting is best where there are more things
to hunt! Well, DUH! Where do you find the most predators? Perhaps where
there is the most prey! 8-)
Frankly, I am surprised that the research, particularly when looking at the
sea coast sites, did not find at least SOME trace of sea food in the bones
or in the middens. Humans are notorious for exploiting just about every
food source in arms reach! Even if fish were not consistently on the menu
(often quite hard to catch, as many of us prove), oysters, crabs, clams,
scallops, and even sea birds have found themselves on the menu just about
every time they have come in contact with good ole HSS!
Regards
bk
Michael Clark
Trouble with the English language, Mark? I see you have
no trouble parroting the language of the wet apes --right down
to a sequential listing of their talking points.
Never mind, everyone ~else~ got it (and I think you did, too).
deowll
"Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3e133d73$0$29632$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
of years of when they became bipids. HH or HE may well have wandered around
in the open enough for this to kick in. The ideas suggested were tested and
the numbers are based on real studies. Hominids may have been in the open
enough that it occured sooner. I don't know.
Sweat glands are absolutely vital to people in warm weather. We have a kid
at school who doesn't have them and it is a life threating condition. If he
was in water at less than 90 degrees he wouldn't have the problem. You keep
missing that I switch my views based on the evidence.
The evidence is that exploiting food resources in and near water of no great
depth would have been part of a general foraging pattern that led to few if
any changes in modern humans. I've never seen any evidence of even one
adaption for life in water that couldn't be explained just as easily as an
adaption to life on land.
Considering the amount of chronic ear infection in human kids swimming
around in dirty water is the last thing they need to be doing. Swimmers ear
is pretty much a given.
deowll
beliefs.
Some people have found a few things that they think might indicate a more
bipidel stage in Pan Gorilla but it is a light year from being proof.
Any body who says they have proof that the ancestors of Pan and Gorilla were
bipids is pretty much by defination a lier or in urgent need of theropy.
> > Big brains, tool-making etc etc probably were evolved in savannah/forest
> margin habitats.
>
> :-D Man, go home. Ridiculous: there are no tool-using savanna mammals.
No
> big-brained ones. Please no just-so stories. Facts!
>
Total insanity.
> > Since the environments of **all** the hominid sites can be described
> thusly
>
Including HH and HE? NOT!
No point in even reading the rest.
deowll
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.03010...@posting.google.com...
He pushed his pet theory a little hard and he's mad when lack of evidence
was noted. It isn't a new idea and may well have some grains of truth but th
e limits on how for to take it seemed to have hurt his feelings.
Tool and weapon use most likely increased slowly over a time span of at
least three or four million years after true bipids showed up. Correction at
least five or six million years and starting before true bipids showed up.
Will maybe it was seven or eight million years. I don't know when bipids
showed up for sure and I've never been sure all the differnt kids were
desecend from the same grandma and became a bipids at the same time.
deowll
> Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<BA372703.23340%rke...@earthlink.net>...
> > First: What is the most nearly obligate bipedal rodent, and what
> > environment is it found in? Why do you suppose that might be? Being
> > nocturnal, does it need its fur to protected it from the sun?
>
> No, it needs it's fur because the desert gets cold at night due to the
> heat radiating out to space through the clear dry air.
>
> > Second: In what is probably the most aquatic adapted of the rodents,
i.e.
> > the beaver, is it hairless?
>
> Why are we talking about the beaver? Never have the proponents of the
> AAT ever said that man's ancestors were a truly aquatic animal.
I've got a book some where unless the mice ate it that says you sir are out
to lunch. That was the origninal claim.
Bob Keeter
deo...@bellsouth.net wrote on 1/2/03 7:28 PM:
>>
>>> Second: In what is probably the most aquatic adapted of the rodents, i.e.
>>> the beaver, is it hairless?
>>>
>> Why are we talking about the beaver? Never have the proponents of the AAT
>> ever said that man's ancestors were a truly aquatic animal.
>>
> I've got a book some where unless the mice ate it that says you sir are out to
> lunch. That was the origninal claim.
>
Let me take a first shot at this one! 8-)
http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm
Even uses the beaver as an example of an "aquatic animal" for which humans
show similarities to! 8-)
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/FoF/17Wind.htm
(One of Algis's pages, but I suspect that he might be dropping it soon!)
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/aquatic.html
And here is a whole compendium of AAH pages.
One other thing to possibly consider. Of the various "adaptations" claimed,
I would propose that some are "advanced" adaptations and some are
"preliminary" adaptations. SC fat (for the purposes of insulation) is an
advanced adaptation in truely aquatic animals. You find significant layers
SC fat (blubber), adequate for some significant insulation effects in
pinepeds, cetaceans and such, not in river or sea otters. Loss of hair is
another "advanced" adaptation found only the species with major adaptation
to an aquatic existence. Certainly even the pinepeds still have fur (that
was one of the major reasons that they were almost hunted into extinction,
as were otters, beavers, etc).
Now for the "preliminary" adaptations. These would be adaptations that
could be effected by those animals with only a slight aquatic connection, or
adaptations that are more or less "across the board" for all aquatic
species. For example, name ONE truely aquatic, or even part time aquatic
species that does not have webbed feet to one degree or another? In the
case of some (cetaceans, pinnepeds, icthiosaurs, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs,
turtles, etc) the feet have morphed all the way back to almost fishlike
fins, in others (hippo, polar bear, beaver, platypus, crocs, ducks, frogs,
salamanders, etc. <Get the idea? Did I cover enough Classes, orders, and
species? 8-) > ), there is simple soft-tissue webbing.
IOW, name a demonstrably aquatic species that does not have at least some
significant degree of webbing? OR Name a species with webbing (less the bats
of course!) that is not aquatic? 8-)
Now, of all of the supposed "indicators" how many of those are only found on
the extreme cases of aquatic adaptation (i.e. pinepeds, cetaceans and such)?
If you want to claim these ARE hominid adaptations to an aquatic
environment, you are left presuming a degree of reliance on aquatic
environments equal to at least these species!
If you would like to claim a more casual connection to an aquatic existence,
where are the adaptations that would be common to all of the
"non-obligatory" aquatic species?
How can you have a "terminal stage adaptation" like "Blubber layers" without
having any of the most preliminary adaptations (like webbing)?
Anyway, the basic discussion was do any of the AAH advocates talk about a
true "aquatic ape" or just a coastal/riverbank ape?
Answer: Yep!
Regards
bk
Marc Verhaegen
> > > Marc's ref is an article by Bartholomew and Wilke entitled 'Body
Temperature in Northern Fur Seals" in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating from their flippers
but go out of their way to point out how limited is the ability of these
seals to handle heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would chivy
the bachelor males away from the main rookery with the females and pups
before shooting them and processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and they're stickin' to
it - it was not uncommon for these seals to become overheated and even die
during a trip of a few hundred yards. They do not provide any data re volume
of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt to cite this for his claim that
humans and fur seals are the 'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept. Rick
Wagler
> > Thanks, Wagler, at least you've done your homework. Fair comment except
for the last sentence: not my fault that there are few data.
> No but you are responsible for backing up your claims. You should have
accumulated your data before you made the claim that humans and furseals are
the 'sweatiest of mammals'.
From everything we know, they are.
> Having discerned a paucity of data you should realize that you are in no
position to make that claim. Belatedly throwing in the qualifier 'eccrine'
really doesn't solve the problem.
Not belatedly:
- In 1985, I wrote: "The completely aquatic mammals lack sweat glands, but
at least one pinniped has the naked surface of its hindlimbs abundantly
supplied with thermoactive sweat glands; almost any activity on land, at air
temperatures that rarely exceed 10°C, causes Callorhinus to wave its
hindflippers about (15)."
- In 1991: "Of all the available strategies, human eccrine sweating combined
with low body temperature is the least well adapted to savannah conditions
and the least likely to have evolved in that type of habitat. As far as is
known, fur seals are the only non-human mammals which sweat thermoactively
through abundant eccrine glands (on their naked hind flippers) when they are
overheated on land (G. A. Bartholomew, in McFarland et al., 1979, p. 773)."
> You are now in the position of having to explain why eccrine sweating for
thermoregulation is importantly different from apocrine sweating for
thermoregulation.
I don't have to explain it. Why should I? I only noticed a remarkable
resemblance between otariids & humans.
Note also the word "abundant", eg, nonhuman terrestrials sweat far less
abundantly (Schmidt-Nielsen).
Wagler, try to discern comparative & functional arguments. Although almost
everything in biology is extremely functional, it's often impossible to know
the exact function: most structures have different functions (eg, sweat:
feromones, excretory, antimicrobial...), functions change of course (that's
evolution), and the same "goals" (eg, thermoregulation) can be achieved
through different means. But even if we don't know the function,
resemblances between different mammals are important data. The best
arguments are of course both functional & comparative.
> I don't know how much work has gone into measuring the sweating of prairie
dogs and mountain goats and how effective it is but then I don't really
care. How does it work for humans? Quite well. In fact handling heat stress
is something humans do remarkably well.
No, they do remarkably poor for land mammals. That's your problem to
explain.
> Furseals, as we both agree, don't do it very well at all. This orders of
magnitude difference is noteworthy is it not?
Humans are no furseals. Humans are terrestrial mammals with unusual features
that suggest human ancestors once spent a lot of time in water.
> > The most recent info I read is AR Hoezel ed.2002 "Marine mammal biology"
Blackwell, p.87: "sweat glands on the flippers of otariids aid in heat
transfer. On hot days sea lions & fur seals can often be seen fanning their
flippers & increasing evaporative heat loss at these sites" (Blix cs.1979
Am.J.Phys.236:R188). WN Mcfarland cs.1979 "Vertebrate life" Collier p.773:
"tps that rise to only 10°C during the day. ... Almost any activity on land
causes the seals to pant & raise their hind flippers (abundantly supplied
with sweat glands) & wave them about." When somebody can give me info on
eccrine thermoregulatory sweating in other mammals (or interesting info on
sweating in general: apocrine or eccrine, amounts, possible functions...),
I'll be grateful, but so far I haven't seen any. IOW, I don't have to change
1 letter of what I said: - AFAIK the most abundant thermoactive eccrine
sweating is seen in human & sealions.
> Except that this statement is supported by nothing but anecdotal evidence.
I'm glad you agree. Of course anecdotal. Not my fault. Darwin's whole theory
was based on anecdotal evidence...
> The authors of works on sea mammal physiology did not, it seems, think it
worth the effort to compile comparative data from other terrestrial orders.
They simply content themselves with noting that however much sweating
sealions do it is rather ineffective. Your AFAIK hides the ugly fact that
you have squat for data and your assertion is baseless. Leaving aside the
question of whether there is any significant functional difference between
apocrine and eccrine sweating as it pertains to thermoregulation. I hope you
agree that a horse that is all lathered up after a hard ride is engaged in
themo-regulatory sweating.
I guess so, but am not sure. What about feromones? fear? And horses sweat
much less than humans (Schmidt-Nielsen).
> > - Suggesting that our sweating evolved to cope with hot savanna
conditions is ridiculous nonsense. Wishful thinking, typical of some (not
you, Wagler) people here: sacvanna believers who have not more arguments in
favour of their belief that creationists have in favor of theirs.
