Bipedalism thought experiment
Algis Kuliukas
You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)
Good luck.
Algis Kuliukas
Jim McGinn
This is lamarkian. You obviously have no understanding of
the mechanistic nature of Natural Selection.
Jim
Philip Deitiker
Kuliukas) wrote:
>Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...
Its not really an experiment.
>You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
>which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
>are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
>bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
>contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
>world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)
And condition, OK I'm a chimpanzee running across a glacier
on four legs with my troup, but alas because 2 knuckle
walking chimps fail to see a crevace they fall in. As a
result I decide to walk the rest of the way, seeing numerous
crevices and not falling. Only 2 chimps that preferred
walking survive and all their progeny also prefer walking on
2 legs.
What do I win?
Will Wilkins bless me with a mettle of inspiring but
useless philosophical fiction?
Algis Kuliukas
Huh?
I post a problem, you reply with a misunderstanding and an insult. Why
not, instead, try to come with a solution?
Algis Kuliukas
Rich Travsky
Give them lots of food but such that they are not permited to eat it there
but instead carry it away. Like http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo06.jpg
Surround a male with female chimps: http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo13.jpg
Keep a female's young just out of reach:
http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo04.jpg
(note: the chimps in these pictures probably spent more time bipedal
in those activities than the half minute you saw in water)
Optional:
Put them in a small hole with a predator like a leopard. Put sticks
in the hole.
Algis Kuliukas
Bugger all.
> Will Wilkins bless me with a mettle of inspiring but
> useless philosophical fiction?
Who's Wilkins?
Algis Kuliukas
John Wilkins
Some talk.origins interloper philosopher wannabe. Don't worry about it.
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
Jim McGinn
> jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<ac6a5059.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > al...@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message news:<77a70442.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...
> > >
> > > You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
> > > which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
> > > are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
> > > bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
> > > contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
> > > world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)
> > >
> > > Good luck.
> >
> > This is lamarkian. You obviously have no understanding of
> > the mechanistic nature of Natural Selection.
>
> Huh?
> I post a problem, you reply with a misunderstanding and an insult. Why
> not, instead, try to come with a solution?
It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact. Do you know who
Lamarck is? Do you know why his thinking is discounted. Do you
realize that your scenario is a perfect example of this misthinking?
Why don't you look into it.
Jim
Michael Clark
news:77a70442.03080...@posting.google.com...[...]
> > Will Wilkins bless me with a mettle of inspiring but
> > useless philosophical fiction?
>
> Who's Wilkins?
Ooops.....
> Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
Nice try, Rich.
> Give them lots of food but such that they are not permited to eat it there
> but instead carry it away. Like http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo06.jpg
How do you stop them just sitting down and eating it straight away?
> Surround a male with female chimps: http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo13.jpg
How do you stop him copulating with the females? If not, what happens
fifteen seconds later, why should he get back up and display again? Is
he going to be able to do that? Isn't he more likely to just sit down
and rest or go for a second female?
> Keep a female's young just out of reach:
> http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo04.jpg
How are you going to do that? What's to stop the infant getting back
down to mum or the mother climbing up to the infant? Remember no
man-made devices allowed.
> (note: the chimps in these pictures probably spent more time bipedal
> in those activities than the half minute you saw in water)
Not true.
> Optional:
> Put them in a small hole with a predator like a leopard. Put sticks
> in the hole.
How long do you propose such a 'battle' would last?
Thanks, though, for your attempts.
Algis Kuliukas
Nick Maclaren
In article <ac6a5059.03080...@posting.google.com>,
jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) writes:
|>
|> It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact. Do you know who
|> Lamarck is? Do you know why his thinking is discounted. Do you
|> realize that your scenario is a perfect example of this misthinking?
|> Why don't you look into it.
I have no idea whether he does or not, though I have my suspicions.
However, I must stand up for Lamarckism and point out that it is
making a comeback. In particular, there is a lot of evidence that
c. 50% of our 'intelligence' and manual, communication and similar
abilities are inherited through learning rather than genes.
Lamarckism is precisely about such inheritance.
There is a perfectly good mechanism by which learnt intelligence
and manual abilities can affect genes, through classic Darwinist
evolution. If survival depends on learning, then there is a
selective advantage for the the ability to learn.
Now, if we assume that those two mechanisms operated in tandem to
develop the intelligence and abilities we have today, would you
call the evolution Darwinist or Larmarckian?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Algis Kuliukas
Apologies. Didn't mean to be disrespectful. You're not God-Squad, are you?
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> al...@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message news:<77a70442.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<ac6a5059.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > > al...@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message news:<77a70442.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...
> > > >
> > > > You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
> > > > which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
> > > > are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
> > > > bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
> > > > contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
> > > > world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)
> > > >
> > > > Good luck.
> > >
> > > This is lamarkian. You obviously have no understanding of
> > > the mechanistic nature of Natural Selection.
> >
> > Huh?
> > I post a problem, you reply with a misunderstanding and an insult. Why
> > not, instead, try to come with a solution?
>
[rearranged]
> Do you know who Lamarck is?
Yes, of course.
> Do you know why his thinking is discounted.
Yes, I think I do.
> Do you realize that your scenario is a perfect example of this misthinking?
No. It's just a simple thought experiment. Why don't you try to solve
it?
> Why don't you look into it.
Don't need to.
> It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact.
It's clearly not a statement of fact - therefore I can only conclude
it's an insult.
Why do you spend so much time trumpeting your self-styled answer to
all problems and so little addressing simple little problems posed by
others?
Algis
Philip Deitiker
Kuliukas) wrote:
>Apologies. Didn't mean to be disrespectful. You're not God-Squad, are you?
He's very God squad, so much in fact they call him "God" in
talk.origins.
Spiznet
> > > >
> > > > You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
> > > > which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
> > > > are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
> > > > bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
> > > > contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
> > > > world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)
> > > >
> > > > Good luck.
> > >
> > > This is lamarkian. You obviously have no understanding of
> > > the mechanistic nature of Natural Selection.
> >
> > Huh?
> > I post a problem, you reply with a misunderstanding and an insult. Why
> > not, instead, try to come with a solution?
>
> It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact. Do you know who
> Lamarck is? Do you know why his thinking is discounted. Do you
> realize that your scenario is a perfect example of this misthinking?
> Why don't you look into it.
> Jim
This is a problem with everyones thinking to some extent.
What is needed is not the learned behavior to avoid knucklewalk (or
wave sticks, or whatever behavior we are proposing) but a genetic
predisposition to not knucklewalk (or wave sticks...).
-Mark
Philip Deitiker
wrote:
>This is a problem with everyones thinking to some extent.
>What is needed is not the learned behavior to avoid knucklewalk (or
>wave sticks, or whatever behavior we are proposing) but a genetic
>predisposition to not knucklewalk (or wave sticks...).
Genetic predisposition to walk bipedally (a facility) both
in mind and body. The predisposition not to knuckle walk is
automatic if the facility is present. IOW if it is easier it
will be done.
Paul Crowley
news:77a70442.03080...@posting.google.com...
> Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...
I posted this paragraph on 14th July
(in :"Re: Benefits of A'pith Rock-throwing, Stick-wielding:
not as simple as some assume")
"We could readily do an experiment
now. Put three hostile bands of chimps in an
open environment with three water-holes. Leave
some sticks lying around. Then reduce the
water-flow, eventually making one hole go dry
-- the hole of the strongest group."
I suggest that such a situation often arose. In
practice it would have involved hundreds, or
thousands of chimp bands, and lasted tens of
thousands of years. It would have needed the
exclusion of predators -- to allow the chimps to
run around on open ground An island created
by a rise in sea-level (like, say, Borneo) probably
brought that about often enough.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:ac6a5059.03080...@posting.google.com...
The statement: 'this is Lamarkian' -- in quite inappropriate
circumstances -- must be one of the most common
indications of evolutionary illiteracy. It's certainly about
the strongest.
Of course, those making it will never defend or explain
their statement, nor make any response other than some
weak attempt at a personal insult.
Paul.
MIB529
> In article <ac6a5059.03080...@posting.google.com>,
> jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) writes:
> |>
> |> It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact. Do you know who
> |> Lamarck is? Do you know why his thinking is discounted. Do you
> |> realize that your scenario is a perfect example of this misthinking?
> |> Why don't you look into it.
>
> I have no idea whether he does or not, though I have my suspicions.
>
> However, I must stand up for Lamarckism and point out that it is
> making a comeback. In particular, there is a lot of evidence that
> c. 50% of our 'intelligence' and manual, communication and similar
> abilities are inherited through learning rather than genes.
> Lamarckism is precisely about such inheritance.
That's because ideas aren't genetic, idiot.
Jim McGinn
Hey Nick, it's been a while . . .
I would call it Darwininian, not Lamarckian. It has to do with the
mechanism of inheritance.
Jim
John Wilkins
> On 6 Aug 2003 06:39:28 -0700, al...@RiverApes.com (Algis
> Kuliukas) wrote:
>
> >Apologies. Didn't mean to be disrespectful. You're not God-Squad, are you?
As in Christian? No, I don't know as much as anyone else on that
subject.
Phil invited me here from talk.origins. Nice of him, and I think I'll
stay for a bit.
>
> He's very God squad, so much in fact they call him "God" in
> talk.origins.
That's this week. And they do not worship Me with Chocolate, as I have
Commanded.
--
John Wilkins
What's a Deity to Do?
Philip Deitiker
Wilkins) wrote:
>That's this week.
Don't shorten yourself all-mighty[bow-bow], they've been
signalling some kind of devination in your behalf for at
least a few months.
> And they do not worship Me with Chocolate,
Will fudge do? Welcome to the wacky, finny, muddy world of
the swimming apiths.
Jim McGinn
> Why do you spend so much time trumpeting your self-styled answer to
> all problems and so little addressing simple little problems posed by
> others?
I'd always thought it was obvious that we have to address
all the problems. A hypothesis that just solves the
problem of why humans became bipedal still leaves 95% of
the problem unfinished. In other words I believe in
comprehensive parsimony. It seems most other think as
you do. They think that if we just figure out how they
stood up then--having freed hands--they will start using
tools, this will magically lead to them getting smart,
talking, living in cities, buying minivans, etc. It's a
good thing for me that science isn't a democracy because
I'd surely lose.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> > Do you realize that your scenario is a perfect
> > example of this misthinking?
> This is a problem with everyones thinking to some extent.
It's just a matter of indicating why those that have
certain behaviors survive and/or reproduce in higher
numbers than others. If this end result is achieved
(and long continued) it matters not whether the actual
behavior is achieved constantly or only occasionally.
Algis doesn't want to take this approach. He doesn't
want to talk about there being a survival or
reproductive advantage to his bipedal behavior, he
just want to indicate an easy upramp for them to begin
displaying the behavior.
Jim
John Wilkins
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:55:40 GMT, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >That's this week.
>
> Don't shorten yourself all-mighty[bow-bow], they've been
> signalling some kind of devination in your behalf for at
> least a few months.
I believe you are confusing divination with trepination. A few have
suggested that latter operation in my Person.
>
> > And they do not worship Me with Chocolate,
>
> Will fudge do? Welcome to the wacky, finny, muddy world of
> the swimming apiths.
No. This because fudge is merely a combination of the Four Flavours,
while Chocolate is more than the Sum of Its Flavours - I call this
revelation Chocoholism.
Nick Maclaren
In article <ac6a5059.03080...@posting.google.com>,
jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) writes:
|> >
|> > However, I must stand up for Lamarckism and point out that it is
|> > making a comeback. In particular, there is a lot of evidence that
|> > c. 50% of our 'intelligence' and manual, communication and similar
|> > abilities are inherited through learning rather than genes.
|> > Lamarckism is precisely about such inheritance.
|> >
|> > There is a perfectly good mechanism by which learnt intelligence
|> > and manual abilities can affect genes, through classic Darwinist
|> > evolution. If survival depends on learning, then there is a
|> > selective advantage for the the ability to learn.
|> >
|> > Now, if we assume that those two mechanisms operated in tandem to
|> > develop the intelligence and abilities we have today, would you
|> > call the evolution Darwinist or Larmarckian?
|>
|> Hey Nick, it's been a while . . .
I got occupied with work :-)
|> I would call it Darwininian, not Lamarckian. It has to do with the
|> mechanism of inheritance.
Yes, but in this case, half of the mechanism of inheritance is
learning. The genetic inheritance is of little or no benefit
without that.
Personally, I think that this would make a good finals question
for a Philosophy of Science degree ....
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Ross Macfarlane
He's an Aussie too Algis. Be warned - your taxes, & mine, are paying
for him to misuse his time in paid employ at the Walter & Eliza Hall
Institute, by posting this dross on the Internet...
Ross Macfarlane (who knows where WEHI is... :-)
Philip Deitiker
Wilkins) wrote:
>Philip Deitiker <pde...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:55:40 GMT, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> >That's this week.
>>
>> Don't shorten yourself all-mighty[bow-bow], they've been
>> signalling some kind of devination in your behalf for at
>> least a few months.
>
>I believe you are confusing divination with trepination. A few have
>suggested that latter operation in my Person.
See now, you had to go use a fancy word.
I looked it up in my Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary [As per new standards on sci.archaeology, the
ISBN page has been ripped]
Trepanation - To use [a surgical instrument for cutting out
circular sections, a trephine] on the skull.
The inference is that they are trying to take cores of your
brain. Hmmm, Scratching chin, would they be trying steal
some of your wisdom . . . . . . . . . .
Jim McGinn
> |> I would call it Darwininian, not Lamarckian. It has to do with the
> |> mechanism of inheritance.
>
> Yes, but in this case, half of the mechanism of inheritance is
> learning. The genetic inheritance is of little or no benefit
> without that.
>
> Personally, I think that this would make a good finals question
> for a Philosophy of Science degree ....
Yes, I know what you're saying. As an analogy what you're
saying holds true. But--as I'm sure you know--Lamarck's
proposition was that activities during the lifetime of the
organism had corresponding "genetic" effects on their
offspring. (I put the word 'genetics' in quotes because
Lamarck didn't know about genes.)
Jim
John Wilkins
No, I think they just want to eat my brains. Zombies, the lot of them.
Can't get good devotees these days...
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
John Wilkins
Oddly, this was also Darwin's view. And pretty well everyone else's from
the middle ages until Weismann. Perhaps we should call this "Darwinism",
because he was about the last major player to claim this (Romanes did,
but he was just defending the Master against those horrid
neo-Darwinians).
Rich Travsky
Thanks for your contrived attempts.
Florian
> Philip Deitiker <pde...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
(snip)
> > He's very God squad, so much in fact they call him "God" in
> > talk.origins.
>
> That's this week. And they do not worship Me with Chocolate, as I have
> Commanded.
Sacrifice *chocolate*? You must be a Mad God, Sir, God, Sir.
--
odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis
John Wilkins
> wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) writes:
>
> > Philip Deitiker <pde...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> > > He's very God squad, so much in fact they call him "God" in
> > > talk.origins.
> >
> > That's this week. And they do not worship Me with Chocolate, as I have
> > Commanded.
>
> Sacrifice *chocolate*? You must be a Mad God, Sir, God, Sir.
Who said sacrifice? They are Commanded to Consume The Holy Substance as
worship of Me.
Actually, there's a philosophy underpinning Chocoholism that is agnostic
on My Existence:
<
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=chocoholism+group:talk.origins+author:
wilkins&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d>. The original Revelation was
December 2001. It's a millenial thing.
Jim McGinn
> Jim McGinn <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote
> >
> > > |> I would call it Darwininian, not Lamarckian. It has to do with the
> > > |> mechanism of inheritance.
> > >
> > > Yes, but in this case, half of the mechanism of inheritance is
> > > learning. The genetic inheritance is of little or no benefit
> > > without that.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think that this would make a good finals question
> > > for a Philosophy of Science degree ....
> >
> > Yes, I know what you're saying. As an analogy what you're
> > saying holds true. But--as I'm sure you know--Lamarck's
> > proposition was that activities during the lifetime of the
> > organism had corresponding "genetic" effects on their
> > offspring. (I put the word 'genetics' in quotes because
> > Lamarck didn't know about genes.)
> >
> > Jim
>
> Oddly, this was also Darwin's view.
Please be specfic, what, exactly, "was also Darwin's view."
Jim
John Wilkins
"genetic" effects on their offspring". He called it pangenesis. He
introduced it, I believe, in the Variation (1868), and it found its way
into later editions of the Origin.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhiana.cgi?id=dv2-69
(watch out - Vorzimmer repeats the false Marx/Capital story)
http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/rindpst1.htm
http://www.mugu.com/galton/hereditarian.html
http://www.mugu.com/galton/hereditarian.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurhered.html
ftp://ftp.wehi.edu.au/pub/wilkinsftp/Elgar.pdf
These last two are mine. the first is brief and sketchy, the second
over-documented and wordy.
Jim McGinn
> > Please be specfic, what, exactly, "was also Darwin's view."
> >
> "that activities during the lifetime of the organism had corresponding
> "genetic" effects on their offspring". He called it pangenesis. He
> introduced it, I believe, in the Variation (1868), and it found its way
> into later editions of the Origin.
Darwin did not claim that, "activities during the lifetime
of the organism had corresponding "genetic" effects on their
offspring." In fact this is the main thing that
distinguishes Darwin from Lamarck. Lamarck claimed that use
or disuse of a morphology was "acquired," into an organisms
offspring. Pangenisis is darwins mechansims for how traits
are passed on from one generation to the next. But it
specifically excluded the possibility of acquisition.
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis
> http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhiana.cgi?id=dv2-69
> (watch out - Vorzimmer repeats the false Marx/Capital story)
> http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/rindpst1.htm
> http://www.mugu.com/galton/hereditarian.html
> http://www.mugu.com/galton/hereditarian.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurhered.html
On this page you make the following claim: "Darwin accepted
that use and disuse would affect heredity, and thus provide
the source of variation for selection to act upon."
I'd like to see you support this claim. (BTW, this claim
is not consistent with pangenesis.) You are claiming that
Darwin was Lamarckian.
> ftp://ftp.wehi.edu.au/pub/wilkinsftp/Elgar.pdf
>
> These last two are mine. the first is brief and sketchy, the second
> over-documented and wordy.
Jim
Philip Deitiker
Wilkins) wrote:
>Who said sacrifice? They are Commanded to Consume The Holy Substance as
>worship of Me.
>
>Actually, there's a philosophy underpinning Chocoholism that is agnostic
>on My Existence:
>
><
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=chocoholism+group:talk.origins+author:
>wilkins&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d>. The original Revelation was
>December 2001. It's a millenial thing.
> >No. It transcends its constituent elements and generates a mystical
> >experience that is more than the sum of its parts. I call this
> >chocoholism.
I see so although they think you are god for identifying
chocoholism, the reality is that you discovery chocolate was
the one true god. Interesting.
Paul Crowley
news:77a70442.03080...@posting.google.com...
> Here's a thought experiment you may like to try...
>
> You have a group of extant great apes (any species you prefer) for
> which it is your task to create experimental conditions in which they
> are free to move in any direction they wish to but are forced to do so
> bipedally as long as the experimental conditions prevail. You may
> contrive any conditions you like but they must be part of the natural
> world. (i.e. no man-made materials are allowed.)
I posted this paragraph on 14th July
(in :"Re: Benefits of A'pith Rock-throwing, Stick-wielding:
not as simple as some assume")
"We could readily do an experiment
now. Put three hostile bands of chimps in an
open environment with three water-holes. Leave
some sticks lying around. Then reduce the
water-flow, eventually making one hole go dry
-- the hole of the strongest group."
I suggest that such a situation often arose. In
practice it would have involved hundreds, or
thousands of chimp bands, and lasted tens of
thousands of years. It would have needed the
exclusion of predators -- to allow the chimps to
run around on open ground An island created
by a rise in sea-level (like, say, Borneo) probably
brought that about often enough.
