What if there were an aquatic ape. . . . . .?
Robert Keeter
Just thing in a contra kind of way. We get into all sorts of arguements
with the hard core AATers over the attributes of the human species that
MIGHT indicate some affiliation with the aquatic lifestyle. Some of us
would claim that these "adaptations" are just serendipitous characteristics,
others would try to claim that these are vestages of an aquatic lifestyle.
Well we can argue back and forth to no avail as has been shown profusely for
what seems to have been years, OR we could take another angle on it.
Thus the "contrarian" view. Look at it backwards, from the begining! 8-)
Lets assume that some particular branch of the apiths, or maybe another
critter even older, was driven to an aquatic or even semi-aquatic existence.
Now rather than argue over the definitions of aquatic and semi-aquatic, let
me toss out two. Aquatic means that a MAJORITY of the time is spent in the
water. Semi-aquatic means that 1/2 of less of the time is spent in the
water. Furthermore, in our little hypothetical scenario, lets suppose that
the initial adaptation was for wading, not full blown swimming, just wading.
Wading is important because SUPPOSEDLY that is the path that caused the
aquatic ape to develop and perfect the upright stance that then allowed him
to serendipitously conquer dry land!
Lets cogitate on what kinds of adaptions WOULD have occured in those
conditions!!
Sort of like, Walking across a mud bottom would have encouraged the
evolution of wide webbed feet! (OBTW, to the best of my knowledge there is
NO indication, even in the oldest hominid fossils or footprint impressions
of any such thing as wide (like a duck) webbed feet!) So that would maybe
be one of the primary indications of a wading species, and the hominids
havent got it! Get the idea? Toss out the characteristic and then either
support it or debunk it! Another example: "baby fat" as an insulatiing
laywer ala seal blubber. 1. Not configured as an insulating layer. 2 only
shows up at a time in the life where it would not have benefited a wading
hominid (i.e. early infancy where the baby can not walk much less wade!)
Have at it folks! Lets have some fun and streach those neurons (and pick on
the AATers at the same time!) 8-)))
Regards
bk
--
Curse the darkness or fire out arrows of light!
Andrew Nowicki
RK> ...lets suppose that the initial adaptation was
RK> for wading, not full blown swimming, just wading.
RK> Wading is important because SUPPOSEDLY that is
RK> the path that caused the aquatic ape to develop
RK> and perfect the upright stance that then allowed
RK> him to serendipitously conquer dry land!
RK> Lets cogitate on what kinds of adaptions WOULD
RK> have occured in those conditions!!
In my opinion they were too clumsy to catch fish,
so they subsisted on mollusks and crustaceans.
They could kill them with stones and sticks.
The big question is whether they were efficient
predators of mollusks and crustaceans. They
did not need advanced tools, only dexterous hands.
A very efficient predator would toss mollusks
toward dry land where others would break them.
Chimpanzees use sticks as weapons. Some of them
break nuts by placing the nut in a cavity and
hitting it with a stone. I wonder if we could
teach a chimp to break and eat mollusks.
RK> Sort of like, Walking across a mud bottom would have
RK> encouraged the evolution of wide webbed feet!
Webbed feet are for swimming, not walking on
sandy sea bottom.
Bob Keeter
wrote on 11/10/01 8:29 PM:
> Robert Keeter wrote:
>
> RK> ...lets suppose that the initial adaptation was
> RK> for wading, not full blown swimming, just wading.
>
> RK> Wading is important because SUPPOSEDLY that is
> RK> the path that caused the aquatic ape to develop
> RK> and perfect the upright stance that then allowed
> RK> him to serendipitously conquer dry land!
> RK> Lets cogitate on what kinds of adaptions WOULD
> RK> have occured in those conditions!!
>
> In my opinion they were too clumsy to catch fish,
> so they subsisted on mollusks and crustaceans.
> They could kill them with stones and sticks.
> The big question is whether they were efficient
> predators of mollusks and crustaceans. They
> did not need advanced tools, only dexterous hands.
> A very efficient predator would toss mollusks
> toward dry land where others would break them.
Ah, yes. . . .but you see eating crustaceans and mollusks would screw up the
isotope ratio in the tooth enamel. The AATers are hanging their hats on the
isotopic evidence that ancient hominids ate grasses or aquatic sedges (or of
course the animals that ate those plants!). Mollusks and crustaceans would
be a big NO NO! Now, that is NOT to say that any ancient hominids that
happened to live in areas that HAD mollusks or crustaceans would not have
added the little morsels to the menu! Just that you dont have to be aquatic
to enjoy some oysters Rockefeller! ;-))
> Chimpanzees use sticks as weapons. Some of them
> break nuts by placing the nut in a cavity and
> hitting it with a stone. I wonder if we could
> teach a chimp to break and eat mollusks.
We could probably teach a chimp to eat just about anything (if he was hungry
enough) and a chimp would obviously know what to do with all of those little
aquatic "bugs", still dont make him aquatic, does it?
> RK> Sort of like, Walking across a mud bottom would have
> RK> encouraged the evolution of wide webbed feet!
>
> Webbed feet are for swimming, not walking on
> sandy sea bottom.
Usually. . . .Im just thinking of the last time I tried to drag a shrimp
seine across a nice MUDDY bottom. Went into the mud up to about my knees
(and went down into the water about to my chin! A LOT of shrimp got away
that day (and I had a really nice net!). I think that the swamps that the
AATers keep trying to hypothesize (gotta have those sedges again!), might
not have been very kindly to a size 7AA, "almost chimpanzee" foot, now do
you?
Regards
bk
Rich Travsky
> [...]
> water. Furthermore, in our little hypothetical scenario, lets suppose that
> the initial adaptation was for wading, not full blown swimming, just wading.
>
> Wading is important because SUPPOSEDLY that is the path that caused the
> aquatic ape to develop and perfect the upright stance that then allowed him
> to serendipitously conquer dry land!
Lots and lots of animals can wade. My dog and cat can wade. Lots of
primates can wade.
Nothing is needed.
> [...]
Bob Keeter
trav...@hotMOVEmail.com wrote on 11/11/01 12:26 AM:
Oh, I agree with you! IIRC, the "wading" was the leg-up to developing an
upright posture. 8-)
Regards
bk
Andrew Nowicki
BK> Ah, yes. . . .but you see eating crustaceans and
BK> mollusks would screw up the isotope ratio in the
BK> tooth enamel...
Can you explain details? Is this related to marine
environment, or rather to the species being eaten?
AN> Webbed feet are for swimming, not walking on
AN> sandy sea bottom.
BK> Usually. . . .Im just thinking of the last time
BK> I tried to drag a shrimp seine across a nice
BK> MUDDY bottom. Went into the mud up to about
BK> my knees...
Pigs are hairless like humans and they love to
wallow in mud. We prefer sandy shores and clear
water. This may be used as a proof that our
ancestors lived on a sandy beach rather than in
a muddy swamp. I guess that crocodiles would
be a threat to the hominids living in the swamp.
Hominids excel in throwing sticks and stones.
There is evidence that Erectus hunted baboons
by throwing stones at them. Chimps hunt small
monkeys. Early hominids may have been monkey
hunters. We do not know what they were doing
6 million years ago. Bears catch grubs by
turning stones and breaking rotten logs. The
early hominids may have done it also. They
may have lived along a mountain stream turning
stones. Mountains were the only environment
where the hominids were safe from predation.
There were few large predators living there,
but there was plenty of stones and narrow rock
ledges. The early hominids slept on the ledges
which were not accessible to large predators.
They may have been so smart that they blocked
the entrance the ledge with a pile of sticks
or stones. Of course, a mountain cave would be
ideal home for the hominids, but caves were rare.
