The Aquatic Ape's "Mad Minute"
Bob Keeter
Where, & Why. Lets play a little game of journalistic reporting with the
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
Who: Some as yet undiscovered ancient ancestor of all modern humans
What: Lived in and around open bodies of water (or swamps) with a lifestyle
sufficiently "aquatic" to favor the evolutionary development of
characteristics and features significantly different from our nearest
cousins (chimps) targeted specifically towards adaptation to the aquatic
environment.
(I'll take the W's out of order, for a reason that will soon become clear.)
Where: Somewhere in equatorial Africa
When: This is a toughie. If hominid obligate bipedalism is supposedly a
product of the aquatic phase, it must have occurred at some point prior to
the first obligate bipedal human ancestors. Even if we throw out
Sahelanthropus for lack of HARD evidence (like the long leg bones and
relatively short arm bones of the Apiths that would render quadrupedalism
extremely difficult if not impossible) that would still push the aquatic
phase quite a ways back in history. The problem there is that all of the
features evolved for the aquatic existence, that were not mutually
advantageous for the bipedal aquatic and bipedal land-dwelling existence,
would be just as actively and aggressively "de-volved" as they had evolved
in the first place! So. . . if you go back too far, we would not have so
much as a trace of any adaptation that was not also advantageous in the
terrestrial environment. (Oh yeah, if whatever supposedly aquatic
adaptation is also evolutionarily advantageous in the terrestrial
environment, there is no need to hypothesize an aquatic phase for its
evolution, which sort of rocks the whole apple cart, doesnt it? 8-) )
Why: On one side I think that this might be a serious question, on the
other, the evidence is that species tend to difuse into just about any
viable ecology, so . . . . . at least the OPPORTUNITIES to difuse into
either a more watery or a much dryer environment than the primal human
ancestors can almost be assumed to be equal possibilities. Possibilities
are good for "working hypotheses", but cant be called real science. so. . .
. . lets just dump the "why" entirely!
So, lets go back to where there is some fat to be chewed, to a question for
the entire AAH community! WHEN would you say that your evolutionarily
significant aquatic phase occurred for ancestoral hominids? How far back to
you put it to allow it to be the genesis of human style bipedalism, without
putting it so far back that any uniquely aquatic impacts on our current
physiology would have simply disappeared? Or is bipedalism simply a non
sequitur with respect to the aquatic ape concept.
Think timeline! 8-) Need a timeline that makes sense when viewed from both
ends and from the middle
And yes, Pauline, this IS a trick question! A question designed to make you
think some very uncomfortable thoughts (other than just that I should quit
typing such herasy of course)! 8-) And Algis, if all of the adaptations of
the aquatic ape concept WERE truely unique adaptations to that watery
environment, why have they not disappeared? AND of course, for both, if
these "aquatic characteristics" were actually mutually advantageous in both
environments, why do we need to hypothesize a "different from the known"
environment to explain their existence?
I know, I know! I was really feeling debative this evening! 8-))
Lets see who is willing to risk a logical rebuttal, reasonable retort, or
constructive response! (Obviously, from the description of the desired
response, excluding the M&M&P troika who simply make noise in that
proverbial empty forest, IMMHO of course!!).
OBTW, (MAD MINUTE: concentrated fire of all weapons for a brief period of
time at maximum rate.)
Regards
bk
Pauline M Ross
wrote:
>So, lets go back to where there is some fat to be chewed, to a question for
>the entire AAH community! WHEN would you say that your evolutionarily
>significant aquatic phase occurred for ancestoral hominids? How far back to
>you put it to allow it to be the genesis of human style bipedalism, without
>putting it so far back that any uniquely aquatic impacts on our current
>physiology would have simply disappeared? Or is bipedalism simply a non
>sequitur with respect to the aquatic ape concept.
Bob, you've asked this question before and I'm sure I've given you an
answer before.
I would say, the 'aquatic phase' lasted from (possibly) the advent of
the ape clade (say 18 Mya), but certainly before bipedalism (say > 6
Mya), through to the start of agriculture (5-10 kya).
--
Pauline Ross
Nick Maclaren
In article <8cfmc.6479$a47....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net> writes:
|> In basic journalism you learn that there are "5 w's"; Who, What, When,
|> Where, & Why. Lets play a little game of journalistic reporting with the
|> Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
|>
|> Who: Some as yet undiscovered ancient ancestor of all modern humans
|>
|> What: Lived in and around open bodies of water (or swamps) with a lifestyle
|> sufficiently "aquatic" to favor the evolutionary development of
|> characteristics and features significantly different from our nearest
|> cousins (chimps) targeted specifically towards adaptation to the aquatic
|> environment.
|>
|>
|> When: This is a toughie. If hominid obligate bipedalism is supposedly a
|>
|> Why: On one side I think that this might be a serious question, ... so. . .
|> . . lets just dump the "why" entirely!
As the saner readers of this group will realise, I do not buy into
any umbrella theory, but feel that there are at least some aspects
of the AAT that make sense. Which does not prove they are right!
Here are a few points:
The when and why (and I am happy to include that) that make most
sense to me are the actual development of fully effective bipedalism,
starting from a chimpanzee-like posture and movement. It is, as far
as I know, the only hypothesis that fits all known facts and does
not require a previous development, with the need to explain why
THAT happened. But there is no good evidence for it, either.
I don't swallow the arguments for subcutaneous fat, hairlessness,
etc. etc., and think that Gould has it right that most are probably
secondary consequences of neoteny, which itself is explained by
the previous development of tool use, communication and childhood
learning.
I have no idea where or when those (mental) skills developed, and
could believe even the savanna, though an aquatic involvement is
equally likely. The fact that most of the savanna arguments are
completely bogus doesn't show that the WHOLE hypothesis is false.
Current belief is that those skills are much later than bipedalism
but, as I understand, there is little good evidence for that.
So I would say that the aquatic phase (assuming it occurred) was
very early, and was the key to separating us from the other African
great apes. I would speculate a small population being trapped in
an area where there was not enough prey to support populations of
the major group-hunting predators, and which was relatively
inaccessible from where they occurred (i.e. the savanna).
There may have been other phases, later, just as there may have been
savanna phases, gallery forest phases, seasonal living phases and
so on. I have no opinion on that.
But that is just a layman's hypothesis :-)
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Marc Verhaegen
news:8cfmc.6479$a47....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> In basic journalism you learn that there are "5 w's"; Who, What, When,
Where, & Why. Lets play a little game of journalistic reporting with the
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
Why not. Childs have to amuse themselves.
> Who: Some as yet undiscovered ancient ancestor of all modern humans
1) Undiscovered?? Man, a lot of Homo fossils come from coasts. Didn't you
even know this basic fact?? Inform a little bit before saying something.
2) One must be simple-minded if one believed that any fossil was an ancestor
of any living creature.
> What: Lived in and around open bodies of water (or swamps) with a
lifestyle sufficiently "aquatic" to favor the evolutionary development of
characteristics and features significantly different from our nearest
cousins (chimps) targeted specifically towards adaptation to the aquatic
environment.
Obvious, no? You don't believe that reduction of olfactory sense was a
savanna adaptation, do you?? You don't believe that flat feet are a savanna
adaptation, do you?? Etc. Etc. Etc.
> Where: Somewhere in equatorial Africa
?? Why do you believe that?? Do you have a good reason to believe this??
> When: This is a toughie. If hominid obligate bipedalism is supposedly a
product of the aquatic phase
??
Man, do you suppose this?? Nobody does, don't you know?
(Hence irrelevant blabla snipped.)
> Why: On one side I think that this might be a serious question, on the
other, the evidence is that species tend to difuse into just about any
viable ecology, so . . . . . at least the OPPORTUNITIES to difuse into
either a more watery or a much dryer environment than the primal human
ancestors can almost be assumed to be equal possibilities. Possibilities
are good for "working hypotheses", but cant be called real science. so. . .
. . lets just dump the "why" entirely!
??