(This is a re-post, since Algis seems to have
missed my first one in this thread -- or I have
missed his reply. I'm sure that he would want to
reply (or already has done) as his plan seems to
be to destroy all other solutions -- leaving only
his wading standing (pun intended)).
Paul.
John Wilkins
> wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote
>
> > > Please be specfic, what, exactly, "was also Darwin's view."
> > >
> > "that activities during the lifetime of the organism had corresponding
> > "genetic" effects on their offspring". He called it pangenesis. He
> > introduced it, I believe, in the Variation (1868), and it found its way
> > into later editions of the Origin.
>
> Darwin did not claim that, "activities during the lifetime
> of the organism had corresponding "genetic" effects on their
> offspring." In fact this is the main thing that
> distinguishes Darwin from Lamarck. Lamarck claimed that use
> or disuse of a morphology was "acquired," into an organisms
> offspring. Pangenisis is darwins mechansims for how traits
> are passed on from one generation to the next. But it
> specifically excluded the possibility of acquisition.
"Although we are seldom able to trace the nature of the connection, many
deviations of structure no doubt result from changed conditions acting
directly on the organisation, indeendently of the reproductive system.
... But it is by no mans clear why the offspring should be affected by
the exposure of the parents to new conditions, and why it is necessary
in most cases that several generations should have been thus exposed.
"How, again, can we explain the inherited effects of the use or disuse
of particular organs?
"In the chapters devoted to inheritance it was shown that a multitude of
newly-acquired characters, whether injurious or beneficial, whether of
the lowest or highest vital importance, are often faithfully transmitted
-- frequently even when one parent alone possesses some new peculiarity;
and we may on the whole conclude that inheritance is the rule, and
non-inheritance the anomaly" Darwin, Variation, vol 2, p367f (Appleton
edition)
There are several score of pages in this vein. Indeed, the entire
chapter is given over to the argument that acquired characters play a
major role in evolution, by Darwin, like it or not.
You are working with what Darwin's student Romanes, who agreed with
Darwin on this topic (particularly in _Darwin and After Darwin_) called
"neo-Darwinism" or "ultra-Darwinism". Weismann is the source for this,
and Wallace agreed with him.
>
>
>
> >
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis
> > http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhiana.cgi?id=dv2-69
> > (watch out - Vorzimmer repeats the false Marx/Capital story)
> > http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/rindpst1.htm
> > http://www.mugu.com/galton/hereditarian.html
> > http://www.mugu.com/galton/hereditarian.html
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurhered.html
>
> On this page you make the following claim: "Darwin accepted
> that use and disuse would affect heredity, and thus provide
> the source of variation for selection to act upon."
>
> I'd like to see you support this claim. (BTW, this claim
> is not consistent with pangenesis.) You are claiming that
> Darwin was Lamarckian.
In the modern sense, Darwin was "neo-Lamarckian" (since that school,
which arose c1890, and stressed the soft-inheritance views of Darwin and
others, went by that name), yes. For documentation see the quote above.
I can supply a lot more. for a summary review, see Peter Bowler's book
_The Eclipse of Darwinism_, particularly chapter 4, and p66 for Darwin.
This is basic knowledge of Darwin himself, Jim.
>
>
> > ftp://ftp.wehi.edu.au/pub/wilkinsftp/Elgar.pdf
> >
> > These last two are mine. the first is brief and sketchy, the second
> > over-documented and wordy.
>
> Jim
John Wilkins
Choclate is Substance, not Deity. Think of it as Brahman, and me (sorry,
Me) as Vishnu. It is said my My Consort that I am Mostly Chocolate.
Philip Deitiker
Wilkins) wrote:
>Choclate is Substance, not Deity. Think of it as Brahman, and me (sorry,
>Me) as Vishnu. It is said my My Consort that I am Mostly Chocolate.
Ah, so you admit your god, In that case go back over to
talk.origins, they are trying to start another flame war in
your absense, give them chocolate, maybe it will keep thier
bellies full and heads sleepy. he-he.
Most Deities are a substance, at least at one time.
Florian
(snip)
> Who said sacrifice? They are Commanded to Consume The Holy Substance as
> worship of Me.
>
> Actually, there's a philosophy underpinning Chocoholism that is agnostic
> on My Existence:
>
> <
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=chocoholism+group:talk.origins+author:
> wilkins&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d>. The original Revelation was
> December 2001. It's a millenial thing.
Chocolate as the Quintessence? Works for me. I have a rather more
liberal view than most of the Mad Gods I know towards milk chocolate,
however. I've even been known to eat *and enjoy* white chocolate!
Jim McGinn
> > Pangenisis is darwins mechansims for how traits
> > are passed on from one generation to the next. But it
> > specifically excluded the possibility of acquisition.
>
> "Although we are seldom able to trace the nature of the connection, many
> deviations of structure no doubt result from changed conditions acting
> directly on the organisation, indeendently of the reproductive system.
I can't make much sense of this. With, "changed conditions,"
is he talking about environmental conditions? It almost
seems he's talking about phenotypic effects, especially with
the phrase, "indeendently of the reproductive system."
> ... But it is by no mans clear why the offspring should be affected by
> the exposure of the parents to new conditions, and why it is necessary
> in most cases that several generations should have been thus exposed.
I don't get acquired traits from this statement. I think
he's just talking about a general resistance to change by
a population with a change in environmental conditions.
>
> "How, again, can we explain the inherited effects of the use or disuse
> of particular organs?
>
> "In the chapters devoted to inheritance it was shown that a multitude of
> newly-acquired characters, whether injurious or beneficial, whether of
> the lowest or highest vital importance, are often faithfully transmitted
> -- frequently even when one parent alone possesses some new peculiarity;
> and we may on the whole conclude that inheritance is the rule, and
> non-inheritance the anomaly" Darwin, Variation, vol 2, p367f (Appleton
> edition)
He is using the word acquired here, but it is in a very
different sense. He's just saying that new traits are
passed on, inherited, in a population just as well as old
ones--or that seems to be the rule.
>
> There are several score of pages in this vein. Indeed, the entire
> chapter is given over to the argument that acquired characters play a
> major role in evolution, by Darwin, like it or not.
He's using the word acquired in a very different sense
than you are assuming.
When I started reading this post I was hoping to be
surprised. I have no vested interest in what Darwin
thought. But I really do think you may be misreading
him here. I admit the verbiage is archaic by modern
standards. But I really don't see any evidence of Darwin
being Lamarckian here. I think the phrase,
"newly-acquired," is throwing you off. I think all
Darwin intended with that phrase was to indicate traits
that had emerged recently in a population. He was not,
IMO, suggesting that the traits were acquired through
usage.
Jim
John Wilkins
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 02:36:32 GMT, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
> >Choclate is Substance, not Deity. Think of it as Brahman, and me (sorry,
> >Me) as Vishnu. It is said my My Consort that I am Mostly Chocolate.
>
> Ah, so you admit your god, In that case go back over to
> talk.origins, they are trying to start another flame war in
> your absense, give them chocolate, maybe it will keep thier
> bellies full and heads sleepy. he-he.
Why don't I just send them over here for a spelling flame?
I'm *a* god, yes. Typical western parochialism to assume I might be
speaking of a monotheist religion.
>
> Most Deities are a substance, at least at one time.
One substance or just similar? Or do you mean they are made from the
substance of their parents and other sundry titans?
John Wilkins
Salvation awaits you in Switzerland. Repent now, before the zits of sin
befall you.
Algis Kuliukas
> Thanks for your contrived attempts.
Of course it's contrived. But it still exposes a serious point. To the
question 'what conditions would force an ape to move bipedally for as
long as the conditions prevailed?' you have no clear answer.
I'm sure I don't need to point out that my answer is very simple and
answers the problem absolutely: Place them on a stretch of flat,
treeless terrain submerged under water too deep for them to move
quadrupedally but too shallow for them to swim.
I am not suggesting that such a situation ever did occur for a
significantly long period of time but the point remains that such
situations occur daily all over the world in flooded riparian forests,
tidal mangrove swamps, beaches, lagoons etc.
And yet, this is the one model that seems to have been completely
ignored by PA.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> "We could readily do an experiment
> now. Put three hostile bands of chimps in an
> open environment with three water-holes. Leave
> some sticks lying around. Then reduce the
> water-flow, eventually making one hole go dry
> -- the hole of the strongest group."
>
> I suggest that such a situation often arose. In
> practice it would have involved hundreds, or
> thousands of chimp bands, and lasted tens of
> thousands of years. It would have needed the
> exclusion of predators -- to allow the chimps to
> run around on open ground An island created
> by a rise in sea-level (like, say, Borneo) probably
> brought that about often enough.
>
> (This is a re-post, since Algis seems to have
> missed my first one in this thread -- or I have
> missed his reply. I'm sure that he would want to
> reply (or already has done) as his plan seems to
> be to destroy all other solutions -- leaving only
> his wading standing (pun intended)).
Sorry Paul. I must have missed this.
How does putting hostile bands of chimps in close proximity to
eachother force them to move bipedally? I accept that a small fraction
of their threat display may involve upright posture and that
occasionally they may grab branches to sling around in a 'I'm crazy,
don't mess with me' kind of display but that is hardly bipedal
locomotion, is it?
Only waist deep water submerging flat terrain meets the criteria,
admit it.
Algis Kuliukas
Jim McGinn
> > >
> > > On this page you make the following claim: "Darwin accepted
> > > that use and disuse would affect heredity, and thus provide
> > > the source of variation for selection to act upon."
> > >
> > > I'd like to see you support this claim. (BTW, this claim
> > > is not consistent with pangenesis.) You are claiming that
> > > Darwin was Lamarckian.
> >
> > In the modern sense, Darwin was "neo-Lamarckian" (since that school,
> > which arose c1890, and stressed the soft-inheritance views of Darwin and
> > others, went by that name), yes.
Uh, no. There is nothing Lamarckian or even neo-Lamarckian
about Darwin's understanding about the source of variation.
Soft-inheritance has nothing to do with the Lamarckian
notion that usage or disusage is the source of variation.
Darwin was very explicit with respec to his claim that the
source of variation was randomness.
> > For documentation see the quote above.
> > I can supply a lot more. for a summary review, see Peter Bowler's book
> > _The Eclipse of Darwinism_, particularly chapter 4, and p66 for Darwin.
> > This is basic knowledge of Darwin himself,
So, you can provide a page number but you can't find a
quote to support you position?
Jim
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> > "We could readily do an experiment
> > now. Put three hostile bands of chimps in an
> > open environment with three water-holes. Leave
> > some sticks lying around. Then reduce the
> > water-flow, eventually making one hole go dry
> > -- the hole of the strongest group."
> >
> > I suggest that such a situation often arose. In
> > practice it would have involved hundreds, or
> > thousands of chimp bands, and lasted tens of
> > thousands of years. It would have needed the
> > exclusion of predators -- to allow the chimps to
> > run around on open ground An island created
> > by a rise in sea-level (like, say, Borneo) probably
> > brought that about often enough.
> How does putting hostile bands of chimps in close proximity to
> eachother force them to move bipedally? I accept that a small fraction
> of their threat display may involve upright posture and that
> occasionally they may grab branches to sling around in a 'I'm crazy,
> don't mess with me' kind of display but that is hardly bipedal
> locomotion, is it?
They'd fight to the death for control of those
water-holes. Those that used weapons
most effectively would win. Since they lived
on open ground, the weapons they'd use
would be rocks and clubs -- but they also
become pretty good at throwing rocks.
They'd have to forage but, given the open
sight lines, they'd always have to go armed,
in as large a party as was feasible. The
constant carrying of weapons would, in
effect, virtually abolish quadrupedalism.
Those that were least good at bipedalism
would be selected out -- because they'd be
the first to be killed or seriously injured.
> Only waist deep water submerging flat terrain meets the criteria,
> admit it.
Doesn't begin to register. In any case,
it would drown all the small children.
That's not a healthy scenario.
Paul.
Jim McGinn
> Paul Crowley wrote
> > "We could readily do an experiment
> > now. Put three hostile bands of chimps in an
> > open environment with three water-holes. Leave
> > some sticks lying around. Then reduce the
> > water-flow, eventually making one hole go dry
> > -- the hole of the strongest group."
> >
> > I suggest that such a situation often arose. In
> > practice it would have involved hundreds, or
> > thousands of chimp bands, and lasted tens of
> > thousands of years. It would have needed the
> > exclusion of predators -- to allow the chimps to
> > run around on open ground An island created
> > by a rise in sea-level (like, say, Borneo) probably
> > brought that about often enough.
> How does putting hostile bands of chimps in close
> proximity to each other force them to move bipedally?
Wrong question. The questions should be why do those that
have obligate bipedal abilities have a survival/reproductive
advantage over those that lack obligate bipedal abilities.
> I accept that a small fraction of their threat display
> may involve upright posture and that occasionally they
> may grab branches to sling around in a 'I'm crazy,
> don't mess with me' kind of display but that is hardly
> bipedal locomotion, is it?
There is no requirement that the transitional behavior afford
a locomotory advantage. (This is one of those superstitious
notions with which conventional paleoanthropologists seem to be
irretrievably obsessed.) The only requirement is that those
that are more obligatorally bipedal have a survival/reproductive
advantage over those that are less obligatorally bipedal.
However, when you consider the importance of mobility to the
survival of any species it does make sense that we would not
expect there to have been a significant locomotory disadvantage
associated with a shift to bipedalism.
> Only waist deep water submerging flat terrain meets the
> criteria, admit it.
Your criteria is Lamarckian. You seem to not grasp the fact that
even if a chimp spent it's whole life being "forced" to assume a
bipedal stance its offspring would not be any more inclined to
obligate bipedalism than any other chimp. IOW, there's nothing in
your scenario (it really isn't a scenario) that indicates why those
that are obligate bipeds would have a selective advantage (survival
and/or reproductive) over those that are faculative bipeds. (And
this is in no small part due to the fact--which not only do you not
deny but, strangely enough, seem to consider to be a feature--that
faculative bipeds would be equally capable of bipedal behavior when
in this purported waste-high water environment as would obligate
bipeds.) Moreover, you ignore the ecological realities associated
with surviving predation: how is it not obvious to you that your
wading apes would only be more vulnerable to predation (from crocs,
cats, and hyena) while wading rather than in their traditional treed
habitat? We'll never know the answers to these questions because
you don't deal with these shortcomings in a manner that even
remotely approaches explicitness. Like conventional theorists and
their vague hunting/scavenging/tool-using notions, you just pretend
not to notice that none of this makes sense when you actually try to
envision it in the context of chimpanzees transitioning to a new
lifestyle under real-world ecological conditions.
The scenario that Paul suggests, above, also has it's ecological
shortcomings--most notably with respect to making extravagant claims
about predator free habitat that require contrived situational
factors supposedly lasting for tens of thousands of years and claims
about group selection that disregards the basic requirements for a
group selective scenario--but it does not suffer from the blantant
disregard for evolutionary principles that is plainly evident in your
wading model.
Jim
John Wilkins
I should have known you'd play the revisionist interpretation game, Jim.
That's no better thant he way creationists deal with Darwin. How about
you actually *read* chapter 27 of vol II of the Variation? Arguing from
a total lack of knowledge is not becoming.
Darwin accepted use-and-disuse, blending inheritance, and acquired
inheritance. For example, page 384 of the Appleton edition (which I
happen to have right next to me) - he states, clearly and unambiguously,
that the units of inheritance - gemmules - are changed by the changed
conditions of life organisms have undergone in the course of their
development. On page 388 he clearly states that variability is caused by
changed conditions affecting the sex organs. On page 391 he even adduces
the docked tail and Jewish circumcision objections to neo-Lamarckian
inheritance.
I do not intend to type out the several paragraphs involved - I'm sure
the text is online somewhere, but if not - go find a book and read it
yourself, in context. Don't presume Darwin adopted the view you happen
to believe in just because it is yours.
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F3306F7...@hotmMOVEail.com>...
>
> > Thanks for your contrived attempts.
>
> Of course it's contrived. But it still exposes a serious point. To the
> question 'what conditions would force an ape to move bipedally for as
> long as the conditions prevailed?' you have no clear answer.
Neither do you. You are hopelessly fixated on "forced"...
> I'm sure I don't need to point out that my answer is very simple and
> answers the problem absolutely: Place them on a stretch of flat,
> treeless terrain submerged under water too deep for them to move
> quadrupedally but too shallow for them to swim.
>
> I am not suggesting that such a situation ever did occur for a
> significantly long period of time but the point remains that such
> situations occur daily all over the world in flooded riparian forests,
> tidal mangrove swamps, beaches, lagoons etc.
Then we would have field observations of non human primates walking
bipedally in these "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
beaches, lagoons etc", wouldn't we? Except we don't...
> And yet, this is the one model that seems to have been completely
> ignored by PA.
Ever wonder why?
Ross Macfarlane
...
> Choclate is Substance, not Deity. Think of it as Brahman, and me (sorry,
> Me) as Vishnu. It is said my My Consort that I am Mostly Chocolate.
The mind boggles at the thought of which bits Your Consort thinks
aren't Chocolate... :-)
Ross Macfarlane
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> >
> > Rich Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F3306F7...@hotmMOVEail.com>...
> >
> > > Thanks for your contrived attempts.
> >
> > Of course it's contrived. But it still exposes a serious point. To the
> > question 'what conditions would force an ape to move bipedally for as
> > long as the conditions prevailed?' you have no clear answer.
>
> Neither do you. You are hopelessly fixated on "forced"...
At least I have a "forced". The alternative is "we
wonder/think/believe/hope."
> > I'm sure I don't need to point out that my answer is very simple and
> > answers the problem absolutely: Place them on a stretch of flat,
> > treeless terrain submerged under water too deep for them to move
> > quadrupedally but too shallow for them to swim.
> >
> > I am not suggesting that such a situation ever did occur for a
> > significantly long period of time but the point remains that such
> > situations occur daily all over the world in flooded riparian forests,
> > tidal mangrove swamps, beaches, lagoons etc.
>
> Then we would have field observations of non human primates walking
> bipedally in these "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
> beaches, lagoons etc", wouldn't we? Except we don't...
You may not have noticed, but apes are on the verge of extinction due
to the extreme pressure of competition from another member of
hominoidae. The habitats where extant apes might have been expected to
perform like this have long since been taken over by H. sapiens.
> > And yet, this is the one model that seems to have been completely
> > ignored by PA.
>
> Ever wonder why?
Er, yes. That's why I've spent so much of the last eight years of my
life studying the problem.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> "Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > How does putting hostile bands of chimps in close proximity to
> > eachother force them to move bipedally? I accept that a small fraction
> > of their threat display may involve upright posture and that
> > occasionally they may grab branches to sling around in a 'I'm crazy,
> > don't mess with me' kind of display but that is hardly bipedal
> > locomotion, is it?
>
> They'd fight to the death for control of those
> water-holes. Those that used weapons
> most effectively would win. Since they lived
> on open ground, the weapons they'd use
> would be rocks and clubs -- but they also
> become pretty good at throwing rocks.
> They'd have to forage but, given the open
> sight lines, they'd always have to go armed,
> in as large a party as was feasible. The
> constant carrying of weapons would, in
> effect, virtually abolish quadrupedalism.
> Those that were least good at bipedalism
> would be selected out -- because they'd be
> the first to be killed or seriously injured.
Why would those that used weapons most effectively win? Why not those
with the biggest canines? Why not simply the biggest? When male
gorillas or chimp alpha males launch an aggressive attack they tend to
do so quadrupedally, what makes you think that this situation would
suddenly make them adopt bipedality?
I think your scenario would just cause the evolution of larger, more
aggressive quadrupedal primates with large canines - rather like
baboons.
> > Only waist deep water submerging flat terrain meets the criteria,
> > admit it.
>
> Doesn't begin to register. In any case,
> it would drown all the small children.
> That's not a healthy scenario.
There's not much of a place in your model for small children either,
let's face it. In the wading model, the infants would simply get a
ride on the adults shoulders, of course - exactly as happens with
extant apes in such situation today.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> al...@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote
> > How does putting hostile bands of chimps in close
> > proximity to each other force them to move bipedally?