Bob Keeter
wrote on 11/11/01 11:48 AM:
> Bob Keeter wrote:
> BK> Ah, yes. . . .but you see eating crustaceans and
> BK> mollusks would screw up the isotope ratio in the
> BK> tooth enamel...
>
> Can you explain details? Is this related to marine
> environment, or rather to the species being eaten?
Seems that grasses and sedges concentrate isotopes in a slightly different
ratio than other plants.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/aaron_berger.htm
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/hominidfood990115.html
> AN> Webbed feet are for swimming, not walking on
> AN> sandy sea bottom.
>
> BK> Usually. . . .Im just thinking of the last time
> BK> I tried to drag a shrimp seine across a nice
> BK> MUDDY bottom. Went into the mud up to about
> BK> my knees...
>
> Pigs are hairless like humans and they love to
> wallow in mud. We prefer sandy shores and clear
> water. This may be used as a proof that our
> ancestors lived on a sandy beach rather than in
> a muddy swamp. I guess that crocodiles would
> be a threat to the hominids living in the swamp.
I agree on all counts. The ONLY problem, and its really only a problem for
the AATers, is that a nice sandy bottomed coastal site just does not work
with their theories of apes descending out of the trees with an intermediate
"aquatic" stage, before picking up on dry land.
Just one of several problems, but. . . . . get enough "problems" and its
usually time to get a new theory. . . .UNLESS of course, you happen to be
"married" to that theory! 8-)
> Hominids excel in throwing sticks and stones.
> There is evidence that Erectus hunted baboons
> by throwing stones at them. Chimps hunt small
> monkeys. Early hominids may have been monkey
> hunters. We do not know what they were doing
> 6 million years ago. Bears catch grubs by
> turning stones and breaking rotten logs. The
> early hominids may have done it also. They
> may have lived along a mountain stream turning
> stones. Mountains were the only environment
> where the hominids were safe from predation.
Nope. If there was food, there would have been predators, IIRC in just
about the same proportions no matter the environment. If there is not much
food, there wont be many of the prey animals, nor the predators! With early
humans, I suspect that they filled several niches on the predator/prey
heirarchy! 8-)
> There were few large predators living there,
> but there was plenty of stones and narrow rock
> ledges. The early hominids slept on the ledges
> which were not accessible to large predators.
> They may have been so smart that they blocked
> the entrance the ledge with a pile of sticks
> or stones. Of course, a mountain cave would be
> ideal home for the hominids, but caves were rare.
AND caves are ideal lairs for all of those big predators! 8-)
Nope, bet it was nice sturdy pointy sticks and teamwork on the part of these
early hominids. The ONLY thing that they had going for them was their
brainpower and its manifestations in the form of tools.
Regards
bk
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
<3BEDFDE6...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
A lot is needed to explain human pecularites vs chimps:
- Bipedality: climbing-wading origin? Primates, because they are
traditionally climbing animals, have a tendency to adopt an erect posture,
and this behaviour is accentuated in species that frequently wade through
shallow water. Proboscis monkeys, for example, cross shallow stretches of
water on two legs when moving from one mangrove tree to another (Napier &
Napier 1967). Lowland gorillas also go wading on their hindlimbs through
forest swamps in search of what researchers call aquatic herbaceous
vegetation or AHV (Chadwik 1995; Doran & McNeilage 1997). Perhaps in the
same way, only more frequently, Pliocene hominids might have waded in
shallow waters of forest clearings, gallery forests or mangrove areas, in
search of floating fruit, sedges, reeds, AHV, fish and/or shellfish, all of
which were probably available and edible for hominids (DuBrul 1977; Puech et
al. 1986; Ellis 1991; Puech 1992; Broadhurst et al. 1998; Sponheimer &
Lee-Thorp 1999).
- Thick enamel and stone tool use: hard-shelled foods? A combination of
thick molar enamel and stone tool use is known to have existed in some
hominid species, and exists today in capuchin monkeys and sea otters. Sea
otters have large, flat cheekteeth, which resemble those of
australopithecines (Walker 1981), and use stones to crack open shellfish
while floating on their backs. Capuchins open nuts with stones and use
oyster shells to remove shellfish from the trunks of mangrove trees
(Fernandes 1991). Chimpanzees, which have thinner molar enamel, manipulate
stones to crack open hard-shelled nuts. Human Pliocene ancestors, perhaps in
the same way as mangrove capuchins, might have used stones or other hard
objects to remove coconuts from palm trees and to crack open hard nutshells,
and to remove and open oysters from the trunks of mangrove trees (Verhaegen
& Munro 1999).
It is possible that during the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene, members
of the genus Homo – as opposed to our more distant relatives the
australopithecines – might have also learned how to dive and collect
underwater shellfish and other aquatic resources. Humans have much more
efficient diving capabilities than nonhuman primates (Schagatay 1996; Morgan
1997; Verhaegen 1997; Bender 1999). Indeed, Homo fossils – as opposed to
australopithecines – are typically found near shellfish (Chiwondo, Chemeron,
Nariokotome, Zhoukoudian, Boxgrove, Terra Amata, Rabat, Hopefield, Gibraltar
and others). Although sea level rises and the actions of tides and waves
have drastically reduced the chances of discovering hominid fossils at sea
beaches, Homo erectus remains have been discovered amid shellfish, barnacles
and corals, from the early Pleistocene skull of Mojokerto at Java (Ninkovich
& Burckle 1978), to the late Pleistocene Acheulean tools of Eritrea (Walter
2000; Walter et al. 2000). Stone tools discovered on Flores suggest that
Homo erectus crossed a 19 km wide, deep oceanic channel more than 800,000
years ago (Morwood et al. 1998; Tobias 1998). The fast dispersal of Homo
erectus throughout the Old World may have occurred along the seacoasts where
foods could be gathered from both the land and sea. From the coasts,
different Homo sidebranches could have migrated up rivers into the interiors
of Africa and Eurasia, where fossilisation chances were much better.
Initially restricted to the edges of rivers, swamps and lakes, some Homo
species might have later moved to areas further from permanent water.
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
marc verhaegen
Bob Keeter heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>> In my opinion they were too clumsy to catch fish,
>> so they subsisted on mollusks and crustaceans.
>> They could kill them with stones and sticks.
>> The big question is whether they were efficient
>> predators of mollusks and crustaceans. They
>> did not need advanced tools, only dexterous hands.
>> A very efficient predator would toss mollusks
>> toward dry land where others would break them.
Yes. The comparative evidence suggests there were different phases in our
ancestors' semi-aquatic adaptations: first (early hominids, eg, at the time
of the Homo-Pan split ca.5 Ma) wading+climbing frugi-omnovory in coastal
forests (eg, coconuts, mangrove oysters), later (late Pliocene, Pleistocene)
loss of climbing & developing of diving skills (cf. dispersal of H.erectus
along the Indian Ocean).
Algis Kuliukas
How many wade bipedally like chimps, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and... humans?
> Nothing is needed.
If you say so, of course it must be true.
Algis Kuliukas
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BEDFDE6...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> > Robert Keeter wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > water. Furthermore, in our little hypothetical scenario, lets suppose that
> > > the initial adaptation was for wading, not full blown swimming, just wading.
> > >
> > > Wading is important because SUPPOSEDLY that is the path that caused the
> > > aquatic ape to develop and perfect the upright stance that then allowed him
> > > to serendipitously conquer dry land!
> >
> > Lots and lots of animals can wade. My dog and cat can wade. Lots of
> > primates can wade.
>
> How many wade bipedally like chimps, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and... humans?
Irrelevant. Humans are bidpedal all the time (except as babies). The
rest also
will wade quadrapedally. Wading has nothing to do with aquaticness.