Since we know that by c 1.8 Ma Homo had spread to Algeria, Kenya, Georgia,
Java, along the coasts (how else??), why wouldn't they have eaten shellfish,
crayfish, turtle & bired eggs, stranded sea mammals, coconuts etc. etc.??
Why IYHO?
Enough said??
Open your eyes, man.
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP
"Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8cfmc.6479$a47....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Where, & Why. Lets play a little game of journalistic reporting with the
> Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
snippage
>
> And yes, Pauline, this IS a trick question! A question designed to make
you
> think some very uncomfortable thoughts (other than just that I should quit
> typing such herasy of course)! 8-) And Algis, if all of the adaptations
of
> the aquatic ape concept WERE truely unique adaptations to that watery
> environment, why have they not disappeared? AND of course, for both, if
> these "aquatic characteristics" were actually mutually advantageous in
both
> environments, why do we need to hypothesize a "different from the known"
> environment to explain their existence?
Can you say "Strawman"? I thought you could.
Jim McGinn
> As the saner readers of this group will realise, I do not buy into
> any umbrella theory,
You've bought into Langdon's silly notion that there's something
objectionable to umbrella theories and that AAT is such.
but feel that there are at least some aspects
> of the AAT that make sense. Which does not prove they are right!
> Here are a few points:
>
> The when and why (and I am happy to include that) that make most
> sense to me are the actual development of fully effective bipedalism,
> starting from a chimpanzee-like posture and movement. It is, as far
> as I know, the only hypothesis that fits all known facts and does
> not require a previous development,
Huh? What are you talking about?
with the need to explain why
> THAT happened. But there is no good evidence for it, either.
>
> I don't swallow the arguments for subcutaneous fat, hairlessness,
> etc. etc., and think that Gould has it right that most are probably
> secondary consequences of neoteny,
Neoteny is a consequence, not a cause.
which itself is explained by
> the previous development of tool use, communication and childhood
> learning.
?
>
> I have no idea where or when those (mental) skills developed, and
> could believe even the savanna, though an aquatic involvement is
> equally likely.
I've always thought it strange that anybody would bother to speculate
about habitat without linking it to a hypothesis.
The fact that most of the savanna arguments are
> completely bogus doesn't show that the WHOLE hypothesis is false.
> Current belief is that those skills are much later than bipedalism
> but, as I understand, there is little good evidence for that.
How is it not obvious that it must involve a shift in lifestyle? How
is it not obvious that this shift in lifestyle involves communalism.
>
> So I would say that the aquatic phase (assuming it occurred) was
> very early, and was the key to separating us from the other African
> great apes. I would speculate a small population being trapped in
> an area where there was not enough prey to support populations of
> the major group-hunting predators, and which was relatively
> inaccessible from where they occurred (i.e. the savanna).
About the silliest thing of all is this notion that evolution happens
in phases. Another silly notion is that small populations can
introduce trends that overtake large populations. This is tail
wagging the dog nonsense.
>
> There may have been other phases, later, just as there may have been
> savanna phases, gallery forest phases, seasonal living phases and
> so on. I have no opinion on that.
>
> But that is just a layman's hypothesis :-)
Jim
Nick Maclaren
Jim McGinn <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>You've bought into Langdon's silly notion that there's something
>objectionable to umbrella theories and that AAT is such.
No, I have bought into the notion that they are extremely implausible
in THIS case. Once upon a time, long before most of the users of
the Internet were born, it was unclear whether all of our unusual
characteristics developed 'together'. A vast amount of fossil
evidence now shows that to be not so.
I don't buy into an umbrella theory stretching over 3-5 million years
unless the results show a continuing adaptation to the conditions
hypothesised. I have not seen any umbrella hypothesis that meets
the requirement.
>> The when and why (and I am happy to include that) that make most
>> sense to me are the actual development of fully effective bipedalism,
>> starting from a chimpanzee-like posture and movement. It is, as far
>> as I know, the only hypothesis that fits all known facts and does
>> not require a previous development,
>
>Huh? What are you talking about?
What I said. I have posted details before, and don't intend to
repeat them in this thread.
>Neoteny is a consequence, not a cause.
Not entirely. A neotenous mutation with some selective advantage
may well introduce other neotenous characteristics as side-effects.
If those have no selective DISADVANTAGE, they may well become
dominant.
> which itself is explained by
>> the previous development of tool use, communication and childhood
>> learning.
>
>?
See Gould and many others.
>> I have no idea where or when those (mental) skills developed, and
>> could believe even the savanna, though an aquatic involvement is
>> equally likely.
>
>I've always thought it strange that anybody would bother to speculate
>about habitat without linking it to a hypothesis.
I could produce a hypothesis easily enough. In fact, I could probably
produce several for each environment, plus others. My point is that
it is POSSIBLE that a particular environment was instrumental in
developing those mental skills, but there is no obvious reason to
select that class of hypotheses above any others.
> The fact that most of the savanna arguments are
>> completely bogus doesn't show that the WHOLE hypothesis is false.
>> Current belief is that those skills are much later than bipedalism
>> but, as I understand, there is little good evidence for that.
>
>How is it not obvious that it must involve a shift in lifestyle? How
>is it not obvious that this shift in lifestyle involves communalism.
What does that have to do with the date when the development occurred?
>About the silliest thing of all is this notion that evolution happens
>in phases. Another silly notion is that small populations can
>introduce trends that overtake large populations. This is tail
>wagging the dog nonsense.
Hmm. On the first point, all fossil evidence for most taxa indicates
that major shifts do, indeed, occur in phases. There is considerable
disagreement about why.
On the second, you are no geneticist, are you?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Bob Keeter
"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP" <som...@micrsfot.com> wrote in message
news:fzsmc.41003$Ik.2678164@attbi_s53...
Of course I can!
. . . . . .and the Lion needed courage! The Tin Man needed a heart, and the
Strawman
only needed a brain! 8-)))) Where the heck do you think I got the seed of
my idea for the
"avian ape hypothesis"! ;-)
Seriously, a "strawman" is usually proposed as essentially an unsupported
concept, sort
of tossed out to "sink or swim". That means that a "strawman" is a
fair-game target for
criticism (else why call it a strawman)? If a fact or a question can "pull
apart" a true
strawman, the author should thank whoever presents the unsolvable dilemma,
since
it would keep the author from looking foolish for presenting a strawman for
more than
it deserved.
Now if a concept is presented as a strawman and then honored, and defended,
as if it
were devine dogma, would you not see a problem?
Can you say "hypocracy" and "intellectual honesty"? Come on, give it a
shot! ;-)
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
"Pauline M Ross" <pmr...@ross-software.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5flj90h475tq01vq4...@4ax.com...
ACTUALLY, I have asked it before, its one of my favorites! Your answer
does give a slightly different angle to the discussion though. You would
seem
to be implying that all of modern humanity sprang from a small group of
aquatic
ancestors only 5-10kya? That would mean that either the whole line from
Sahelanthropus (or one of his contemporaries) up through the apiths, HH, HE
HN HS and HSS were ALL aquatic? I know that 18mya is a bit old for
Sahelanthropus, but if he turns out to be obligate bipedal like the apiths
and
all of homo, you do have to reach further back. . . . . .
But lets think about this a bit more. Given this "range" that you have
offered,
would you mind defining the nature of your "aquatic phase" in terms that a
dilitante such as myself might understand. At least IMHO, perhaps the most
"aquatic" of modern hominids would be the Polynesians. A major portion of
their livelihood is associated with the ocean, and has been for literally
1000's
of years. Do you see your "aquatic ancestor" as being more or less
"connected"
to the water, from an evolutionary standpoint, than a Polynesian?
Regards
bk
Jim McGinn
> >You've bought into Langdon's silly notion that there's something
> >objectionable to umbrella theories and that AAT is such.
>
> No, I have bought into the notion that they are extremely implausible
> in THIS case. Once upon a time, long before most of the users of
> the Internet were born, it was unclear whether all of our unusual
> characteristics developed 'together'. A vast amount of fossil
> evidence now shows that to be not so.