> Why is it ridiculous nonsense?
Wasting sodium & water in the savanna.
> As I said humans handle heat stress rather well.
No, they don't: remarkably poor for terrestrial mammals.
> What selective pressure does a swamp provide to help evolve that?
Swamp?? Who's talking here about swamps?? Don't misrepresent my ideas,
Wagler! Very unfair.
> Especially since human esc is most effective at humidity of 50% or less.
esc?
What is the humidity at, eg, the Red Sea?
> And why bring seals into it at all?
1) Don't confuse seals with sealions! Inform, Wagler.
2) Only comparing: it's not my fault that AFAWK humans & sealions have the
most thermoactive eccrines. A possible explanation is not difficult in our
scenario of early Homo beach-combing. What is your explanation?
> What do they contribute? You stoutly deny that hominds ever lived in
habitats or engaged in a lifeway remotely resembling that of a furseal so
what the hell does it matter what they do? Eccrine sweating in sealions and
humans is obviously not a case of similar selective pressures producing
similar adaptive responses
What argument do you have to believe that??
> so what's the point? Here's something to take a look at Hanna, Joel M;
Brown, Danial A. Human Heat Tolerance: Biological and Cultural Adaptations
Yrbk Phys Anthropol 1979 22 163-186 Rick Wagler
What in this paper contradict my view?? What, Wagler?
Try to have a broader view, inform a bit about other mammals, read, eg,
Schmidt-Nielsen.
Marc Verhaegen
>>>> Whether or not savannas have trees is not so relevant. The point is:
the savanna believers used to think (not any more I hope?) that human
ancestors once walked over the African plains & evolved there nakedness,
better sweat glands, larger brains etc. You keep missing that this view is
nonsense.
>>> The only thing that has been "overthrown" is the idea that hominids
evolved from day one in savannah environments which is to say bipedalism
since that is pretty much the defining characteristic of hominids though it
is probably not exclusive to them - depending on how bipedal Oreopithecus
actually is.
>> You still believe in fairy tales, Wagler. I thought you were smarter.
Great disappointment. - Bipedalism: The early hominids (=Pan+Homo+Gorilla vs
pongids=Pongo) were already (short-legged) bipedals(+climbers). Both
Sahelanthr.& Orrorin are claimed to have been bipedal, 7-6 Ma, ie, at the
time of the Homo-Pan split. But this we had already predicted several years
ago, based on comparative data.
> Sahelanthropus and Orrorin are very new. Who these guys were and what they
were up to is still up in the air.
We predicted on comparative arguments that the early hominids (incl. the
ancestors of chimps & gorillas) were bipedal & climbing. Everything that has
been discovered afterwards confirms this.
>> - Nakedness: not seen in medium-sized savanna dwellers.
> It's not seen in anything else either....except small whales. And whales
say what about human evolution?
Being diurnal & becoming naked is not the smartest thing you can do in the
savanna.
>> - Sweat glands: humans & sealions: not savanna.
> All mammals sweat.
No. Inform a bit. Seacows & cetaceans don't sweat. Rodents, carnivores,
ruminants etc. have no body eccrines.
> How much and how big a role it plays in any species particular heat
management strategy is the question. The comparison of humans and sealions
only emphasizes the orders of magnitude difference between them.
??
>>- Larger brains: not in savanna.
> Sea mammals, right?
??
> Baboons are very bright.
Are they?? That's not the question: they have rel.small brains.
> Whales devote an awful lot of their brain to echolocation a entire sensory
system which humans do not possess in the slightest degree.
What have whales to do with savanna?
> Humans live in savannahs so some savannah dwellers have rather large
brains.
Ridiculous argument. Dogs live in space. Humans live at the north pole.
Everything we know suggest human invasion of savanna is rare & recent. See
H.Deacon on H.helmei.
>>- Etc.
>>> Big brains, tool-making etc etc probably were evolved in savannah/forest
margin habitats.
>> :-D Man, go home. Ridiculous: there are no tool-using savanna mammals.
No big-brained ones. Please no just-so stories. Facts!
>Define savannah. "Plains, whatever' was an instant Verhaegen classic.
Prepared to ride with that??
There are no big-brained mammals in whatever savanna. No tool-using ones.
>>> Since the environments of **all** the hominid sites can be described
thusly
>>No, no. First, try to make the difference between apiths & Homo: apiths
had no big brains, were no (good) tool-users. Are you talking about hominids
or about Homo?? Don't mix up things.
>I'm saying that a'piths were not ancestral chimps and it is very likely
that one of them gave rise to Homo.
Very likely? Possible.
>Whic means that a whole lot of modern human characters were started in
a'piths. Too difficult to understand?
Not 1 typically human feature is seen in apiths. No very long legs, no big
brain, no external nose. The humanlike features in apiths are most likely
primitive of hominids.
>>1) apiths, eg, KE Reed 1997 JHE 32:289-322: "Reconstructed habitats show
that Australopithecus species existed in fairly wooded, well-watered
regions. Paranthropus species lived in similar environs and also in more
open regions, but always in habitats that include wetlands."
> This same article makes the claim that Homo was more adapted to drier,
more open environments. If you're going to take the one you should take the
other...
You still don't understand our scenario, do you? Don't you think sea coasts
are more open? What is the humidity at the red Sea?
>>2) Homo ca.1.8 Ma: from Algeria to Java - no specific relation to
savanna.
>And what was the Sahara in its good times if not a savannah?
Sahara?? You mean Algeria? Do you have evidence Ain-Hanech was savanna??
Again: early Homo disprsal between Algeria & Java occurred along the sea
coasts. Where else??
This comment doesn't solve your problem that about everything shows that
hominids & Homo are/were no savanna dwellers. Nature 325:305-306, 1987: "...
it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas. Man
is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4)
but have thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in
savanna mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of
abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal
urine concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We
need much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than
savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8)."
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Marc Verhaegen
> Trouble with the English language, Mark? I see you have no trouble
parroting the language of the wet apes --right down to a sequential listing
of their talking points. Never mind, everyone ~else~ got it (and I think you
did, too).
Typical "arguments" of savanna believers... No content. Only blabla.
Jim McGinn
> > It's pretty important to be aware of just how dramatic
> > was the shift in selective factors that took place with
> > the shift from a rainforest habitat to a monsoon habitat.
> > In the rainforest habitat their main concerns were sex
> > and avoiding the occasional predator. In this new
> > monsoon habitat they had to evolve strategies to prevent
> > the inmigration of herds of other species or else their
> > treed patch would become depleted and they'd be unable
> > to survive through the dry season. Not surprisingly
> > communalism, territorialism, and mob-oriented threat
> > displays (directed against the inmigrating species) were
> > the strategies that emerged to deal with these new
> > selective factors.
>
> I've never run across this argument in the documentaries I've seen or
> the books or web pages I've read. Do you have any suggested books or
> web pages I should check out?
No, you're not going to find anything that remotely
resembles this anywhere but in my writings on
sci.anthropology.paleo and sci.bio.evolution.
This is part of a larger hypothesis which I've been
developing independently for a number of years now.
The biggest and most recent breakthrough took place
about eight months ago. I documented this
breakthrough in a post entitled ECOLOGICAL GATEKEEPER
HYPOTHESIS. You should have no trouble finding it
in the achives on Google Groups.
>
> It just occured to me that a monsoon habitat might also explain why
> humans are such strong swimmers for an animal that spends most of its
> time out of water. These patches would likely flood during the wet
> season and strong swimming skills would be necessary to get around
> safely. That and any other thought I have on the subject is sheer
> speculation, but I have a problem believing that the swimming skills
> of humans arose from dumb luck, without ever having been even the
> slightest bit useful for survival.
I'd thought about this before and I think what you
are saying isn't off target. Humans do seem slightly
more adapted to water than apes (but I wouldn't
describe human swimming skills as strong). And I do
think my hypothesis lends itself to explaining this
because it indicates a high degree of proximity to
water. But keep in mind that all animals are to
some degree aquatic. And, IMO, the claims made by
AAT theorists are, if anything, even more
preposterous than those made by SAT theorists.
Regards,
Jim
Michael Clark
I believe this post was directed at "Mark", Marco. Why is it that you
have not responded to the post where I argue with you....hmmm?
Surely you didn't miss it --you responded to a fragment of it.
Mark Reichert
> This is part of a larger hypothesis which I've been
> developing independently for a number of years now.
> The biggest and most recent breakthrough took place
> about eight months ago. I documented this
> breakthrough in a post entitled ECOLOGICAL GATEKEEPER
> HYPOTHESIS. You should have no trouble finding it
> in the achives on Google Groups.
I'll check it out.
> I'd thought about this before and I think what you
> are saying isn't off target. Humans do seem slightly
> more adapted to water than apes (but I wouldn't
> describe human swimming skills as strong).
Not at all strong compared to animals who actually make their living
in any way related to the water, but stronger than animals that have
no use for water other than drinking it.
> And I do think my hypothesis lends itself to explaining this
> because it indicates a high degree of proximity to water.
Well, that was why I thought of it.
> But keep in mind that all animals are to
> some degree aquatic.
In that many, perhaps most, can 'dog paddle', yes, but I think any fit
human who knows how to swim would out distance most if not all of them
and be able to dive deeper.
> And, IMO, the claims made by
> AAT theorists are, if anything, even more
> preposterous than those made by SAT theorists.
I think that's unfortunate. Of course, the real question is when the
ability to swim fairly well arrived. For all we know it didn't arrive
until modern humans, though I find it easier to believe that breath
control came independantly and for other reasons before speech
developed from it.
Mark Reichert
> Trouble with the English language, Mark?
No, just people trying to be cute with their putdowns rather than
speaking plain.
> I see you have
> no trouble parroting the language of the wet apes --right down
> to a sequential listing of their talking points.
Where have I stated support of the AAT other than that all modern
humans have the physical tools to swim better than one would think
given that there ancestors supposedly never needed to do so? Poking
holes in the notion that human ancestors made their living on the
savanna is not supporting the notion that they made their living in
the water most of the time.
> Never mind, everyone ~else~ got it (and I think you did, too).
I got it that you are another of the reactionary assholes who are so
threatened by anything resembiling an orginal thought that you post
putdowns rather than rational arguments.
You guys are proving McGinns point that humans are incredibly
territorial because you are acting like this newsgroup is your own
private preserve and you must do your utmost to kick everybody who
doesn't think like you out by whatever method that works.
Mark Reichert
> I've got a book some where unless the mice ate it that says you sir are out
> to lunch. That was the origninal claim.
If so, it was a silly claim, even if had great value in poking holes
in a theory that had entirely too little debate devoted to it.
By the way, was it necessary for you to quote my entire post to add
your two lines to it?
Mark Reichert
> Anyway, the basic discussion was do any of the AAH advocates talk about a
> true "aquatic ape" or just a coastal/riverbank ape?
>
> Answer: Yep!
See my answer elsewhere.
I still find it interesting that you people still act like anybody
poking holes in the savanna theory is 1) a closet Aquatic Ape
proponent and 2) a threat to this newsgroup that must be beaten out.