> > Nothing is needed.
>
> If you say so, of course it must be true.
Show otherwise.
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
> <3BEDFDE6...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
>
> >> water. Furthermore, in our little hypothetical scenario, lets suppose
> that
> >> the initial adaptation was for wading, not full blown swimming, just
> wading.
> >> Wading is important because SUPPOSEDLY that is the path that caused the
> >> aquatic ape to develop and perfect the upright stance that then allowed
> him
> >> to serendipitously conquer dry land!
> >
> >Lots and lots of animals can wade. My dog and cat can wade. Lots of
> >primates can wade.
> >Nothing is needed.
>
> A lot is needed to explain human pecularites vs chimps:
>
There's nothing special to wading. Primates will wade on both four
and two legs.
marc verhaegen
Bob Keeter heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/aaron_berger.ht
m
>http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/hominidfood990115.html
These websites nicely confirm what other dental studies suggest: that some
apiths fed partly (besides fruits etc.) on reed sedges, see, eg,
- P-F.Puech et al.1986 "Dental microwear features as an indicator for plant
food in early hominids: a preliminary study of enamel" Hum.Evol.1:507-515;
- P-F.Puech 1992 "Microwear studies of early African hominid teeth"
Scann.Microsc.6:1083-8.
This fits with the combination of short-legged bipedalism & tree climbing &
partial knuckle-walking seen in apiths. It's obvious they spent a lot of
time in swamps, wading on the knuckles in very shallow water, wading
bipedally in waist-deep water, and climbing arms overhead, just as lowland
gorillas & bonobos do in forest swamps.
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> >
> > Rich Travsky <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BEDFDE6...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> > > Robert Keeter wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > water. Furthermore, in our little hypothetical scenario, lets suppose that
> > > > the initial adaptation was for wading, not full blown swimming, just wading.
> > > >
> > > > Wading is important because SUPPOSEDLY that is the path that caused the
> > > > aquatic ape to develop and perfect the upright stance that then allowed him
> > > > to serendipitously conquer dry land!
> > >
> > > Lots and lots of animals can wade. My dog and cat can wade. Lots of
> > > primates can wade.
> >
> > How many wade bipedally like chimps, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and... humans?
>
> Irrelevant.
Irrelevant? You do agree, I assume, that the nearest relative to Homo
in the animal world is Pan and that the next closest is Gorilla
followed by Pongo?
If all of these wade bipedally then isn't it likely that the lca of
them all did so too? And because we also evolved from that same lca
isn't it a reasonable hypothesis that its bipedal wading may led to
full bipedalism in Homo? Of course you will say not - but can you tell
me why not?
> Humans are bidpedal all the time (except as babies). The
> rest also will wade quadrapedally.
They might wade quadrupedally in very shallow depths. I found bonobos
were very reluctant to wade even in a few centimetres of water and
chimps have been observed to get up on two legs even when it's muddy.
If the water is deep enough, apes have no choice but to wade bipedally
- except the gorilla which alone has been observed to swim. On land
bonobos are less than 3% bipedal, in water the figure is over 90%. Can
you name any other situation where extant apes are so predicatably
bipedal?
> Wading has nothing to do with aquaticness.
That's like saying brachiation has nothing to do with arboreality. You
appear to live in a dream world where you pick and choose to accept
the facts that support your out-dated hypothesis and ignore those that
show it to be false. A symptom typical of the staunchest believer.
> > > Nothing is needed.
> >
> > If you say so, of course it must be true.
>
> Show otherwise.
I have written a 17,000 word thesis on it. I think the evidence for a
wading origin for bipedalism is quite overwhelming. Of course I don't
expect you could accept any of the evidence it contains because it
contradicts your point of view and we can't have that, can we? I mean,
you could never admit to be wrong about anything could you?
Algis Kuliukas
Andrew Nowicki
AK> On land bonobos are less than 3% bipedal,
AK> in water the figure is over 90%...
AK> I have written a 17,000 word thesis on it.
AK> I think the evidence for a wading origin for
AK> bipedalism is quite overwhelming...
Where did they wade?
In my opinion the proto-hominids choose the
environment that was free of crocodiles and
lions. To the best of my knowledge mountain
streams and small forest streams were the only
aquatic environments free of crocodiles.
Mountain streams have the advantage of clear
water, fewer parasites, and great abundance
of stones. There were grubs under the stones.
Smart hominids could move stones to build
mini dams and trap fish between those dams.
Mountain streams do not preserve fossils
well; this explains why we have not found
their bones.
Andrew Nowicki
AK> On land bonobos are less than 3% bipedal,
AK> in water the figure is over 90%...
I bet they are more bipedal in a cold
mountain stream than in warm water.
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BEF66D0...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich Travsky <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BEDFDE6...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> > > > Robert Keeter wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > water. Furthermore, in our little hypothetical scenario, lets suppose that
> > > > > the initial adaptation was for wading, not full blown swimming, just wading.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wading is important because SUPPOSEDLY that is the path that caused the
> > > > > aquatic ape to develop and perfect the upright stance that then allowed him
> > > > > to serendipitously conquer dry land!
> > > >
> > > > Lots and lots of animals can wade. My dog and cat can wade. Lots of
> > > > primates can wade.
> > >
> > > How many wade bipedally like chimps, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and... humans?
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Irrelevant? You do agree, I assume, that the nearest relative to Homo
> in the animal world is Pan and that the next closest is Gorilla
> followed by Pongo?
> If all of these wade bipedally then isn't it likely that the lca of
> them all did so too? And because we also evolved from that same lca
> isn't it a reasonable hypothesis that its bipedal wading may led to
> full bipedalism in Homo? Of course you will say not - but can you tell
> me why not?
How much time do primates spend in water versus land? That's why wading
is irrelevant.
> > Humans are bidpedal all the time (except as babies). The
> > rest also will wade quadrapedally.
>
> They might wade quadrupedally in very shallow depths. I found bonobos
> were very reluctant to wade even in a few centimetres of water and
> chimps have been observed to get up on two legs even when it's muddy.
> If the water is deep enough, apes have no choice but to wade bipedally
> - except the gorilla which alone has been observed to swim. On land
> bonobos are less than 3% bipedal, in water the figure is over 90%. Can
> you name any other situation where extant apes are so predicatably
> bipedal?
How much time do they spend on land versus in water? This is the key
stat
aquatic apers conveniently overlook.
> > Wading has nothing to do with aquaticness.
>
> That's like saying brachiation has nothing to do with arboreality. You
> appear to live in a dream world where you pick and choose to accept
> the facts that support your out-dated hypothesis and ignore those that
> show it to be false. A symptom typical of the staunchest believer.
Then my dog is aquatic because he can wade.
> > > > Nothing is needed.
> > >
> > > If you say so, of course it must be true.
> >
> > Show otherwise.
>
> I have written a 17,000 word thesis on it. I think the evidence for a
> wading origin for bipedalism is quite overwhelming. Of course I don't
> expect you could accept any of the evidence it contains because it
> contradicts your point of view and we can't have that, can we? I mean,
> you could never admit to be wrong about anything could you?
17000 words and not one mention of Morotopithecus.
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> AK> On land bonobos are less than 3% bipedal,
> AK> in water the figure is over 90%...
>
> AK> I have written a 17,000 word thesis on it.
> AK> I think the evidence for a wading origin for
> AK> bipedalism is quite overwhelming...
>
> Where did they wade?
I don't know but I think the earliest bipeds most likely lived in
wooded swamps, mangrove coastal habitats (perhaps on islands), gallery
forests or similar wooded/wet habitat. That would appear to be
consistent with the fossil evidence of the earliest bipeds.
> In my opinion the proto-hominids choose the
> environment that was free of crocodiles and
> lions.