>
> I don't buy into an umbrella theory stretching over 3-5 million years
> unless the results show a continuing adaptation to the conditions
> hypothesised. I have not seen any umbrella hypothesis that meets
> the requirement.
This is a really slippery argument since nobody
knows what the other means when they use the term
umbrella. Langdon, like all anthropologists, uses
it as an excuse for ignoring standard concepts of
evolutionary biology.
>
> >> The when and why (and I am happy to include that) that make most
> >> sense to me are the actual development of fully effective bipedalism,
> >> starting from a chimpanzee-like posture and movement. It is, as far
> >> as I know, the only hypothesis that fits all known facts and does
> >> not require a previous development,
> >
> >Huh? What are you talking about?
>
> What I said. I have posted details before, and don't intend to
> repeat them in this thread.
Keep it vague, then nobody can dispute it.
>
> >Neoteny is a consequence, not a cause.
>
> Not entirely. A neotenous mutation with some selective advantage
> may well introduce other neotenous characteristics as side-effects.
> If those have no selective DISADVANTAGE, they may well become
> dominant.
Cart before the horse wishful thinking.
>
> > which itself is explained by
> >> the previous development of tool use, communication and childhood
> >> learning.
> >
> >?
>
> See Gould and many others.
Gould was clueless.
>
> >> I have no idea where or when those (mental) skills developed, and
> >> could believe even the savanna, though an aquatic involvement is
> >> equally likely.
> >
> >I've always thought it strange that anybody would bother to speculate
> >about habitat without linking it to a hypothesis.
>
> I could produce a hypothesis easily enough. In fact, I could probably
> produce several for each environment, plus others. My point is that
> it is POSSIBLE that a particular environment was instrumental in
> developing those mental skills, but there is no obvious reason to
> select that class of hypotheses above any others.
It's obvious to me that your thinking lacks
grounding in evolutionary principles.
>
> > The fact that most of the savanna arguments are
> >> completely bogus doesn't show that the WHOLE hypothesis is false.
> >> Current belief is that those skills are much later than bipedalism
> >> but, as I understand, there is little good evidence for that.
> >
> >How is it not obvious that it must involve a shift in lifestyle? How
> >is it not obvious that this shift in lifestyle involves communalism.
>
> What does that have to do with the date when the development occurred?
You lost me.
>
> >About the silliest thing of all is this notion that evolution happens
> >in phases. Another silly notion is that small populations can
> >introduce trends that overtake large populations. This is tail
> >wagging the dog nonsense.
>
> Hmm. On the first point, all fossil evidence for most taxa indicates
> that major shifts do, indeed, occur in phases.
No. It occurs during periods of climatic change.
There is considerable
> disagreement about why.
>
> On the second, you are no geneticist, are you?
You are making the classic mistake (like Crowley
recently) of extrapolating from a concept called
the founder effect. The founder effect DOES NOT
allow for this silly notion that that small
populations can introduce trends that overtake
large populations. It only tells us what happens
in small populations.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> . . . if all of the adaptations of the aquatic ape
> concept WERE truely unique adaptations to that
> watery environment, why have they not disappeared?
> AND of course, for both, if these "aquatic
> characteristics" were actually mutually advantageous
> in both environments, why do we need to hypothesize
> a "different from the known" environment to explain
> their existence?
These are killer questions, Bob! These are the kind
of common sense questions that should have been
foremost on the minds of anybody considering an
aquatic hypothesis. But you won't get a response from
Algis, Pauline, or Marc on any of this. And this is
because their understanding of NS has little if
anything to do with common sense.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> That means that a "strawman" is a fair-game target
> for criticism (else why call it a strawman)? If a
> fact or a question can "pull apart" a true
> strawman, the author should thank whoever presents
> the unsolvable dilemma, since it would keep the
> author from looking foolish for presenting a
> strawman for more than it deserved.
Maybe I'm missing your meaning here Bob, but a
"strawman," is a rhetorical tactic in which a person
misrepresents their opponents thinking with a weaker
version thereof and then proceeds to tear it down,
thus creating the illusion that their opponents
position is much weaker than it really is. (But on
second reading I think you already understand this
and are saying something altogether different.)
(One of the tactics of the conventional theorists in
this NG--and in PA in general--is to keep their own
thinking/hypothesis so vague that any attempt at all
to by their opponents to represent their
thinking/hypothesis--no matter how much they might
genuinely wish to avoid it--results in the strawman
accusation.)
Jim
Bob Keeter
Snippage. . . ..
> > Seriously, a "strawman" is usually proposed as essentially an
unsupported
> > concept, sort of tossed out to "sink or swim". That means that a
"strawman"
> > is a fair-game target for criticism (else why call it a strawman)? If a
fact or
> > a question can "pull apart" a true strawman, the author should thank
whoever
> > presents the unsolvable dilemma, since it would keep the author from
looking
> > foolish for presenting a strawman for more than it deserved.
>
> WRONG. Try again.
>
8-) OK, what would you call a "strawman"? Let me guess, its a revelation
from
on high delivered to a disciple of the true science, needing no proof,
evidence or
logic other than his personal decree! 8-) And of course, anyone who would
take
issue with a "strawman" proposal is an obvious heretic worthy of a hot stake
or a
cold chop! 8-0
> >
> > Now if a concept is presented as a strawman and then honored, and
> > defended, as if it were devine dogma, would you not see a problem?
> >
> > Can you say "hypocracy" and "intellectual honesty"? Come on, give it a
> > shot! ;-)
>
> PS-- your spelling suxrox.
Ah, yes. Spelling is it! 8-) Injuneers aint gotta be literat! But then
again
I dont have any trouble spelling my own name! But then I guess thats a
symptom of something other than simply not having the spell checker turned
on! 8-))
regards
bk
Pauline M Ross
wrote:
>You would seem to be implying that all of modern humanity sprang from a small group of
>aquatic ancestors only 5-10kya?
Why a small group? I would say that *all* modern humans are/were
'aquatic' (see definition below).
> That would mean that either the whole line from
>Sahelanthropus (or one of his contemporaries) up through the apiths, HH, HE
>HN HS and HSS were ALL aquatic? I know that 18mya is a bit old for
>Sahelanthropus, but if he turns out to be obligate bipedal like the apiths
>and all of homo, you do have to reach further back. . . . . .
Yep, that's it, more or less. Not that there weren't some hominids who
may have been less (or not at all) 'aquatic' (see definition below),
but our ancestors were consistently 'aquatic'.
>
>But lets think about this a bit more. Given this "range" that you have
>offered, would you mind defining the nature of your "aquatic phase" in terms that a
>dilitante such as myself might understand. At least IMHO, perhaps the most
>"aquatic" of modern hominids would be the Polynesians. A major portion of
>their livelihood is associated with the ocean, and has been for literally
>1000's of years. Do you see your "aquatic ancestor" as being more or less
>"connected" to the water, from an evolutionary standpoint, than a Polynesian?
OK, let's define 'aquatic' first: when I use the word 'aquatic' in the
context of human evolution, I mean that water was an inescapable part
of our ancestors' lives, and not just for drinking. Either there was
so much of it about that they had to wade and/or swim just to get
about, or that they got a substantial part of their food by physically
getting in the water. But naturally they also continued to move about
on land and use terrestrial resources.
Now this is less 'aquatic' than a dolphin (they were never in water
all the time) and less 'aquatic' than an otter or a seal (they were
never totally dependent on aquatic resources). Nevertheless, they were
sufficiently 'aquatic' for a long enough time to account for the
peculiarities we see in modern humans. In my opinion, anyway.
As to the Polynesians, I would say that the ancestral condition was
more 'aquatic' than that, since all modern humans are so adept with
tools that we never need to get in the water at all now - if we want
fish, we get out the boat, nets and hooks, or we can hunt land mammals
instead. The whole history of Homo has been the steady development of
tools which protect us from physical contact with our environment
(including water), so we have become somewhat less 'aquatic' with
time, but still sufficiently 'aquatic' that modern humans dispersed
all round the world by coastal routes and boats.
So no 'aquatic phase' as such, just a very long history of close
association with water, ending only very recently.