>
> Wrong question. The questions should be why do those that
> have obligate bipedal abilities have a survival/reproductive
> advantage over those that lack obligate bipedal abilities.
To be fair to Paul, he did answer that question - that the ones with
bipedal tendencies would be better able to weild weapons. I don't
believe a word of it, but he did answer than point.
> > I accept that a small fraction of their threat display
> > may involve upright posture and that occasionally they
> > may grab branches to sling around in a 'I'm crazy,
> > don't mess with me' kind of display but that is hardly
> > bipedal locomotion, is it?
>
> There is no requirement that the transitional behavior afford
> a locomotory advantage. (This is one of those superstitious
> notions with which conventional paleoanthropologists seem to be
> irretrievably obsessed.) The only requirement is that those
> that are more obligatorally bipedal have a survival/reproductive
> advantage over those that are less obligatorally bipedal.
Of course, but energetic efficiency (Rodman & McHenry), reproductive
efficiency (Lovejoy), thermoregulatory efficiency (Wheeler), improved
postural feeding (Hunt etc), predator avoidance/improved predation
(Dart etc) ... and of course, the wading model... all of them
postulate an improved survival/reproductive advantage for bipedal
locomotion. What did you think they were saying?
> However, when you consider the importance of mobility to the
> survival of any species it does make sense that we would not
> expect there to have been a significant locomotory disadvantage
> associated with a shift to bipedalism.
Any trait that makes the animal more efficient, better at getting
food, better at avoiding predators, more reproductively successful is
going to be selected for if it is a 'net gain' in fitness.
> > Only waist deep water submerging flat terrain meets the
> > criteria, admit it.
>
> Your criteria is Lamarckian.
No it's not. Pure, absolute, neo-Darwinist adaptationism.
> You seem to not grasp the fact that
> even if a chimp spent it's whole life being "forced" to assume a
> bipedal stance its offspring would not be any more inclined to
> obligate bipedalism than any other chimp.
And you don't seem to grasp that in every situation, of course,
selection pressure is applied. I would have thought the risk of
drowning was a significant enough pressure for you to acknowledge, but
apparently not. Clearly this is a potential scenario where apes have
little choice but to move bipedally but are under constant risk of
drowning at the same time. It seems pretty clear to me that those
traits that favour strong and reliable bipedal locomotion in water
would be strongly selected for.
> IOW, there's nothing in
> your scenario (it really isn't a scenario) that indicates why those
> that are obligate bipeds would have a selective advantage (survival
> and/or reproductive) over those that are faculative bipeds.
That's absurd. They'd be better able to feed themselves, better able
to avoid terrestrial predators (I accept at the cost of putting
themselves at greater risk from aquatic ones), better able to keep
cool, better able to find new sources of food and access to new sexual
partners.
> (And
> this is in no small part due to the fact--which not only do you not
> deny but, strangely enough, seem to consider to be a feature--that
> faculative bipeds would be equally capable of bipedal behavior when
> in this purported waste-high water environment as would obligate
> bipeds.)
But Jim, bipedalism must have started somwhere. And a model that
actually is neutral to the fact that the earliest bipeds had no need
of special traits is surely an advantage. The fact that the model
posits them in an environment with graded depths of water, *of course*
produces evolutionary pressure for the types of changes that you (and
Jason) seem to require. Shallower depths, less help, more need to
evolve bipedal traits. It is a no brainer.
> Moreover, you ignore the ecological realities associated
> with surviving predation: how is it not obvious to you that your
> wading apes would only be more vulnerable to predation (from crocs,
> cats, and hyena) while wading rather than in their traditional treed
> habitat? We'll never know the answers to these questions because
> you don't deal with these shortcomings in a manner that even
> remotely approaches explicitness. Like conventional theorists and
> their vague hunting/scavenging/tool-using notions, you just pretend
> not to notice that none of this makes sense when you actually try to
> envision it in the context of chimpanzees transitioning to a new
> lifestyle under real-world ecological conditions.
I accept that the aquatic predation argument is a strong objection.
However, predation is real enough in every arboreal and terrestrial
habitat too (except Paul's islands - a good point in his model). I
would argue that the dangers of croc predation are somewhat
exaggerated and that smart apes would be able to outcompete relatively
dumb reptiles in the long run. The earliest bipeds would have an
absolutely clear cut escape route - climb a tree - which
terrestrial/arboreal models do not provide against terrestrial
carnivores. And later, smart apes would work out how to steal eggs
from croc nests to keep their number down. (but not intentionally)
Also, I would predict that some wetland habitats, e.g. those in
isolated lagoons/mangrove swamps/small inland seas, new river systems
caused by local volcanism are, are likely to have fewer aquatic
predators than you seem to expect.
On the contrary, it makes more sense the more seriously I consider it.
> The scenario that Paul suggests, above, also has it's ecological
> shortcomings--most notably with respect to making extravagant claims
> about predator free habitat that require contrived situational
> factors supposedly lasting for tens of thousands of years and claims
> about group selection that disregards the basic requirements for a
> group selective scenario--but it does not suffer from the blantant
> disregard for evolutionary principles that is plainly evident in your
> wading model.
This Lammarkian thing is just nonsense, Jim. That you decided to
attack the wading model on such flimsy grounds indicated to me that
you haven't given it enough thought.
Algis Kuliukas
Paul Crowley
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > To the question 'what conditions would force an
> > ape to move bipedally for as long as the conditions
> > prevailed?' you have no clear answer.
>
> Neither do you. You are hopelessly fixated on "forced"...
I frequently object to the use of 'forced' in an
evolutionary context -- but that is when whole
species (or populations) are said to be 'forced'
-- the utterly false 'adapt of die' 'aphorism'.
In this case Algis's use of 'forced' is fine.
Individuals often find themselves being forced
to do things that they'd rather not. (It happens to
all of us every day.) Those of us who are better
at it will generally leave more descendants than
those who are worse.
> > I'm sure I don't need to point out that my answer is very simple and
> > answers the problem absolutely: Place them on a stretch of flat,
> > treeless terrain submerged under water too deep for them to move
> > quadrupedally but too shallow for them to swim.
The chief problem with Algis's 'scenario' is
that it is hopelessly unrealistic. It's a bit like
'Waterworld', in that respect. (See the film?)
> > I am not suggesting that such a situation ever did occur for a
> > significantly long period of time but the point remains that such
> > situations occur daily all over the world in flooded riparian forests,
> > tidal mangrove swamps, beaches, lagoons etc.
Humans generally avoid such conditions.
Mothers with infants even more so. How
come that they are FATAL to babies under
six months? Such babies are poisoned
by small amounts of salt, and also by any
quantity or fresh water.
What actually happens when a 3-month-old
baby is dropped into deep water? How long
will it survive? How come we don't hear of
experiments about this kind of thing? Some
AAT'ers must have young infants, and be ready
to offer them up in the cause of science.
Paul.
Jim McGinn
> > However, when you consider the importance of mobility to the
> > survival of any species it does make sense that we would not
> > expect there to have been a significant locomotory disadvantage
> > associated with a shift to bipedalism.
>
> Any trait that makes the animal more efficient, better at getting
> food, better at avoiding predators, more reproductively successful is
> going to be selected for if it is a 'net gain' in fitness.
Right. Here you are making sense.
>
> > > Only waist deep water submerging flat terrain meets the
> > > criteria, admit it.
> >
> > Your criteria is Lamarckian.
>
> No it's not. Pure, absolute, neo-Darwinist adaptationism.
>
> > You seem to not grasp the fact that
> > even if a chimp spent it's whole life being "forced" to assume a
> > bipedal stance its offspring would not be any more inclined to
> > obligate bipedalism than any other chimp.
>
> And you don't seem to grasp that in every situation, of course,
> selection pressure is applied. I would have thought the risk of
> drowning was a significant enough pressure for you to acknowledge, but
> apparently not.
I do acknowlege this. And this is, maybe, the best argument against
aquatic models, wading or swimming.
Clearly this is a potential scenario where apes have
> little choice but to move bipedally but are under constant risk of
> drowning at the same time.
Unless you're theorizing that the whole continent of Africa (you're
not, are you?) was submerged under waist deep water one can only
wonder why they didn't simply chose to go to areas where the ground
was dry.
It seems pretty clear to me that those
> traits that favour strong and reliable bipedal locomotion in water
> would be strongly selected for.
>
> > IOW, there's nothing in
> > your scenario (it really isn't a scenario) that indicates why those
> > that are obligate bipeds would have a selective advantage (survival
> > and/or reproductive) over those that are faculative bipeds.
>
> That's absurd. They'd be better able to feed themselves, better able
> to avoid terrestrial predators (I accept at the cost of putting
> themselves at greater risk from aquatic ones), better able to keep
> cool, better able to find new sources of food and access to new sexual
> partners.
This is so contrived it's comical.
>
> > (And
> > this is in no small part due to the fact--which not only do you not
> > deny but, strangely enough, seem to consider to be a feature--that
> > faculative bipeds would be equally capable of bipedal behavior when
> > in this purported waste-high water environment as would obligate
> > bipeds.)
>
> But Jim, bipedalism must have started somwhere.
No duh.
And a model that
> actually is neutral to the fact that the earliest bipeds had no need
> of special traits is surely an advantage.
No, this is exactly my point. If they had, "no need of special
traits," like bipedalism then there would be no selective pressure.
None at all. (You just destroyed your theory.)
The fact that the model
> posits them in an environment with graded depths of water, *of course*
> produces evolutionary pressure for the types of changes that you (and
> Jason) seem to require.
Of course? This is complete nonsense. This graded environment stuff
is the epitome of Lamarckianism.
Shallower depths, less help, more need to
> evolve bipedal traits. It is a no brainer.
It's stupid. It's complete nonsense.
>
> > Moreover, you ignore the ecological realities associated
> > with surviving predation: how is it not obvious to you that your
> > wading apes would only be more vulnerable to predation (from crocs,
> > cats, and hyena) while wading rather than in their traditional treed
> > habitat? We'll never know the answers to these questions because
> > you don't deal with these shortcomings in a manner that even
> > remotely approaches explicitness. Like conventional theorists and
> > their vague hunting/scavenging/tool-using notions, you just pretend
> > not to notice that none of this makes sense when you actually try to
> > envision it in the context of chimpanzees transitioning to a new
> > lifestyle under real-world ecological conditions.
>
> I accept that the aquatic predation argument is a strong objection.
Lions, panthers, and hyenas aren't afraid of waste deep water either.
> However, predation is real enough in every arboreal and terrestrial
> habitat too (except Paul's islands - a good point in his model). I
> would argue that the dangers of croc predation are somewhat
> exaggerated and that smart apes would be able to outcompete relatively
> dumb reptiles in the long run. The earliest bipeds would have an
> absolutely clear cut escape route - climb a tree
Is it no obvious that the amount of habitat that has waste deep water
and trees is incredibly small. You have no sense of reality.
- which
> terrestrial/arboreal models do not provide against terrestrial
> carnivores. And later, smart apes would work out how to steal eggs
> from croc nests
Comical.
to keep their number down. (but not intentionally)
> Also, I would predict that some wetland habitats, e.g. those in
> isolated lagoons/mangrove swamps/small inland seas, new river systems
> caused by local volcanism are, are likely to have fewer aquatic
> predators than you seem to expect.
>
> On the contrary, it makes more sense the more seriously I consider it.
I new it would.
>
> > The scenario that Paul suggests, above, also has it's ecological
> > shortcomings--most notably with respect to making extravagant claims
> > about predator free habitat that require contrived situational
> > factors supposedly lasting for tens of thousands of years and claims
> > about group selection that disregards the basic requirements for a
> > group selective scenario--but it does not suffer from the blantant
> > disregard for evolutionary principles that is plainly evident in your
> > wading model.
>
> This Lammarkian thing is just nonsense, Jim. That you decided to
> attack the wading model on such flimsy grounds indicated to me that
> you haven't given it enough thought.
You've given it too much thought.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> > They'd fight to the death for control of those
> > water-holes. Those that used weapons
> > most effectively would win. Since they lived
> > on open ground, the weapons they'd use
> > would be rocks and clubs -- but they also
> > become pretty good at throwing rocks.
>
> > They'd have to forage but, given the open
> > sight lines, they'd always have to go armed,
> > in as large a party as was feasible. The
> > constant carrying of weapons would, in
> > effect, virtually abolish quadrupedalism.
> > Those that were least good at bipedalism
> > would be selected out -- because they'd be
> > the first to be killed or seriously injured.
>
> Why would those that used weapons most effectively win? Why not those
> with the biggest canines? Why not simply the biggest? When male
> gorillas or chimp alpha males launch an aggressive attack they tend to
> do so quadrupedally, what makes you think that this situation would
> suddenly make them adopt bipedality?
>
> I think your scenario would just cause the evolution of larger, more
> aggressive quadrupedal primates with large canines - rather like
> baboons.
I agree with everything Algis is saying here. Killer ape
notions don't predict hominids/humans. They don't predict
tool/weapons usage. They predict vicious apes.
Jim
John Wilkins
> wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Choclate is Substance, not Deity. Think of it as Brahman, and me (sorry,
> > Me) as Vishnu. It is said my My Consort that I am Mostly Chocolate.
>
> The mind boggles at the thought of which bits Your Consort thinks
> aren't Chocolate... :-)
>
The bits that determine my disposition, I think. She does not think me
sweet.
Paul Crowley
news:77a70442.03081...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> > They'd fight to the death for control of those
> > water-holes. Those that used weapons
> > most effectively would win. Since they lived
> > on open ground, the weapons they'd use
> > would be rocks and clubs -- but they also
> > become pretty good at throwing rocks.
>
> > They'd have to forage but, given the open
> > sight lines, they'd always have to go armed,
> > in as large a party as was feasible. The
> > constant carrying of weapons would, in
> > effect, virtually abolish quadrupedalism.
> > Those that were least good at bipedalism
> > would be selected out -- because they'd be
> > the first to be killed or seriously injured.
>
> Why would those that used weapons most effectively win? Why not those
> with the biggest canines?
Well, weapons are highly effective in fighting.
You can hit your opponent very hard, without
feeling any impression on your own fist, hand
or arm. I should have thought that fairly obvious.
The only question is why chimps don't use
weapons all the time -- they do use them on
occasion. And I have given the answer here
many, many times. They have to drop them
when they climb trees -- which they do a lot.
Fights are only liable to arise when your
opponent sees that you are not armed, and
then without warning, so you will always need
good 'natural' weapons. But once a 'chimp' is
away from trees, it need never drop its weapon.
> Why not simply the biggest?
Size helps, of course. But it also costs. And it
costs a lot more than a weapon. For the same
'input' a family could grow, say, three large
sons or five small ones. Allowing for a certain
amount of 'wastage' (sons dying, being sick on
the day, etc.) more smaller ones -- working
together -- might be a better bet. Also, they'd
often have to survive intense periods of drought
and hunger, and large males are notoriously
poor at doing that.
> When male
> gorillas or chimp alpha males launch an aggressive attack they tend to
> do so quadrupedally, what makes you think that this situation would
> suddenly make them adopt bipedality?
Because their opponents had clubs in their
hands? Which would you put your money on?
Twenty bipedal guys with clubs against twenty
quadrupedal chimps? The chimps would be
faster, of course. But if you are defending a
water-hole, and they are dying with thirst, their
speed does not help them.
> I think your scenario would just cause the evolution of larger, more
> aggressive quadrupedal primates with large canines - rather like
> baboons.
You are not thinking clearly then. Also you are
ignoring the fossil evidence. Strongly associated
with bipedalism is a dramatic reduction in the
size of canines.
Your wading hypothesis, inevitably, explains
nothing about that. Nor does anything Jim says.
Nor does anything any standard PA says. (But
do they say anything at all?)
> > > Only waist deep water submerging flat terrain meets the criteria,
> > > admit it.
> >
> > Doesn't begin to register. In any case,
> > it would drown all the small children.
> > That's not a healthy scenario.
>
> There's not much of a place in your model for small children either,
They are 'inside the circle' -- or hiding
somewhere safe, while the fighting lasts.
In my scenario, infants are put down on
the ground to sleep, so they lose their
gripping feet -- and mothers are free, for
the first time, to walk bipedally.
> let's face it. In the wading model, the infants would simply get a
> ride on the adults shoulders, of course - exactly as happens with
> extant apes in such situation today.
In all normal populations, babies, infants
and small juveniles greatly outnumber adults.
There aren't enough shoulders to go around.
Sorry.
In any case, mixed parties are uncommon.
Males tend to go off and do their own thing --
in both chimps and in humans. Are you
claiming that your A'piths were more politically
correct in this respect? (Have I heard that claim
somewhere else?)
Paul.
Jim McGinn
> > I think your scenario would just cause the evolution of larger, more
> > aggressive quadrupedal primates with large canines - rather like
> > baboons.
>
> You are not thinking clearly then. Also you are
> ignoring the fossil evidence.
You are ignoring the extant evidence (more on this below).
> Strongly associated
> with bipedalism is a dramatic reduction in the
> size of canines.
>
> Your wading hypothesis, inevitably, explains
> nothing about that. Nor does anything Jim says.
The communal aspects of my scenario indicate a selective
advantage to cooperation between closely situated
(intracommunal) bands/troops. Your scenario, in contrast,
indicates constant opposition, not unlike what we
currently witness between groups of chimps. As Algis
points out, there is no selective advantage to loss of
canines in your model. And, as Algis also points out,
there is nothing in your model that would indicate why
they suddenly shifted to clubs for their group vs. group
battles. How is it not obvious that if it was this simple
we'd expect to see the same amongst extant apes? And we
don't.
> Nor does anything any standard PA says.
No need to belabour the obvious.
Jim
Paul Crowley
> The communal aspects of my scenario indicate a selective
> advantage to cooperation between closely situated
> (intracommunal) bands/troops. Your scenario, in contrast,
> indicates constant opposition, not unlike what we
> currently witness between groups of chimps.
My scenario would favour larger groups,
and, in due course, those that were best
at forming alliances.
> As Algis
> points out, there is no selective advantage to loss of
> canines in your model.
Large canines are 'expensive'. (Most male
chimps lose them as they age.) If you carry
a large club around with you all the time,
you don't need them, so there will be rapid
selection in favour of those with small
canines.
> And, as Algis also points out,
> there is nothing in your model that would indicate why
> they suddenly shifted to clubs for their group vs. group
> battles.
As I said, would you want to be part of a
group without clubs, seeking to take over
a water hole against a group which had
them?
> How is it not obvious that if it was this simple
> we'd expect to see the same amongst extant apes? And we
> don't.
Extant apes sleep in trees and spend much
of a normal day in them. You can't carry a
weapon around with you in a tree. How
many more times will I have to say this?
Paul.
Algis Kuliukas
> "Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > Why would those that used weapons most effectively win? Why not those
> > with the biggest canines?
>
> Well, weapons are highly effective in fighting.
> You can hit your opponent very hard, without
> feeling any impression on your own fist, hand
> or arm. I should have thought that fairly obvious.
Obvious for a biped, but not obvious for a quadruped. My thought
experiment was based on extant apes which are, at least on the ground,
quadrupedal. Hunt's study of chimps found that their (very limited -
around 3%) bipedality was almost all due to postural feeding - about
80%. The only behaviour remotely in your threat/agression area was a
category "respond to threat" which accounted for only 4.1% of those
bipedal incidents.
[p 400 in...
Hunt, Kevin D (1998). Ecological Morphology of Australopithecus
afarensis: Travelling Terrestrially, Eating Arboreally. In: Strasser,
Elizabeth; Fleagle, John G; Rosenberger, Alfred; McHenry, Henry
(eds.), (1998). Primate Locomotion: Recent Advances. Plenum Press
(New York)]
> The only question is why chimps don't use
> weapons all the time -- they do use them on
> occasion.