I can see how this would appeal but what choice would they have? Their
habitat is dictated by the habitat of their immediate ancestors plus
factors of change and good fortune.
> To the best of my knowledge mountain
> streams and small forest streams were the only
> aquatic environments free of crocodiles.
> Mountain streams have the advantage of clear
> water, fewer parasites, and great abundance
> of stones. There were grubs under the stones.
> Smart hominids could move stones to build
> mini dams and trap fish between those dams.
> Mountain streams do not preserve fossils
> well; this explains why we have not found
> their bones.
I have no problem with your mountain model in principle. I think Homo
is particularly fresh water adapted and must have lived very close to
an unlimited fresh supply for almost all of our evolution. I accept
that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and there is
nothing wrong with your theory from that point of view in my opinion
however I think that the existing fossil evidence shows that the
earliest bipeds are more likely to have inhabited the kind of wet and
wooded habitats outlined above.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> > > > > > Wading is important because SUPPOSEDLY that is the path that caused the
> > > > > > aquatic ape to develop and perfect the upright stance that then allowed him
> > > > > > to serendipitously conquer dry land!
> > > > >
> > > > > Lots and lots of animals can wade. My dog and cat can wade. Lots of
> > > > > primates can wade.
> > > >
> > > > How many wade bipedally like chimps, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and... humans?
> > >
> > > Irrelevant.
> >
> > Irrelevant? You do agree, I assume, that the nearest relative to Homo
> > in the animal world is Pan and that the next closest is Gorilla
> > followed by Pongo?
> > If all of these wade bipedally then isn't it likely that the lca of
> > them all did so too? And because we also evolved from that same lca
> > isn't it a reasonable hypothesis that its bipedal wading may led to
> > full bipedalism in Homo? Of course you will say not - but can you tell
> > me why not?
>
> How much time do primates spend in water versus land? That's why wading
> is irrelevant.
Apart from the western lowland gorilla, not much, I accept. But the
fact that they all do wade bipedally gives us a very plausible
scenario where the ancestor of the hominoidae might be forced to wade
much more often and, more importantly, where selective forces might
remove the genes of poor bipeds. How much time do apes spend holding
tools/weapons? almost nil but it hasn't stopped that becoming one of
the models used to explain bipedalism. How much time do they reach in
branches to get food? Not much. How much time do they go wandering
around upright in the mid day sun? Get the picture? My point is that
they might not wade much today but when they *do* wade, they do so
bipedally. What other model for the origin of bipedalism manifests
itself so strongly in extant apes? None of them do and you know it.
> > > Humans are bidpedal all the time (except as babies). The
> > > rest also will wade quadrapedally.
> >
> > They might wade quadrupedally in very shallow depths. I found bonobos
> > were very reluctant to wade even in a few centimetres of water and
> > chimps have been observed to get up on two legs even when it's muddy.
> > If the water is deep enough, apes have no choice but to wade bipedally
> > - except the gorilla which alone has been observed to swim. On land
> > bonobos are less than 3% bipedal, in water the figure is over 90%. Can
> > you name any other situation where extant apes are so predicatably
> > bipedal?
>
> How much time do they spend on land versus in water? This is the key
> stat
> aquatic apers conveniently overlook.
How much time do humans spend in trees today? Practically nil. Does
that mean that we couldn't have evolved from primates that did? Of
course not. The idea that our ancestors were *more* aquatic than we
are today is a reasonable one - especially considering the fact that
Afica is understood to have been far wetter in the past andd that our
early putative ancestors all have been associated with much wetter
habitats than we are today. And yet your imagination won't allow you
to consider that, will it? No, you seem determined to cling on the
out-dated notion that water played no part in our past at all - no
matter what the evidence suggests.
> > > Wading has nothing to do with aquaticness.
> >
> > That's like saying brachiation has nothing to do with arboreality. You
> > appear to live in a dream world where you pick and choose to accept
> > the facts that support your out-dated hypothesis and ignore those that
> > show it to be false. A symptom typical of the staunchest believer.
>
> Then my dog is aquatic because he can wade.
Groan. You appear to have fallen for the most basic misconception
about the AAH. Like Rick Wagler, are you going to try to argue for a
binary world of aquatics and non-aquatics? There are degrees. Agreed,
animals that wade are showing an element of aquaticness. Animals that
can swim are showing a little more. Animals whose infants appear
relatively comfortable in water show even more and animals that have
the ability to hold their breaths whilst they dive under water show
more still. I would say humans, by this simple scale, are at least
three levels above your dog (and chimpanzees) but we are behind
otters, seals, dugongs, dolphins and whales.
Have you ever bothered to read Hardy's original paper? Do you even
know what it was entitled?
> > > > > Nothing is needed.
> > > >
> > > > If you say so, of course it must be true.
> > >
> > > Show otherwise.
> >
> > I have written a 17,000 word thesis on it. I think the evidence for a
> > wading origin for bipedalism is quite overwhelming. Of course I don't
> > expect you could accept any of the evidence it contains because it
> > contradicts your point of view and we can't have that, can we? I mean,
> > you could never admit to be wrong about anything could you?
>
> 17000 words and not one mention of Morotopithecus.
Well, it must be totally irrelevant then. Funny. I can't remember
reading any reference to morotopithecus in any of the sections on
bipedal origins in all the text books on human evolution. So, please
illuminate us. What's the significance of this paleospecies that
everybody has missed?
Algis Kuliukas
marc verhaegen
Algis Kuliukas heeft geschreven in bericht
<77a70442.01111...@posting.google.com>...
.....
>Afica is understood to have been far wetter in the past and that our
>early putative ancestors all have been associated with much wetter
>habitats than we are today. And yet your imagination won't allow you
>to consider that, will it? No, you seem determined to cling on the
>out-dated notion that water played no part in our past at all - no
>matter what the evidence suggests.
>
>> > > Wading has nothing to do with aquaticness.
>> >
>> > That's like saying brachiation has nothing to do with arboreality. You
>> > appear to live in a dream world where you pick and choose to accept
>> > the facts that support your out-dated hypothesis and ignore those that
>> > show it to be false. A symptom typical of the staunchest believer.
>>
>> Then my dog is aquatic because he can wade.
>
>Groan. You appear to have fallen for the most basic misconception
>about the AAH. Like Rick Wagler, are you going to try to argue for a
>binary world of aquatics and non-aquatics? There are degrees. Agreed,
>animals that wade are showing an element of aquaticness. Animals that
>can swim are showing a little more. Animals whose infants appear
>relatively comfortable in water show even more and animals that have
>the ability to hold their breaths whilst they dive under water show
>more still. I would say humans, by this simple scale, are at least
>three levels above your dog (and chimpanzees) but we are behind
>otters, seals, dugongs, dolphins and whales.
>Have you ever bothered to read Hardy's original paper? Do you even
>know what it was entitled?
Let him, Algis. Not worth the trouble. He's a black-white thinker, a
religious fanatic, follower of the Holy Savanna, he can't image "more
aquatic".
Marc
Richard Wagler
marc verhaegen wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas heeft geschreven in bericht
> <77a70442.01111...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >Have you ever bothered to read Hardy's original paper? Do you even
> >know what it was entitled?
>
> Let him, Algis. Not worth the trouble. He's a black-white thinker, a
> religious fanatic, follower of the Holy Savanna, he can't image "more
> aquatic".
>
Is incompetent misrepresentation the only way you
and Algis can keep your boats afloat? And Algis has
the gall to accuse others of intellectual cowardice.
Rick Wagler
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BF34A97...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
>
> > > > > > > Wading is important because SUPPOSEDLY that is the path that caused the
> > > > > > > aquatic ape to develop and perfect the upright stance that then allowed him
> > > > > > > to serendipitously conquer dry land!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lots and lots of animals can wade. My dog and cat can wade. Lots of
> > > > > > primates can wade.