Might it be a bit of irrational and unwarranted territoriality?
Mark Reichert
> Oh, "silly" might just be a REALLY bad choice of words! 8-)
What's not silly is that you and the others jumped on my ignorance of
the more extreme claims by the AAT proponents and completely ignored
my points on how badly adapted humans are for hot and dry environments
for a species whose ancestors supposedly spent a great deal of time in
such environments.
Some of the AAT people may be wackos but at least they are trying to
forge new ground rather than reactionarily clinging to an outmoded
idea belonging to an ignorant past.
Pauline M Ross
Reichert) wrote:
>You guys are proving McGinns point that humans are incredibly
>territorial because you are acting like this newsgroup is your own
>private preserve and you must do your utmost to kick everybody who
>doesn't think like you out by whatever method that works.
This place is not good for sensible discussion. If you want to talk
about the AAT (or any other area of paleoanthropology) without all the
aggravation, you're welcome to join the AAT group on Yahoo (an email
or web-based list). There are also Yahoo groups which prefer not to
talk about AAT, namely [Palanthsci], [PaleoAnthro] and
[Paleoanthropology]. All are vastly more sensible than sap.
--
Pauline Ross
firstjois
"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.03010...@posting.google.com...
What is really really silly is that you jumped into a newsgroup without
lurking to see what was going on and what kind of discussions had already
taken place. Also that you came in without asking about your subject but
dragging out a tired worn out washed up topic that is so far from new
ground here or anywhere else that we are sick and tired of the same old wet
trash and on and on and on. And on.
See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?group=sci.anthropology.paleo
maybe it is not too late for you. Run! Save yourself! There is still
time....
Jois
Mike Clark
news:gpva1vcamk0lga6bq...@4ax.com...
As an apologist for the AAR, Pauline can't be expected to say much
else. The reason she doesn't find SAP fertile ground for her pontification
is that, as a general rule, folks around here are not "wet".
By all means, go to the AAR yahoo group. You can expect
a merry little band of lay persons bent on the latest liturgy. Don't expect
much science --you won't find it. Finally, the reason that ~anyone~
would find those "other groups" more sane is that, as Ross points out,
~[they] prefer not to talk about AAT".
Simple, isn't it?
> --
> Pauline Ross
>
Pauline M Ross
wrote:
>As an apologist for the AAR, Pauline can't be expected to say much
>else. The reason she doesn't find SAP fertile ground for her pontification
>is that, as a general rule, folks around here are not "wet".
>By all means, go to the AAR yahoo group. You can expect
>a merry little band of lay persons bent on the latest liturgy. Don't expect
>much science --you won't find it. Finally, the reason that ~anyone~
>would find those "other groups" more sane is that, as Ross points out,
>~[they] prefer not to talk about AAT".
This is hardly worth replying to, except to explain to newcomers that
the term 'AAR' is a bit of an in-joke with the regulars here (R stands
for religion). But it demonstrates very nicely why so many former sap
posters have moved elsewhere in recent years. I rest my case.
--
Pauline Ross
Jason Eshleman
> Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<BA39ECC5.2346C%rke...@earthlink.net>...
> > Oh, "silly" might just be a REALLY bad choice of words! 8-)
>
> What's not silly is that you and the others jumped on my ignorance of
> the more extreme claims by the AAT proponents and completely ignored
> my points on how badly adapted humans are for hot and dry environments
> for a species whose ancestors supposedly spent a great deal of time in
> such environments.
Who is supposing this? It's becoming rather clear (as it has for much
more than a decade) that the first bipedal steps by hominins occured
when the creatures were still living in rather wooded environments and
still spent a fair deal of time up in the trees. I suggest that you
do some research to catch up with the last couple of decades of
paleoanthropology before attacking the field. Dart's ideas are no
longer state-of-the-art.
How well adapted to a hot, dry environment is a debatable point.
Modern hunter-gatherer groups seem to have managed to exploit the
niche, though it's not clear just how readily available this niche
would have been to a hominin several million years ago. Whether or not
any of this is relevent to a hominin's first steps as an obligate
biped seem less important though as time passes. In any case, your
line of argument seems to be "we're not adapted to a savanna, we are
ergo 'aquatic.'" I'm curious why you come to this conclusion. It
does not follow logically.
> Some of the AAT people may be wackos but at least they are trying to
> forge new ground rather than reactionarily clinging to an outmoded
> idea belonging to an ignorant past.
And what would that "ignorant past" be, Mark? The "savanna?" One of
the most frustrating things about AAT/AAH/AAR proponents is that they
seem stuck in a mode of attacking a strawman at the first sign of
substantive criticism of their own ideas. The "new ground" that such
AAT/AAH/AAR proponents forge remains unscientific, poorly
substantiated (if not totally fabricated) conjecture from which they
quickly retreat to one position, namely an attack on the "savanna
hypothesis."
Jim McGinn
> > 1) apiths, eg, KE Reed 1997 JHE 32:289-322: "Reconstructed habitats show
> > that Australopithecus species existed in fairly wooded, well-watered
> > regions. Paranthropus species lived in similar environs and also in more
> > open regions, but always in habitats that include wetlands."
<snip>
> And what was the Sahara in its good times if not a
> savannah?
Yes, that's right, it was NOT a savanna. The size of
the lake at the time and place of Sahelanthropus
suggests that it wasn't what we typically refer to as
a savanna habitat. It was too wet to be savanna habitat.
Rather it was more like a monsoon habitat. Moreover the
fluctuations in size of that lake that is evident in
Sahelanthropus literature and the proximity to desert
habitat support the contention that this was a highly
seasonal habitat, which is one of the main
characteristics of a monsoon habitat.
I think both of you, Marc and Rick, are taking positions
that have at their base intellectual dishonesty. Rick's
trying to argue that if we define lacustrine habitat as
savanna that this somehow saves or salvages that savanna
hypothesis. This is a desperately silly argument. And
Marc's version isn't any less desperate or silly. He's
just saying that we can define a lacustrine habitat as
aquatic and that this somehow confirms the aquatic ape
hypothesis.
What I can't figure out is why your desperation and
silliness isn't as obvious to yourselves as it is to me.
Jim
World Class
firstjois
[snip]
: This is hardly worth replying to, except to explain to newcomers that
: the term 'AAR' is a bit of an in-joke with the regulars here (R stands
: for religion). But it demonstrates very nicely why so many former sap
: posters have moved elsewhere in recent years. I rest my case.
:
: --
: Pauline Ross
This is so true. I personally am one who feels that AAT AAR has forced a
lot of regulars here to go elsewhere. It is such a foolish waste of space
and time.
Jois
Michael Clark
How does that go again, Pauline? Something about "heat" and "kitchen"?
> --
> Pauline Ross
Jim McGinn
> > And, IMO, the claims made by
> > AAT theorists are, if anything, even more
> > preposterous than those made by SAT theorists.
>
> I think that's unfortunate. Of course, the real question is when the
> ability to swim fairly well arrived.
If you are suggesting that swimming is a major
distinguishing trait of hominids I disagree. (If
you had evidence that indicated that A'piths could
outswim crocs I might reconsider this position.)
For all we know it didn't arrive
> until modern humans, though I find it easier to believe that breath
> control came independantly and for other reasons before speech
> developed from it.
I've always found the breath control arguments of
AAT to be rather comical. It's an argument that
relies on the unsupported and unsupportable proposition
that human speech is a relatively recent development
and not something that has evolved gradually over the
full breadth of hominid evolution.
Regards,
Jim
Mark, below I've cut and pasted a number of posts that I
think will give you a better understanding of my opinion
of AAT and related issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > Algis, you should do a little experiment. Get a piece of paper and
> > draw a line down the middle of it. On the left list the adaptations,
> > behaviors, and traits that you think are explained by AAH. On the
> > right list the adaptations, behaviors, and traits that are not
> > explained by AAH.
> > I think you will find as you get into higher and higher levels of
> > detail that the list on the right continually grows while the list on
> > the left just stops growing. Moreover, it will, hopefully, become
> > apparent to you that the number of adaptations, behaviors, and traits
> > that you think are explained by AAH is remarkably small.
>
> I've done that - except that the items on the right-hand side are
> remarkably few
Give it up.
*unless* you include adaptations & etc common to all apes.
> Looking at what makes us different gives a left-hand heavy list.
In your AAT dreams.
Perhaps
> you could add a few to the rhs for us?
All of the following would be on the right, not the left.
manipulative abilities
sociality
communicativeness
culture
ideology
consciousness
high intelligence
Religious practices
language
territorialism (property ownership in the context of a community)
Communalism
wealth based social hierarchy
longer lifespan
long process to maturity
throwing ability
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote
> Okay, but it should have failed 50 years earlier, if only on physiological
> grounds. What took them so long??
Why is it taking you so long to admit to yourself that the primary
characteristics of humans are communalism, consciousness,
communication, and territorialism. Not swimming.
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<ac6a5059.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote
>
> > > . . . it is plainly obvious that many human
> > > characteristics simply could not have emerged if not
> > > for the existence of communalism,
> >
> > communalism? what is this? living in states like bees
> > & ants & termites?
>
> Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
>
> Answer this question Marc: relative to chimpanzees humans
> are 1) the most aquatic mammal in existence or, 2) the
> most communal mammal in existence?
>
> Which of these is closer to the truth?
Gee, I wonder why Marc didn't answer these questions? I know the
answer. It's the same reason Dieteker doesn't answer questions. It's
the same reason Wagler doesn't answer questions. It's the same reason
LL doesn't answer questions.
It's the same reason Clark doesn't answer questions. It's the same
reason Pete doesn't answer questions.
The reason these people don't answer questions is because they are not
scientist, They are believers. As such, they refuses to address any
issues that don't confirm their beliefs.
Real scientists aren't afraid of facts.
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
seem...@notmail.com (Whitedog) wrote in message
> >> Y'know, I really don't get this predation argument at times.
<snip>
> >But the SAT (savanna ape theory) maintains that
> >the whole family (or 'tribe') spent every night on
> >the savanna. That's women with infants and other
> >small children. How do THEY cope with lions --
> >at NIGHT?
>
> Does it *really* maintain that exact analysis?
They won't say. The reason, IMO, conventional theorists are so tight
lipped is that they have painted themselves into a corner with respect
to their assumption that bipedalism must involve a locomotory
advantage (it fits in with their hunter-gatherer assumptions). As
such they keep trying to find reasons to have them walking across
treeless habitat (in small groups, bands). They do their best to
ignore the ecological realities associated with such. Like true
believers waiting for the second coming of Christ they seem to be
waiting for some big breakthrough to save this poorly considered key
to their paradigm. And they realize that if they were to start
discussing this problem that their whole paradigm would be in
jeopardy.
<snip>
> >So what does the SAT say about nocturnal
> >behaviour? OK it says that they behaved almost
> >exactly like chimps -- somehow they slept in
> >trees. But, in that case, (a) what's the difference
> >between them and chimps?
Again, the vagueness of SAT is the problem here. We don't know what
they think and they aren't saying.
But I'm not getting a clear sense of what you (Paul) are saying here.