But it's vary rare even when looking specifically at chimp bipedality
- whether on the ground or in trees. You might argue that wading is
even rarer and - using Hunt's data, of course you'd be right. My point
is that simply changing the habitat to one that was regularly flooded
would greatly change the results in favour of wading bipedalism. I
just don't see how changing the habitat to *anything* could provide a
similar stimulus to 'bashing' bipedalism.
> And I have given the answer here
> many, many times. They have to drop them
> when they climb trees -- which they do a lot.
> Fights are only liable to arise when your
> opponent sees that you are not armed, and
> then without warning, so you will always need
> good 'natural' weapons. But once a 'chimp' is
> away from trees, it need never drop its weapon.
...And once it is bipedal, you mean. What I'm interested in are the
factors that led to that bipedalism, not the behaviours that may have
resulted from it.
> > Why not simply the biggest?
>
> Size helps, of course. But it also costs. And it
> costs a lot more than a weapon. For the same
> 'input' a family could grow, say, three large
> sons or five small ones. Allowing for a certain
> amount of 'wastage' (sons dying, being sick on
> the day, etc.) more smaller ones -- working
> together -- might be a better bet. Also, they'd
> often have to survive intense periods of drought
> and hunger, and large males are notoriously
> poor at doing that.
But Paul, you're postulating that aggressive competition between
groups of males led to the adoption of bipedalism. I put it to you
that the standard response in the animal world to that pressure is to
get bigger and stronger and grow some kind of weapon (teeth, claws,
horns etc) - why, on this ocassion do you think that for this
particular group of apes - bipedality through holding weapons would
result?
> > When male
> > gorillas or chimp alpha males launch an aggressive attack they tend to
> > do so quadrupedally, what makes you think that this situation would
> > suddenly make them adopt bipedality?
>
> Because their opponents had clubs in their
> hands? Which would you put your money on?
> Twenty bipedal guys with clubs against twenty
> quadrupedal chimps? The chimps would be
> faster, of course. But if you are defending a
> water-hole, and they are dying with thirst, their
> speed does not help them.
A little quadruepdal man armed with a big stick would get flattened by
a big, quadrupedal, silver back gorilla. In the world of primates size
matters. Besides, where did they get the clubs from? (I thought there
were no more trees) If it was a rock or a stone, how's that going to
help them?
> > I think your scenario would just cause the evolution of larger, more
> > aggressive quadrupedal primates with large canines - rather like
> > baboons.
>
> You are not thinking clearly then. Also you are
> ignoring the fossil evidence. Strongly associated
> with bipedalism is a dramatic reduction in the
> size of canines.
True, but that would indicate to me a less violent social make-up not
more so.
> Your wading hypothesis, inevitably, explains
> nothing about that. Nor does anything Jim says.
> Nor does anything any standard PA says. (But
> do they say anything at all?)
The aquarboreal model suggests that the earliest bipeds were
vegetarians, predominently feeders of sedges and other water-side
plants. It would posit them in a food rich habitat where females would
tend to dominate the social order rather like bonobos do. This also
would tend to reduce sexual dimorphism in canine size.
> > > > Only waist deep water submerging flat terrain meets the criteria,
> > > > admit it.
> > >
> > > Doesn't begin to register. In any case,
> > > it would drown all the small children.
> > > That's not a healthy scenario.
> >
> > There's not much of a place in your model for small children either,
>
> They are 'inside the circle' -- or hiding
> somewhere safe, while the fighting lasts.
> In my scenario, infants are put down on
> the ground to sleep, so they lose their
> gripping feet -- and mothers are free, for
> the first time, to walk bipedally.
Where is 'safe'? Your scenario sounds pretty scary to me. It sounds
like, for your model to work, the fighting has to be going on pretty
much all the time. I can't imagine that this violent world would be
one where a mother would put her infant down so that she was free to
go for a strole.
> > let's face it. In the wading model, the infants would simply get a
> > ride on the adults shoulders, of course - exactly as happens with
> > extant apes in such situation today.
>
> In all normal populations, babies, infants
> and small juveniles greatly outnumber adults.
> There aren't enough shoulders to go around.
> Sorry.
At least in the aquarboreal model there are safe places - the trees.
So the smallest infants could climb onto their mother whilst the older
ones stayed in the shallow water or climbed a tree for safety.
> In any case, mixed parties are uncommon.
> Males tend to go off and do their own thing --
> in both chimps and in humans. Are you
> claiming that your A'piths were more politically
> correct in this respect? (Have I heard that claim
> somewhere else?)
Not 'PC', just more bonobo-like. It would appear that the difficulty
of finding food and/or possible competition (or lack thereof) from
larger gorillas are the major causes of the differences between the
fision-fusion/male dominent social order of chimps and the larger,
more stable female dominent group of bonobos. In that regard, I think
in the aquarboreal model the LCA social system would be more
bonobo-like than chimp-like.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> al...@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote
> > And you don't seem to grasp that in every situation, of course,
> > selection pressure is applied. I would have thought the risk of
> > drowning was a significant enough pressure for you to acknowledge, but
> > apparently not.
>
> I do acknowlege this. And this is, maybe, the best argument against
> aquatic models, wading or swimming.
I agree. It is an argument against wading, swimming and diving. But,
it's a double-edged sword. Predation pressure is a selective force, it
acts to *improve* the locomotion. If you think the wading argument is
Lammarckian you can't also argue that it couldn't work dur to
excessive predation.
> Clearly this is a potential scenario where apes have
> > little choice but to move bipedally but are under constant risk of
> > drowning at the same time.
>
> Unless you're theorizing that the whole continent of Africa (you're
> not, are you?) was submerged under waist deep water one can only
> wonder why they didn't simply chose to go to areas where the ground
> was dry.
No, of course I'm not. Wetlands do account for a large area of the
world's surface and it was probably a much larger area in the Miocene
than it is today. I would have thought that any would-be ecologist
would be aware of that.
I am postulating that arboreal apes would naturally tend to continue
living in arboreal habitats. This means that they'd spread into
woodland that was coastal areas (mangrove swamps) and riparian
woodland alongside rivers. Both habitats, being prone to flooding, are
likely habitats where wading locmotion would clearly be regularly
required.
> It seems pretty clear to me that those
> > traits that favour strong and reliable bipedal locomotion in water
> > would be strongly selected for.
> >
> > > IOW, there's nothing in
> > > your scenario (it really isn't a scenario) that indicates why those
> > > that are obligate bipeds would have a selective advantage (survival
> > > and/or reproductive) over those that are faculative bipeds.
> >
> > That's absurd. They'd be better able to feed themselves, better able
> > to avoid terrestrial predators (I accept at the cost of putting
> > themselves at greater risk from aquatic ones), better able to keep
> > cool, better able to find new sources of food and access to new sexual
> > partners.
>
> This is so contrived it's comical.
Why? Which part do you have a problem with:
a) That arboreal apes might find themselves in habitats prone to
flooding, or
b) that, once there, they'd sometimes need to get into the water, or
c) that if they did get into the water they'd not do so for any
benefit.
[..]
> And a model that
> > actually is neutral to the fact that the earliest bipeds had no need
> > of special traits is surely an advantage.
>
> No, this is exactly my point. If they had, "no need of special
> traits," like bipedalism then there would be no selective pressure.
> None at all. (You just destroyed your theory.)
No!! You don't get it, do you?
The fact that in waist deep water having no special traits is no
disadvantage is a massive, unique, positive thing. All the other
models of bipedal origins have a difficulty here because they need to
theorise about some unusual motive that overcomes the rubicon against
bipedal movement that we see demonstrated by extant apes. The wading
model does not need this because in waist deep water the ape has no
choice but to move bipedally and it has no need of any adaptive trait
to do so. It's arboreal past has provided it with its orthograde
posture, which is sufficient in itself...
> The fact that the model
> > posits them in an environment with graded depths of water, *of course*
> > produces evolutionary pressure for the types of changes that you (and
> > Jason) seem to require.
>
> Of course? This is complete nonsense. This graded environment stuff
> is the epitome of Lamarckianism.
... but in shallower depths of water - which, of course, are always
present too - the ape is not necessarily forced to move bipedally and
would benefit from slight adaptive help. Don't you get it? It is
*exactly* in this sort of graded environment where adaptive evolution
is most likely to take place. Have you not read Dawkins discussing the
evolution of mimicry? It's the same thing. How you can call this
Lammarkian is beyond me. If I were you, I'd probably have to resort to
an insult.
> Shallower depths, less help, more need to
> > evolve bipedal traits. It is a no brainer.
>
> It's stupid. It's complete nonsense.
No, it's the very essence of evolutionary theory - a theory you claim
to be so expert in. I suggest you think a little more about what i'm
saying. Perhaps the penny will drop.
> >
> > > Moreover, you ignore the ecological realities associated
> > > with surviving predation: how is it not obvious to you that your
> > > wading apes would only be more vulnerable to predation (from crocs,
> > > cats, and hyena) while wading rather than in their traditional treed
> > > habitat? We'll never know the answers to these questions because
> > > you don't deal with these shortcomings in a manner that even
> > > remotely approaches explicitness. Like conventional theorists and
> > > their vague hunting/scavenging/tool-using notions, you just pretend
> > > not to notice that none of this makes sense when you actually try to
> > > envision it in the context of chimpanzees transitioning to a new
> > > lifestyle under real-world ecological conditions.
> >
> > I accept that the aquatic predation argument is a strong objection.
>
> Lions, panthers, and hyenas aren't afraid of waste deep water either.
True but with megatonnes of biomass of ungulates in more open habitats
I suspect there attentions would be elsewhere.
> > However, predation is real enough in every arboreal and terrestrial
> > habitat too (except Paul's islands - a good point in his model). I
> > would argue that the dangers of croc predation are somewhat
> > exaggerated and that smart apes would be able to outcompete relatively
> > dumb reptiles in the long run. The earliest bipeds would have an
> > absolutely clear cut escape route - climb a tree
>
> Is it no obvious that the amount of habitat that has waste deep water
> and trees is incredibly small. You have no sense of reality.
I don't think so. Have you read...
Mitsch, William J; Gosselink, James G (1993). Wetlands (2nd Edition).
Van Nostrand Reinhold (New York)?
Mangrove forest habitat and riparian woodland are large today, they
were almost certainly much larger in the Miocene. It is possible
(likely?) that apes evolved on the African/Thethys/Med coastline -
which would probably have been a massive wetland habitat.
> - which
> > terrestrial/arboreal models do not provide against terrestrial
> > carnivores. And later, smart apes would work out how to steal eggs
> > from croc nests
>
> Comical.
Why is it comical? There is evidence that chimps have stolen leopard
cubs. Humans are smart. It must have evolved since the LCA. What's
your problem?
Algis Kuliukas
Jim McGinn
> > The communal aspects of my scenario indicate a selective
> > advantage to cooperation between closely situated
> > (intracommunal) bands/troops. Your scenario, in contrast,
> > indicates constant opposition, not unlike what we
> > currently witness between groups of chimps.
>
> My scenario would favour larger groups,
> and, in due course, those that were best
> at forming alliances.
Unlike my scenario there is nothing in your scenario that
would indicate a selective advantage to cooperation
between closely situated (intracommunal) bands/troops.
>
> > As Algis
> > points out, there is no selective advantage to loss of
> > canines in your model.
>
> Large canines are 'expensive'. (Most male
> chimps lose them as they age.) If you carry
> a large club around with you all the time,
> you don't need them, so there will be rapid
> selection in favour of those with small
> canines.
Canines are cheap.
>
> > And, as Algis also points out,
> > there is nothing in your model that would indicate why
> > they suddenly shifted to clubs for their group vs. group
> > battles.
>
> As I said, would you want to be part of a
> group without clubs, seeking to take over
> a water hole against a group which had
> them?
Sure, but it is not this simple.
>
> > How is it not obvious that if it was this simple
> > we'd expect to see the same amongst extant apes? And we
> > don't.
>
> Extant apes sleep in trees and spend much
> of a normal day in them. You can't carry a
> weapon around with you in a tree. How
> many more times will I have to say this?
Nonsense.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> I should have known you'd play the revisionist interpretation game, Jim.
> That's no better thant he way creationists deal with Darwin. How about
> you actually *read* chapter 27 of vol II of the Variation? Arguing from
> a total lack of knowledge is not becoming.
I read it quite some time ago. It's plainly foolish
to say that Darwin was Lamarkian. I knew you wouldn't
be able to substantiate this claim. It'd be like saying
the pope is an atheist.
>
> Darwin accepted use-and-disuse, blending inheritance, and acquired
> inheritance. For example, page 384 of the Appleton edition (which I
> happen to have right next to me) - he states, clearly and unambiguously,
> that the units of inheritance - gemmules - are changed by the changed
> conditions of life organisms have undergone in the course of their
> development.
Clearly and unambiguously there is no mention
of use or disuse. (You are misinterpreting the
phrase, "conditions of life organisms have
undergone." He's talking about evolution here,
not use and disuse. And the word "development"
here is *not* referring to ontology. Again,
he's talking about evolution.)
On page 388 he clearly states that variability is caused by
> changed conditions affecting the sex organs.
Clearly and unambiguously there is no mention
of use or disuse. You're whacked if you think
anything here infer use and disuse.
On page 391 he even adduces
> the docked tail and Jewish circumcision objections to neo-Lamarckian
> inheritance.
Clearly and unambiguously he is *disputing*
Lamarkian use and disuse.
>
> I do not intend to type out the several paragraphs involved - I'm sure
> the text is online somewhere, but if not - go find a book and read it
> yourself, in context. Don't presume Darwin adopted the view you happen
> to believe in just because it is yours.
I knew you didn't know what you were talking about.
This newsgroup is filled with idiots.
You are infected by a disease called creative reading.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<ac6a5059.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > al...@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote
>
> > > And you don't seem to grasp that in every situation, of course,
> > > selection pressure is applied. I would have thought the risk of
> > > drowning was a significant enough pressure for you to acknowledge, but
> > > apparently not.
> >
> > I do acknowlege this. And this is, maybe, the best argument against
> > aquatic models, wading or swimming.
>
> I agree. It is an argument against wading, swimming and diving. But,
> it's a double-edged sword. Predation pressure is a selective force, it
> acts to *improve* the locomotion. If you think the wading argument is
> Lammarckian you can't also argue that it couldn't work dur to
> excessive predation.
Excessive predation?
>
> > Clearly this is a potential scenario where apes have
> > > little choice but to move bipedally but are under constant risk of
> > > drowning at the same time.
> >
> > Unless you're theorizing that the whole continent of Africa (you're
> > not, are you?) was submerged under waist deep water one can only
> > wonder why they didn't simply chose to go to areas where the ground
> > was dry.
>
> No, of course I'm not. Wetlands do account for a large area of the
> world's surface and it was probably a much larger area in the Miocene
> than it is today.
The only climatic thing that is significance about the Miocene was the
introduction of monsoon habitat--habitat that contains a severe dry
season. There is a principle in the earth sciences called,
uniformitarianism. Look it up.
I would have thought that any would-be ecologist
> would be aware of that.
>
> I am postulating that arboreal apes would naturally tend to continue
> living in arboreal habitats. This means that they'd spread into
> woodland that was coastal areas (mangrove swamps) and riparian
> woodland alongside rivers. Both habitats, being prone to flooding, are
> likely habitats where wading locmotion would clearly be regularly
> required.
Sounds more like jungle habitat, like we find in West Africa.
>
> > It seems pretty clear to me that those
> > > traits that favour strong and reliable bipedal locomotion in water
> > > would be strongly selected for.
> > >
> > > > IOW, there's nothing in
> > > > your scenario (it really isn't a scenario) that indicates why those
> > > > that are obligate bipeds would have a selective advantage (survival
> > > > and/or reproductive) over those that are faculative bipeds.
> > >
> > > That's absurd. They'd be better able to feed themselves, better able
> > > to avoid terrestrial predators (I accept at the cost of putting
> > > themselves at greater risk from aquatic ones), better able to keep
> > > cool, better able to find new sources of food and access to new sexual
> > > partners.
> >
> > This is so contrived it's comical.
>
> Why? Which part do you have a problem with:
> a) That arboreal apes might find themselves in habitats prone to
> flooding, or
Yes, they'd just move on.
> b) that, once there, they'd sometimes need to get into the water, or
> c) that if they did get into the water they'd not do so for any
> benefit.
The whole thing.
>
> [..]
> > And a model that
> > > actually is neutral to the fact that the earliest bipeds had no need
> > > of special traits is surely an advantage.
> >
> > No, this is exactly my point. If they had, "no need of special
> > traits," like bipedalism then there would be no selective pressure.
> > None at all. (You just destroyed your theory.)
>
> No!! You don't get it, do you?
>
> The fact that in waist deep water having no special traits is no
> disadvantage is a massive, unique, positive thing. All the other
> models of bipedal origins have a difficulty here because they need to
> theorise about some unusual motive that overcomes the rubicon against
> bipedal movement that we see demonstrated by extant apes.
Oh, I see what you are saying. But you don't mean, "all the other
models of bipedal origins," you mean all the other LOCOMOTORY BASED
models of bipedal origins. You were coyly trying to slide this by us.
You know for a fact that rock-throwing stick-wielding hypotheses on
bipedal origins don't have this rubicon, and you were hoping I woudn't
notice this omission.
But yes, the other locomotory based models do have a problem in that
the earliest derivations of bipedalism, it seems, could only have
resulted in a locomotory disadvantage. My model, in contrast, has no
need for a locomotory advantage and, in fact, I'm quite happy with the
locomotory disadvantage in that my model also postulates a reduction
in locomotory behavior as they shift to a more situated and communal
existence.
Why are you so stuck on bipedalism affording a locomotory advantage?
The wading
> model does not need this because in waist deep water the ape has no
> choice but to move bipedally and it has no need of any adaptive trait
> to do so. It's arboreal past has provided it with its orthograde
> posture, which is sufficient in itself...
>
> > The fact that the model
> > > posits them in an environment with graded depths of water, *of course*
> > > produces evolutionary pressure for the types of changes that you (and
> > > Jason) seem to require.
> >
> > Of course? This is complete nonsense. This graded environment stuff
> > is the epitome of Lamarckianism.
>
> ... but in shallower depths of water - which, of course, are always
> present too - the ape is not necessarily forced to move bipedally and
> would benefit from slight adaptive help. Don't you get it? It is
> *exactly* in this sort of graded environment where adaptive evolution
> is most likely to take place.
There is no need for graded environments for adaptive evolution. This
is pure pseudo science.
Have you not read Dawkins discussing the
> evolution of mimicry? It's the same thing. How you can call this
> Lammarkian is beyond me. If I were you, I'd probably have to resort to
> an insult.
You're almost as dumb as Michael Clark. (How's that for an insult.)
>
> > Shallower depths, less help, more need to
> > > evolve bipedal traits. It is a no brainer.
> >
> > It's stupid. It's complete nonsense.
>
> No, it's the very essence of evolutionary theory - a theory you claim
> to be so expert in. I suggest you think a little more about what i'm
> saying. Perhaps the penny will drop.
The funny thing is I know exactly what you are saying. It's just very
difficult to explain to you how wrong your approach to natural
selection is because you have such a myopic understanding of natural
selection. It's the kind of understanding I can see one arriving at
if their whole understanding of natural selection was based on
Dawkin's books.
Here's a paper, taken from a book, that you might want to check out.
It indicates an approach to evolution/ecology that is much more
sophisticated than what you'd find from Dawkins:
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7691.pdf
>
> > >
> > > > Moreover, you ignore the ecological realities associated
> > > > with surviving predation: how is it not obvious to you that your
> > > > wading apes would only be more vulnerable to predation (from crocs,
> > > > cats, and hyena) while wading rather than in their traditional treed
> > > > habitat? We'll never know the answers to these questions because
> > > > you don't deal with these shortcomings in a manner that even
> > > > remotely approaches explicitness. Like conventional theorists and
> > > > their vague hunting/scavenging/tool-using notions, you just pretend
> > > > not to notice that none of this makes sense when you actually try to
> > > > envision it in the context of chimpanzees transitioning to a new
> > > > lifestyle under real-world ecological conditions.