> > > > >
> > > > > How many wade bipedally like chimps, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and... humans?
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant? You do agree, I assume, that the nearest relative to Homo
> > > in the animal world is Pan and that the next closest is Gorilla
> > > followed by Pongo?
> > > If all of these wade bipedally then isn't it likely that the lca of
> > > them all did so too? And because we also evolved from that same lca
> > > isn't it a reasonable hypothesis that its bipedal wading may led to
> > > full bipedalism in Homo? Of course you will say not - but can you tell
> > > me why not?
> >
> > How much time do primates spend in water versus land? That's why wading
> > is irrelevant.
>
> Apart from the western lowland gorilla, not much, I accept. But the
BINGO.
> fact that they all do wade bipedally gives us a very plausible
> scenario where the ancestor of the hominoidae might be forced to wade
> much more often and, more importantly, where selective forces might
> remove the genes of poor bipeds. How much time do apes spend holding
> tools/weapons? almost nil but it hasn't stopped that becoming one of
> the models used to explain bipedalism. How much time do they reach in
> branches to get food? Not much. How much time do they go wandering
> around upright in the mid day sun? Get the picture? My point is that
> they might not wade much today but when they *do* wade, they do so
> bipedally. What other model for the origin of bipedalism manifests
> itself so strongly in extant apes? None of them do and you know it.
Have you never watched films or seen pictures of bipedal behavior
in chimps and gorillas? There are numerous instances where bipedal
behavior occurs. Threat displays, sexual displays, carrying things,
retreating in fear (yes, saw that one on one of the cable channels,
two female gorillas pissed at each other, the advancing one reared
up bipedally, the retreating one likewise went bipedal backwards
for a couple steps). Go through, say, de Waal's and Lanting's
Bonobo book. It contains numerous shots of bipedal behavior (and
you'd be hard put too find any of it in water).
> > > > Humans are bidpedal all the time (except as babies). The
> > > > rest also will wade quadrapedally.
> > >
> > > They might wade quadrupedally in very shallow depths. I found bonobos
> > > were very reluctant to wade even in a few centimetres of water and
> > > chimps have been observed to get up on two legs even when it's muddy.
> > > If the water is deep enough, apes have no choice but to wade bipedally
> > > - except the gorilla which alone has been observed to swim. On land
> > > bonobos are less than 3% bipedal, in water the figure is over 90%. Can
> > > you name any other situation where extant apes are so predicatably
> > > bipedal?
> >
> > How much time do they spend on land versus in water? This is the key
> > stat
> > aquatic apers conveniently overlook.
>
> How much time do humans spend in trees today? Practically nil. Does
> that mean that we couldn't have evolved from primates that did? Of
> course not. The idea that our ancestors were *more* aquatic than we
> are today is a reasonable one - especially considering the fact that
> Afica is understood to have been far wetter in the past andd that our
> early putative ancestors all have been associated with much wetter
> habitats than we are today. And yet your imagination won't allow you
> to consider that, will it? No, you seem determined to cling on the
> out-dated notion that water played no part in our past at all - no
> matter what the evidence suggests.
The point you miss is that the behavior has to be compelling to force
an evolutionary change. You admit they spend very little time in water.
The instances of bipedality on land outnumber those in water and
occur in social situations that can have strong selective pressures.
> > > > Wading has nothing to do with aquaticness.
> > >
> > > That's like saying brachiation has nothing to do with arboreality. You
> > > appear to live in a dream world where you pick and choose to accept
> > > the facts that support your out-dated hypothesis and ignore those that
> > > show it to be false. A symptom typical of the staunchest believer.
> >
> > Then my dog is aquatic because he can wade.
>
> Groan. You appear to have fallen for the most basic misconception
> about the AAH. Like Rick Wagler, are you going to try to argue for a
> binary world of aquatics and non-aquatics? There are degrees. Agreed,
> animals that wade are showing an element of aquaticness. Animals that
Then virtually every land animal on the planet is aquatic by that
simple metric.
This does not translate to being aquatic.
> can swim are showing a little more. Animals whose infants appear
> relatively comfortable in water show even more and animals that have
> the ability to hold their breaths whilst they dive under water show
> more still. I would say humans, by this simple scale, are at least
> three levels above your dog (and chimpanzees) but we are behind
> otters, seals, dugongs, dolphins and whales.
An aquatic animal that lives on land. Amusing.
> Have you ever bothered to read Hardy's original paper? Do you even
> know what it was entitled?
Why is this relevant?
> > > > > > Nothing is needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you say so, of course it must be true.
> > > >
> > > > Show otherwise.
> > >
> > > I have written a 17,000 word thesis on it. I think the evidence for a
> > > wading origin for bipedalism is quite overwhelming. Of course I don't
> > > expect you could accept any of the evidence it contains because it
> > > contradicts your point of view and we can't have that, can we? I mean,
> > > you could never admit to be wrong about anything could you?
> >
> > 17000 words and not one mention of Morotopithecus.
>
> Well, it must be totally irrelevant then. Funny. I can't remember
> reading any reference to morotopithecus in any of the sections on
> bipedal origins in all the text books on human evolution. So, please
Morotopithecus was found in 1997. You can find mention of it in
Wolpoff's
Paleoanthropology, 2nd edition. Perhaps you did not consult enough
recent
sources.
> illuminate us. What's the significance of this paleospecies that
> everybody has missed?
The remains hint at bipedality. At a date of around 20 mya.
The recent simulation study showing australopithecus walked like
orangutangs puts an even more interesting slant on the matter by
showing a path to bipedality via arboreality.
Lorenzo L. Love
Yes, of course. If you are fanatically defending an illogical position,
what is there except misrepresentations, distortions and lies?
Lorenzo L. Love
Please note new url: http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"In the old days being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's
crazy."
Charles Manson
marc verhaegen
Richard Wagler heeft geschreven in bericht <3BF59F8F...@home.com>...
Wagler, I have yet to see your first serious argument why our view of human
evolution should be wrong. Not daring to attack our view (eg,
http://www.logres.net/dawn/1.html ) is cowardice.
Your only "argument" is: humans today live on land, so why should they have
been more aquatic in the past? You think teleologically: you believe that
everything in the past evolved to make us what we are now: well-adapted to
living on land.
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
>Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>> Have you ever bothered to read Hardy's original paper?
>> Do you even know what it was entitled?
>
>Why is this relevant?
??
IOW, you don't know what you're talking about?
Rich Travsky
IOW, I know a smokescreen when I see it.
Algis Kuliukas
There's no smokescreen, Rich. It's just that if you are going to argue
about the merits of the AAH you should at least be aware of the fact
that Hardy's original paper - the one on which the AAH founded -
merely asked "was Man MORE aquatic IN THE PAST?" Hardly any AAH
proponents claim that our ancestors were aquatic in the true sense of
the word and no-one claims that we are anything but terrestrial today.
The AAH is a modest theory completely undeserving of the hostility it
seems to generate in those opposed to it. All it says is that our
ancestors lived in water-side habitats and that as a consequence of
regularly moving through such habitats by wading, swimming, and diving
for a long period of time our ancestors became adapted to doing so.
Even though we are 100% terrestrial today, we still bear the
evolutionary scars of past that was more aquatic.
Algis Kuliukas
marc verhaegen
Well-said, Algis.
I admire your patience...
Marc
Rich Travsky
It's a smokescreen because we've a hell of a lot more research on
hand now to show otherwise.
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
:-D
You have nothing.