It almost seems as if you are saying that since both chimps and
a'piths slept in trees at night that therefore we can assume that
*all* of a'piths other behaviors would have been the same as chimps.
And I'm sure you realize the faulty logic of this supposition.
And (b) how, why
> >and when did they stop sleeping in trees? (The
> >'sleeping in trees' bit merely postpones the
> >question of how they coped with predators at
> >night.)
The communalism and territorialism of my hypothesis would have allowed
them to cope with predators quite effectively and even at night.
<snip>
> During the 1960s Dr. Kortlandt, a Dutch researcher,
I saw this post earlier on SAP. It is very interesting and, I think,
very useful for understanding some of the behavior of our earliest
ancestors.
<snip>
> All the chimp
> groups reacted by picking up sticks as clubs, breaking small trees and
> tree limbs to use as clubs, and throwing these at the leopard dummy.
For reasons specific to my own hypothesis I too thought this post was
very telling. It shows throwing behavior with the goal being to drive
off the predator. This is very similar to the behavior in my
hypothesis.
> An interesting difference emerged between the jungle chimps and the
> savannah chimps. The jungle chimps, while aggressive toward the
> leopard, were uncoordinated in their attacks and when throwing
> objects, never actually hit the leopard.
Jungle chimps are bad shots!
>
> Dr. Kortlandt observed:
>
> "The results with savannah chimpanzees, however, were quite different.
<snip>
> we could measure impact velocities of approximately 90 km/h,
> which would have been sufficient to break the back of a live leopard.
Savanna chimps are good shots.
> In addition, there was teamwork in evidence during these attacks,
Savanna chimps are team players.
> in contrast to what we observed in the jungle chimpanzees.
Jungle chimps are not team players.
<snip>
> "A side effect of the experiment was the observation that the savannah
> chimpanzees more often walked erect than do the jungle chimpanzees."
Hey, hey, hey. We have chimps that are better throwers and better
team players also being better bipedists. This is exactly what is
predicted by my hypothesis.
<snip>
> "Most of the evidence is, however, only circumstantial and the
> predation pressure to the apes, if ever, seems to be extremely low.
I agree with what he's saying here. But let's be sure to realize that
he's talking about chimps in chimp habitat. He's not saying that this
would still be the case if they had to face a pride of 1000 pound
lions on a treeless savanna habitat
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message news:<Ttme9.14234$zX3....@news.indigo.ie>...
> "Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:3D790DF5...@shaw.ca...
> >
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > The core hominid populations could only have existed
> > > where they were completely dominant over predators.
> >
> > Why? You seem to have got it into your head that a
> > successful predator avoidance strategy implies that the
> > would-be prey species must render itself completely
> > invulnerable to predation. This is nonsense.
>
> I am saying that hominids must have adopted a
> unique (or highly unusual) strategy against predators.
I agree. The strategy was communalism in the context of situated
locations. In other words, hominids back then employed the same
methods of avoiding predators that we do now: they resided in
communities, controlled access to territory, and if their
territorialistic borders were breached they attacked enforce.
> They are unlike all other prey animals in having no
> obvious means of defence or avoidance against
> normal predators. Their young do not rest in burrows
> or hide in trees; they are hopelessly slow in locomotion;
> they have an exceedingly long period of maturation.
> While a large group with many adults may be fairly
> invulnerable during the day, no one seriously proposes
> that the whole population went around in large groups
> all the time. No modern tribe has demonstrated that
> behaviour. Also the species is night-blind.
I agree with everything you say here. (Except, maybe, night
blindness.)
>
> > All that is
> > required is that predation be countered by normal
> > reproduction.
>
> That is an absurd argument (in fact, it is not an
> argument at all). Primates are slow reproducers and
> one would never have been able to enter a niche where
> fast reproduction was a significant means of countering
> predation pressure.
I agree. It is an absurd argument. If what Rick's saying was true
then, obviously, we would have evolved along the lines of prey
species: fast reproduction, fast maturation, fast running, etc. Rick
must be completely clueless about evolution/ecology to even suggest
such. If he can't even make this distinction then there isn't much
hope at all for him.
>
> > You keep saying that early hominids
> > could not have survived predation. Why the hell not?
>
> They could not have survived 'normal' predation
> pressure -- for very obvious reasons. All other species
> have obvious means of dealing with predators -- good
> natural defences -- fast escape speed, horns, large
> hooves, sharp claws, poison fangs, hard shells, prickly
> thorns, deep burrows, high rates of reproduction, and
> so on.
>
> We have nothing like that whatsoever.
Well stated Paul. The real question here is why this even needs to be
pointed out (over and over again). There seems to be no limit to the
ability of people to ignore obvious facts and continue to believe what
they want to believe.
>
> All other mammalian species without powerful means
> of defence have good night sight, excellent hearing and
> an acute sense of smell; we have none of those.
Yes! One just about has to be mentally retarded for this not to be
obvious. Take Michael Clark for example . . .
>
> > > (Their very-slowly-maturing and exceedingly-vulnerable
> > > young would not have survived to maturity if there had
> > > been a significant numbers of predators in the vicinity.)
> >
> > "Exceedingly vulnerable"? Why? How defined?
>
> Take a look at any 2-year-old (to 10-year-old) human child.
> Compare it with the equivalent of any other species. A
> chimp infant lives in (or near) trees and can climb into
> the safety of the highest at that age. Humans don't live
> near trees and are hopelessly slow at running to them
> and bad at climbing them.
Again, you are right on taget. What is sad is that you will have to
repeat this explanation over and over again to Rick. Rick simply has
no ability at all to comprehend what you are saying here. You might
as well be talking to a wall.
>
> > > That must mean that they lived at fairly high densities
> > > in locations from which they were able to exclude
> > > predators, especially at night. I favour isolated valleys
> > > in fairly arid regions, and off-shore islands and
> > > peninsulas, but there may have been others.
> >
> > Meanwhile none of the homind fossil localities are
> > describable in these terms.
>
> How do you know? It's virtually impossible to do a
> survey of the vegetation of the region at that instant
> of time N million years ago. If you find a site (which
> has not been washed out by the sea) and if you're
> lucky, you can tell what grew in the immediate vicinity
> at about the same time (+- ~5Ky) when something
> did grow, but that's about it.
>
> > What is it about facts that yanks your chain, Paul?
>
> I like the 'facts' to make sense. Having hominids
> live in the middle of a savanna, competing (for the
> same food) with lions, hyenas, etc., does not make
> the slightest.
Ah, now it's Paul's turn to become dogmatic and irrational. I've
already described exactly how they, "lived at fairly high densities in
locations from which they were able to exclude predators, especially
at night." They acheived this through communal territorialism at
locations close to water that, therefore, still had trees (as I've
described, the habitat of our ancestors really wasn't like the savanna
that now exists there, rather it was more of a monsoon-like habitat.
It did have locations that were well treed.)
Note that this approach predicts human communalism and territorialism,
Both of which are plainly evident in modern humans. Also note that it
doesn't require any extraneous geologic event, like islands etc.
Why in the world you would waste your time with your island thinking
is something I can't figure out. I would have thought it was obvious
that your approach does not predict communalism or territorialism (why
would island dwelling apes need communalism or territorialism) and
therefore your aproach has some very really issues with parsimony.
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsif.com> wrote
> > > When hominids adopted bipedalism
> > > they went for the SLOWEST form of locomotion --
> > > on land, in the trees, in water and everywhere.
> > > That is next to incredible. Almost all their (theoretical)
> > > prey animals were much faster. All their predators
> > > were much faster -- in trees, on land, in water, etc.
> > > All their competitors were much faster -- in trees,
> > > on land, in water, etc.
> >
> > Yes, some people--including the whole anthropological
> > establishment--seem to not realize (or not want to
> > realize) how dramatically less than optimum bipedalism
> > is with respect to locomotion. That such a shift
> > happened at all clearly indicates that the advantage
> > afforded to bipedalism must have also involved a
> > REDUCTION in the need for locomotory proficiency
>
> It's a lot better to stick to simple words. We are
> talking about a dramatic reduction in the _speed_
> of locomotion. And that is more than enough to
> think about.
I think we're mostly in agreement here. Let's avoid
arguements that only involve semantics.
>
> > and/or
> > it afforded a non-locomotory based advantage that was
> > very significant.
>
> The animal acquired a new morphology
> for some quite dramatic reasons, and
> it's obviously important to work out those
> reasons . . . . but it also coped with the
> loss of speed, possibly or probably in
> other ways . . . that also needs to be
> worked out.
>
> I see the gains as coming mostly from
> weapon-wielding. A group of hominids with
> clubs and stones would have been virtually
> invulnerable (in daylight).
I don't disagree. They would have been very proficient
at avoiding predators in the context of mob-oriented,
stick-wielding, and rock-throwing groups--especially if
they could escape up trees if the situation warranted.
I also think--as indicated in my hypothesis--they could
have been very proficient at employing these mob-oriented,
stick-wielding, and rock-throwing groups to establish and
maintain communally territorialistic borders to prevent
inmigration of predators and other herbivorous and
omnivorous mammals to whom with which they would have
competed for food.
> But there is no obvious answer as to how
> they coped with the loss of speed. Any
> leopard, chimp or baboon could have run
> rings around them.
>
> > Conventional theorists seem to be
> > unable to come to grips with this reality.
> >
> > >
> > > At the same time they lost their natural weaponry --
> > > their large canines -- which primates have had
> > > for 60 million years or so.
> >
> > Yes, this indicates there must have been something
> > highly maladaptive about canines in a hominid setting.
>
> No, it doesn't. It just shows that they were no
> longer needed. Large canines are expensive
> and selection against them would be rapid
> as soon as they became dispensable.
They're just big teeth so I don't think they are that
expensive from a developmental standpoint. But I tend
to agree that they would have been (could have been)
expensive in other ways. Not only might they have had
the negative social implications that I mentioned
previously, but their relative uselessness for grinding
foods in this now relatively dessicate environment could
have been considerably expensive when we consider that
the foods would have been harder during the dry season
when eating regularly would have been most critical to
their survival.
>
> > The notion you are expressing here is, unfortunately,
> > a very common notion. It is a notion that is not based
> > on observation or proven theory
>
> Err . . which aspects EXACTLY do you dispute?
Don't feign ignorance, Paul. I've already explained my
thinking on this matter. Obviously I dispute your
supposition that there is something less tangible and/or
undefinable about communalism. As I indicated, I consider
this supposition to stem from typical neoDarwinistic
superstitious notions about natural selection. In other
words, your supposition that there is something less
tangible and/or undefinable about communalism is pure
pseudo-science.
Believe what you want to believe, but the fact is that
there is no theoretical basis for the superstitious
belief that individual-based notions of natural selection
are more powerful, tangible, and/or definable than
group-based notions of natural selection. Whether
individual selection or group selection is more powerful
is COMPLETELY determined by situational factors. In my
Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis I delineated the
situational factors that indicate a shift to communalism.
As you can see therein, these factors are
1)environmental/climatological, 2) spatial/geographic,
and 3) biological/morphological. It's dimwitted and
intellectually dishonest for you to claim (or suggest)
that you can dismiss the validity of my scenario without
taking into consideration these situational factors.