> > >
> > > I accept that the aquatic predation argument is a strong objection.
> >
> > Lions, panthers, and hyenas aren't afraid of waste deep water either.
>
> True but with megatonnes of biomass of ungulates in more open habitats
> I suspect there attentions would be elsewhere.
But this is only because chimps are smart enough to avoid wading.
>
> > > However, predation is real enough in every arboreal and terrestrial
> > > habitat too (except Paul's islands - a good point in his model). I
> > > would argue that the dangers of croc predation are somewhat
> > > exaggerated and that smart apes would be able to outcompete relatively
> > > dumb reptiles in the long run. The earliest bipeds would have an
> > > absolutely clear cut escape route - climb a tree
> >
> > Is it no obvious that the amount of habitat that has waste deep water
> > and trees is incredibly small. You have no sense of reality.
>
> I don't think so. Have you read...
> Mitsch, William J; Gosselink, James G (1993). Wetlands (2nd Edition).
> Van Nostrand Reinhold (New York)?
>
> Mangrove forest habitat and riparian woodland are large today, they
> were almost certainly much larger in the Miocene. It is possible
> (likely?) that apes evolved on the African/Thethys/Med coastline -
> which would probably have been a massive wetland habitat.
How do you isolate them so that gene flow from chimps residing in the
99% of habitat that isn't wetland doesn't usurp the evolutionary
trends at these wetlands? (You can't.)
>
> > - which
> > > terrestrial/arboreal models do not provide against terrestrial
> > > carnivores. And later, smart apes would work out how to steal eggs
> > > from croc nests
> >
> > Comical.
>
> Why is it comical? There is evidence that chimps have stolen leopard
> cubs. Humans are smart. It must have evolved since the LCA. What's
> your problem?
This is ludicrous. Have you seen the places crocs lay their eggs?
And what does the fact that humans are smart have to do with the LCA?
Jim
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> Then we would have field observations of non human primates walking
bipedally in these "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
beaches, lagoons etc", wouldn't we? Except we don't...
1) You don't because you refuse to see it. Just take a wildlife film of
lowland gorillas who walk on 2 legs, knuckle-walk, play & sit in forest
swamps. Never seen illustrations of orangs, bonobos, common chimps walking
on 2 legs in swamps?? No? You're very ill-informed.
2) Swamps are in rel.open places, where the animals can be seen more easily.
The ones that spent too much time in swamps are probably selected out.
3) Even if there were no living hominids-pongids spending some time in
forest swamps today, this does not mean their ancestors didn't do that. In
fact, the anatomical indications are clear enough for everybody who isn't
prejudiced by savanna & other ideas.
Paul Crowley
> > > Why would those that used weapons most effectively win? Why not those
> > > with the biggest canines?
> >
> > Well, weapons are highly effective in fighting.
> > You can hit your opponent very hard, without
> > feeling any impression on your own fist, hand
> > or arm. I should have thought that fairly obvious.
>
> Obvious for a biped, but not obvious for a quadruped.
It is obvious for chimps -- they use clubs on
leopards.
> My thought
> experiment was based on extant apes which are, at least on the ground,
> quadrupedal. Hunt's study of chimps found that their (very limited -
> around 3%) bipedality was almost all due to postural feeding - about
> 80%. The only behaviour remotely in your threat/agression area was a
> category "respond to threat" which accounted for only 4.1% of those
> bipedal incidents.
Since those animals spent most of their lives
in trees, what else would you expect?
> > The only question is why chimps don't use
> > weapons all the time -- they do use them on
> > occasion.
>
> But it's vary rare even when looking specifically at chimp bipedality
> - whether on the ground or in trees. You might argue that wading is
> even rarer and - using Hunt's data, of course you'd be right.
I do not argue that. I say (a) remove all predators
(b) let the animals move away from trees;
(c) then they will be much more likely to
be bipedal.
> My point
> is that simply changing the habitat to one that was regularly flooded
> would greatly change the results in favour of wading bipedalism.
You can give no reason why there should
be population subject to those conditions
on a long-term basis, _isolated_ from its
parent one -- for a long time. You can find
no such population living in such conditions
even for a short-term.
> I just don't see how changing the habitat to *anything*
> could provide a similar stimulus to 'bashing' bipedalism.
It is largely the removal of all predators
and the ability to leave the trees.
> > And I have given the answer here
> > many, many times. They have to drop them
> > when they climb trees -- which they do a lot.
> > Fights are only liable to arise when your
> > opponent sees that you are not armed, and
> > then without warning, so you will always need
> > good 'natural' weapons. But once a 'chimp' is
> > away from trees, it need never drop its weapon.
>
> ...And once it is bipedal, you mean.
No. Chimps use weapons now. But they drop
them as soon as they climb trees.
> What I'm interested in are the
> factors that led to that bipedalism, not the behaviours that may have
> resulted from it.
Distancing from climbable trees.
> > Size helps, of course. But it also costs. And it
> > costs a lot more than a weapon. For the same
> > 'input' a family could grow, say, three large
> > sons or five small ones. Allowing for a certain
> > amount of 'wastage' (sons dying, being sick on
> > the day, etc.) more smaller ones -- working
> > together -- might be a better bet. Also, they'd
> > often have to survive intense periods of drought
> > and hunger, and large males are notoriously
> > poor at doing that.
>
> But Paul, you're postulating that aggressive competition between
> groups of males led to the adoption of bipedalism.
Only in association with removal of predators
and a distancing from trees.
> I put it to you
> that the standard response in the animal world to that pressure is to
> get bigger and stronger and grow some kind of weapon (teeth, claws,
> horns etc)
Chimps are under that pressure now, but do
not get bigger.
> - why, on this ocassion do you think that for this
> particular group of apes - bipedality through holding weapons would
> result?
(a) remove all predators
(b) let the animals move away from trees;
> > Because their opponents had clubs in their
> > hands? Which would you put your money on?
> > Twenty bipedal guys with clubs against twenty
> > quadrupedal chimps? The chimps would be
> > faster, of course. But if you are defending a
> > water-hole, and they are dying with thirst, their
> > speed does not help them.
>
> A little quadruepdal man armed with a big stick would get flattened by
> a big, quadrupedal, silver back gorilla. In the world of primates size
> matters.
Sure, but our competitors are the same size.
Only one uses clubs, the other doesn't.
> Besides, where did they get the clubs from? (I thought there
> were no more trees)
There were enough to provide fruit and --
branches on occasion.
> If it was a rock or a stone, how's that going to
> help them?
They would be used too -- but again their use
substantially rules out quadrupedalism
> > You are not thinking clearly then. Also you are
> > ignoring the fossil evidence. Strongly associated
> > with bipedalism is a dramatic reduction in the
> > size of canines.
>
> True, but that would indicate to me a less violent social make-up not
> more so.
So humans went wrong later? Something
about leaving the Garden of Eden and a
serpent?
> > Your wading hypothesis, inevitably, explains
> > nothing about that. Nor does anything Jim says.
> > Nor does anything any standard PA says. (But
> > do they say anything at all?)
>
> The aquarboreal
I switch off when I see that 'word'. Sorry.
I find bullshit hard to take.
> model suggests that the earliest bipeds were
> vegetarians, predominently feeders of sedges and other water-side
> plants.
Sure. There's a real niche for primates when
competing with rhinos, hippos and bovids.
They fit right in to that scene.
> > > There's not much of a place in your model for small children either,
> >
> > They are 'inside the circle' -- or hiding
> > somewhere safe, while the fighting lasts.
> > In my scenario, infants are put down on
> > the ground to sleep, so they lose their
> > gripping feet -- and mothers are free, for
> > the first time, to walk bipedally.
>
> Where is 'safe'? Your scenario sounds pretty scary to me. It sounds
> like, for your model to work, the fighting has to be going on pretty
> much all the time.
Why? Once your band controls the water-
hole, it just has to discourage others from
trying to take it from you. The males will
make themselves conspicuous with big
clubs whenever they get worried about a
threat.
> I can't imagine that this violent world would be
> one where a mother would put her infant down so that she was free to
> go for a strole.
It's the same problem as mothers face
among chimps, gorillas, lions, hyenas,
wolves, etc., etc.
Paul.
Rich Travsky
The full quote is "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
beaches, lagoons etc".
You have a few rare observations of bipedal behavior in a few watery
places not matching Algis' claims, but far more are observed on *land*.
Why do you think that is???
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F36F888...@hotmMOVEail.com>...
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F3306F7...@hotmMOVEail.com>...
> > >
> > > > Thanks for your contrived attempts.
> > >
> > > Of course it's contrived. But it still exposes a serious point. To the
> > > question 'what conditions would force an ape to move bipedally for as
> > > long as the conditions prevailed?' you have no clear answer.
> >
> > Neither do you. You are hopelessly fixated on "forced"...
>
> At least I have a "forced". The alternative is "we
> wonder/think/believe/hope."
That's supposed to be meaningful?
> > > I'm sure I don't need to point out that my answer is very simple and
> > > answers the problem absolutely: Place them on a stretch of flat,
> > > treeless terrain submerged under water too deep for them to move
> > > quadrupedally but too shallow for them to swim.
> > >
> > > I am not suggesting that such a situation ever did occur for a
> > > significantly long period of time but the point remains that such
> > > situations occur daily all over the world in flooded riparian forests,
> > > tidal mangrove swamps, beaches, lagoons etc.
> >
> > Then we would have field observations of non human primates walking
> > bipedally in these "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
> > beaches, lagoons etc", wouldn't we? Except we don't...
>
> You may not have noticed, but apes are on the verge of extinction due
> to the extreme pressure of competition from another member of
> hominoidae. The habitats where extant apes might have been expected to
> perform like this have long since been taken over by H. sapiens.
How many chimps were ever observed or said to be at beaches?
> > > And yet, this is the one model that seems to have been completely
> > > ignored by PA.
> >
> > Ever wonder why?
>
> Er, yes. That's why I've spent so much of the last eight years of my
> life studying the problem.
You have wasted your time.
Rich Travsky
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F36F888...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > > To the question 'what conditions would force an
> > > ape to move bipedally for as long as the conditions
> > > prevailed?' you have no clear answer.
> >
> > Neither do you. You are hopelessly fixated on "forced"...
>
> I frequently object to the use of 'forced' in an
> evolutionary context -- but that is when whole
> species (or populations) are said to be 'forced'
> -- the utterly false 'adapt of die' 'aphorism'.
>
> In this case Algis's use of 'forced' is fine.
> Individuals often find themselves being forced
> to do things that they'd rather not. (It happens to
> all of us every day.) Those of us who are better
> at it will generally leave more descendants than
> those who are worse.
Actually, it is not fine. The contrived conditions would, in
the wild, be dealt with by the population simply moving out of the
area. Otherwise, you have to postulate incredibly huge flooded/watery
areas that would then result in a morphological change. Primates
are land creatures, they developed on land and they lived on land.
To have one little group get stuck in water and then have that
group somehow then leave that water as bipedal goes against
everything in the background of that land species. As you say,
unrealistic.
> > > I'm sure I don't need to point out that my answer is very simple and
> > > answers the problem absolutely: Place them on a stretch of flat,
> > > treeless terrain submerged under water too deep for them to move
> > > quadrupedally but too shallow for them to swim.
>
> The chief problem with Algis's 'scenario' is
> that it is hopelessly unrealistic. It's a bit like
> 'Waterworld', in that respect. (See the film?)
Don't remind me. Costner with gills and webbed feet ARRGH.
Rich Travsky
> [...]
> Obvious for a biped, but not obvious for a quadruped. My thought
> experiment was based on extant apes which are, at least on the ground,
> quadrupedal. Hunt's study of chimps found that their (very limited -
> around 3%) bipedality was almost all due to postural feeding - about
> 80%. The only behaviour remotely in your threat/agression area was a
> category "respond to threat" which accounted for only 4.1% of those
> bipedal incidents.
>
> [p 400 in...
> Hunt, Kevin D (1998). Ecological Morphology of Australopithecus
> afarensis: Travelling Terrestrially, Eating Arboreally. In: Strasser,
> Elizabeth; Fleagle, John G; Rosenberger, Alfred; McHenry, Henry
> (eds.), (1998). Primate Locomotion: Recent Advances. Plenum Press
> (New York)]
See
http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/hunt_abs.html
...
Although chimpanzees prefer dense, moist forest, most of their bipedalism
was in dryer habitats. Perhaps something about drier ecozones elicits
bipedalism.
Hmmm. More bipedal under *dry* conditions...
See also the interview
http://www.indiana.edu/~alumni/magtalk/jan-feb01/evolution-apes.html
...
Hunt's initial observations are promising. The chimpanzees at Semliki
consistently stand on two legs when feeding, as well as when fighting
and carrying their young.
...
> [...]
Jim McGinn
<snip>
> (b) let the animals move away from trees;
They wouldn't, and didn't, move away from trees. In fact
the fossil evidence indicates that A'piths maintained tree
climbing adaptations.
<snip>
> > The aquarboreal
>
> I switch off when I see that 'word'. Sorry.
> I find bullshit hard to take.
I have the same problem. I also have the same problem
with predator free islands that suddenly emerge, chimp
vs. chimp club battles, and a'piths domesticating canines.
<snip>
Jim
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > Then we would have field observations of non human primates walking
bipedally in these "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
beaches, lagoons etc", wouldn't we? Except we don't...
> > 1) You don't because you refuse to see it. Just take a wildlife film of
lowland gorillas who walk on 2 legs, knuckle-walk, play & sit in forest
swamps. Never seen illustrations of orangs, bonobos, common chimps walking
on 2 legs in swamps?? No? You're very ill-informed.
Travsky agrees.
> > 2) Swamps are in rel.open places, where the animals can be seen more
easily. The ones that spent too much time in swamps are probably selected
out.
Agrees.
> > 3) Even if there were no living hominids-pongids spending some time in
forest swamps today, this does not mean their ancestors didn't do that. In
fact, the anatomical indications are clear enough for everybody who isn't
prejudiced by savanna & other ideas.
Agrees.
> The full quote is "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
beaches, lagoons etc".
Yes.
> You have a few rare observations of bipedal behavior in a few watery
places not matching Algis' claims, but far more are observed on *land*. Why
do you think that is???
???
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > Obvious for a biped, but not obvious for a quadruped. My thought
experiment was based on extant apes which are, at least on the ground,
quadrupedal. Hunt's study of chimps found that their (very limited - around
3%) bipedality was almost all due to postural feeding - about 80%. The only
behaviour remotely in your threat/agression area was a category "respond to
threat" which accounted for only 4.1% of those bipedal incidents. [p 400
in...Hunt, Kevin D (1998). Ecological Morphology of Australopithecus
afarensis: Travelling Terrestrially, Eating Arboreally. In: Strasser,
Elizabeth; Fleagle, John G; Rosenberger, Alfred; McHenry, Henry (eds.),
(1998). Primate Locomotion: Recent Advances. Plenum Press (New York)] See
http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/hunt_abs.html Chimpanzee Food-Getting Strategies
Hint at the Origin of Bipedalism - Where fossil hominid morphology differs
from that of living humans, paleontologists can infer that the hominids
behaved differently, too. The less like humans the fossils are, however, the
more difficult extrapolations from humans become. For some traits, the very
earliest hominids resemble chimpanzees more than humans, suggesting that
these hominid -- or their recent ancestor -- shared some locomotor behaviors
with chimps, as well.
Or were unique. Humans are derived (live now), chimps are derived from the
LCA (live now).
>As bipedal apes
Misleading: short legs, bent knees, bent hips... unlike "bipedal" humans.
>, early hominids must have faced many of the same challenges living
primates do, chief among them finding food. Periodic food shortages make
starvation a risk, but poor diet also increases susceptibility to disease
and the risk of predation. Food-getting dominates the chimp time-budget, as
it likely did with early hominids. It is reasonble, then, to expect that the
australopithecine body was evolved to makes postures and locomotion
associated with food-getting energy-efficient and comfortable. In keeping
with this expectation, it is notable that 80% of chimpanzee bipedalism
occurred most often during feeding, with no other context making up more
than 4%.
What had he expected? For an ex wader-climber it's easier to go on all 4s &
easier to pick fruits on 2 legs.
>Chimps stabilized their arboreal bipedal postures by gripping an overhead
branch, a behavior that may hint at why early hominid shoulders are
chimp-like. Chimpanzee habitat use during bipedalism is intriguing. Although
chimpanzees prefer dense, moist forest, most of their bipedalism was in
dryer habitats.
Most students say otherwise AFAIK: that bipedalism is more frequent in
forest than in savanna chimps. But even so, it does in no way contradict our
aquarobreal LCA hypothesis.
>Perhaps something about drier ecozones elicits bipedalism.
"perhaps" - he man is telling just-so stories.
>One test of the possible link between habitat and bipedalism would be to
study chimpanzee locomotion and posture in a environment closely similar to
that of our last common ancestor.
Swamp forests, he means?
>The chimpanzees I study at the Semliki-Toro Wildlife Reserve in Uganda live
in such a habitat.
In what habitat?? He postulates that the LCA lived in some habitat...
>Among the lessons Semliki has for us is how profoundly mosaic and
reticulate early hominid environments were.
He doesn't know what he's talking about: he only postulates some habitat,
without any indication. He believes something & then collects some
"evidence" to prove this story.
>At Semliki, savanna borders to within feet of forest habitats, and both
intersect with lake-margin and riverine ecozones. A fossil assemblage from
Semliki would likely contain both forest and savanna biomes, yet chimpanzees
very rarely venture out of the forest. This suggests caution in interpreting
fossil assemblages, and reaffirms the value of habitat reconstruction -- and
the behavioral reconstructions resulting from them -- that draw on dental
morphology, trace element analysis, dental microwear and positional anatomy,
in addition to fossil assemblage evidence.
I bet he hasn't even considered wading-climbing. Or else postulates for some
prejudiced reason it could not have been swampy forests. The problem with
short-sighted people like Travsky is that they only see living chimps &
humans, and believe the LCA must have been somewhere in the middle, halfway
trees & ground, or halfway forest & open. But there's no middle in this
case. As long as they don't see this, we're talking to dummies. To explain
all human & chimp features you need more. The only habitat that can easily
explain all we know about chimp & human locomotion & diet is to start from
swampy/flooded/mangrove forests: tool use, tendency to bipedality, climbing
arms overhead, etc. etc. These habitats were probably abundant in the wetter
& hotter Miocene, and believing that the H/P LCA could have lived anywhere
but for some obscure reason certainly not in swamp forests is extremely
biased.
Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Ross Macfarlane
>
> http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/hunt_abs.html
...
> ... it is notable that 80% of chimpanzee bipedalism occurred most often during feeding, with no other context making up more than 4%.
Algis?
Ross Macfarlane
Algis Kuliukas
What? This is not news. I've been quoting Hunt's excellent work for
years. In fact it was Hunt's paper that led me to believe that the
route to understanding this problem is to look at the behaviour of
extant apes.
As he wrote (p 183)...
"Contexts that elicit bipedalism in extant apes may provide evidence
of the selective pressures that led to hominid bipedalism."
Hunt, Kevin (1994). The Evolution of human bipedality: ecology and
functional morphology. Journal of Human Evolution Vol:26 Pages:183-202
Of course, if you choose to observe apes that do not live near shallow
water or have no real incentive to ever get their feet wet it is not
surprising to find that wading does not figure on the list of
motivations for bipedality.
My point, which I have made so often I'm beginning to wonder if you
ever read what I write, is that if Hunt had studied chimps at Conkuati
(island refuge in the middle of the Congo river from the bush meat
trade) instead of Gombe or Similiki then his data would have been
*massively* different and wading in water would have dwarfed his
postural feeding motivator.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> al...@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote in message news:<77a70442.0308...@posting.google.com>...
> > I agree. It is an argument against wading, swimming and diving. But,
> > it's a double-edged sword. Predation pressure is a selective force, it
> > acts to *improve* the locomotion. If you think the wading argument is
> > Lammarckian you can't also argue that it couldn't work dur to
> > excessive predation.