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:<3BF72467...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> > marc verhaegen wrote:
> > >
> > > Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
> > > <3BF5DFEE...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> > > >Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> >
> > > >> Have you ever bothered to read Hardy's original paper?
> > > >> Do you even know what it was entitled?
> > > >
> > > >Why is this relevant?
> > >
> > > ??
> > > IOW, you don't know what you're talking about?
> >
> > IOW, I know a smokescreen when I see it.
>
> There's no smokescreen, Rich. It's just that if you are going to argue
> about the merits of the AAH you should at least be aware of the fact
> that Hardy's original paper - the one on which the AAH founded -
> merely asked "was Man MORE aquatic IN THE PAST?" Hardly any AAH
> proponents claim that our ancestors were aquatic in the true sense of
> the word and no-one claims that we are anything but terrestrial today.
Hardy's little three page digression has not survived the decades of
research since then.
> The AAH is a modest theory completely undeserving of the hostility it
> seems to generate in those opposed to it. All it says is that our
> ancestors lived in water-side habitats and that as a consequence of
> regularly moving through such habitats by wading, swimming, and diving
> for a long period of time our ancestors became adapted to doing so.
> Even though we are 100% terrestrial today, we still bear the
> evolutionary scars of past that was more aquatic.
Scars? Like snorkel noses?
(And he wonders why it generates hostility...)
Algis Kuliukas
> It's a smokescreen because we've a hell of a lot more research on
> hand now to show otherwise.
On the contrary. Apart from a couple of letters (two of which were
compilmentary and one of which called the idea ingenious) of response
to Hardy in 1960 in the pages of New Scientist in the weeks that
followed there has been almost zero serious response to his polite
request for comments.
Since 1960 how many papers have been written about human evolution? -
it must be in the order of 10,000. How many have seriously considered
the AAH? It must be in the order of 20 and most of those in the last
three or four years.
From 1960 until about 1995 it simply was not mentioned. This is hardly
science. On what basis was this rejection made? Just a gut feeling
that it was wrong? Look where that got us before. A gut feeling about
Piltdown man halted progress for almost 40 years - I think this latest
brain-dead knee-jerk reaction of the paleoanthropologists will result
in the same thing. But at least things are beginning to change now.
Algis Kuliukas
Rich Travsky
When I say a "hell of a lot more research on hand to show otherwise" it
plainly refers to research AGAINST an aquatic hypothesis. The evidence
clearly shows a terrestrial origin for bipedality.
Richard Wagler
Rich Travsky wrote:
The other point to consider is that England is a country
where class and status matter a great deal in terms of
propriety etc. Hardy was a highly respected FRS and,
as such, it is not likely that other scientists are going to
trash him publicly in the pages of a grubby little mag
like New Scientist. [This is not a criticism of NS but of
English 'manners' in matters like this] I suspect that Hardy
received many, many comments behind closed doors and
may explain why this was his only publication on the matter.
Rick Wagler
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
>Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>> There's no smokescreen, Rich. It's just that if you are going to argue
>> about the merits of the AAH you should at least be aware of the fact
>> that Hardy's original paper - the one on which the AAH founded -
>> merely asked "was Man MORE aquatic IN THE PAST?" Hardly any AAH
>> proponents claim that our ancestors were aquatic in the true sense of
>> the word and no-one claims that we are anything but terrestrial today.
>
>Hardy's little three page digression has not survived the decades of
>research since then.
:-D No research at all. Only pedants who dismiss a theory becasue they
know "better". Traditional PA hasn't published 1 decent paper on AAT.
>> The AAH is a modest theory completely undeserving of the hostility it
>> seems to generate in those opposed to it. All it says is that our
>> ancestors lived in water-side habitats and that as a consequence of
>> regularly moving through such habitats by wading, swimming, and diving
>> for a long period of time our ancestors became adapted to doing so.
>> Even though we are 100% terrestrial today, we still bear the
>> evolutionary scars of past that was more aquatic.
>
>Scars? Like snorkel noses?
>(And he wonders why it generates hostility...)
Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"??
(Of course you can't know: you haven't even read Hardy.
And you wonder why your ignorant pedantry generates hostility...)
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
>The evidence >clearly shows a terrestrial origin for bipedality.
:-D
Refs please?
marc verhaegen
Richard Wagler heeft geschreven in bericht <3BF93255...@home.com>...
>like New Scientist. [This is not a criticism of NS but of
>English 'manners' in matters like this] I suspect that Hardy
>received many, many comments behind closed doors and
>may explain why this was his only publication on the matter.
Wagler's "truths" I suppose?
- NS 7:642-5, 1960,
- The Listener, May 12, 1962,
- Zenith 15:4-6, 1977.
Algis Kuliukas
> When I say a "hell of a lot more research on hand to show otherwise" it
> plainly refers to research AGAINST an aquatic hypothesis. The evidence
> clearly shows a terrestrial origin for bipedality.
I can't see how you can claim this. 99.99% of 'research' about human
evolution has beither been for the AAH or against it. It has simply
ignored it and assumed our ancestors were arboreal, terrestrial or
something intermediate. Making an assumption that something is false
is hardly researching against it.
The 'evidence' for a terrestrial origin - as you call it - is just a
collection of facts that seemed to confirm the orginal assumption.
Other facts that argue against that assumption (like the k-w traits of
Lucy) have been conveniently ignored. Nobody has bothered to question
the assumption and re-evaluate the evidence for or against it.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
There is, no doubt, an element of truth in what you say. But there are
a couple of points I think you should bear in mind.
Firstly, Hardy was very well respected indeed. Becoming an FRS is not
easy. His theory had been kept to himself for 30 years and, as such,
has to be the most carefully considered scientific theory in history.
(Can you name another that was in gestation for so long?) By
dismissing it so easily yourself, as doubtless did his peers at the
time, you are showing a comptemptous lack of respect for him that only
reflects badly on yourself.
Secondly, at the time the savannah theory was at its peak of
respectability. It would certainly have sounded a crazy idea for
mainstream paleoanthropologists in those days. Of course, since then a
whole load of evidence has come to light showing that dry, open
grassland was not the place where bipedalism began. In fact as time
has gone by, bipeds have been associated with increasingly earlier,
wetter and more wooded habitats. Curiously this has not yet led to a
re-evaluation of Hardy's theory, even today. One would have thought
that open minded scientists would at least have the common sense to
re-test their assumptions when new evidence emerged even if they
lacked the respect in someone of such high standing and of a theory
that had been so carefully considered.
Algis Kuliukas
Rich Travsky
AAH is not ignored - nothing has shown up to support it.
Knuckle walking in Lucy is not an issue because the rest of the remains don't
support the notion.
Richard Wagler
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> Richard Wagler <taxi...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3BF93255...@home.com>...
> > Rich Travsky wrote:
> >
> > > When I say a "hell of a lot more research on hand to show otherwise" it
> > > plainly refers to research AGAINST an aquatic hypothesis. The evidence
> > > clearly shows a terrestrial origin for bipedality.
> >
> > The other point to consider is that England is a country
> > where class and status matter a great deal in terms of
> > propriety etc. Hardy was a highly respected FRS and,
> > as such, it is not likely that other scientists are going to
> > trash him publicly in the pages of a grubby little mag
> > like New Scientist. [This is not a criticism of NS but of
> > English 'manners' in matters like this] I suspect that Hardy
> > received many, many comments behind closed doors and
> > may explain why this was his only publication on the matter.
>
> There is, no doubt, an element of truth in what you say. But there are
> a couple of points I think you should bear in mind.
>
> Firstly, Hardy was very well respected indeed. Becoming an FRS is not
> easy. His theory had been kept to himself for 30 years and, as such,
> has to be the most carefully considered scientific theory in history.