>
> > but on what I call
> > neoDarwinistic superstition. It stems from some kind
> > of mystical belief that individual based selective
> > scenarios are more "tangible" than group selective
> > scenarios.
>
> No. It's just that an explanation stating how
> certain features are likely to have clear benefits,
> or distinct disadvantages, is preferable to any
> other kind.
I agree. But I disagree with your stated assumption that
the selective benefits in my group selective are less clear
or distinct than are those of, for example, your more
individual based selective scenario. By it's very nature
group selective scenarios are harder to explain, but this
doesn't mean that they are less valid. You should make
more of an effort to distinguish between the complexity of
a scenario and it's causal validity. THERE IS NO RULE OR
LAW THAT SAYS THAT SIMPLER SCENARIOS ARE MORE VALID THAN
SCENARIOS THAT ARE MORE COMPLEX. Only an idiot would
assume this to be the case.
>
> How did the first hominids stop all its predators
> and competitors (chimps, baboons, etc.,) from
> 'running rings around them' . . . i.e. predating
> their infants, or getting at the fruit, nuts, roots,
> etc., first?
Through communal control of territory. (Which, by the
way, is the same way present day humans achieve all of
the above.)
>
> Chimps cope with baboons . . just about . .
> because they can run and climb nearly as
> fast (or sometimes faster), they are bigger,
> and they work in teams. Without the near-
> parity in speed, they'd lose out. Hominids
> are far slower than either chimps or baboons.
> Why didn't they lose out?
Because the advantages afforded by mob-oriented,
stick-wielding, and rock-throwing groups more than
made up for these disadvantages.
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsif.com> wrote
> Chimps are not 'constantly on the move'.
Yes, I know. All the more better for my hypothesis.
> > So, you just jumped to the conclusion that disappearance of canines
> > indicates that they began employing clubs. I wouldn't touch this
> > conclusion with a ten foot . . . uh, club. I base my rejection of
> > your conclusion on the 3 to 5 year old rule.
>
> Your '3-5 year-old rule' is your own fiction.
> And it's pure crap.
No, what's crap is your ignoring the fact that chimps
lack the mental predisposition to be INDIVIDUALLY
effective with clubs. Like many others you have your
tool-using ape notions and you then attempt to gloss
over the fact that our earliest chimp-like ancestors
were, literally, millions of years away from having the
intellect that would enable them to assume such behavior.
<snip>
> > In my scenario the loss of canines involves them shifting from a
> > social structure that only involves roaming bands to one that now
> > primarily involves communalism.
>
> Hey, elsewhere you say that 'communalism'
> didn't come until Homo. Now you have it right
> at the origin of bipedalism.
No. Get your facts straight. I've always said the
shift to communalism happened with Apiths.
>
> > > (b) So we KNOW that they had acquired other
> > > weapons -- namely, clubs.
> >
> > In my scenario the other weapon the acquired involves a shift to
> > mob-oriented, rock throwing, stick wielding attacks against
> > inmigrating species.
>
> Chimps are quite good at that. So what's
> the difference?
The difference is indicates in my Ecological Gatekeeper
Hypothesis. It involves a shift in selective factors.
>
> > > (c) They could not have had clubs in trees;
>
> No response.
I agree, they could not have had clubs in trees. (But,
as I stated numerous times, IMO they would not have
needed to carry clubs with them at all times. Moreover
they were incapable of carrying clubs with them at all
times, due to the 3 to 5 year old rule.
>
> > > (d) Nor would they have become bipedal if they
> > > spent much of their time in trees;
>
I disagree. The evidence is pretty clear that they did
become bipedal while still maintaining tree climbing
adaptations. (Now you're disputing obvious facts.)
> No response.
>
> > > (e) So they lived (and slept) on the ground --
> > > probably often at some distance from the sort
> > > of trees in which their ancestors ('chimps')
> > > could sleep.
Nonsense.
>
> No response.
>
> > > > Why couldn't they be A'piths?
> > >
> > > Because there _were_ chimps in trees and a
> > > biped could not compete with a chimp in a
> > > dense tropical forest,
> >
> > It wasn't tropical forest. This we know from the paleoecological
> > data. It was seasonal habitat: characterized by long and intensive
> > wet and dry seasons.
>
> Quote some authority.
I've already done so in past posts. Do some research.
>
>
> > > > I see only one drastic change in niche also, it involves shifting out
> > > > of the chmpanzee niche to being niche independent, as are human
> > > > presently.
> > >
> > > You mean you descend into unintelligible
> > > bullshit. Standard PA might be appalling,
> > > but it's not as bad as you.
> >
> > Niche independence may be unintelligible to you.
>
> Hey, elsewhere you say that 'niche independence'
> didn't come until Homo.
Right.
Now you have it right
> at the origin of bipedalism.
How do you figure?
>
> > But this is because
> > you deliberately ignore the issue. The evidence is very clear (both
> > fossil and extant evidence), humans are the only species that,
> > somehow, managed to break free of niche (without having been
> > domesticated by another species).
>
> Hey, elsewhere you say that 'niche independence'
> didn't come until Homo. Now you have it right
> at the origin of bipedalism.
Creative reading.
>
> > > > and only ONE drastic change in
> > > > > morphology. Both you and it maintain that the
> > > > > drastic change in morphology (around 5-6 mya)
> > > > > happened for no reason in particular,
> > > >
> > > > No. This you are confusing me with yourself. I indicate
> > > > environmental/climatic factors in my hypothesis.
> > >
> > > You indicate bullshit.
> >
> > Did you know that seasonal dessication first appeared on this planet 7
> > to 10 million years ago,
>
> I don't know what 'seasonal dessication' is --
> other than there are usually 'dry seasons' in the
> tropics.
Wrong. (Tropics have no dry season of any significance.)
But I'm as sure as I can be that they've
> been occurring there for a few hundred million
> years.
Very wrong. (Let's see your evidence.)
>
> < about the same time hominids first appeared.
> > What are the odds that in the last 300 million years of vertebrate
> > evolution that the appearance of seasonal dessication and the
> > appearance of hominids would just happen to coincide.
>
> The odds that you invented some 'factoids'
> are much higher.
Evidence?
>
> [..]
> > > At some point it stopped behaving like a
> > > chimp, and took on the predators on the
> > > ground. WHEN do you say that happened?
> > > WHEN -- i.e. how many millions of years
> > > ago?
> >
> > I don't know exactly when, my guess is somewhere between 1.8 and 4.0
> > mya. The scenario in my hypothesis is about 5 to 7 mya.
>
> At least here -- in this abject nonsense --
> you are fully in accord with mindless
> modern PA.
>
> > > > Why should it have got down out
> > > > > of trees AT ALL?
> > > >
> > > > Because it's treefilled habitat was replaced by a sparcely treed
> > > > savanna habitat.
> > >
> > > It's hardly worth telling you, but the more competent
> > > of the standard PAs are aware of the 'forcing' error.
> > > Trees come and go in most locations every few
> > > hundred years. When they go, the tree-living
> > > species go with them. They DON'T start to live
> > > in the ground. Think of any patch of ground you
> > > know that has changed over the last 20 years.
> > > Did the indigenous species present 20 years
> > > ago adapt to the new habitat?
> > >
> > > When a forest is cut down, the squirrels, monkeys,
> > > etc., don't start to live on the ground. When a new
> > > forest grows and replaces grass, the antelope,
> > > bovids, etc., don't start to live in the trees.
> >
> > Our ancestors, being communal, very well may have started living and
> > sleeping on the ground well before the 2.3 mya appearance of the less
> > tree-filled savanna habitat (the appearance of which coincided with
> > the beginning of the ice age).
>
> What happened to the tree-living ones -- who
> were -- according to you, doing grand up to
> 2.3 mya -- and were highly intelligent and tool-
> using. They would have kicked the arses off
> any chimp, bonobo or orang-utan. So where
> are they?
Different habitat. (This is a dead issue to everybody but you.)
>
> > > You can apply that as a general principle.
> > > If there is an X habitat, and it changes into a
> > > Y habitat, the X species (tied to the X habitat)
> > > do NOT turn into Y-habitat-occupying species.
> > >
> > > Do you follow?
> >
> > I follow, but this rule is inconsequential if our communally oriented
> > hominid ancestors had already made the transition to being more ground
> > dwelling.
>
> No, you idiot, you don't follow. What happened
> to the TREE-LIVING ancestors? Why don't we
> see a bunch of tree-living bipeds in Africa?
> (Or in Asia? Or everywhere?).
They were outcompeted by our ground dwelling ancestors.
>
> Niche-swapping is so integral to your thinking
> that you don't begin to understand the criticisms
> of it.
No niche swapping is involved. What is involved is a
species that broke free from niche as an implication of
it's selection happening on the level of the community.
And this mosaically evolved species then went on to
replace any tree dwelling apiths. Nevertheless I do get
your point, and if not for the evidence (both extant and
fossil) that our species became niche independent when
we did (about 2.3 mya) then I can see how this
observation would be a problem.
This is the thing, Paul. Once our species became niche
independent (as a result of our advanced intellect) then
niche swapping is no longer an issue.
<snip>
> Read your sentence above. And tell us what
> happened to the tree-living hominids. Oh, I
> remember, they just swapped their habitat.
>
> Now, isn't that peculiar. Do these gaps in your
> short-term memory happen to you very often?
You have to read what I actually say: Once our species
became niche independent (as a result of our advanced
intellect) then niche swapping is no longer an issue.
Are you disputing this supposition or not? Do us human
live in a niche now? Can you explain how it is that we
left our niche? Do you know of any other species that
is niche independent? Surely you don't think we can
just ignore these issues, do you?
<snip>
> > No, not central (equatorial) Africa. All of Africal but central
> > (equatorial) Africa. (Come on Paul. You know this. Stop playing
> > political games.)
>
> I have not the slightest idea what you are
> saying. And I'm sure you won't enlighten me.
Do as I did, look it up for yourself. I've addressed
this issue innumerable times in this NG.
<snip>
> I have no idea where your hypothesis is to be
> found. And since the answer to my question is
> either yes or no, I'm sure I wouldn't find it if I
> looked.
I'm sure you've already found it and are unable to
dispute it.
> > Your projection involves the silly notion that they had the mental
> > facilities to carry a club with them at all times. Keep in mind we
> > are talking about animals that are at a 3 to 5 year old level. (And,
> > unlike 3 to 5 year olds, they didn't have adults around to tell them
> > what to do.)
>
> Note how when you get an objection you can't
> handle, you try the tangential attack
Tangential? You must have mistaken me for Dieteker.
-- invariably
> with some utter nonsense (like the 3-5 year
> old crap) that you are sure will distract.
Seem accurate to me.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> > I've got a book some where unless the mice ate it that says you sir are out
> > to lunch. That was the origninal claim.
>
> If so, it was a silly claim, even if had great value in poking holes
> in a theory that had entirely too little debate devoted to it.
Good Point.
Jim McGinn
> Some of the AAT people may be wackos but at least they are trying to
> forge new ground rather than reactionarily clinging to an outmoded
> idea belonging to an ignorant past.