>
> Excessive predation?
I thought that was you're point - wading apes would get predated upon
so much it would force them out of existence.
[..]
> > No, of course I'm not. Wetlands do account for a large area of the
> > world's surface and it was probably a much larger area in the Miocene
> > than it is today.
>
> The only climatic thing that is significance about the Miocene was the
> introduction of monsoon habitat--habitat that contains a severe dry
> season. There is a principle in the earth sciences called,
> uniformitarianism. Look it up.
Surely, though. The area in the north of Africa and southern Eurasia
surrounding the Tethys/Med Seas were, at the time of the Miocene
undergoing repeated flooding/dessication cycles. The whole part of the
world was in a constant state of flux between land and sea. Islands
would have formed and disappeared regularly. Such a habitat is very
complex and comprised of several different strands - but perhaps it
can be best characterised as 'wet.' This, it seems, is where great
apes evolved.
> I would have thought that any would-be ecologist
> > would be aware of that.
> >
> > I am postulating that arboreal apes would naturally tend to continue
> > living in arboreal habitats. This means that they'd spread into
> > woodland that was coastal areas (mangrove swamps) and riparian
> > woodland alongside rivers. Both habitats, being prone to flooding, are
> > likely habitats where wading locmotion would clearly be regularly
> > required.
>
> Sounds more like jungle habitat, like we find in West Africa.
Not quite. The Conngo basin is very much land locked. I'm postulating
that in the late Miocene there would have been a huge wooded wetland
habitat to the north.
[..]
> > > This is so contrived it's comical.
> >
> > Why? Which part do you have a problem with:
> > a) That arboreal apes might find themselves in habitats prone to
> > flooding, or
>
> Yes, they'd just move on.
What if they couldn't? Why would they move on if the habitat provided
enough food and was relatively free of predators?
> > b) that, once there, they'd sometimes need to get into the water, or
> > c) that if they did get into the water they'd not do so for any
> > benefit.
>
> The whole thing.
So, you don't accept that primates would ever get caught in places
surrounded by water? That's just sooooo far fetched. Impossible. Look
at a projected map of north Africa around the mid/late Miocene - you
know somewhere around where many of the miocene ape fossils have been
found. Tell me what you see.
[..]
> > No!! You don't get it, do you?
> >
> > The fact that in waist deep water having no special traits is no
> > disadvantage is a massive, unique, positive thing. All the other
> > models of bipedal origins have a difficulty here because they need to
> > theorise about some unusual motive that overcomes the rubicon against
> > bipedal movement that we see demonstrated by extant apes.
>
> Oh, I see what you are saying. But you don't mean, "all the other
> models of bipedal origins," you mean all the other LOCOMOTORY BASED
> models of bipedal origins. You were coyly trying to slide this by us.
> You know for a fact that rock-throwing stick-wielding hypotheses on
> bipedal origins don't have this rubicon, and you were hoping I woudn't
> notice this omission.
But bipedalism, you may have noticed Jim, *is* locomotion. Rock
throwing, stick wielding, fruit picking, threat displaying, penile
displaying etc are postural not locomotion. That's the problem with
most models of bipedal origins, they don't even involve locomotion.
And, of course, that is another great strength of the wading model.
> But yes, the other locomotory based models do have a problem in that
> the earliest derivations of bipedalism, it seems, could only have
> resulted in a locomotory disadvantage. My model, in contrast, has no
> need for a locomotory advantage and, in fact, I'm quite happy with the
> locomotory disadvantage in that my model also postulates a reduction
> in locomotory behavior as they shift to a more situated and communal
> existence.
Suddenly, the credability of your hypothesis (in terms of an
explanation for bipedal *locomotion*) disappears into thin air.
> Why are you so stuck on bipedalism affording a locomotory advantage?
Duh. Because bipedal locomotion *is* locomotion, Jim. I'm staggered
that you find this point so irrelevant.
> The wading
> > model does not need this because in waist deep water the ape has no
> > choice but to move bipedally and it has no need of any adaptive trait
> > to do so. It's arboreal past has provided it with its orthograde
> > posture, which is sufficient in itself...
> >
> > > The fact that the model
> > > > posits them in an environment with graded depths of water, *of course*
> > > > produces evolutionary pressure for the types of changes that you (and
> > > > Jason) seem to require.
> > >
> > > Of course? This is complete nonsense. This graded environment stuff
> > > is the epitome of Lamarckianism.
> >
> > ... but in shallower depths of water - which, of course, are always
> > present too - the ape is not necessarily forced to move bipedally and
> > would benefit from slight adaptive help. Don't you get it? It is
> > *exactly* in this sort of graded environment where adaptive evolution
> > is most likely to take place.
>
> There is no need for graded environments for adaptive evolution. This
> is pure pseudo science.
Perhaps there is no need for them, but if there is a graded
environment evolution can proceed smoother, quicker, easier.
[..]
> > No, it's the very essence of evolutionary theory - a theory you claim
> > to be so expert in. I suggest you think a little more about what i'm
> > saying. Perhaps the penny will drop.
>
> The funny thing is I know exactly what you are saying. It's just very
> difficult to explain to you how wrong your approach to natural
> selection is because you have such a myopic understanding of natural
> selection. It's the kind of understanding I can see one arriving at
> if their whole understanding of natural selection was based on
> Dawkin's books.
>
> Here's a paper, taken from a book, that you might want to check out.
> It indicates an approach to evolution/ecology that is much more
> sophisticated than what you'd find from Dawkins:
> http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7691.pdf
I'll take a look at it. Thanks.
[..]
> But this is only because chimps are smart enough to avoid wading.
Maybe they couldn't, maybe the advatnages (e.g. access to food)
outweighed the disadvantages as in the Conkuati chimps.
[..]
> > Mangrove forest habitat and riparian woodland are large today, they
> > were almost certainly much larger in the Miocene. It is possible
> > (likely?) that apes evolved on the African/Thethys/Med coastline -
> > which would probably have been a massive wetland habitat.
>
> How do you isolate them so that gene flow from chimps residing in the
> 99% of habitat that isn't wetland doesn't usurp the evolutionary
> trends at these wetlands? (You can't.)
Look at the miocene maps - islands forming, coastlines being
constantly redrawn - it's easy peasy.
[..]
> > Why is it comical? There is evidence that chimps have stolen leopard
> > cubs. Humans are smart. It must have evolved since the LCA. What's
> > your problem?
>
> This is ludicrous. Have you seen the places crocs lay their eggs?
> And what does the fact that humans are smart have to do with the LCA?
Yes. They lay them next to river banks - above the waterline but close
to the water's edge. What's the problem there? A smart ape would soon
learn to watch them from the safety of a tree and choose a good moment
to climb down for an easy steal.
Somewhere between the LCA and H. sapiens, I hope you agree, that
ssmartness evolved.
Algis Kuliukas
Jim McGinn
> > > I agree. It is an argument against wading, swimming and diving. But,
> > > it's a double-edged sword. Predation pressure is a selective force, it
> > > acts to *improve* the locomotion. If you think the wading argument is
> > > Lammarckian you can't also argue that it couldn't work dur to
> > > excessive predation.
> >
> > Excessive predation?
>
> I thought that was you're point - wading apes would get predated upon
> so much it would force them out of existence.
It's surreal trying to talk to you because you have such a
cartoonish understanding of natural selection. Using your
logic we'd expect them to jump off cliffs because, afterall,
jumping off cliffs causes bone breakage and this would select
for those with stronger bones. And nobody would dispute that
stronger bones are selectively advantageous.
>
> [..]
> > > No, of course I'm not. Wetlands do account for a large area of the
> > > world's surface and it was probably a much larger area in the Miocene
> > > than it is today.
> >
> > The only climatic thing that is significance about the Miocene was the
> > introduction of monsoon habitat--habitat that contains a severe dry
> > season. There is a principle in the earth sciences called,
> > uniformitarianism. Look it up.
>
> Surely, though. The area in the north of Africa and southern Eurasia
> surrounding the Tethys/Med Seas were, at the time of the Miocene
> undergoing repeated flooding/dessication cycles. The whole part of the
> world was in a constant state of flux between land and sea.
Constant flux? You need to get an education. This is spanning
millions of years. Again, look up the term uniformatarianism.
Islands
> would have formed and disappeared regularly. Such a habitat is very
> complex and comprised of several different strands - but perhaps it
> can be best characterised as 'wet.' This, it seems, is where great
> apes evolved.
>
> > I would have thought that any would-be ecologist
> > > would be aware of that.
> > >
> > > I am postulating that arboreal apes would naturally tend to continue
> > > living in arboreal habitats. This means that they'd spread into
> > > woodland that was coastal areas (mangrove swamps) and riparian
> > > woodland alongside rivers. Both habitats, being prone to flooding, are
> > > likely habitats where wading locmotion would clearly be regularly
> > > required.
> >
> > Sounds more like jungle habitat, like we find in West Africa.
>
> Not quite. The Conngo basin is very much land locked. I'm postulating
> that in the late Miocene there would have been a huge wooded wetland
> habitat to the north.
The best you can do is something like Congo, or Amazon.
Trust me. (You have a cartoonish understanding of
geomorphological history.) Again, look up the term
uniformatarianism.
>
> [..]
> > > > This is so contrived it's comical.
> > >
> > > Why? Which part do you have a problem with:
> > > a) That arboreal apes might find themselves in habitats prone to
> > > flooding, or
> >
> > Yes, they'd just move on.
>
> What if they couldn't? Why would they move on if the habitat provided
> enough food and was relatively free of predators?
Look up the term uniformatarianism. You have a fantasy-based
approach to reconstructing paleo-habitats that could only be
based on extreme ignorance. There's just not much anybody
can do for you.
>
> > > b) that, once there, they'd sometimes need to get into the water, or
> > > c) that if they did get into the water they'd not do so for any
> > > benefit.
> >
> > The whole thing.
>
> So, you don't accept that primates would ever get caught in places
> surrounded by water?
Not in the numbers necessary to constuct your fantasy
hypothesis. Not even close.
That's just sooooo far fetched. Impossible. Look
> at a projected map of north Africa around the mid/late Miocene - you
> know somewhere around where many of the miocene ape fossils have been
> found. Tell me what you see.
Let me guess. You see waste deep water extending for
hundreds of miles. Right?
>
> [..]
> > > No!! You don't get it, do you?
> > >
> > > The fact that in waist deep water having no special traits is no
> > > disadvantage is a massive, unique, positive thing. All the other
> > > models of bipedal origins have a difficulty here because they need to
> > > theorise about some unusual motive that overcomes the rubicon against
> > > bipedal movement that we see demonstrated by extant apes.
> >
> > Oh, I see what you are saying. But you don't mean, "all the other
> > models of bipedal origins," you mean all the other LOCOMOTORY BASED
> > models of bipedal origins. You were coyly trying to slide this by us.
> > You know for a fact that rock-throwing stick-wielding hypotheses on
> > bipedal origins don't have this rubicon, and you were hoping I woudn't
> > notice this omission.
>
> But bipedalism, you may have noticed Jim, *is* locomotion.
Is standing not bipedal?
Rock
> throwing, stick wielding, fruit picking, threat displaying, penile
> displaying etc are postural not locomotion. That's the problem with
> most models of bipedal origins, they don't even involve locomotion.
Nonsense. As long as they don't involve a significant locomotory
disadvantage there is nothing mistaken about proposing bipedal
origins involving, as in my model, implement throwing/wielding
proficiency. Again, you have a cartoonish understanding of
natural selection.
> And, of course, that is another great strength of the wading model.
>
> > But yes, the other locomotory based models do have a problem in that
> > the earliest derivations of bipedalism, it seems, could only have
> > resulted in a locomotory disadvantage. My model, in contrast, has no
> > need for a locomotory advantage and, in fact, I'm quite happy with the
> > locomotory disadvantage in that my model also postulates a reduction
> > in locomotory behavior as they shift to a more situated and communal
> > existence.
>
> Suddenly, the credability of your hypothesis (in terms of an
> explanation for bipedal *locomotion*) disappears into thin air.
?
>
> > Why are you so stuck on bipedalism affording a locomotory advantage?
>
> Duh. Because bipedal locomotion *is* locomotion, Jim. I'm staggered
> that you find this point so irrelevant.
I asked about bipedalism. Not "bipedal locomotion." Note how you
interchanged my meaning. What does this tell you about your ability
to be dispassionate and objective on this subject matter? Be honest.
>
> > The wading
> > > model does not need this because in waist deep water the ape has no
> > > choice but to move bipedally and it has no need of any adaptive trait
> > > to do so. It's arboreal past has provided it with its orthograde
> > > posture, which is sufficient in itself...
> > >
> > > > The fact that the model
> > > > > posits them in an environment with graded depths of water, *of course*
> > > > > produces evolutionary pressure for the types of changes that you (and
> > > > > Jason) seem to require.
> > > >
> > > > Of course? This is complete nonsense. This graded environment stuff
> > > > is the epitome of Lamarckianism.
> > >
> > > ... but in shallower depths of water - which, of course, are always
> > > present too - the ape is not necessarily forced to move bipedally and
> > > would benefit from slight adaptive help. Don't you get it? It is
> > > *exactly* in this sort of graded environment where adaptive evolution
> > > is most likely to take place.
> >
> > There is no need for graded environments for adaptive evolution. This
> > is pure pseudo science.
>
> Perhaps there is no need for them, but if there is a graded
> environment evolution can proceed smoother, quicker, easier.
No. All you need is the preadaptive behavior and selective benefit.
The graded environment has absolutely no effect at all!
>
> [..]
> > > No, it's the very essence of evolutionary theory - a theory you claim
> > > to be so expert in. I suggest you think a little more about what i'm
> > > saying. Perhaps the penny will drop.
> >
> > The funny thing is I know exactly what you are saying. It's just very
> > difficult to explain to you how wrong your approach to natural
> > selection is because you have such a myopic understanding of natural
> > selection. It's the kind of understanding I can see one arriving at
> > if their whole understanding of natural selection was based on
> > Dawkin's books.
> >
> > Here's a paper, taken from a book, that you might want to check out.
> > It indicates an approach to evolution/ecology that is much more
> > sophisticated than what you'd find from Dawkins:
> > http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7691.pdf
>
> I'll take a look at it. Thanks.
Maybe there's hope for you.
>
> [..]
> > But this is only because chimps are smart enough to avoid wading.
>
> Maybe they couldn't, maybe the advatnages (e.g. access to food)
> outweighed the disadvantages as in the Conkuati chimps.
Contrived.
>
> [..]
> > > Mangrove forest habitat and riparian woodland are large today, they
> > > were almost certainly much larger in the Miocene. It is possible
> > > (likely?) that apes evolved on the African/Thethys/Med coastline -
> > > which would probably have been a massive wetland habitat.
> >
> > How do you isolate them so that gene flow from chimps residing in the
> > 99% of habitat that isn't wetland doesn't usurp the evolutionary
> > trends at these wetlands? (You can't.)
>
> Look at the miocene maps - islands forming, coastlines being
> constantly redrawn - it's easy peasy.
By any measure the Miocene was much more stable than
the pliocene/holocene (current climate).
>
> [..]
> > > Why is it comical? There is evidence that chimps have stolen leopard
> > > cubs. Humans are smart. It must have evolved since the LCA. What's
> > > your problem?
> >
> > This is ludicrous. Have you seen the places crocs lay their eggs?
> > And what does the fact that humans are smart have to do with the LCA?
>
> Yes. They lay them next to river banks - above the waterline but close
> to the water's edge. What's the problem there? A smart ape would soon
> learn to watch them from the safety of a tree and choose a good moment
> to climb down for an easy steal.
>
> Somewhere between the LCA and H. sapiens, I hope you agree, that
> ssmartness evolved.
Yes, and it's Lamarkian to suggest its evolution preceded adaptive benefit.
Jim
Algis Kuliukas
> al...@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote
> It's surreal trying to talk to you because you have such a
> cartoonish understanding of natural selection. Using your
> logic we'd expect them to jump off cliffs because, afterall,
> jumping off cliffs causes bone breakage and this would select
> for those with stronger bones. And nobody would dispute that
> stronger bones are selectively advantageous.
It's surreal trying to discuss anything with you, Jim, actually. One
minute you appear to be debating normally and reasoning logically and
the next minute you flip into 'I'm a World Class Evolutionary Theorist
who knows everything and you don't know anything' (IAWCETWKEAYDKA)
mode. I shouldn't have to point it out to you but your analogy of
cliff jumping to wading is absurd.
[..]
> Constant flux? You need to get an education. This is spanning
> millions of years. Again, look up the term uniformatarianism.
Yes, but the Northern coastline of Africa was changing more in the
late Miocene that it has since. When you flip into IAWCETWKEAYDKA mode
you tend to throw a term into the debate in the (apparent) belief that
this will make your knowledge appear stronger and catch your opponent
unawares. Yes, I think I know what uniformatarianism is. It's what
Lyell used to describe the idea that the forces that are happenning
today on geological structures were happening in the past too. So? How
does uniformatarianism bear upon the debate about what life was like
for Miocene apes living around the Med/Tethys coastline?
[..]
> > Not quite. The Conngo basin is very much land locked. I'm postulating
> > that in the late Miocene there would have been a huge wooded wetland
> > habitat to the north.
>
> The best you can do is something like Congo, or Amazon.
> Trust me. (You have a cartoonish understanding of
> geomorphological history.) Again, look up the term
> uniformatarianism.
I don't trust you. You've completely sidestepped my point.
Congo/Amazon are land locked, I'm postulating a wooded habitat in
coastal/island zones with relatively rapid changes of coastline.
[..]
> > What if they couldn't? Why would they move on if the habitat provided
> > enough food and was relatively free of predators?
>
> Look up the term uniformatarianism. You have a fantasy-based
> approach to reconstructing paleo-habitats that could only be
> based on extreme ignorance. There's just not much anybody
> can do for you.
Here's the classic McGinn IAWCETWKEAYDKA mode in operation again.
Did you look at a paleogeographic map of the Med/Tethys coastal area?
Do you note that the coastlines change relatevily rapidly? Do you
expect that wooded habitats were affected by these changes? Isn't it
likely that apes also inhabitat such woodlands and were affected too?
When you said 'they'd just move on' how do you conceive that they did
that? Were they air-lifted via helicopters, or something?
[..]
> > So, you don't accept that primates would ever get caught in places
> > surrounded by water?
>
> Not in the numbers necessary to constuct your fantasy
> hypothesis. Not even close.
On what basis do you make that assertion? An island the side of
Corsica would have been sufficiently large to support an islated group
of apes and, being isolated, they are likely to have evolved
relatively rapidly and perhaps even speciated.
> That's just sooooo far fetched. Impossible. Look
> > at a projected map of north Africa around the mid/late Miocene - you
> > know somewhere around where many of the miocene ape fossils have been
> > found. Tell me what you see.
>
> Let me guess. You see waste deep water extending for
> hundreds of miles. Right?
Of course not. Did you really think that? Blimey, I was giving you
more credit than you deserved, apparently.
[..]
> > > Oh, I see what you are saying. But you don't mean, "all the other
> > > models of bipedal origins," you mean all the other LOCOMOTORY BASED
> > > models of bipedal origins. You were coyly trying to slide this by us.
> > > You know for a fact that rock-throwing stick-wielding hypotheses on
> > > bipedal origins don't have this rubicon, and you were hoping I woudn't
> > > notice this omission.
> >
> > But bipedalism, you may have noticed Jim, *is* locomotion.
>
> Is standing not bipedal?
Standing is not the same as walking. Even gazzelles can stand (to
feed) on their hind legs. The fact that you see these two as
interchangeable is rather astonishing.
> Rock
> > throwing, stick wielding, fruit picking, threat displaying, penile
> > displaying etc are postural not locomotion. That's the problem with
> > most models of bipedal origins, they don't even involve locomotion.