> (Can you name another that was in gestation for so long?) By
> dismissing it so easily yourself, as doubtless did his peers at the
> time, you are showing a comptemptous lack of respect for him that only
> reflects badly on yourself.
How do yuou know it was dismissed so easily? Hardy was
no amateur. And as an FRS he could reasonably be expected
to have had access to Nature as a venue for publication. But
Nature is peer-reviewed so Hardy, having to make recourse,
to a relatively new publication, probably already
had the comments he requested - but they weren't favourable.
I don't know that he submitted to Nature but why wouldn't he?
>
>
> Secondly, at the time the savannah theory was at its peak of
> respectability. It would certainly have sounded a crazy idea for
> mainstream paleoanthropologists in those days. Of course, since then a
> whole load of evidence has come to light showing that dry, open
> grassland was not the place where bipedalism began. In fact as time
> has gone by, bipeds have been associated with increasingly earlier,
> wetter and more wooded habitats. Curiously this has not yet led to a
> re-evaluation of Hardy's theory, even today.
Because that is not the essence of his theory. More rain and
forest cover does not equal an aquatic habitat. If it does
provide more opportunity to be "by" rivers and lakes so what?
Every mammal outside full blown deserts spends time being
"by" water. Again what does the AAT propose? And how
does the reconstruction of early hominid habitats as wetter
and more forested bring it into play? You take your stand
on this 'theory' but you don't seem to understand what you
are committing to.
> One would have thought
> that open minded scientists would at least have the common sense to
> re-test their assumptions when new evidence emerged even if they
> lacked the respect in someone of such high standing and of a theory
> that had been so carefully considered.
>
They did re-test their assumptions. Or more to the
point Dart's model was significantly re-worked and
Africa was firmly established as the birthplace of
humanity. The science of palaeoanthropology was
a volatile place in the sixties and seventies and the
notion of a firmly entrenched paradigm just does
not wash. There were disputes and new theories
all the time. Remember Ramapithecus? Hardy was
not facing a closed shop and a serene orthodoxy.
But his little theory had a little problem - no evidence
backing it up and an overreliance on a thorough
mischaracterization of human anatomy. Nothing has
changed in forty years.
Hardy was an FRS but he was no anthropologist
or human anatomist/physiologist. As for marine
biology this is a vast field. What was Hardy's
particular area of expertise? I don't know. Do you?
In any event stop whining about the AAT not getting
a fair hearing. For that to happen it has to mount
a credible hypothesis. That's your job. Do that
and you'll get your hearing. Aiello certainly gave
you a fair shot.
Rick Wagler
Rich Travsky
Pick pretty much the entire body of research in the field.
The "aquatic" origin is crushed by the volume.
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
> <3BF8705B...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> >Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> >> There's no smokescreen, Rich. It's just that if you are going to argue
> >> about the merits of the AAH you should at least be aware of the fact
> >> that Hardy's original paper - the one on which the AAH founded -
> >> merely asked "was Man MORE aquatic IN THE PAST?" Hardly any AAH
> >> proponents claim that our ancestors were aquatic in the true sense of
> >> the word and no-one claims that we are anything but terrestrial today.
> >
> >Hardy's little three page digression has not survived the decades of
> >research since then.
>
> :-D No research at all. Only pedants who dismiss a theory becasue they
> know "better". Traditional PA hasn't published 1 decent paper on AAT.
No research at all? Four decades worth. If AAH were so clear, there'd be
more evidence to support it...
> >> The AAH is a modest theory completely undeserving of the hostility it
> >> seems to generate in those opposed to it. All it says is that our
> >> ancestors lived in water-side habitats and that as a consequence of
> >> regularly moving through such habitats by wading, swimming, and diving
> >> for a long period of time our ancestors became adapted to doing so.
> >> Even though we are 100% terrestrial today, we still bear the
> >> evolutionary scars of past that was more aquatic.
> >
> >Scars? Like snorkel noses?
> >(And he wonders why it generates hostility...)
>
> Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"??
> (Of course you can't know: you haven't even read Hardy.
> And you wonder why your ignorant pedantry generates hostility...)
Snorkels? You don't remember your own fantasies?
And you wonder why your ignorant pedantry generates laughter.
Rich Travsky
And it's NEVER occurred to you that in alllll these years and papers
no evidence has come up to actually support it. You can always
console yourself with the thought that absense of evidence is not
evidence
of absense. Of course, that would also apply to a crackpot theory of
aliens manipulating our DNA in the past...
Richard Wagler
marc verhaegen wrote:
Richard Wagler heeft geschreven in bericht <3BF93255...@home.com>...>like New Scientist. [This is not a criticism of NS but of
>English 'manners' in matters like this] I suspect that Hardy
>received many, many comments behind closed doors and
>may explain why this was his only publication on the matter.Wagler's "truths" I suppose?
- NS 7:642-5, 1960,
- The Listener, May 12, 1962,
- Zenith 15:4-6, 1977.
I'm supposed to keep track of the highly obscure
AAT literature? The initial article is the only one
that is ever referred to and the slim list you
provide hardly represents a vigorous campaign
of research and publication. The point stands.
Rick Wagler
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
>> >The evidence clearly shows a terrestrial origin for bipedality.
>>
>> :-D
>> Refs please?
>
>Pick pretty much the entire body of research in the field.
:-D
>The "aquatic" origin is crushed by the volume.
:-D
First Jois
"Robert Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B80DFB8D.AC97%rke...@earthlink.net...
> No, Im not a convert! 8-)
>
> Just thing in a contra kind of way. We get into all sorts of
arguements
> with the hard core AATers over the attributes of the human species
that
> MIGHT indicate some affiliation with the aquatic lifestyle. Some of
us
> would claim that these "adaptations" are just serendipitous
characteristics,
> others would try to claim that these are vestages of an aquatic
lifestyle.
>
> Well we can argue back and forth to no avail as has been shown
profusely for
> what seems to have been years, OR we could take another angle on it.
>
Geesh! I thought this was going to be one of those "Night Before
Christmas" things.
Jois
Bob Keeter
firs...@home.com wrote on 11/21/01 8:25 PM:
In a way, . . . . . . .it was! But I was REALLY bored and looking hard for
a can of kerosene to toss on the fire! 8-) I do so enjoy watching the
AATers scurrying around trying to convolute and contort more pieces of
flaming unsupportable conjecture into a stronger house of cards to support
their obsession! 8-))
Regards
bk
marc verhaegen
Richard Wagler heeft geschreven in bericht <3BFACF75...@home.com>...
>Again what does the AAT propose?
You still don't know??
Again:
in short:
- early hominids (Gorilla-Homo-Pan ancestors) waded bipedally & climbed
trees arms-overhead in swampy forests;
- late Plio-, Pleistocene Homo lost the climbing adaptations & developed
diving adaptations (voluntary breathing: speech origins) when they left
Africa & colonised the Indian Ocean shores (Java, Flores,
Mediterranean,...);
- diverse Homo populations followed the rivers, lakes etc. inland, incl
ourselves :-).
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
>Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>> > It's a smokescreen because we've a hell of a lot more research on
>> > hand now to show otherwise.
>>
>> On the contrary. Apart from a couple of letters (two of which were
>> compilmentary and one of which called the idea ingenious) of response
>> to Hardy in 1960 in the pages of New Scientist in the weeks that
>> followed there has been almost zero serious response to his polite
>> request for comments.
>> Since 1960 how many papers have been written about human evolution? -
>> it must be in the order of 10,000. How many have seriously considered
>> the AAH? It must be in the order of 20 and most of those in the last
>> three or four years.
