@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message news:<
> And yet it is still possible. There is no evidence whatsoever for a
> knuckle-walker that predates 3.5 my and yet you (presumably) have no
> problem in assuming that a'piths were ex-knuckle walkers on the way to
> human-like bipedalism. There is quite a bit of evidence for a bipedal
> LCA (Orrorin and Sahelanthropus dated at 6 and 7 mya, respectively and
> a body of evidence which might indicate a LCA dated at about 5mya.)
> The earliest 'aquarboreal' apes need not have been as specialised for
> bipedalism as you seem to assume.
> I am not arguing that a'piths were ancestral to Pan/Homo but I have an
> open mind to the possibility. The opposable toe and other reversals
> suggest that this is a less parsimonious model, I agree - but that
> does not prove it.
> > /---------------------------------- Old World Monkeys
> > /
> > (1)- /--------------------------- Hylobatids (gibbons)
> > \ /
> > \-(2)- /-------------------- Pongo (orang utan)
> > \ /
> > \-(3)- /-(8)----- Gorilla (gorilla)
> > \ /
> > \ / /- Pan troglodytes
> > \ / / (chimpanzee)
> > \-(6)- /-
> > \ / \ Pan paniscus
> > \-(7)- \- (bonobo)
> > \
> > \---- Homo (humans)
I know I am new to this discussion, but I am having trouble with the
reason why you are intertwining 2 "heretical" hypotheses:
1) A'pith related to apes
2) Human aquatic past.
It seems like you could argue one or the other, but the 2 do not mesh
well and certainly do not support each other.
Point 1: If Homo did have an aquatic evolutionary phase, (and if
aquaticism had anything to do with bipedalism) why not hypothesize
that this occured AFTER the LCA Gorilla/Pan/Homo. This would avoid
needing a bipedal LCA, and the devolution of all bipedal AND aquatic
traits in apes.
Point 2: All the aquatic adaptations you point out could have occurred
as late as homo, and could be due to the exploitation of rivers and
lakeside environments, which noone has ever disputed.
Point 3: A'piths are much too late (4-2mya) to be LCA apes or evolving
non-hominid apes, aren't they. I think that if there was any
possibility at all that they could be classified this way, the
literature would have supported this over the disturbing view of them
being homo ancestors.
Point 4: What about those Miocene apes? Weren't they knuckle walking?
Is there evidence in them of bipedalism, or did they go around on all