>
> Nonsense. As long as they don't involve a significant locomotory
> disadvantage there is nothing mistaken about proposing bipedal
> origins involving, as in my model, implement throwing/wielding
> proficiency. Again, you have a cartoonish understanding of
> natural selection.
Well if my understanding of natural selection is cartoonish what does
that say about your understanding of the biomechanics of locomotion?
(Claiming a victory because I'd sneaked by you a LOCOMOTORY BASED
models of bipedal origins.)
> > Suddenly, the credability of your hypothesis (in terms of an
> > explanation for bipedal *locomotion*) disappears into thin air.
>
> ?
Confused? The fact that you don't even see a problem in explaining
bipedalism in terms of locomotion. That, in your mind, all you need is
for a reason for them to stand up.
> >
> > > Why are you so stuck on bipedalism affording a locomotory advantage?
> >
> > Duh. Because bipedal locomotion *is* locomotion, Jim. I'm staggered
> > that you find this point so irrelevant.
>
> I asked about bipedalism. Not "bipedal locomotion." Note how you
> interchanged my meaning. What does this tell you about your ability
> to be dispassionate and objective on this subject matter? Be honest.
The problem is in understand the origin of bipedal *locomotion*
postural bipedalism is nothing unusual in primates, obligate bipedal
locomotion is.
[..]
> > Perhaps there is no need for them, but if there is a graded
> > environment evolution can proceed smoother, quicker, easier.
>
> No. All you need is the preadaptive behavior and selective benefit.
> The graded environment has absolutely no effect at all!
Read Dawkins' explanation of the evolution of orchid mimicry. An
orchid does not need to imitate a wasp perfectly for it to work
because there are all sorts of grades in which the mimicry need not be
so good... in lower light, from a greater distance etc. Therefore
variation in the ability of wasps to discriminate between mimics and
the real thing will allow for some poor mimicry to succeed.
Competition between orchids will ensure that the mimicry improves.
> > > Here's a paper, taken from a book, that you might want to check out.
> > > It indicates an approach to evolution/ecology that is much more
> > > sophisticated than what you'd find from Dawkins:
> > > http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7691.pdf
> >
> > I'll take a look at it. Thanks.
>
> Maybe there's hope for you.
The link didn't work.
> >
> > [..]
> > > But this is only because chimps are smart enough to avoid wading.
> >
> > Maybe they couldn't, maybe the advatnages (e.g. access to food)
> > outweighed the disadvantages as in the Conkuati chimps.
>
> Contrived.
Contrived? Eh? So the fact that the evidence shows that apes do go
into water and wade when they have sufficient incentive to do so
is.... contrived?
> > Look at the miocene maps - islands forming, coastlines being
> > constantly redrawn - it's easy peasy.
>
> By any measure the Miocene was much more stable than
> the pliocene/holocene (current climate).
The coastline of N. Africa has been fairly stable in the last 5my, the
previous 5y - much less so.
> >
> > [..]
> > > > Why is it comical? There is evidence that chimps have stolen leopard
> > > > cubs. Humans are smart. It must have evolved since the LCA. What's
> > > > your problem?
> > >
> > > This is ludicrous. Have you seen the places crocs lay their eggs?
> > > And what does the fact that humans are smart have to do with the LCA?
> >
> > Yes. They lay them next to river banks - above the waterline but close
> > to the water's edge. What's the problem there? A smart ape would soon
> > learn to watch them from the safety of a tree and choose a good moment
> > to climb down for an easy steal.
> >
> > Somewhere between the LCA and H. sapiens, I hope you agree, that
> > ssmartness evolved.
>
> Yes, and it's Lamarkian to suggest its evolution preceded adaptive benefit.
Who's talking about 'preceding' it? I'd argue that all apes today are
smart enough to figure out how to steal croc eggs. Therefore the LCA
was probably smart enough too. Overcoming croc predation is a
plausible model for how that smartness could have improved - in
Darwinian terms of natural selection, you understand.
Algis Kuliukas
Jim McGinn
I'm postulating a wooded habitat in
> coastal/island zones with relatively rapid changes of coastline.
Nothing happens rapidly in geologic time.
> Did you look at a paleogeographic map of the Med/Tethys coastal area?
> Do you note that the coastlines change relatevily rapidly? Do you
> expect that wooded habitats were affected by these changes? Isn't it
> likely that apes also inhabitat such woodlands and were affected too?
> When you said 'they'd just move on' how do you conceive that they did
> that? Were they air-lifted via helicopters, or something?
Nothing happens rapidly in geologic time.
>
> [..]
> > > So, you don't accept that primates would ever get caught in places
> > > surrounded by water?
> >
> > Not in the numbers necessary to constuct your fantasy
> > hypothesis. Not even close.
>
> On what basis do you make that assertion? An island the side of
> Corsica would have been sufficiently large to support an islated group
> of apes and, being isolated, they are likely to have evolved
> relatively rapidly and perhaps even speciated.
Now that you understand the concept of uniformitarianism tell me
something, is there presently a lot of wading habitat on Corsica? Is
there any island on the planet that presently parrallels the wading
habitat that you envision? If not then why did you bring this up?
>
> > That's just sooooo far fetched. Impossible. Look
> > > at a projected map of north Africa around the mid/late Miocene - you
> > > know somewhere around where many of the miocene ape fossils have been
> > > found. Tell me what you see.
> >
> > Let me guess. You see waste deep water extending for
> > hundreds of miles. Right?
>
> Of course not. Did you really think that? Blimey, I was giving you
> more credit than you deserved, apparently.
Then why did you bring this up?
>
> [..]
> > > > Oh, I see what you are saying. But you don't mean, "all the other
> > > > models of bipedal origins," you mean all the other LOCOMOTORY BASED
> > > > models of bipedal origins. You were coyly trying to slide this by us.
> > > > You know for a fact that rock-throwing stick-wielding hypotheses on
> > > > bipedal origins don't have this rubicon, and you were hoping I woudn't
> > > > notice this omission.
> > >
> > > But bipedalism, you may have noticed Jim, *is* locomotion.
> >
> > Is standing not bipedal?
>
> Standing is not the same as walking.
By golly I think you're right. It's considerably slower.
Even gazzelles can stand (to
> feed) on their hind legs. The fact that you see these two as
> interchangeable is rather astonishing.
I just asked you a simple question about whether standing was bipedal
and you somehow took this as inspiration to tell me about the feeding
habits of gazelles. It's always so amusing when you AAT theorists
reveal the underlying mechanics of your thought processes.
>
> > Rock
> > > throwing, stick wielding, fruit picking, threat displaying, penile
> > > displaying etc are postural not locomotion. That's the problem with
> > > most models of bipedal origins, they don't even involve locomotion.
> >
> > Nonsense. As long as they don't involve a significant locomotory
> > disadvantage there is nothing mistaken about proposing bipedal
> > origins involving, as in my model, implement throwing/wielding
> > proficiency. Again, you have a cartoonish understanding of
> > natural selection.
>
> Well if my understanding of natural selection is cartoonish what does
> that say about your understanding of the biomechanics of locomotion?
Uh, nothing.
> (Claiming a victory because I'd sneaked by you a LOCOMOTORY BASED
> models of bipedal origins.)
?
>
> > > Suddenly, the credability of your hypothesis (in terms of an
> > > explanation for bipedal *locomotion*) disappears into thin air.
> >
> > ?
>
> Confused? The fact that you don't even see a problem in explaining
> bipedalism in terms of locomotion. That, in your mind, all you need is
> for a reason for them to stand up.
I'm sure you think you made a point here. I just can't tell what it
is.
>
> > >
> > > > Why are you so stuck on bipedalism affording a locomotory advantage?
> > >
> > > Duh. Because bipedal locomotion *is* locomotion, Jim. I'm staggered
> > > that you find this point so irrelevant.
> >
> > I asked about bipedalism. Not "bipedal locomotion." Note how you
> > interchanged my meaning. What does this tell you about your ability
> > to be dispassionate and objective on this subject matter? Be honest.
>
> The problem is in understand the origin of bipedal *locomotion*
> postural bipedalism is nothing unusual in primates, obligate bipedal
> locomotion is.
Considering the explicitness of your intellectual dishonesty I'm not
surprised by this response.
>
> [..]
> > > Perhaps there is no need for them, but if there is a graded
> > > environment evolution can proceed smoother, quicker, easier.
> >
> > No. All you need is the preadaptive behavior and selective benefit.
> > The graded environment has absolutely no effect at all!
>
> Read Dawkins' explanation of the evolution of orchid mimicry. An
> orchid does not need to imitate a wasp perfectly
This is similar to my notion that the earliest stick wielding, rock
throwing behvavior did not need to be especially effective, they just
needed to me more effective than competing communities.
for it to work
> because there are all sorts of grades in which the mimicry need not be
> so good... in lower light, from a greater distance etc. Therefore
> variation in the ability of wasps to discriminate between mimics and
> the real thing will allow for some poor mimicry to succeed.
> Competition between orchids will ensure that the mimicry improves.
So your point is that even bad waders will be able to wade effectively
in shallower water. And since, in your opinion, no other hypothesis
has this graded environment therefore you think this is the basis for
explaining the origins of bipedalism.
The earliest derivations of *all* new adaptations provide only a
relative advantage. The first birds, for example, may have only
"flown" a few feet. All adaptations become refined over time. You
are not saying anything important here.
>
> > > > Here's a paper, taken from a book, that you might want to check out.
> > > > It indicates an approach to evolution/ecology that is much more
> > > > sophisticated than what you'd find from Dawkins:
> > > > http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7691.pdf
> > >
> > > I'll take a look at it. Thanks.
> >
> > Maybe there's hope for you.
>
> The link didn't work.
It worked just fine for me. Try cutting and pasting in your address
bar.
www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7691.pdf
>
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > But this is only because chimps are smart enough to avoid wading.
> > >
> > > Maybe they couldn't, maybe the advatnages (e.g. access to food)
> > > outweighed the disadvantages as in the Conkuati chimps.
> >
> > Contrived.
>
> Contrived? Eh? So the fact that the evidence shows that apes do go
> into water and wade when they have sufficient incentive to do so
> is.... contrived?
No the part where you said, "maybe . . . " was contrived.
>
> > > Look at the miocene maps - islands forming, coastlines being
> > > constantly redrawn - it's easy peasy.
> >
> > By any measure the Miocene was much more stable than
> > the pliocene/holocene (current climate).
>
> The coastline of N. Africa has been fairly stable in the last 5my, the
> previous 5y - much less so.
The whole planet's been unstable over the last 2my.
>
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > > Why is it comical? There is evidence that chimps have stolen leopard
> > > > > cubs. Humans are smart. It must have evolved since the LCA. What's
> > > > > your problem?
> > > >
> > > > This is ludicrous. Have you seen the places crocs lay their eggs?
> > > > And what does the fact that humans are smart have to do with the LCA?
> > >
> > > Yes. They lay them next to river banks - above the waterline but close
> > > to the water's edge. What's the problem there? A smart ape would soon
> > > learn to watch them from the safety of a tree and choose a good moment
> > > to climb down for an easy steal.
> > >
> > > Somewhere between the LCA and H. sapiens, I hope you agree, that
> > > ssmartness evolved.
> >
> > Yes, and it's Lamarkian to suggest its evolution preceded adaptive benefit.
>
> Who's talking about 'preceding' it? I'd argue that all apes today are
> smart enough to figure out how to steal croc eggs.
If they are then they're also smart enough to realize that trying to
steal croc eggs is a great way to get eaten by crocs. You live in
Australia now. Why don't you go up north and talk with some crocodile
dundee about what would be involved with eliminating crocs from a
habitat. If nothing else it should provide them some entertainment.
Therefore the LCA
> was probably smart enough too. Overcoming croc predation is a
> plausible model for how that smartness could have improved - in
> Darwinian terms of natural selection, you understand.
Oh, sure, that makes perfect sense. Just like jumping off cliffs
strengthens their bones, "in Darwinian terms of natural selection."
Rich Travsky
Rich Travsky wrote:
>
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > [...]
> > Obvious for a biped, but not obvious for a quadruped. My thought
> > experiment was based on extant apes which are, at least on the ground,
> > quadrupedal. Hunt's study of chimps found that their (very limited -
> > around 3%) bipedality was almost all due to postural feeding - about
> > 80%. The only behaviour remotely in your threat/agression area was a
> > category "respond to threat" which accounted for only 4.1% of those
> > bipedal incidents.
> >
> > [p 400 in...
> > Hunt, Kevin D (1998). Ecological Morphology of Australopithecus
> > afarensis: Travelling Terrestrially, Eating Arboreally. In: Strasser,
> > Elizabeth; Fleagle, John G; Rosenberger, Alfred; McHenry, Henry
> > (eds.), (1998). Primate Locomotion: Recent Advances. Plenum Press
> > (New York)]
>
> See
>
> http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/hunt_abs.html
> ...
> Although chimpanzees prefer dense, moist forest, most of their bipedalism
> was in dryer habitats. Perhaps something about drier ecozones elicits
> bipedalism.
>
> Hmmm. More bipedal under *dry* conditions...
>
> See also the interview
>
> http://www.indiana.edu/~alumni/magtalk/jan-feb01/evolution-apes.html
> ...
> Hunt's initial observations are promising. The chimpanzees at Semliki
> consistently stand on two legs when feeding, as well as when fighting
> and carrying their young.
> ...
>
> > [...]
NOT
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F3B0D35...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> > > Obvious for a biped, but not obvious for a quadruped. My thought
> experiment was based on extant apes which are, at least on the ground,
> quadrupedal. Hunt's study of chimps found that their (very limited - around
> 3%) bipedality was almost all due to postural feeding - about 80%. The only
> behaviour remotely in your threat/agression area was a category "respond to
> threat" which accounted for only 4.1% of those bipedal incidents. [p 400
> in...Hunt, Kevin D (1998). Ecological Morphology of Australopithecus
> afarensis: Travelling Terrestrially, Eating Arboreally. In: Strasser,
> Elizabeth; Fleagle, John G; Rosenberger, Alfred; McHenry, Henry (eds.),
> (1998). Primate Locomotion: Recent Advances. Plenum Press (New York)] See
> http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/hunt_abs.html
I only wrote up to here. WHERE are you getting the rest of this?????
= Chimpanzee Food-Getting Strategies
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F3B05C8...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> > > > Then we would have field observations of non human primates walking
> bipedally in these "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
> beaches, lagoons etc", wouldn't we? Except we don't...
>
> > > 1) You don't because you refuse to see it. Just take a wildlife film of
> lowland gorillas who walk on 2 legs, knuckle-walk, play & sit in forest
> swamps. Never seen illustrations of orangs, bonobos, common chimps walking
> on 2 legs in swamps?? No? You're very ill-informed.
>
> Travsky agrees.
Marc is fooling himself again.
> > > 2) Swamps are in rel.open places, where the animals can be seen more
> easily. The ones that spent too much time in swamps are probably selected
> out.
>
> Agrees.
Marc is fooling himself again.
> > > 3) Even if there were no living hominids-pongids spending some time in
> forest swamps today, this does not mean their ancestors didn't do that. In
> fact, the anatomical indications are clear enough for everybody who isn't
> prejudiced by savanna & other ideas.
>
> Agrees.
Marc is fooling himself again.
> > The full quote is "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
> beaches, lagoons etc".
>
> Yes.
>
> > You have a few rare observations of bipedal behavior in a few watery
> places not matching Algis' claims, but far more are observed on *land*. Why
> do you think that is???
>
> ???
Too hard of a question for you? Or you don't know the answer...?
Rich Travsky
>
> rmac...@alphalink.com.au (Ross Macfarlane) wrote in message news:<18fa6145.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > Rich Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message news:<3F3B0D35...@hotmMOVEail.com>...
> > > See
> > >
> > > http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/hunt_abs.html
> > ...
> > > ... it is notable that 80% of chimpanzee bipedalism occurred most often during feeding, with no other context making up more than 4%.
> >
> > Algis?
> >
> > Ross Macfarlane
>
> What? This is not news. I've been quoting Hunt's excellent work for
> years. In fact it was Hunt's paper that led me to believe that the
> route to understanding this problem is to look at the behaviour of
> extant apes.
> As he wrote (p 183)...
> "Contexts that elicit bipedalism in extant apes may provide evidence
> of the selective pressures that led to hominid bipedalism."
> Hunt, Kevin (1994). The Evolution of human bipedality: ecology and
> functional morphology. Journal of Human Evolution Vol:26 Pages:183-202
>
> Of course, if you choose to observe apes that do not live near shallow
> water or have no real incentive to ever get their feet wet it is not
> surprising to find that wading does not figure on the list of
> motivations for bipedality.
So, how many chimp groups live near shallow water and have incentives
to get their feet wet????
> My point, which I have made so often I'm beginning to wonder if you
> ever read what I write, is that if Hunt had studied chimps at Conkuati
> (island refuge in the middle of the Congo river from the bush meat
> trade) instead of Gombe or Similiki then his data would have been
> *massively* different and wading in water would have dwarfed his
> postural feeding motivator.
An "island" refuge is HARDLY typical of chimp habitats, right?
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > Then we would have field observations of non human primates
walking bipedally in these "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
beaches, lagoons etc", wouldn't we? Except we don't...
> > > > 1) You don't because you refuse to see it. Just take a wildlife film
of lowland gorillas who walk on 2 legs, knuckle-walk, play & sit in forest
swamps. Never seen illustrations of orangs, bonobos, common chimps walking
on 2 legs in swamps?? No? You're very ill-informed.
> > Travsky agrees.
> Marc is fooling himself again.
No, but you have no answer.
> > > > 2) Swamps are in rel.open places, where the animals can be seen more
easily. The ones that spent too much time in swamps are probably selected
out.
> > Agrees.
> Marc is fooling himself again.
Where's your answer??
> > > > 3) Even if there were no living hominids-pongids spending some time
in forest swamps today, this does not mean their ancestors didn't do that.
In fact, the anatomical indications are clear enough for everybody who isn't
prejudiced by savanna & other ideas.
> > Agrees.
> Marc is fooling himself again.
No answer.
> > > The full quote is "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
beaches, lagoons etc".
> > Yes.
> > > You have a few rare observations of bipedal behavior in a few watery
places not matching Algis' claims, but far more are observed on *land*. Why
do you think that is???
> > ???
> Too hard of a question for you?
Yes.
> > Or you don't know the answer...?
No.
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > > Obvious for a biped, but not obvious for a quadruped. My thought
experiment was based on extant apes which are, at least on the ground,
quadrupedal. Hunt's study of chimps found that their (very limited - around
3%) bipedality was almost all due to postural feeding - about 80%. The only
behaviour remotely in your threat/agression area was a category "respond to
threat" which accounted for only 4.1% of those bipedal incidents. [p 400
in...Hunt, Kevin D (1998). Ecological Morphology of Australopithecus
afarensis: Travelling Terrestrially, Eating Arboreally. In: Strasser,
Elizabeth; Fleagle, John G; Rosenberger, Alfred; McHenry, Henry (eds.),
(1998). Primate Locomotion: Recent Advances. Plenum Press (New York)] See
http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/hunt_abs.html
> I only wrote up to here. WHERE are you getting the rest of this?????
You're following Hunt. As you can see & apparently agree (at least you have
no answers), Hunt's interpretations are wrong:
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> So, how many chimp groups live near shallow water and have incentives to
get their feet wet????
Is this somesort of argument????
So, how many human groups live near trees & have incentives to go
climbing????
Rich Travsky
Where does my quote say anything about trees?
Rich Travsky
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F3FDD79...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> > > > > > Then we would have field observations of non human primates
> walking bipedally in these "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
> beaches, lagoons etc", wouldn't we? Except we don't...
>
> > > > > 1) You don't because you refuse to see it. Just take a wildlife film
> of lowland gorillas who walk on 2 legs, knuckle-walk, play & sit in forest
> swamps. Never seen illustrations of orangs, bonobos, common chimps walking
> on 2 legs in swamps?? No? You're very ill-informed.
>
> > > Travsky agrees.