Moreover, SAT people aren't less wacko than AAT
people, there just less explicit.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> : Some of the AAT people may be wackos but at least they are trying to
> : forge new ground rather than reactionarily clinging to an outmoded
> : idea belonging to an ignorant past.
>
> What is really really silly is that you jumped into a newsgroup without
> lurking to see what was going on and what kind of discussions had already
> taken place. Also that you came in without asking about your subject but
> dragging out a tired worn out washed up topic that is so far from new
> ground here or anywhere else that we are sick and tired of the same old wet
> trash and on and on and on. And on.
More territoriality.
This is unfair. AAT argument has been carrying on ad infinitum for
seemingly forever. Mark's a newcomer. It's perfectly reasonable for
him to be a bit repetitive. The real problem in this regard are the
conventional proponents who continually bait Marc with arguments that
have been repeated many times and that predictably evolve into name
calling after the first post.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> There are also Yahoo groups which prefer not to
> talk about AAT, namely [Palanthsci], [PaleoAnthro] and
> [Paleoanthropology]. All are vastly more sensible than sap.
Yes, but, unfortunately, they are also vastly more
close-minded.
And to me this is not sensible.
Jim
Michael Clark
news:99e65015.03010...@posting.google.com...
news:<v1920rg...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Trouble with the English language, Mark?
>
> No, just people trying to be cute with their putdowns rather than
> speaking plain.
A skill which I see you have mastered...
> > I see you have
> > no trouble parroting the language of the wet apes --right down
> > to a sequential listing of their talking points.
>
> Where have I stated support of the AAT other than that all modern
> humans have the physical tools to swim better than one would think
> given that there ancestors supposedly never needed to do so?
Care to explain your qualifier?
> Poking
> holes in the notion that human ancestors made their living on the
> savanna is not supporting the notion that they made their living in
> the water most of the time.
My "blazing straw man" comments were directed at what...? Do you
think that maybe they were addressing this very point? Think now,
resist the temptation to call a complete stranger an "asshole".
> > Never mind, everyone ~else~ got it (and I think you did, too).
>
> I got it that you are another of the reactionary assholes who are so
> threatened by anything resembiling an orginal thought that you post
> putdowns rather than rational arguments.
But, but, but, it WAS a rational argument. Pointing out the problems
with the alleged "Dart's Paradigm" is ~barking up the wrong tree~!
Especially when PA has long since moved on. What do you suppose
~you~ look like to me (looking briefly at the subject line)? That's right,
you look like a defender of the AAT(R).
> You guys are proving McGinns point that humans are incredibly
> territorial because you are acting like this newsgroup is your own
> private preserve and you must do your utmost to kick everybody who
> doesn't think like you out by whatever method that works.
The only point that Jimmy has is located at the top of his head. You
don't think so? Google Sci.Bio.Evolution and see what kinds of threads
you can come up with. Pay close attention to the replies he gets
for some of his more outlandish bilge --you might start with "genetic
drift".
Marc Verhaegen
"Jason Eshleman" <j...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:b7af43cb.03010...@posting.google.com...
> It's becoming rather clear (as it has for much more than a decade) that
the first bipedal steps by hominins occured when the creatures were still
living in rather wooded environments and still spent a fair deal of time up
in the trees.
You're a dreamer making up your own facts.
Wooded, of course.
Fair deal up in trees = sleeping, you mean?
The trees alone don't explain bipedalism.
Non-human primates = arboreal = not bipedal.
Humans = not arboreal = bipedal.
Got it??
You miss the essence, man.
deowll
"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.03010...@posting.google.com...
What hacks none AAT peope off is when AAT people completely mis state the
savanna theory and then attack their straw man..
Pauline M Ross
<firstjo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I personally am one who feels that AAT AAR has forced a
>lot of regulars here to go elsewhere. It is such a foolish waste of space
>and time.
Jois, it isn't the AAT that has driven people out (it's only an idea,
after all), it's the intemperate responses from people who ought to
know better.
--
Pauline Ross
Mark Reichert
> What is really really silly is that you jumped into a newsgroup without
> lurking to see what was going on and what kind of discussions had already
> taken place. Also that you came in without asking about your subject but
> dragging out a tired worn out washed up topic that is so far from new
> ground here or anywhere else that we are sick and tired of the same old wet
> trash and on and on and on. And on.
Prey tell me how long I should have lurked and how many thousands of
posts I should have read. I did search Google in regard to the
"Itimidating predators through habitual bipedalism" thread that I
started.
As for this thread, what I saw was person after person completely
ignoring Marc's points about the savanna theory, and only trying to
bait him on his sillier points. If he's been repetitive, you can just
cut and paste your objections. The posts could all begin "Yes Marc
there are serious holes in the savanna theory but..........."
> See:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?group=sci.anthropology.paleo
> maybe it is not too late for you. Run! Save yourself! There is still
> time....
Hmm, I did start my two threads in sci.anthropology.paleo. I wasn't
aware of them being crossposted elsewhere.
Michael Clark
news:99e65015.03010...@posting.google.com...
> As for this thread, what I saw was person after person completely
> ignoring Marc's points about the savanna theory, and only trying to
> bait him on his sillier points. If he's been repetitive, you can just
> cut and paste your objections. The posts could all begin "Yes Marc
> there are serious holes in the savanna theory but..........."
You're bound and determined to beat this dead horse until it gets up
and runs away, aren't you....
[...]
Mark Reichert
> biped seem less important though as time passes. In any case, your
> line of argument seems to be "we're not adapted to a savanna, we are
> ergo 'aquatic.'" I'm curious why you come to this conclusion. It
> does not follow logically.
WHERE THE #@%@^T$#@^^!@ have I supported the Aquatic Ape Theory?
Please point to the exact words. I've pointed out that modern humans
swim a good bit better than one would think from a creature for whom
swimming was not a survival criterion. I've freely admitted such
abilities might have come as late as those with the modern human body,
though I favor Gould's view that most survival attributes arrive as
survival neutral attributes a good bit before they become survival
attributes. It seems a stretch that breath control would arrive
cocurrent with advanced speech. It seems likelier it showed up
earlier at whatever point that being able to hold ones breath while
swimming became useful.
I've tried to point out to Marc that some of the more extreme points
of the AAT are just loony, but being polite to him seems to be a
criteron for labelling somebody an AAT proponent here.
If I favor any hypothesis or theory at this point, it's McGinn's.
> And what would that "ignorant past" be, Mark? The "savanna?" One of
> the most frustrating things about AAT/AAH/AAR proponents is that they
Once again painting me as an AAT proponent.
From Google, it appears that only in the last couple of years has
serious evidence arose that early hominids lived in woodland, which is
actually a good reason for people not abandoning the savanna theory,
though not a reason for being close minded and hostile to other views.
It appears that the serious literature was still maintaining as late
as the late eighties/early nineties that it was a fact that early
hominids lived in the savanna.
As late as September 1995 at least, we have some people here still
saying that it was an established *fact* that early hominids lived on
the savanna.
www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/sci.anthropology.paleo/
archive/september-1995/0350.html
By the way, here's a nice tongue-in-cheek proposal if you haven't seen
it:
http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i5/pliocene-pussy.html
Mark Reichert
> Moreover, SAT people aren't less wacko than AAT
> people, there just less explicit.
Well, they have the help of inertia, so they don't have to go out on
the limb to which AAT proponents go.
By the way, has your hypothesis been heard in a more formal forum than
these newsgroups?
Richard Wagler
Mark Reichert wrote:
> j...@ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message news:<b7af43cb.03010...@posting.google.com>...
> > biped seem less important though as time passes. In any case, your
> > line of argument seems to be "we're not adapted to a savanna, we are
> > ergo 'aquatic.'" I'm curious why you come to this conclusion. It
> > does not follow logically.
>
> WHERE THE #@%@^T$#@^^!@ have I supported the Aquatic Ape Theory?
> Please point to the exact words. I've pointed out that modern humans
> swim a good bit better than one would think from a creature for whom
> swimming was not a survival criterion.
What gives you the idea that humans are particuarly good
swimmers compared to other terrestrials? We're not bad.
But not spectacularly good.
> I've freely admitted such
> abilities might have come as late as those with the modern human body,
> though I favor Gould's view that most survival attributes arrive as
> survival neutral attributes a good bit before they become survival
> attributes. It seems a stretch that breath control would arrive
> cocurrent with advanced speech. It seems likelier it showed up
> earlier at whatever point that being able to hold ones breath while
> swimming became useful.
What give's you the idea that breath control sufficient to
hold one's breath while diving is major human attribute?
Any mammal can do this.
>
>
> I've tried to point out to Marc that some of the more extreme points
> of the AAT are just loony, but being polite to him seems to be a
> criteron for labelling somebody an AAT proponent here.
Take a look at the Google archive and it should become
blatantly clear how Marc engenders the exasperation you
see with most people's dealings with him.
>
>
> If I favor any hypothesis or theory at this point, it's McGinn's.
>
Best of Irish luck to ya....
>
> > And what would that "ignorant past" be, Mark? The "savanna?" One of
> > the most frustrating things about AAT/AAH/AAR proponents is that they
>
> Once again painting me as an AAT proponent.
>
> From Google, it appears that only in the last couple of years has
> serious evidence arose that early hominids lived in woodland, which is
> actually a good reason for people not abandoning the savanna theory,
> though not a reason for being close minded and hostile to other views.
Evidence that hominids lived in woodland has been
accumulated and noted for decades. People are hostile
to the AAT i because it is appalling science badly
argued. Has absolutely nothing to do with defending a
paradigm because it represents absolutely no challenge
to anything
>
>
> It appears that the serious literature was still maintaining as late
> as the late eighties/early nineties that it was a fact that early
> hominids lived in the savanna.
Define 'early hominids'. Certainly afarensis was living
in savannah woodlands.
>
>
> As late as September 1995 at least, we have some people here still
> saying that it was an established *fact* that early hominids lived on
> the savanna.
Look at the palaeoecological analyses of the homind sites
of East and South Africa and then tell me how committed
you are to the notion that 'early' hominids absolutely did
not inhabit savannah environments. For someone who is
not an AAH proponent you seem to have swallowed their
bogus critique of conventional PA hook, line and sinker.
That's what has people confused. The old if walks like
a duck routine.
>
>
> www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/sci.anthropology.paleo/
> archive/september-1995/0350.html
>
> By the way, here's a nice tongue-in-cheek proposal if you haven't seen
> it:
> http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i5/pliocene-pussy.html
You are new here, aren't you?
Rick Wagler
Michael Clark
>
> Mark Reichert wrote:
[...]
> > By the way, here's a nice tongue-in-cheek proposal if you haven't seen
> > it:
> > http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i5/pliocene-pussy.html
>
> You are new here, aren't you?
Yea, this is great. Mark says: "I DID NOT SAY" that I support the AAT.
(Although it is kinda funny that we swim as well as we do and, oh yea, our
breath holding ability must have arisen about the same time as our swimming
ability and, oh yea, the evil "SAT is sillier than AAT".) **I'm trying to compose
this post but I'm laughing too hard.** Hey Lorenzo! Did you see that "pliocene
pussy-cat theory"? It's a real hoot. I'm glad Mark here has pointed it out
to all the doofai in this NG! :-) :-) :-)
> Rick Wagler
Mark Reichert
> > Where have I stated support of the AAT other than that all modern
> > humans have the physical tools to swim better than one would think
> > given that there ancestors supposedly never needed to do so?