--
Pauline Ross
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.04050...@posting.google.com...
> "Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > That means that a "strawman" is a fair-game target
> > for criticism (else why call it a strawman)? If a
> > fact or a question can "pull apart" a true
> > strawman, the author should thank whoever presents
> > the unsolvable dilemma, since it would keep the
> > author from looking foolish for presenting a
> > strawman for more than it deserved.
>
> Maybe I'm missing your meaning here Bob, but a
> "strawman," is a rhetorical tactic in which a person
> misrepresents their opponents thinking with a weaker
> version thereof and then proceeds to tear it down,
> thus creating the illusion that their opponents
> position is much weaker than it really is. (But on
> second reading I think you already understand this
> and are saying something altogether different.)
BINGO!
Here, have a gold star.
Bob Keeter
> On Thu, 06 May 2004 22:44:54 GMT, "Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You would seem to be implying that all of modern humanity sprang from a
small group of
> >aquatic ancestors only 5-10kya?
>
> Why a small group? I would say that *all* modern humans are/were
> 'aquatic' (see definition below).
>
> > That would mean that either the whole line from
> >Sahelanthropus (or one of his contemporaries) up through the apiths, HH,
HE
> >HN HS and HSS were ALL aquatic? I know that 18mya is a bit old for
> >Sahelanthropus, but if he turns out to be obligate bipedal like the
apiths
> >and all of homo, you do have to reach further back. . . . . .
>
> Yep, that's it, more or less. Not that there weren't some hominids who
> may have been less (or not at all) 'aquatic' (see definition below),
> but our ancestors were consistently 'aquatic'.
Who knows! I may have trotted out one of the good Mr. Bandersnatch's
"strawmen" and didnt even know it! Well, Duh! 8-)
Snippage. . .
> OK, let's define 'aquatic' first: when I use the word 'aquatic' in the
> context of human evolution, I mean that water was an inescapable part
> of our ancestors' lives, and not just for drinking. Either there was
> so much of it about that they had to wade and/or swim just to get
> about, or that they got a substantial part of their food by physically
> getting in the water. But naturally they also continued to move about
> on land and use terrestrial resources.
So, all along since pre-Sahelanthropus days, we were tied to
open/flowing/standing bodies of water, but as you say, they would
continue to move about on land and also feed on terrestrial sources
right? Now that feels a LOT like what I would call a semi-aquatic
species, and there are plenty of precidents for said lifestyle among
mammals! At one end of the continuum, you might find an Alaskan
brown bear. The bear depends on the salmon runs for a major portion
of the stored fat that will get it through the winter, however for probably
90-95% of the time, its out on try land (eating or hybernating). Couldnt
survive without the salmon runs, but only has spawing salmon for a very
few weeks out of the year. On the other extreme is the N. American
beaver. It spends probably 70-75% of its time in the water but its food
is almost entirely found on the land (except for a little touch of algae
during the spring).
So lets take this WHOLE spectrum of semi-aquatic mammalian
species and lets look at how many of the "aquatic ape" characteristics
they share!
Some rhetorical questions!
Are any obligate bipeds?
Are any even semi-hairless?
Do any have significant layers of SC fat for insulation OR bouyancy?
Given your own answers, is there any justification to include a hominid
in this category?
> Now this is less 'aquatic' than a dolphin (they were never in water
> all the time) and less 'aquatic' than an otter or a seal (they were
> never totally dependent on aquatic resources). Nevertheless, they were
> sufficiently 'aquatic' for a long enough time to account for the
> peculiarities we see in modern humans. In my opinion, anyway.
So, less aquatic than cetaceans (i'll toss in sirenians if you dont mind),
and
even less aquatic than a seal or an otter. Hmmmmm. So we have narrowed
the degree of aquaticism to the otter on one end and perhaps my brown bear
on the other?
Same rhetorical questions. . . . . . . 8-)
> As to the Polynesians, I would say that the ancestral condition was
> more 'aquatic' than that, since all modern humans are so adept with
> tools that we never need to get in the water at all now - if we want
> fish, we get out the boat, nets and hooks, or we can hunt land mammals
> instead. The whole history of Homo has been the steady development of
> tools which protect us from physical contact with our environment
> (including water), so we have become somewhat less 'aquatic' with
> time, but still sufficiently 'aquatic' that modern humans dispersed
> all round the world by coastal routes and boats.
>
> So no 'aquatic phase' as such, just a very long history of close
> association with water, ending only very recently.
So, the "aquatic period" ended with the advent of tools?"
Yep, I like those rhetorical questions! I think that perhaps putting you
in the position to have to think through this little proposition of yours is
my best "debating tactic"! After all, I cant convince you that the aquatic
ape theory is hogwash, you must do that for me! ;-)
Regards
bk
Pauline M Ross
wrote:
[Snip discussion of beavers and bears]
>So lets take this WHOLE spectrum of semi-aquatic mammalian
>species and lets look at how many of the "aquatic ape" characteristics
>they share!
[Snip]
>Are any obligate bipeds?
>Are any even semi-hairless?
>Do any have significant layers of SC fat for insulation OR bouyancy?
And are any of them tropical? Arboreal? Primates? Hominid-sized? To
get from A to B, you first have to start at A.
>>[Pauline]The whole history of Homo has been the steady development of
>> tools which protect us from physical contact with our environment
>> (including water), so we have become somewhat less 'aquatic' with
>> time, but still sufficiently 'aquatic' that modern humans dispersed
>> all round the world by coastal routes and boats.
>> So no 'aquatic phase' as such, just a very long history of close
>> association with water, ending only very recently.
>
>So, the "aquatic period" ended with the advent of tools?"
The advent of tools was (at least) 2.5 Mya, possibly substantially
earlier. I date the end of the 'aquatic period' to the start of
agriculturalism (say 10 kya). Bit different. But it isn't a
black-and-white thing; the more sophisticated the tools became, the
more our ancestors were capable of breaking away from the water (but
the most successful groups were always those who stayed close to it -
until recently).
>
>Yep, I like those rhetorical questions! I think that perhaps putting you
>in the position to have to think through this little proposition of yours is
>my best "debating tactic"! After all, I cant convince you that the aquatic
>ape theory is hogwash, you must do that for me! ;-)
I'm still waiting for that hogwash-proving piece of evidence :-)
--
Pauline Ross
Marc Verhaegen
Sigh. Keeter is producing his usual biases.
On semi-aquatics, he asks:
> >Are any obligate bipeds?
1) ?? I hope Keeter doesn't use this against AAT?? (You never know the
prejudices of these people...)
2) Kangaroos are obligate bipeds. Yes, kangaroos could be called
savanna-dwellers... No doubt this proves humans descend from
savanna-dwellers... :-D
3) IMO human bipedalism results from having dwelt in flooded forests
(wading-suspensory) followed by coastal swimming-wading-walking.
4) Penguins walk on land vertically like humans (straight bodies).
> >Are any even semi-hairless?
Keeter apparently doesn't realise that tropical coastal mammals smaller than
babirusas & humans don't lose the fur. What is he trying to say? That humans
can't have had coastal ancestors??
> >Do any have significant layers of SC fat for insulation OR bouyancy?
Keeter seems to believe that SC fat must have been for buoyancy?? Doesn't he
know that our coastal ancestors had to find shellfish not at the surface,
but at the bottom?? I don't know what he is arguing.
(It's "buoyancy" AFAIK. Keeter should at least try to spell his own language
correctly (not difficult: the man could use a dictionary, as I have to do so
often: I already have the handicap of having to write a foreign language).)
> >>[Pauline]The whole history of Homo has been the steady development of
tools which protect us from physical contact with our environment (including
water), so we have become somewhat less 'aquatic' with time, but still
sufficiently 'aquatic' that modern humans dispersed all round the world by
coastal routes and boats. So no 'aquatic phase' as such, just a very long
history of close association with water, ending only very recently.
> >So, the "aquatic period" ended with the advent of tools?"
?? Why does he believes that?? It's difficult to follow the curious
reasonings of these people.
> The advent of tools was (at least) 2.5 Mya, possibly substantially
earlier.