>
> > Marc is fooling himself again.
>
> No, but you have no answer.
My answer was at the end of the original post. Intelligent people can figure
that out...
> > > > > 2) Swamps are in rel.open places, where the animals can be seen more
> easily. The ones that spent too much time in swamps are probably selected
> out.
>
> > > Agrees.
>
> > Marc is fooling himself again.
>
> Where's your answer??
My answer was at the end of the original post. Intelligent people can figure
that out...
> > > > > 3) Even if there were no living hominids-pongids spending some time
> in forest swamps today, this does not mean their ancestors didn't do that.
> In fact, the anatomical indications are clear enough for everybody who isn't
> prejudiced by savanna & other ideas.
>
> > > Agrees.
>
> > Marc is fooling himself again.
>
> No answer.
My answer was at the end of the original post. Intelligent people can figure
that out...
> > > > The full quote is "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
> beaches, lagoons etc".
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > > > You have a few rare observations of bipedal behavior in a few watery
> places not matching Algis' claims, but far more are observed on *land*. Why
> do you think that is???
>
> > > ???
>
> > Too hard of a question for you?
>
> Yes.
Sorry I'm so hard on you.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F3FDD0A...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> > > > > Obvious for a biped, but not obvious for a quadruped. My thought
> experiment was based on extant apes which are, at least on the ground,
> quadrupedal. Hunt's study of chimps found that their (very limited - around
> 3%) bipedality was almost all due to postural feeding - about 80%. The only
> behaviour remotely in your threat/agression area was a category "respond to
> threat" which accounted for only 4.1% of those bipedal incidents. [p 400
> in...Hunt, Kevin D (1998). Ecological Morphology of Australopithecus
> afarensis: Travelling Terrestrially, Eating Arboreally. In: Strasser,
> Elizabeth; Fleagle, John G; Rosenberger, Alfred; McHenry, Henry (eds.),
> (1998). Primate Locomotion: Recent Advances. Plenum Press (New York)] See
> http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/hunt_abs.html
>
> > I only wrote up to here. WHERE are you getting the rest of this?????
>
> You're following Hunt. As you can see & apparently agree (at least you have
> no answers), Hunt's interpretations are wrong:
It is dishonest to paste in a bucnh and claim it's mine.
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > Then we would have field observations of non human primates
walking bipedally in these "flooded riparian forests, tidal mangrove swamps,
beaches, lagoons etc", wouldn't we? Except we don't...
> > > > > > 1) You don't because you refuse to see it. Just take a wildlife
film of lowland gorillas who walk on 2 legs, knuckle-walk, play & sit in
forest swamps. Never seen illustrations of orangs, bonobos, common chimps
walking on 2 legs in swamps?? No? You're very ill-informed.
> > > > Travsky agrees.
> > > Marc is fooling himself again.
> > No, but you have no answer.
> My answer was at the end of the original post. Intelligent people can
figure that out...
There was no answer at the end.
> > > > > > 2) Swamps are in rel.open places, where the animals can be seen
more easily. The ones that spent too much time in swamps are probably
selected out.
> > > > Agrees.
> > > Marc is fooling himself again.
> > Where's your answer??
> My answer was at the end of the original post.
No.
> Intelligent people can figure that out...
> > > > > > 3) Even if there were no living hominids-pongids spending some
time in forest swamps today, this does not mean their ancestors didn't do
that. In fact, the anatomical indications are clear enough for everybody who
isn't prejudiced by savanna & other ideas.
> > > > Agrees.
> > > Marc is fooling himself again.
> > No answer.
> My answer was at the end of the original post. ...
No.
Paul Crowley
news:ac6a5059.0308...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
>
> <snip>
>
> > (b) let the animals move away from trees;
>
> They wouldn't, and didn't, move away from trees.
I should have stated 'trees-suitable for sleeping'
since I was only talking about the initial
speciation (on this predator-free island).
> In fact
> the fossil evidence indicates that A'piths maintained tree
> climbing adaptations.
Only if you read 'the evidence' in a certain
way, and ignore all that embarrassing stuff
found by Richmond & Stait.
> <snip>
>
> > > The aquarboreal
> >
> > I switch off when I see that 'word'. Sorry.
> > I find bullshit hard to take.
>
> I have the same problem. I also have the same problem
> with predator free islands that suddenly emerge,
So, you don't believe in Borneo? Or Sulawesi?
Or Java? All such islands are figments of
imagination?
> chimp vs. chimp club battles
Yes, chimps are really nice to each other.
They'd fit into any politically correct society.
> and a'piths domesticating canines.
I suggest this as a possibility. I don't
depend on it. Still, I can see how you'd
reject anything that required any logic,
evidence or imagination.
Paul.
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> >
> > rmac...@alphalink.com.au (Ross Macfarlane) wrote in message news:<18fa6145.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > What? This is not news. I've been quoting Hunt's excellent work for
> > years. In fact it was Hunt's paper that led me to believe that the
> > route to understanding this problem is to look at the behaviour of
> > extant apes.
> > As he wrote (p 183)...
> > "Contexts that elicit bipedalism in extant apes may provide evidence
> > of the selective pressures that led to hominid bipedalism."
> > Hunt, Kevin (1994). The Evolution of human bipedality: ecology and
> > functional morphology. Journal of Human Evolution Vol:26 Pages:183-202
> >
> > Of course, if you choose to observe apes that do not live near shallow
> > water or have no real incentive to ever get their feet wet it is not
> > surprising to find that wading does not figure on the list of
> > motivations for bipedality.
>
> So, how many chimp groups live near shallow water and have incentives
> to get their feet wet????
> > My point, which I have made so often I'm beginning to wonder if you
> > ever read what I write, is that if Hunt had studied chimps at Conkuati
> > (island refuge in the middle of the Congo river from the bush meat
> > trade) instead of Gombe or Similiki then his data would have been
> > *massively* different and wading in water would have dwarfed his
> > postural feeding motivator.
>
> An "island" refuge is HARDLY typical of chimp habitats, right?
Humans, Rick, did not evolve from chimps. It would seem that the
ancestors of chimps, gorillas and humans lived in wetter habitats than
chimps do today. Therefore they would have had significantly more
opportunities to 'get their feet wet' and, logically would have been
more likely to move bipedally. That some of these hominids stopped
living by water would explain why their descendants never perfected
that bipedality.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
>
> I'm postulating a wooded habitat in
> > coastal/island zones with relatively rapid changes of coastline.
>
> Nothing happens rapidly in geologic time.
>
> > Did you look at a paleogeographic map of the Med/Tethys coastal area?
> > Do you note that the coastlines change relatevily rapidly? Do you
> > expect that wooded habitats were affected by these changes? Isn't it
> > likely that apes also inhabitat such woodlands and were affected too?
> > When you said 'they'd just move on' how do you conceive that they did
> > that? Were they air-lifted via helicopters, or something?
>
> Nothing happens rapidly in geologic time.
Oh, I see. This is the punch line for this posting. Last time it was
uniformataarianism, the time before that Lamarckism.
*Nothing* changes rapidly? How long does it take for a rise in sea
level to dramatically change the coastline? If inland seas/lakes that
have become dessicated are re-flooded how long does it take for the
sea to pour in to fill that void?
> > On what basis do you make that assertion? An island the side of
> > Corsica would have been sufficiently large to support an islated group
> > of apes and, being isolated, they are likely to have evolved
> > relatively rapidly and perhaps even speciated.
>
> Now that you understand the concept of uniformitarianism tell me
> something, is there presently a lot of wading habitat on Corsica? Is
> there any island on the planet that presently parrallels the wading
> habitat that you envision? If not then why did you bring this up?
Wetland habitats have ben under attack from humans for hundreds of
years. I do not know how much wetland habitat is on Corsica today but
I expect it is less than it was 40,000 years ago.
Wetland habitats exist everywhere. Riparian woodland, marshes,
mangroves. They're shrinking partly due to climatic changes but mainly
because of human expansion. What? Is this World Class Ecologist not
aware of wetland habitats? Sorry, it was World Class Evolutiony
Theorist, not Ecologist, wasn't it?
> >
> > > That's just sooooo far fetched. Impossible. Look
> > > > at a projected map of north Africa around the mid/late Miocene - you
> > > > know somewhere around where many of the miocene ape fossils have been
> > > > found. Tell me what you see.
> > >
> > > Let me guess. You see waste deep water extending for
> > > hundreds of miles. Right?
> >
> > Of course not. Did you really think that? Blimey, I was giving you
> > more credit than you deserved, apparently.
>
> Then why did you bring this up?
Duh. Because wetland habitst are where apes are most likely to move
bipedally and 'wet and wooded' habitats are associated with early
hominid fossil finds.
[..]
> > > Is standing not bipedal?
> >
> > Standing is not the same as walking.
>
> By golly I think you're right. It's considerably slower.
But, by some strange logic, you see standing as being enough to
explain bipedalism.
> Even gazzelles can stand (to
> > feed) on their hind legs. The fact that you see these two as
> > interchangeable is rather astonishing.
>
> I just asked you a simple question about whether standing was bipedal
> and you somehow took this as inspiration to tell me about the feeding
> habits of gazelles. It's always so amusing when you AAT theorists
> reveal the underlying mechanics of your thought processes.
Well you were the one arguing that I was being sneaky by trying to
slip past you a sly attempt to imply that bipedalism had to be
explained by a LOCOMOTORY MODEL. Bipedalism *is* locomotion.
[..]
> > > > Suddenly, the credability of your hypothesis (in terms of an
> > > > explanation for bipedal *locomotion*) disappears into thin air.
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > Confused? The fact that you don't even see a problem in explaining
> > bipedalism in terms of locomotion. That, in your mind, all you need is
> > for a reason for them to stand up.
>
> I'm sure you think you made a point here. I just can't tell what it
> is.
Look, just tell me exactly what you were trying to say before, then.
Remember? Let me put it to you this way: Does a model of bipedal
origins need to explain it in terms of bipedal locomotion or is mere
postural bipedalism sufficient?
[..]
> > The problem is in understand the origin of bipedal *locomotion*
> > postural bipedalism is nothing unusual in primates, obligate bipedal
> > locomotion is.
>
> Considering the explicitness of your intellectual dishonesty I'm not
> surprised by this response.
What!???
> >
> > [..]
> > > > Perhaps there is no need for them, but if there is a graded
> > > > environment evolution can proceed smoother, quicker, easier.
> > >
> > > No. All you need is the preadaptive behavior and selective benefit.
> > > The graded environment has absolutely no effect at all!
> >
> > Read Dawkins' explanation of the evolution of orchid mimicry. An
> > orchid does not need to imitate a wasp perfectly
>
> This is similar to my notion that the earliest stick wielding, rock
> throwing behvavior did not need to be especially effective, they just
> needed to me more effective than competing communities.
Except that you don't need to stand up to throw a rock, in waist deep
water an ape has to move bipedally.
> for it to work
> > because there are all sorts of grades in which the mimicry need not be
> > so good... in lower light, from a greater distance etc. Therefore
> > variation in the ability of wasps to discriminate between mimics and
> > the real thing will allow for some poor mimicry to succeed.
> > Competition between orchids will ensure that the mimicry improves.
>
> So your point is that even bad waders will be able to wade effectively
> in shallower water. And since, in your opinion, no other hypothesis
> has this graded environment therefore you think this is the basis for
> explaining the origins of bipedalism.
... deeper water, actually. (never mind)
> The earliest derivations of *all* new adaptations provide only a
> relative advantage. The first birds, for example, may have only
> "flown" a few feet. All adaptations become refined over time. You
> are not saying anything important here.
The advantage the wading model has over the others is that there is no
'rubicon' to cross. To the question 'why did the first apes start
moving bipedally?' the other models are weak or evasive. The wading
model has an excellent starting point in that even extant apes always
wade bipedally. From there it's all down hill (or actually 'up bank').
> >
> > > > > Here's a paper, taken from a book, that you might want to check out.
> > > > > It indicates an approach to evolution/ecology that is much more
> > > > > sophisticated than what you'd find from Dawkins:
> > > > > http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7691.pdf
> > > >
> > > > I'll take a look at it. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Maybe there's hope for you.
> >
> > The link didn't work.
>
> It worked just fine for me. Try cutting and pasting in your address
> bar.
>
> www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7691.pdf
[..]
> > > Yes, and it's Lamarkian to suggest its evolution preceded adaptive benefit.
> >
> > Who's talking about 'preceding' it? I'd argue that all apes today are
> > smart enough to figure out how to steal croc eggs.
>
> If they are then they're also smart enough to realize that trying to
> steal croc eggs is a great way to get eaten by crocs. You live in
> Australia now. Why don't you go up north and talk with some crocodile
> dundee about what would be involved with eliminating crocs from a
> habitat. If nothing else it should provide them some entertainment.
I'm sure the aboriginal people know (or knew) exactly how to do so.
> Therefore the LCA
> > was probably smart enough too. Overcoming croc predation is a
> > plausible model for how that smartness could have improved - in
> > Darwinian terms of natural selection, you understand.
>
> Oh, sure, that makes perfect sense. Just like jumping off cliffs
> strengthens their bones, "in Darwinian terms of natural selection."
Now, now Jim, don't let's be ridiculous!
Algis Kuliukas
Jim McGinn
> > Now that you understand the concept of uniformitarianism tell me
> > something, is there presently a lot of wading habitat on Corsica? Is
> > there any island on the planet that presently parrallels the wading
> > habitat that you envision? If not then why did you bring this up?
>
> Wetland habitats have ben under attack from humans for hundreds of
> years. I do not know how much wetland habitat is on Corsica today but
> I expect it is less than it was 40,000 years ago.
I knew you wouldn't answer these questions.
> > > > Is standing not bipedal?
> > >
> > > Standing is not the same as walking.
> >
> > By golly I think you're right. It's considerably slower.
>
> But, by some strange logic, you see standing as being enough to
> explain bipedalism.
You still haven't answered the question: Is standing not bipedal?
(Let's see how evasive Algis can be.)
> > I just asked you a simple question about whether standing was bipedal
> > and you somehow took this as inspiration to tell me about the feeding
> > habits of gazelles. It's always so amusing when you AAT theorists
> > reveal the underlying mechanics of your thought processes.
>
> Well you were the one arguing that I was being sneaky by trying to
> slip past you a sly attempt to imply that bipedalism had to be
> explained by a LOCOMOTORY MODEL. Bipedalism *is* locomotion.
Is standing not bipedal?
> Look, just tell me exactly what you were trying to say before, then.
> Remember? Let me put it to you this way: Does a model of bipedal
> origins need to explain it in terms of bipedal locomotion or is mere
> postural bipedalism sufficient?
I've already answered this question. (Read upthread.)
> > > The problem is in understand the origin of bipedal *locomotion*
> > > postural bipedalism is nothing unusual in primates, obligate bipedal
> > > locomotion is.
> >
> > Considering the explicitness of your intellectual dishonesty I'm not
> > surprised by this response.
>
> What!???
You snipped my question. How sly of you.
> > This is similar to my notion that the earliest stick wielding, rock
> > throwing behvavior did not need to be especially effective, they just
> > needed to me more effective than competing communities.
>
> Except that you don't need to stand up to throw a rock,
Standing up makes it easier to throw a rock well.
> in waist deep
> water an ape has to move bipedally.
Except that you don't need to stand up to move through
water, they could swim.
>
> > for it to work
> > > because there are all sorts of grades in which the mimicry need not be
> > > so good... in lower light, from a greater distance etc. Therefore
> > > variation in the ability of wasps to discriminate between mimics and
> > > the real thing will allow for some poor mimicry to succeed.
> > > Competition between orchids will ensure that the mimicry improves.
> >
> > So your point is that even bad waders will be able to wade effectively
> > in shallower water. And since, in your opinion, no other hypothesis
> > has this graded environment therefore you think this is the basis for
> > explaining the origins of bipedalism.
>
> ... deeper water, actually. (never mind)
I've seen dogs in water. They transition from quadrupedalism to
swimming effortlessly, naturally. Why would this not have been the
case for the LCA?
>
> > The earliest derivations of *all* new adaptations provide only a
> > relative advantage. The first birds, for example, may have only
> > "flown" a few feet. All adaptations become refined over time. You
> > are not saying anything important here.
>
> The advantage the wading model has over the others is that there is no
> 'rubicon' to cross. Yes. To the question 'why did the first apes start
> moving bipedally?' the other models are weak or evasive.
Not my model.
The wading
> model has an excellent starting point in that even extant apes always
> wade bipedally.
Not true. I've seen TV shows that show Gorillas wading quadrupedally.
> From there it's all down hill (or actually 'up bank').
>
> > >
> > > > > > Here's a paper, taken from a book, that you might want to check out.
> > > > > > It indicates an approach to evolution/ecology that is much more
> > > > > > sophisticated than what you'd find from Dawkins:
> > > > > > http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7691.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll take a look at it. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe there's hope for you.
> > >
> > > The link didn't work.
> >
> > It worked just fine for me. Try cutting and pasting in your address
> > bar.
> >
> > www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7691.pdf
> [..]
> > > > Yes, and it's Lamarkian to suggest its evolution preceded adaptive benefit.
> > >
> > > Who's talking about 'preceding' it? I'd argue that all apes today are
> > > smart enough to figure out how to steal croc eggs.
> >
> > If they are then they're also smart enough to realize that trying to
> > steal croc eggs is a great way to get eaten by crocs. You live in
> > Australia now. Why don't you go up north and talk with some crocodile
> > dundee about what would be involved with eliminating crocs from a
> > habitat. If nothing else it should provide them some entertainment.
>
> I'm sure the aboriginal people know (or knew) exactly how to do so.
Now all you need is a time machine.
>
> > Therefore the LCA
> > > was probably smart enough too. Overcoming croc predation is a
> > > plausible model for how that smartness could have improved - in
> > > Darwinian terms of natural selection, you understand.
> >
> > Oh, sure, that makes perfect sense. Just like jumping off cliffs
> > strengthens their bones, "in Darwinian terms of natural selection."
>
> Now, now Jim, don't let's be ridiculous!
My sentiments exactly.
Jim
Ross Macfarlane
...
> > > My point, which I have made so often I'm beginning to wonder if you
> > > ever read what I write, is that if Hunt had studied chimps at Conkuati
> > > (island refuge in the middle of the Congo river from the bush meat
> > > trade) instead of Gombe or Similiki then his data would have been
> > > *massively* different and wading in water would have dwarfed his
> > > postural feeding motivator.
Evidence?
> > An "island" refuge is HARDLY typical of chimp habitats, right?
>
> Humans, Rick, did not evolve from chimps. It would seem that the
> ancestors of chimps, gorillas and humans lived in wetter habitats than
> chimps do today. Therefore they would have had significantly more
> opportunities to 'get their feet wet' and, logically would have been
> more likely to move bipedally. That some of these hominids stopped
> living by water would explain why their descendants never perfected
> that bipedality.
Algis, the arguments are plausible, in the sense that there's no
direct means of disproving them. But they suffer from a serious lack
of supporting evidence, and leave you again open to the charge of
special pleading. What if the hominid ancestors weren't in a swamp?
What if Danakil wasn't the cradle of evolution?
I know you don't accept the alternative hypotheses for bipedal
origins; I've seen you rail at them on this NG, but you've yet to
present any arguments that show that your scenario is any more
plausible than anyone else's opinion, and so long as that's true,
you'll continue to draw the ire of the skeptical & impolite audience
here.
You can't just dismiss someone else's work showing that bipedalism
mainly occurs for other reasons than wading, & say "Oh, if he'd have
looked here, he'd have seen something different." You have to prove
it. Until you or someone else spends time on Conkuati island &
collects some data, your claim that chimps would wade there more often
is just unsupported supposition.
I used to work with a couple of guys who had 2 versions of the same
maxim. One was: "In God We Trust. All others, bring data." But I think
I prefer the directness of the alternative: "Without data, you're just
another f***ing bloke with an opinion."
There's a few of us like that 'round here...
Ross Macfarlane