>
> Care to explain your qualifier?
Well, human Olympic swimmers can swim 5 mph in a sprint, triathletes
swim around 1.5 mph on their initial leg, so 2 mph doesn't seem
outrageous for a sustained swim by a fit human not needing to conserve
energy for following marathon bike and running events.
It just seems to me that this is faster than any other terrestrial
animal could maintain for any real length of time, but Google hasn't
revealed any web page with swimming speeds of terrestrial animals.
Polar bears can swim at 6 mph, but they make their living from the
sea, so they aren't totally terrestrial.
> My "blazing straw man" comments were directed at what...? Do you
> think that maybe they were addressing this very point? Think now,
> resist the temptation to call a complete stranger an "asshole".
Resist the temptation to call me an AAT proponent.
> But, but, but, it WAS a rational argument. Pointing out the problems
> with the alleged "Dart's Paradigm" is ~barking up the wrong tree~!
> Especially when PA has long since moved on.
How long? Ten years?
> What do you suppose
> ~you~ look like to me (looking briefly at the subject line)? That's right,
> you look like a defender of the AAT(R).
Oooh, looking briefly at a subject line, what a wonderful way to
condense a person's entire arguments of hundreds of lines into a
convenient single thought.
> The only point that Jimmy has is located at the top of his head. You
> don't think so? Google Sci.Bio.Evolution and see what kinds of threads
> you can come up with. Pay close attention to the replies he gets
> for some of his more outlandish bilge --you might start with "genetic
> drift".
Points on head? Bilge? Are these euphamisms for 'asshole'? At least
he's been politer.
No, I haven't read every single post of his, particularly not one's
outside this newsgroup. That doesn't change my view at this point,
that his hypothesis of hominids forming communities for defense of
woodland food resources merits some attention. Well, he says 'monsoon
habitat' but since I haven't yet found that elsewhere, I was sticking
with the more conservative 'woodland'.
If you think his views are loony, I can only imagine your reaction to
"The Future is Wild" on the Animal Planet channel, which put forth
supposed habitats and fauna 5 million, 100 million, and 200 million
years in the future.
Curious Amateur
>"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:<v1c1di6...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>> What do you suppose
>> ~you~ look like to me (looking briefly at the subject line)? That's right,
>> you look like a defender of the AAT(R).
>
>Oooh, looking briefly at a subject line, what a wonderful way to
>condense a person's entire arguments of hundreds of lines into a
>convenient single thought.
>
>> The only point that Jimmy has is located at the top of his head. You
>> don't think so? Google Sci.Bio.Evolution and see what kinds of threads
>> you can come up with. Pay close attention to the replies he gets
>> for some of his more outlandish bilge --you might start with "genetic
>> drift".
>
>Points on head? Bilge? Are these euphamisms for 'asshole'? At least
>he's been politer.
snip, snip, and snip
Gentlemen, may I suggest a truce and re-assesment of what is being
accomplished with this line of argument.
There must be real science afoot somewhere in the world, eager to be
discussed.
CA
Lorenzo L. Love
Yeah, but what does he mean by "tongue-in-cheek"? It's the only theory
not full of holes!
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"Let us be thankful for the fools; but for them the rest of us could not
succeed."
Mark Twain
Bob Keeter
lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 1/5/03 1:47 AM:
Snippage. . . .
>
> Yeah, but what does he mean by "tongue-in-cheek"? It's the only theory
> not full of holes!
You know, you are right! Nobody would call the shortcomings of the PPCT
"holes", perhaps chasms, canyons, intergalactic voids, maybe, but not holes!
But most artfully done! 8-)
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> "Let us be thankful for the fools; but for them the rest of us could not
> succeed."
> Mark Twain
There you go slipping a new quotation in on us (or at least in on me, have
not been keeping touch with your latest little running skirmish). Just dont
start looking those gift horses over to closely! 8-))
Regards
bk
firstjois
"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.03010...@posting.google.com...
: As for this thread, what I saw was person after person completely
: ignoring Marc's points about the savanna theory, and only trying to
: bait him on his sillier points. If he's been repetitive, you can just
: cut and paste your objections. The posts could all begin "Yes Marc
: there are serious holes in the savanna theory but..........."
:
[snip]
Well, if you had checked you would have found posts going back to when
grampa was a baby re: the same old garbage Marco and others have been
pitching in this newsgroup over and over and over and . . . even those who
have been perfectly straight with him and explained and explained and
explained and . . It's like talking to a Jehovah's Witness, a person who
has given up family, friends, learned a massive amount of material that is
so twisted that conversation with non-Jehovah's Witness persons becomes
impossible and all the person has left in the world are his fellow
Jehovah's Witnesses . . . they are sick and tired of this same old garbage
being dragged back into the newsgroup over and over and over and . . . and
then some new twerp will come blazing in trying to sell the same old slop
as if it were a brand new shiny never before discussed idea and on and on
and on. It's worse than sad, it's pathetic.
Good night,
Jois
Jason Eshleman
>news:99e65015.03010...@posting.google.com...
>[...]
>> As for this thread, what I saw was person after person completely
>> ignoring Marc's points about the savanna theory, and only trying to
>> bait him on his sillier points. If he's been repetitive, you can just
>> cut and paste your objections. The posts could all begin "Yes Marc
>> there are serious holes in the savanna theory but..........."
Marc's "savanna baiting" posts are ignored because it's a non-issue. He's
battling the illusive savanna hypothesis which is now but a strawman.
Marc's under the mistaken presuption that it was the hard work of the wet
apers that led to the demise of the savanna as the habitat where humans
took their first bipedal steps. It wasn't. It was paleoenvironmental
reconstructions surrounding the fossils of early bipeds (who still don't
look "aquatic").
Why defend the strawman Marc attacks?
Marc Verhaegen
news:av8t3c$8n0$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> Marc's "savanna baiting" posts are ignored because it's a non-issue.
It's not a non-issue, there are several idiots here who still believe the
savanna idea that human ancestors ran over the African plains once.
> He's battling the illusive savanna hypothesis which is now but a strawman.
It's not a strawman. It's the firm belief of many people, even here. As long
as there are people who believe this nonsense, I'll attack this view to make
place for more sensible views.
> Marc's under the mistaken presuption that it was the hard work of the wet
apers that led to the demise of the savanna as the habitat where humans took
their first bipedal steps.
I'm not in that presumption. Never was, see
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm . But I predicted it many
years ago (although like everybody I too was a savanna believer once, see my
first paper Med.Hypoth.16:17-32, 1995). If traditional PAs had used a bit of
comparative evidence instead of blindly following some just-so stories
around the hominids fossils they found, they would have known for long that
the "savanna explanations" are as wrong as the "land bridges" in geology
before the theory of continental drift.
Mario Petrinovic
> significant degree of webbing?
The more an otter is eating crabs the less webbing it has. IIRC
African clawless otter eats mostly crabs, and it has no webs. Find somewhere
info on what each otters is eating, and how much webbing it has (on front
limbs). It shouldn't be hard. -- Mario
Marc Verhaegen
"Mario Petrinovic" <mario.pe...@zg.tel.hr> wrote in message
news:avk8nd$82c1$1...@as201.hinet.hr...
> > IOW, name a demonstrably aquatic species that does not have at least
some significant degree of webbing?
Name a terrestrial mammal without significant webbing. Dogs, cows, cats...
all have webbed digits. Why do you believe webbing between the fingers/toes
should be seen in aquatics?
> The more an otter is eating crabs the less webbing it has. IIRC African
clawless otter eats mostly crabs, and it has no webs. Find somewhere info on
what each otters is eating, and how much webbing it has (on front limbs). It
shouldn't be hard. -- Mario
Yes, Mario, they talk & talk, but don't inform. Sad, sad...
Marc
Mark Reichert
> Yea, this is great. Mark says: "I DID NOT SAY" that I support the AAT.
> (Although it is kinda funny that we swim as well as we do and, oh yea, our
> breath holding ability must have arisen about the same time as our swimming
> ability and, oh yea, the evil "SAT is sillier than AAT".)
What part of "For all we know it didn't arrive until modern humans"
don't you understand? Or is it that painting me as a die hard AAT
proponent is more fun.
Perhaps the ability to modulate one's inhalations and exhalations from
deep to shallow didn't arrive until its use in speech. Hard to tell
from the fossil record. I happen to favor traits first showing up as
survival neutral traits, but it's entirely possible that it showed up
just in time to have the most profound effect on the genus since
bipedalism.
In which case, being able to dive deep is just an accidental side
benefit.
Michael Clark
> "Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:<v1f0k3t...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Yea, this is great. Mark says: "I DID NOT SAY" that I support the AAT.
> > (Although it is kinda funny that we swim as well as we do and, oh yea, our
> > breath holding ability must have arisen about the same time as our swimming
> > ability and, oh yea, the evil "SAT is sillier than AAT".)
>
> What part of "For all we know it didn't arrive until modern humans"
> don't you understand? Or is it that painting me as a die hard AAT
> proponent is more fun.
What part of "SAT is sillier than AAT" did you think I didn't understand?
[slash]
Marc Verhaegen
> Perhaps the ability to modulate one's inhalations and exhalations from
deep to shallow didn't arrive until its use in speech. Hard to tell from
the fossil record. I happen to favor traits first showing up as survival
neutral traits, but it's entirely possible that it showed up just in time to
have the most profound effect on the genus since bipedalism. In which case,
being able to dive deep is just an accidental side benefit.
Not impossible (if we had no other information), but in that case we might
wonder why chimps don't speak & had the accidental side-benifit of being
able to dive.
Marc
Marc Verhaegen
"Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3e14bc65$0$39023$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
No answers??
> > > > Marc's ref is an article by Bartholomew and Wilke entitled 'Body
Temperature in Northern Fur Seals" in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating from their flippers
but go out of their way to point out how limited is the ability of these
seals to handle heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would chivy
the bachelor males away from the main rookery with the females and pups
before shooting them and processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and they're stickin' to
it - it was not uncommon for these seals to become overheated and even die
during a trip of a few hundred yards. They do not provide any data re volume
of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt to cite this for his claim that
humans and fur seals are the 'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept. Rick
Wagler
> > > Thanks, Wagler, at least you've done your homework. Fair comment
except for the last sentence: not my fault that there are few data.
> > No but you are responsible for backing up your claims. You should have
accumulated your data before you made the claim that humans and furseals are
the 'sweatiest of mammals'.
> From everything we know, they are.
No answer. Wagler agrees.
> > Having discerned a paucity of data you should realize that you are in no
position to make that claim. Belatedly throwing in the qualifier 'eccrine'
really doesn't solve the problem.