Yes, not unlikely. Since orangs use & make tools, this could even predate
the hominid-pongid LCA c 15 Mya or so.
> I date the end of the 'aquatic period' to the start of agriculturalism
(say 10 kya).
Yes. And even then: rice grows in shallow water.
> Bit different. But it isn't a black-and-white thing; the more
sophisticated the tools became, the more our ancestors were capable of
breaking away from the water (but the most successful groups were always
those who stayed close to it - until recently).
Well-said, Pauline.
Rest of Keeter's blabla snipped.
Bob Keeter
> On Sat, 08 May 2004 02:15:30 GMT, "Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> [Snip discussion of beavers and bears]
> >So lets take this WHOLE spectrum of semi-aquatic mammalian
> >species and lets look at how many of the "aquatic ape" characteristics
> >they share!
> [Snip]
> >Are any obligate bipeds?
> >Are any even semi-hairless?
> >Do any have significant layers of SC fat for insulation OR bouyancy?
>
> And are any of them tropical? Arboreal? Primates? Hominid-sized? To
> get from A to B, you first have to start at A.
>
I swear, I did not hold up a cue card! 8-)
So yo say that there are no arboreal, hominid-sized, semi-aquatic
species in the primate line? 8-) You have GOT to admit that is
at least ONE way to read your statement! You could claim a
bad interpretation, I could claim a Freudian slip! 8-) Enough
with the word games though. . . . . . ..
Lets start from the right and move to the left!
Hominid sized: YES! Matter of fact!
We have the giant river otter of the South American river
basins (orinoco and amazon). I believe that it qualifies as both roughly
hominid (apith) sized, and tropical! In length, the otter is quite a bit
"longer, leaner and more streamlined" and the apith is a bit more solidly
built.
http://www.seaworld.org/AnimalBytes/giantriverotter.htm
Males weigh 26-34 kg, females weigh 22-26 kg
Head & body length = 864 - 1,400 mm
Tail length = 330 - 1,000 mm
so, counting the very substancial tail up to 2.4 meters
and
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/anamensis.html
"Specimens from other sites such as Sibilot Hill also may be anamensis, but
there is much debate on the validity of the anamensis species, since the
samples are very close in morphology to afarensis. One factor that seems to
separate anamensis and afarensis is the mean body weight of the male
specimens. The mean of Hadar afarensis specimens is 44.6 kg, but the body
weight estimates for the tibia (KP 29285) is approximately 55 kg, and
approximately 58 kg for the humerus (KP 271). These weights were estimated
using McHenry's predictive regression equations. "
And if I remember correctly A. africanus and A. afarensis are both right at
1.5m in height for the males (more like 1-1.25 for the females), correct me
if Im wrong, but with a body length (less tail) of .864 to 1.4 meters, Id
say that the river otter is a fair match. Again though, the otter is
required to swim for its dinner (and survival) so. . . . . longer, leaner,
more streamlined and as furry as a little teddy bear! 8-)
www.wwfguianas.org/ feat_spec_giant_otter.htm
By the way, if you go to Google and search the images for "giant river
otter" you can find several nice pictures of these sleekly furred, tropical,
semi-aquatic mammals sitting in trees! They are NOT great climbers by any
means, but. . .
in trees = arboreal (to some degree or less). If we used the same standard
of "time spent" in an environment that Algis used for his aquatic bonobos, I
think that a single picture of a giant river otter sitting on a tilted tree
bole is more than adequate for "arboreal" dont you?
Snipapge. . . . . . .
> >So, the "aquatic period" ended with the advent of tools?"
>
> The advent of tools was (at least) 2.5 Mya, possibly substantially
> earlier. I date the end of the 'aquatic period' to the start of
> agriculturalism (say 10 kya). Bit different. But it isn't a
> black-and-white thing; the more sophisticated the tools became, the
> more our ancestors were capable of breaking away from the water (but
> the most successful groups were always those who stayed close to it -
> until recently).
Just so that there is no mistake, I also believe that the advent of tools
was a VERY important point in human evolution (and apparently for
basically the same reason, i.e. it marked the start of technological
evolution being a significant (principal?) factor in human evolution vs.
a purely biological evolution. I suspect that the ONLY difference
in our points of view is the starting point for this technologically driven
hominid evolution. See, perhaps more agreement than either might
have thought! 8-)
Im even of the mind to suggest that the big technological "jump" that
emancipated early hominids from the need to be close to (drinking)
water was the water skin or canteen. Chimps use tools (at least sticks
and twigs and nut-cracking rocks) but they dont have any way to
carry water. If you could give a chimp a canteen and train him to
use it, exactly what would he be missing in terms of evolutionary
and technological adaptations to move out into the true grasslands?
Remember, the ones that live in the deep forest dont need canteens
or even rivers and streams because of their diet and the readily available
sources in a rain forest. The ones that live outside of a rain forest need
to stay
reasonably close to a drinking water supply, even though that water
source does not really supply a great deal of their food. Give them a
canteen
and where are the "limits"?
> >
> >Yep, I like those rhetorical questions! I think that perhaps putting you
> >in the position to have to think through this little proposition of yours
is
> >my best "debating tactic"! After all, I cant convince you that the
aquatic
> >ape theory is hogwash, you must do that for me! ;-)
>
> I'm still waiting for that hogwash-proving piece of evidence :-)
>
Oh, I dont think that either of us will know its arrived until YOU
say so! Best I can do is to keep gnawing away at those linchpins
of the quivering/rock-solid (depending on point of view) AAH
and offering up difficult questions! 8-)
. . . . . even ill educated termites can bring down tall buildings if
they are diligent enough in their gnawing! Not of course that I
would say AAH is exactly a "tall building"! Sorta low lying and
short of structural support. . . . . . ;-)
Regards
bk
Algis Kuliukas
> Where, & Why. Lets play a little game of journalistic reporting with the
> Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
[..]
> So, lets go back to where there is some fat to be chewed, to a question for
> the entire AAH community! WHEN would you say that your evolutionarily
> significant aquatic phase occurred for ancestoral hominids? How far back to
> you put it to allow it to be the genesis of human style bipedalism, without
> putting it so far back that any uniquely aquatic impacts on our current
> physiology would have simply disappeared? Or is bipedalism simply a non
> sequitur with respect to the aquatic ape concept.
>
> Think timeline! 8-) Need a timeline that makes sense when viewed from both
> ends and from the middle
In my opinion there was no single distinct 'aquatic phase' as such.
This is the one part of the original Hardy/Morgan hypothesis (ie a
post Pan-Homo LCA, pre Homo real aquatic phase) that Langdon did do a
good job of refuting - if only to point out that a'piths are hardly
indicative of being more aquatic than humans are which they should
have been if a real phase had happenned around 6mya.
I currently think human evolution was probably an extremely complex
mosaic of short, localised phases when our ancestors were generally
exposed to more aquatic pressures and then phases when they were
exposed to greater terrestriality. I think Potts' (1998) case for the
variable selection hypothesis is actually very close to the mark, when
he proposes that it wasn't so much the generally accepted shift
towards aridity which shaped humans but an increase in the frequency
of change cycles from wet to dry and then back again which was a
driver in itself. The point he misses, though, in my opinion is that
in periods of aridity the forests and dependent fauna would certainly
retreat back to gallery forest refugia and in periods of wetness
they'd be more exposed to flooding and drowning. It's the instability
of the habitat, specifically from the point of view of water, which
forced them ever closer to water when it was dry and required them to
move through it better when it was wet. As a consequence our ancestors
would have been exposed, in small cyclic steps, ever towards greater
aquaticism - but never quite getting there. This series of
aridity-flood cycles probably started way back in the Miocene, could
well have been due to the major waves of hominids moving out of Africa
and almost certainly ended only very recently (< 50ky) causing the
final, most recent migrations of the OoA II exodus.
Potts, Richard (1998). Environmental Hypotheses of Hominin Evolution.
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology Vol:41 Pages:93-136
I think the timescale was a complex mosaic and so was the geography -
some hominids living in being lake-side, some riverside, some coastal
and some island-based - and also, probably, it wasn't just on one
lineage. I think the likelihood is that there was a fair degree of
introgression (hybridisation) in hominid evolution, meaning that
whilst one population might have been going through a 'more aquatic'
phase, another may have been simultaneously going trough a
particularly terrestrial one. One might expect that the hybrids of
such groups would leave a perplexing mix of traits that look odd to us
today, to say the least, and do not easily fit easily next to simple
mammalian analalogues.
Only an opinion. Only thinking aloud - but we're allowed to do that
here, aren't we?
Algis Kuliukas
Bob Keeter
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04050...@posting.google.com...
So would you say that whatever "aquatic adapations" that are present
were done by the time of the apiths? If so, you have a bit of a problem I
think. Lets just say, hypothetically of course, that the notional
adaptations
were inspired by a pre-Apith period of more intensive "aquaticism". Since
the advent of the Apiths though, we have have been just about stable in
terms of major body "adaptations". The movement towards bigger brains
than our ape ancestors was well on the way; bipedalism was an extablished
fact, knuckle walking was a thing of the past, and climbing was apparently
if not a dying art, at least less important than with earlier primates. Now
lets roll in "aquatic adaptations". The curved fingers that seem to betray
a very recent, or even current arboreal present for the apiths, disappear in
future evolution! Its not so much that curved finger bones are all that
disadvantageous for future uses of the hands as much as there simply isnt
the need for them (and perhaps there is a different kind of "loading" that
influences the bone growth during life without any genetic influence).
Anyway you look at it though, those curved finger bones of an
arborealist simply disappear. Yet you would have us believe that
adaptations that are totally anthithetical to an upright, terrestrial
existence would persist right through the Apiths into modern humans?
Hmmmmm.. How is it that the tree climbing adaptations disappeared
yet the aquatic persisted (even though some of the subtle ones like the
curvature of the filanges were "dont cares" with no reason to see
as a disadvantage to a species no longer tied to the trees?)?
Again, I have to ask, if the hypothetical adaptations for the aquatic
environment were RETAINED in the modern, non-aquatic phase,
does that not imply at least SOME advantage to those adaptations
in the current environments? Now we will do one of those
"If A, then B" exercises. . . . . If the adaptations were favorable enough
in the terrestrial existence to have been retained, what is to say that they
did not develop in the terrestrial environment as well? 8-)
> I currently think human evolution was probably an extremely complex
> mosaic of short, localised phases when our ancestors were generally
> exposed to more aquatic pressures and then phases when they were
> exposed to greater terrestriality. I think Potts' (1998) case for the
> variable selection hypothesis is actually very close to the mark, when
> he proposes that it wasn't so much the generally accepted shift
> towards aridity which shaped humans but an increase in the frequency
> of change cycles from wet to dry and then back again which was a
> driver in itself. The point he misses, though, in my opinion is that
> in periods of aridity the forests and dependent fauna would certainly
> retreat back to gallery forest refugia and in periods of wetness
> they'd be more exposed to flooding and drowning. It's the instability
> of the habitat, specifically from the point of view of water, which
> forced them ever closer to water when it was dry and required them to
> move through it better when it was wet. As a consequence our ancestors
> would have been exposed, in small cyclic steps, ever towards greater
> aquaticism - but never quite getting there. This series of
> aridity-flood cycles probably started way back in the Miocene, could
> well have been due to the major waves of hominids moving out of Africa
> and almost certainly ended only very recently (< 50ky) causing the
> final, most recent migrations of the OoA II exodus.
Personally, Im thinking that Potts didnt miss much at all! The ONE
characteristic
of hominids that I firmly believe sets us appart from all other terrestrial
species is our adaptability! We are the ONLY primate with a range
from the deep tropic rain forest to the frozen tundra (and we and our
ancestors had occupied much if not all of that range well before the
development of even Neolythic technologies!) But that does not get us
upright and hairless striding across the grassy veld now does it! 8-)
Actually, I think that a quick look at modern climatic instabilities give
us a very good clue. Large parts of Africa seem to swing between
open forest, scrubland, grassland and even desert with major impacts on
human habitation. Look at the petroglyphs of the Atlas mountains and
the pre-desertification inhabitants of the Sahara, or in more recent times
the droughts that have ravished the Sahel. In the past there would have
been no relief columns and water trucks, just a very rapid and totally
uncaring "selection" for those species that could survive in a dry climate.
Now that small handfull that managed (through whatever trick or skill),
would need to retain the ability to exist in a wetter environment when
the monsoons retained (not nearly so hard as that first transition), but
thats my $0.02 and I havent seen a lot to convince me otherwise,
how about you? 8-)
Snippage. . . .
> I think the timescale was a complex mosaic and so was the geography -
> some hominids living in being lake-side, some riverside, some coastal
> and some island-based - and also, probably, it wasn't just on one
> lineage. I think the likelihood is that there was a fair degree of
> introgression (hybridisation) in hominid evolution, meaning that
> whilst one population might have been going through a 'more aquatic'
> phase, another may have been simultaneously going trough a
> particularly terrestrial one. One might expect that the hybrids of
> such groups would leave a perplexing mix of traits that look odd to us
> today, to say the least, and do not easily fit easily next to simple
> mammalian analalogues.
Unless of course, that all of the "traits" have some explaination that
so far eludes us (or perhaps only eludes some of us! Exactly which "some"
is
yet to be seen of course! ;-) )
> Only an opinion. Only thinking aloud - but we're allowed to do that
> here, aren't we?
Hey, thinking outloud, so long as its thinking and not just some of the
name calling and childish tantrums that certain elements tend to bring
to these happy folds is more than welcome. As for those malcontent,
malevolent little people that have to play ego games, silence is golden!
8-)
Regards
bk
Algis Kuliukas
I think you must have misread what I wrote, Bob. If you read the above
para and the rest below you'll see that I don't think anything of the
sort. If anything more aquatic pressre happenned after the A'piths in
my opinion.
Pauline M Ross
wrote:
>>[Pauline] And are any of them tropical? Arboreal? Primates? Hominid-sized? To
>> get from A to B, you first have to start at A.
>[Bob]So yo say that there are no arboreal, hominid-sized, semi-aquatic
>species in the primate line? 8-) You have GOT to admit that is
>at least ONE way to read your statement!
No, sorry, don't see that at all :-(
>Hominid sized: YES! Matter of fact!
>We have the giant river otter of the South American river
>basins (orinoco and amazon). I believe that it qualifies as both roughly
>hominid (apith) sized, and tropical! In length, the otter is quite a bit
>"longer, leaner and more streamlined" and the apith is a bit more solidly
>built.
OK, nice example. I'll come back to the giant otter and his cousins in
a minute. Let's take the general points first.
>> >[Bob]So lets take this WHOLE spectrum of semi-aquatic mammalian
>> >species and lets look at how many of the "aquatic ape" characteristics
>> >they share!
>> [Snip]
>> >Are any obligate bipeds?
No. If you are saying that a semi-aquatic lifestyle per se does not
result in bipedalism, I would agree with you. Water *alone* will not
do it.
The problem is that bipedalism is vanishingly rare in the entire
history of our planet - only dinosaurs, birds and a rather small
number of hopping, leaping things. So there are very few points of
comparison, which are either very different from us or are extinct.
But (as I was *trying* to point out up above!) it depends where you
start from - most terrestrial species (and virtually all mammals) are
solidly quadrupedal, and that's not a good starting point for
bipedalism, whether water is involved or not. Being arboreal (and
therefore being used to an upright body) is a much better starting
point. Even so, most arboreals are quadrupedal on the ground, and even
those which wade bipedally are still mostly quadrupedal on dry land.
So even though water can get an ape walking bipedally, it will take
more than that to convert him to *obligate* bipedalism.
>> >Are any even semi-hairless?
Hippos, of course, and the largest pinnipeds. But the hairless thing
is a whole can of worms. The full-time aquatics are all hairless (so
hairlessness clearly has some connection with aquaticism), but most
semi-aquatics are not, and then you get some terrestrial species
(elephants, rhinos, pigs) which are hairless but not aquatic (we can
ignore the burrowers, which I think we can agree have no relevance for
human evolution).