> Not belatedly: - In 1985, I wrote: "The completely aquatic mammals
lack sweat glands, but at least one pinniped has the naked surface of its
hindlimbs abundantly supplied with thermoactive sweat glands; almost any
activity on land, at air temperatures that rarely exceed 10°C, causes
Callorhinus to wave its hindflippers about (15)." - In 1991: "Of all the
available strategies, human eccrine sweating combined with low body
temperature is the least well adapted to savannah conditions and the least
likely to have evolved in that type of habitat. As far as is known, fur
seals are the only non-human mammals which sweat thermoactively through
abundant eccrine glands (on their naked hind flippers) when they are
overheated on land (G. A. Bartholomew, in McFarland et al., 1979, p. 773)."
> > You are now in the position of having to explain why eccrine sweating
for thermoregulation is importantly different from apocrine sweating for
thermoregulation.
> I don't have to explain it. Why should I? I only noticed a remarkable
resemblance between otariids & humans. Note also the word
"abundant", eg, nonhuman terrestrials sweat far less abundantly
(Schmidt-Nielsen). Wagler, try to discern comparative & functional
arguments. Although almost everything in biology is extremely functional,
it's often impossible to know the exact function: most structures have
different functions (eg, sweat: feromones, excretory, antimicrobial...),
functions change of course (that's evolution), and the same "goals" (eg,
thermoregulation) can be achieved through different means. But even if we
don't know the function, resemblances between different mammals are
important data. The best arguments are of course both functional &
comparative.
> > I don't know how much work has gone into measuring the sweating of
prairie dogs and mountain goats and how effective it is but then I don't
really care. How does it work for humans? Quite well. In fact handling heat
stress is something humans do remarkably well.
> No, they do remarkably poor for land mammals. That's your problem to
explain.
> > Furseals, as we both agree, don't do it very well at all. This orders of
magnitude difference is noteworthy is it not?
> Humans are no furseals. Humans are terrestrial mammals with unusual
features that suggest human ancestors once spent a lot of time in water.
> > > The most recent info I read is AR Hoezel ed.2002 "Marine mammal
biology" Blackwell, p.87: "sweat glands on the flippers of otariids aid in
heat transfer. On hot days sea lions & fur seals can often be seen fanning
their flippers & increasing evaporative heat loss at these sites" (Blix
cs.1979 Am.J.Phys.236:R188). WN Mcfarland cs.1979 "Vertebrate life" Collier
p.773: "tps that rise to only 10°C during the day. ... Almost any activity
on land causes the seals to pant & raise their hind flippers (abundantly
supplied with sweat glands) & wave them about." When somebody can give me
info on eccrine thermoregulatory sweating in other mammals (or interesting
info on sweating in general: apocrine or eccrine, amounts, possible
functions...), I'll be grateful, but so far I haven't seen any. IOW, I don't
have to change 1 letter of what I said: - AFAIK the most abundant
thermoactive eccrine sweating is seen in human & sealions.
> > Except that this statement is supported by nothing but anecdotal
evidence.
> I'm glad you agree. Of course anecdotal. Not my fault. Darwin's whole
theory was based on anecdotal evidence...
> > The authors of works on sea mammal physiology did not, it seems, think
it worth the effort to compile comparative data from other terrestrial
orders. They simply content themselves with noting that however much
sweating sealions do it is rather ineffective. Your AFAIK hides the ugly
fact that you have squat for data and your assertion is baseless. Leaving
aside the question of whether there is any significant functional difference
between apocrine and eccrine sweating as it pertains to thermoregulation. I
hope you agree that a horse that is all lathered up after a hard ride is
engaged in themo-regulatory sweating.
> I guess so, but am not sure. What about feromones? fear? And horses sweat
much less than humans (Schmidt-Nielsen).
No answer.
> > > - Suggesting that our sweating evolved to cope with hot savanna
conditions is ridiculous nonsense. Wishful thinking, typical of some (not
you, Wagler) people here: sacvanna believers who have not more arguments in
favour of their belief that creationists have in favor of theirs.
> > Why is it ridiculous nonsense?
> Wasting sodium & water in the savanna.
> > As I said humans handle heat stress rather well.
> No, they don't: remarkably poor for terrestrial mammals.
> > What selective pressure does a swamp provide to help evolve that?
> Swamp?? Who's talking here about swamps?? Don't misrepresent my ideas,
Wagler! Very unfair.
Only cowads misrepresent other people's ideas when they have no arguments.
Our scenario:
1) apiths: bipedal wading + climbing in forest swamps, predom.wetland
feeders, primitive apelike,
2) Homo: wading-swimming-walking beach-combers: can perfectly explain why
our ancestors got thick SC fat, lost fur, got very long legs, large brains
etc.
> > Especially since human esc is most effective at humidity of 50% or less.
> esc? What is the humidity at, eg, the Red Sea?
No answer.
> > And why bring seals into it at all?
> 1) Don't confuse seals with sealions! Inform, Wagler. 2) Only
comparing: it's not my fault that AFAWK humans & sealions have the most
thermoactive eccrines. A possible explanation is not difficult in our
scenario of early Homo beach-combing. What is your explanation?
Nothing.
> > What do they contribute? You stoutly deny that hominds ever lived in
habitats or engaged in a lifeway remotely resembling that of a furseal so
what the hell does it matter what they do? Eccrine sweating in sealions and
humans is obviously not a case of similar selective pressures producing
similar adaptive responses
> What argument do you have to believe that??
No argument apparently.
> > so what's the point? Here's something to take a look at Hanna, Joel M;
Brown, Danial A. Human Heat Tolerance: Biological and Cultural Adaptations
Yrbk Phys Anthropol 1979 22 163-186 Rick Wagler
> What in this paper contradict my view??
What, Wagler? Try to have a broader view, inform a bit about other mammals,
read, eg, Schmidt-Nielsen.
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Michael Clark
>
> "Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3e14bc65$0$39023$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
>
> No answers??
Gee, Marco, looks like somebody got tired of rebutting your
macros. That must mean you win, huh...?
[replies to his own post]
> Marc Verhaegen
> http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Michael Clark
Bit...@spammer.com
"You only read what you like to read."
--Marco the macro man
Richard Wagler
Michael Clark wrote:
> "Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3e1f3321$0$2966$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> >
> > "Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > news:3e14bc65$0$39023$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> >
> > No answers??
>
> Gee, Marco, looks like somebody got tired of rebutting your
> macros. That must mean you win, huh...?
>
That's the usual tactic with the fringers.
I point out that his assertion has no support
beyond an anecdote of which absolutely nothing
is made by people in the field of marine mammal
biology.
MV repeats assertion while avoiding any
discussion of it's meaning for hominid evolution.
What am I supposed to answer??
Here's one for ya, Marc...
What the f**** do the seals, furseals
and sealions have to do with anything?
What does it matter what they do?
Rick Wagler
Mark Reichert
> What part of "SAT is sillier than AAT" did you think I didn't understand?
That was before I knew some of the sillier elements of AAT.
I still find it silly that anybody could consider water wasting humans
as descendants of savanna surviving hominids. It just may not be
sillier.
Marc Verhaegen
> > > No answers??
> > Gee, Marco, looks like somebody got tired of rebutting your macros.
That must mean you win, huh...?
:-) It took so long before you admitted that...
> That's the usual tactic with the fringers. I point out that his
assertion has no support beyond an anecdote of which absolutely nothing is
made by people in the field of marine mammal biology. MV repeats
assertion while avoiding any discussion of it's meaning for hominid
evolution.
Avoiding?? Who is avoiding? We proved the savanna hypothesis is impossible.
OTOH you are unable to provide one argument against our hypothesis that
human ancestors got many of their typical features (SC fat, large brain,
diving skills etc.) when they dispersed along the coasts from Algeria in the
West to Java in the East ca.1.8 Ma (or some time before). As long as you
can't give good arguments, our hypothesis stands. We accept all PA data (not
all PA interpretations of course!), and there's nothing in the PA literature
that contradicts our hypothesis. Nothing.
> What am I supposed to answer??
Nothing, I guess: you have nothing. Only your savanna belief?
> Here's one for ya, Marc... What the f**** do the seals, furseals and
sealions have to do with anything? What does it matter what they do? Rick
Wagler
This seems to be the only "argument" that you can find and that you believe
is relevant? As I explained to you ad nauseam, seals etc. have as much to do
with human adaptations as other mammals have. We can compare human
adaptations for running with those of cursorial & non-cursorial mammals, our
adaptations for diving with those of pigs, dogs, seals & apes, etc. Denying
that humans are mammals like all others, is anthropocentrism of the worst
sort, pre-Darwinistic thinking, no better than creationism. Why do you
believe that biological laws that apply to other mammals don't apply to
humans?? Neglecting the comparative anatomical & physiological data is an
unforgivable bias. As long as you don't realise that, your anthropological
"science" is still in the middle ages.
Michael Clark
news:<v1u3c7e...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > What part of "SAT is sillier than AAT" did you think I didn't understand?
>
> That was before I knew some of the sillier elements of AAT.
So this means you can learn.(You're already ahead of the wet apes)
> I still find it silly that anybody could consider water wasting humans
> as descendants of savanna surviving hominids. It just may not be
> sillier.
And this means that you have yet more to learn. Hint: the "savanna"
is not the bone-dry arid wasteland that the wet apes claim it is.
Jim McGinn
> Avoiding? Who is avoiding?
You both are. Both AAT and SAT are avoiding.
> We proved the savanna hypothesis is impossible.
> OTOH you are unable to provide one argument against
> our hypothesis that human ancestors got many of
> their typical features (SC fat, large brain,
> diving skills etc.)
AAT fails to describe what is actually observed. How,
to give just one example of many explanatory
shortcoming of AAT, does AAT describe the origins of
human linguistic abilities? What shift in behavior
anticipates such?
You have no answer, you never have had an answer,
and you never will.
> As long as you can't give good arguments, our
> hypothesis stands.
Fine. But the problem is that you are standing on
nothing. The supposition that SAT is wrong does not
add up to an argument for AAT being right.
> We accept all PA data (not all PA interpretations
> of course!), and there's nothing in the PA
> literature that contradicts our hypothesis. Nothing.
There's nothing in the PA data that contradicts my
hypothesis. But my hypothesis predicts what is
observed. You can't make this claim.
> Why do you believe that biological laws that apply
> to other mammals don't apply to humans?
Biological laws? You don't argue from a standpoint
of biological laws. You argue from a standpoint of
loose analogy to comparative evidence that is, at
best, extremely circumstantial.
> Neglecting the comparative anatomical &
> physiological data is an unforgivable bias.
The comparative anatomical & physiological data is
useful ONLY as a mean of elminating competing
hypotheses. It is the epitome of pseudo-science to
BUILD a hypothesis based on nothing but comparative
anatomical & physiological data.
> As long as you don't realise that, your
> anthropological "science" is still in the middle
> ages.
Well, this comment isn't totally off mark.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> > What part of "SAT is sillier than AAT" did you
> > think I didn't understand?
>
> That was before I knew some of the sillier elements
> of AAT.
>
> I still find it silly that anybody could consider
> water wasting humans as descendants of savanna
> surviving hominids.
Yes, and as you pointed out previously, AAT theorists
deserve credit for drawing our attention to this and
other shortcomings of the prevailing paradigm.
> It just may not be sillier.
Mark,
You have no idea how refreshing it is to have a
participant in this NG who actually listens to other
peoples arguments and adjusts his position accordingly.
Much appreciated.
Jim