Of the semi-aquatics, the vast majority are polar or sub-polar (of the
pinnipeds, for instance, I believe only 3 species are found in warm
waters). Generally, they are carnivores who spend most of their time
out of water resting. This means that their fur is still useful.
As for your otters, there are some 13 different species, and most are
subpolar and quite small. However, there are several tropical species,
and the giant otter is certainly hominid-sized.
As I say, the reasons for mammals to lose their fur are complex, and
there seem to be correlations with aquaticism, body size, local
temperature and lifestyle, but there isn't an easy answer.
>> >Do any have significant layers of SC fat for insulation OR bouyancy?
Yes, the pinnipeds (and possibly some otters, but I haven't been able
to nail that down definitively). Actually, I can't think of any
species with permanent fat which is *not* aquatic.
I'm not trying to say that we *must* have been 'aquatic' because we
have no fur or subcutaneous fat or whatever; only that these things
*may* be connected with water and therefore that that should be
considered as one of options.
>Just so that there is no mistake, I also believe that the advent of tools
>was a VERY important point in human evolution
[Snip]
>Im even of the mind to suggest that the big technological "jump" that
>emancipated early hominids from the need to be close to (drinking)
>water was the water skin or canteen.
I have this image in my mind of your hominids striding out bipedally
with their water skins, and the males with their clubs, and the
females with their infants, and perhaps carrying a few stone tools as
well - my goodness, they had their hands full ;-)
>. . . . . even ill educated termites can bring down tall buildings if
>they are diligent enough in their gnawing! Not of course that I
>would say AAH is exactly a "tall building"! Sorta low lying and
>short of structural support. . . . . . ;-)
Another great image! Gnaw away, termite :-)
--
Pauline Ross
Bob Keeter
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
Snip. . .
> > > In my opinion there was no single distinct 'aquatic phase' as such.
> > > This is the one part of the original Hardy/Morgan hypothesis (ie a
> > > post Pan-Homo LCA, pre Homo real aquatic phase) that Langdon did do a
> > > good job of refuting - if only to point out that a'piths are hardly
> > > indicative of being more aquatic than humans are which they should
> > > have been if a real phase had happenned around 6mya.
>
> > So would you say that whatever "aquatic adapations" that are present
> > were done by the time of the apiths? If so, you have a bit of a
problem I
> > think.
>
> I think you must have misread what I wrote, Bob. If you read the above
> para and the rest below you'll see that I don't think anything of the
> sort. If anything more aquatic pressre happenned after the A'piths in
> my opinion.
Hey, this is good! we now have at least one "limit" in there for your
particular concept of the AA! If most of the "aquatic pressures" were
after the time of the apith, that would mean that bipedalism would
necessarily be "off the table" as a characteristic primarily driven by
aquatic factors, wouldnt it?
Among the various "aquatic adaptations", obligate bipedalism is the
feature that requires the most "moving around" of skeletal structure
and therefore would be the most tediously evolved of the lot,
at least IMHO. We can demonstrate from the archeological
evidence that the human physique can "move around" quite a bit
within limits (Equadorean highlanders being one of the prime
examples) quite quickly from an evolutionary standpoint. These
adaptations though did not change the basic structure of a human
being, they just did things like reduce arm and leg length, increase
lung capacity, increase hemoglobin levels in the blood, etc (all
adaptations for high altitude almost certainly occuring since
the initial influx of HS into the Americans! Obligate bipedalism
changed the way the bones go together, I would propose a
MUCH longer and MUCH more involved process that would
have left significant indications in the fossil material between
the Apiths and today (unless of course the Apiths are accepted
to already be obligate, or nearly-obligate bipeds!)
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
Thank you ma'am!
> The problem is that bipedalism is vanishingly rare in the entire
> history of our planet - only dinosaurs, birds and a rather small
> number of hopping, leaping things. So there are very few points of
> comparison, which are either very different from us or are extinct.
>
I would say that the hopping, leaping things are different enough to
also exclude, making your statement even more emphatically true!
> But (as I was *trying* to point out up above!) it depends where you
> start from - most terrestrial species (and virtually all mammals) are
> solidly quadrupedal, and that's not a good starting point for
> bipedalism, whether water is involved or not. Being arboreal (and
> therefore being used to an upright body) is a much better starting
> point. Even so, most arboreals are quadrupedal on the ground, and even
> those which wade bipedally are still mostly quadrupedal on dry land.
> So even though water can get an ape walking bipedally, it will take
> more than that to convert him to *obligate* bipedalism.
We have some significant points of agreement I think. but its not
terribly interesting for me to tell you that you are a genius and for
you to return the favor! ;-)
So you say rather conclusively that "water can get an ape walking
bipedally". Does that mean that an ape can not and will not
wade other than bipedally? Most apes are sometimes bipedal
sometimes quadrupedal, both on land and in the water, would
you not agree? Most apes are not "aquatic", at least not if that
is one of the "separators" between us and the rest of them, right?
If a non-aquatic still wades (bipedally or quadrupedally) how do
we define "aquatic"?
> >> >Are any even semi-hairless?
>
> Hippos, of course, and the largest pinnipeds. But the hairless thing
> is a whole can of worms. The full-time aquatics are all hairless (so
> hairlessness clearly has some connection with aquaticism), but most
> semi-aquatics are not, and then you get some terrestrial species
> (elephants, rhinos, pigs) which are hairless but not aquatic (we can
> ignore the burrowers, which I think we can agree have no relevance for
> human evolution).
Yep! We have very big terrestrial and hairless, we have completely
aquatic and hairless, we have very big and semi-aquatic (verging on
fully aquatic, like the walruses) andd we have burrowing and hairless.
None works as an example! We agree!!! Except, for one small point.
What "semiaquatic" that is less than one order of magnitude heavier
than any hominid is hairless? Hippos are heavy enough to be considered
in the same breath as elephants and rhinos, relatively hairless
terrestrials!
Giant otters and many seals are the right general size and are definitely
aquatic to one degree or another, but all are furry critters.
Is there a semi-aquatic, less than 1500 lbs, that does not have DENSE
fur?
> Of the semi-aquatics, the vast majority are polar or sub-polar (of the
> pinnipeds, for instance, I believe only 3 species are found in warm
> waters). Generally, they are carnivores who spend most of their time
> out of water resting. This means that their fur is still useful.
>
Woops! Are you REALLY saying that fur seals spend most of their time out
of the water?
> As for your otters, there are some 13 different species, and most are
> subpolar and quite small. However, there are several tropical species,
> and the giant otter is certainly hominid-sized.
>
> As I say, the reasons for mammals to lose their fur are complex, and
> there seem to be correlations with aquaticism, body size, local
> temperature and lifestyle, but there isn't an easy answer.
>
OK, one of the "tricks" of formal logic is to take a difficult question and
try
to disprove the converse of the question. Ive tried that a little bit
abstractly
elsewhere in this tread. What if we took an alternate, opposite hypothesis.
In this case, lets propose that hairlessness is NOT a characterisic of
semi-aquatic
mammals with less than 1500 lbs of body mass. Now, if you can provide one
example, you have conclusively disproven that statement! (since the question
of
the aquaticism of homo is the real question, that particular "example" is of
course
off base unless you wish to open up to charges of circular logic.)
I'll warn you, if you find an example, I will drop the weight to 500lbs and
ask again!
The real point of course is that there are no 100 lb hairless semi-aquatics
in mammalia!
Very easily disprovable, although virtually impossible to prove! Go for it!
or of course, if you choose to concede that point, thats OK too! ;-)
> >> >Do any have significant layers of SC fat for insulation OR bouyancy?
>
> Yes, the pinnipeds (and possibly some otters, but I haven't been able
> to nail that down definitively). Actually, I can't think of any
> species with permanent fat which is *not* aquatic.
Would you add "fully aquatic", or "completely aquatic"?
One real example, albeit not "permanent" would be the Kodiak brown
bears that put on a huge layer of fat snacking on the salmon runs, but the
purpose of that fat is patently obvious (i.e. food storage for the winter
hybernation). Anything that interferes with the acquisition of this yearly
nutritional storehouse could easily kill the giant bears! So. . . we have
an
example of a semi-permanent fat layer for nutritional purposes. . . . Hmmmm
> I'm not trying to say that we *must* have been 'aquatic' because we
> have no fur or subcutaneous fat or whatever; only that these things
> *may* be connected with water and therefore that that should be
> considered as one of options.
Pauline, being considered is one thing, being accepted and embraced
is another entirely! You consider them. Do you honestly think that our
current nearly hairless condition was driven by a need to cut aquatic
friction? Do you honestly believe that SC fat in humans was driven by
a need for floation and aquatic insulation rather than as a store of
high quality nutrition for the early infant development? If so, say
so. If not, dont waffle around trying to protect AAH arguements. Its
very unbecoming.
> >Just so that there is no mistake, I also believe that the advent of tools
> >was a VERY important point in human evolution
> [Snip]
> >Im even of the mind to suggest that the big technological "jump" that
> >emancipated early hominids from the need to be close to (drinking)
> >water was the water skin or canteen.
>
> I have this image in my mind of your hominids striding out bipedally
> with their water skins, and the males with their clubs, and the
> females with their infants, and perhaps carrying a few stone tools as
> well - my goodness, they had their hands full ;-)
>
Yep. Certainly doesnt leave much room for quadrupedal locomotion
now does it! ;-)
> >. . . . . even ill educated termites can bring down tall buildings if
> >they are diligent enough in their gnawing! Not of course that I
> >would say AAH is exactly a "tall building"! Sorta low lying and
> >short of structural support. . . . . . ;-)
>
> Another great image! Gnaw away, termite :-)
And downright tasty with a little tabasco! ;-)))
Regards
bk
(Tabasco sauce even made C-Rations palatable! If of course you liked
tabasco sauce in LARGE quantities! ;-) )
Pauline M Ross
wrote:
>So you say rather conclusively that "water can get an ape walking
>bipedally". Does that mean that an ape can not and will not
>wade other than bipedally? Most apes are sometimes bipedal
>sometimes quadrupedal, both on land and in the water, would
>you not agree? Most apes are not "aquatic", at least not if that
>is one of the "separators" between us and the rest of them, right?
>If a non-aquatic still wades (bipedally or quadrupedally) how do
>we define "aquatic"?
Bob, you like to play with words, can you try to remember the words
'more' and 'less'? No one here is talking about 'aquatic' hominids,
but only about 'more aquatic' than modern apes.
>Is there a semi-aquatic, less than 1500 lbs, that does not have DENSE
>fur?
Yes, the pigmy hippo, 395-605 lbs. It's more complicated than than
just size!
>Woops! Are you REALLY saying that fur seals spend most of their time out
>of the water?
Yes, most seals spend most of their time hauled out.
>> [Pauline]Actually, I can't think of any
>> species with permanent fat which is *not* aquatic.
>
>Would you add "fully aquatic", or "completely aquatic"?
>One real example, albeit not "permanent" would be the Kodiak brown
>bears that put on a huge layer of fat snacking on the salmon runs,
There are lots of examples of terrestrial mammals which put on
seasonal fat. I don't see much evidence that humans do (or did) that,
do you?
>
>>[Pauline] I'm not trying to say that we *must* have been 'aquatic' because we
>> have no fur or subcutaneous fat or whatever; only that these things
>> *may* be connected with water and therefore that that should be
>> considered as one of options.
>
>Pauline, being considered is one thing, being accepted and embraced
>is another entirely! You consider them. Do you honestly think that our
>current nearly hairless condition was driven by a need to cut aquatic
>friction? Do you honestly believe that SC fat in humans was driven by
>a need for floation and aquatic insulation rather than as a store of
>high quality nutrition for the early infant development? If so, say
>so. If not, dont waffle around trying to protect AAH arguements. Its
>very unbecoming.
All I'm trying to do is be precise in what I say. I am *not* saying
"We were aquatic because we have X and Y...", because I don't think we
have enough evidence to say that definitively.
My views are exactly as I spelled out to you in my long post a while
back: that currently the possible reasons why humans are thought have
feature X are A, B, C, D,... and in my considered opinion one of them
is more plausible than the others.
When you repeat the exercise for a number of features, and the most
plausible reason for each is some degree of aquaticism, then some kind
of 'aquatic' history become inescapable.
I honestly don't care whether you or anyone else agrees with this, and
I have never disputed that there are difficulties with an 'aquatic'
model, but, to repeat, in my view the aquatic reasons for
hairlessness, subcutaneous fat, bipedalism, etc are *more plausible*
than anything else currently proposed and are therefore worthy of
consideration, along with terrestrial models.
--
Pauline Ross
Algis Kuliukas
> "Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> news:77a70442.0405...@posting.google.com...
>
> Snip. . .
> > > > In my opinion there was no single distinct 'aquatic phase' as such.
> > > > This is the one part of the original Hardy/Morgan hypothesis (ie a
> > > > post Pan-Homo LCA, pre Homo real aquatic phase) that Langdon did do a
> > > > good job of refuting - if only to point out that a'piths are hardly
> > > > indicative of being more aquatic than humans are which they should
> > > > have been if a real phase had happenned around 6mya.
>
> > > So would you say that whatever "aquatic adapations" that are present
> > > were done by the time of the apiths? If so, you have a bit of a
> problem I
> > > think.
> >
> > I think you must have misread what I wrote, Bob. If you read the above
> > para and the rest below you'll see that I don't think anything of the
> > sort. If anything more aquatic pressre happenned after the A'piths in
> > my opinion.
>
> Hey, this is good! we now have at least one "limit" in there for your
> particular concept of the AA! If most of the "aquatic pressures" were
> after the time of the apith, that would mean that bipedalism would
> necessarily be "off the table" as a characteristic primarily driven by
> aquatic factors, wouldnt it?
Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to pin down a wet
piece of soap. First you completely misunderstand my point (I won't
say deliberately), then you twist my attempted clarification to better
your argument. Have you been taking lessons off Jim Moore?
I said 'if anything *more* aquatic pressure happenned after the
a'piths', not that *all* the pressure happenned after them.
Bipedalism before and, probably, swimming and diving later.
Algis Kuliukas
Jim McGinn
> 4) Penguins walk on land vertically like humans (straight bodies).
Penguins are birds, you idiot, so this is a lousy example of how
aquaticism cause bipedalism.
> > I date the end of the 'aquatic period' to the start of agriculturalism
> (say 10 kya).
>
> Yes. And even then: rice grows in shallow water.
You've outdone yourself with this piece of nonsense.
Bob Keeter
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:17:43 GMT, "Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >So you say rather conclusively that "water can get an ape walking
> >bipedally". Does that mean that an ape can not and will not
> >wade other than bipedally? Most apes are sometimes bipedal
> >sometimes quadrupedal, both on land and in the water, would
> >you not agree? Most apes are not "aquatic", at least not if that
> >is one of the "separators" between us and the rest of them, right?
> >If a non-aquatic still wades (bipedally or quadrupedally) how do
> >we define "aquatic"?
>
> Bob, you like to play with words, can you try to remember the words
> 'more' and 'less'? No one here is talking about 'aquatic' hominids,
> but only about 'more aquatic' than modern apes.
>
Words are the stock and trade of a discussion group. I tried pictures
to overcome a logjam over the meaning of words and you got after
me for that. Now I revert to words, and you take me to task again.
Im running out of options for communications. Do you know International
Morse Code by any chance? 8-) Seriously, Im begining to wonder if the
medium is simply a distraction and its the message that you have to attack
by virtue of the phrasing, terminology, or even medium used.
If that is happening, its really not a very scientifically oriented
approach.
I understand fully that the "aquatic ape, ala verhaugen, porpoising through
the waves" is not quite the piece of cake for thinking people, and, even
though I dont agre