>> From 1960 until about 1995 it simply was not mentioned. This is hardly
>> science. On what basis was this rejection made? Just a gut feeling
>> that it was wrong? Look where that got us before. A gut feeling about
>> Piltdown man halted progress for almost 40 years - I think this latest
>> brain-dead knee-jerk reaction of the paleoanthropologists will result
>> in the same thing. But at least things are beginning to change now.
>
>And it's NEVER occurred to you that in alllll these years and papers
>no evidence has come up to actually support it. You can always
>console yourself with the thought that absense of evidence is not
>evidence of absense.
Not our fault that a lot of PAs are still too short-sighted to consider the
comparative evidence, but keep constructing fairy tales around fossil bones.
No problem though. We had exactly the same short-sightedness in geology
("land bridges between Africa & S.America" :-D) before the theory of plate
tectonics. How many years did Wegener's theory need?
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
>marc verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
>> <3BF8705B...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
>> >Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>>
>> >> There's no smokescreen, Rich. It's just that if you are going to argue
>> >> about the merits of the AAH you should at least be aware of the fact
>> >> that Hardy's original paper - the one on which the AAH founded -
>> >> merely asked "was Man MORE aquatic IN THE PAST?" Hardly any AAH
>> >> proponents claim that our ancestors were aquatic in the true sense of
>> >> the word and no-one claims that we are anything but terrestrial today.
>> >
>> >Hardy's little three page digression has not survived the decades of
>> >research since then.
>>
>> :-D No research at all. Only pedants who dismiss a theory becasue they
>> know "better". Traditional PA hasn't published 1 decent paper on AAT.
>
>No research at all? Four decades worth. If AAH were so clear, there'd be
>more evidence to support it...
The evidence is overabundant. Only it's not (only) in the fossils as
fossil-hunters want, but rather it's in the comparative data, which for some
obscure reason you don't want to see.
>> >> The AAH is a modest theory completely undeserving of the hostility it
>> >> seems to generate in those opposed to it. All it says is that our
>> >> ancestors lived in water-side habitats and that as a consequence of
>> >> regularly moving through such habitats by wading, swimming, and diving
>> >> for a long period of time our ancestors became adapted to doing so.
>> >> Even though we are 100% terrestrial today, we still bear the
>> >> evolutionary scars of past that was more aquatic.
>> >
>> >Scars? Like snorkel noses?
>> >(And he wonders why it generates hostility...)
>>
>> Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"??
>> (Of course you can't know: you haven't even read Hardy.
>> And you wonder why your ignorant pedantry generates hostility...)
>
>Snorkels? You don't remember your own fantasies?
1) Fantasy?? A very simple truth. Neandertals had very protruding noses, no?
(I hope you know that??) If they swam on the back, their noses would have
functioned as a snorkel, OK? What else? Not more difficult than that.
2) I didn't say they often swam on the back, but would not be surprised if
some of them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
a) Some neandertal skulls (eg, la Chapelle) had bilateral & extensive ear
exostoses (which are almost exclusively seen in human divers).
b) An external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis
monkeys, tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception? Note it's
never seen in fully aquatic mammals, only in waders (eg, hooded seals &
elephant seals on the beach).
c) Neandertals (still?) had thicker bones than modern humans (though less
than erectus). Thick bones are typical of slow bottom-diving mammals
(walruses diving for shellfish, seacows diving for seaweeds, the extinct
Kolponomos & Ododbenocetops).
d) We know (some?) neandertals ate diverse aquatic foods: some stone tools
bear traces of cattails; shelfish (Italian coast); fish remains (even dried
fish: P-F. & S.Puech 1993 in J.Maroto ed."La mandibula de Banyoles" Centre
d'Investig.Arqueol. Gerona:105-115).
e) Neandertal diet was halfway that of wolves & mammoths, see the figure in
M.P.Richards etc.2000 "Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal
predation: The evidence from stable isotopes" PNAS 97:7663–6. Mammoths
(stomach contents) fed on sedges in marshes etc.
f) Rivers seem to connect neandertal populations, not divide them (Rhône
region: French study in JHE-abstracts IIRC).
Conclusion: Perhaps neandertals (or some of them) only waded and/or dived
only seasonllay, perhaps only the males did (AFAIK, ear exostoses are only
seen in males), perhaps not all populations did, perhaps only in some
regions, but the combination of the evidence suggests generally they seem to
have spent more time in & near water than modern humans.
3) You can't read? Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"?? You don't have
to blame Hardy for something I said. Try to keep our ideas apart please.
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
> <3BFB34A6...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> >marc verhaegen wrote:
> >>
> >> Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
> >> <3BF8705B...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> >> >Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> >>
> >> >> There's no smokescreen, Rich. It's just that if you are going to argue
> >> >> about the merits of the AAH you should at least be aware of the fact
> >> >> that Hardy's original paper - the one on which the AAH founded -
> >> >> merely asked "was Man MORE aquatic IN THE PAST?" Hardly any AAH
> >> >> proponents claim that our ancestors were aquatic in the true sense of
> >> >> the word and no-one claims that we are anything but terrestrial today.
> >> >
> >> >Hardy's little three page digression has not survived the decades of
> >> >research since then.
> >>
> >> :-D No research at all. Only pedants who dismiss a theory becasue they
> >> know "better". Traditional PA hasn't published 1 decent paper on AAT.
> >
> >No research at all? Four decades worth. If AAH were so clear, there'd be
> >more evidence to support it...
>
> The evidence is overabundant. Only it's not (only) in the fossils as
> fossil-hunters want, but rather it's in the comparative data, which for some
> obscure reason you don't want to see.
The fossil record, the only true record we have of those creatures, does
not support your fantasies.
> >> >> The AAH is a modest theory completely undeserving of the hostility it
> >> >> seems to generate in those opposed to it. All it says is that our
> >> >> ancestors lived in water-side habitats and that as a consequence of
> >> >> regularly moving through such habitats by wading, swimming, and diving
> >> >> for a long period of time our ancestors became adapted to doing so.
> >> >> Even though we are 100% terrestrial today, we still bear the
> >> >> evolutionary scars of past that was more aquatic.
> >> >
> >> >Scars? Like snorkel noses?
> >> >(And he wonders why it generates hostility...)
> >>
> >> Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"??
> >> (Of course you can't know: you haven't even read Hardy.
> >> And you wonder why your ignorant pedantry generates hostility...)
> >
> >Snorkels? You don't remember your own fantasies?
>
> 1) Fantasy?? A very simple truth. Neandertals had very protruding noses, no?
> (I hope you know that??) If they swam on the back, their noses would have
> functioned as a snorkel, OK? What else? Not more difficult than that.
Try it. Lay on your back in the water. Or get someone with a big nose to
try. Make sure you or someone nearby knows CPR.
> 2) I didn't say they often swam on the back, but would not be surprised if
> some of them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
> [...]
Who said anything about swimming "on the back"?
> 3) You can't read? Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"?? You don't have
> to blame Hardy for something I said. Try to keep our ideas apart please.
Running from your snorkel nosed neanderthals theory, eh? Don't blame
you.
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
>> >> >Scars? Like snorkel noses?
>> >> >(And he wonders why it generates hostility...)
>> >>
>> >> Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"??
>> >> (Of course you can't know: you haven't even read Hardy.
>> >> And you wonder why your ignorant pedantry generates hostility...)
>> >
>> >Snorkels? You don't remember your own fantasies?
>>
>> 1) Fantasy?? A very simple truth. Neandertals had very protruding noses,
no?
>> (I hope you know that??) If they swam on the back, their noses would have
>> functioned as a snorkel, OK? What else? Not more difficult than that.
>
>Try it. Lay on your back in the water. Or get someone with a big nose to
>try. Make sure you or someone nearby knows CPR.
?? Lying on your back with a longer airway functions as a snorkel.
>> 2) I didn't say they often swam on the back, but would not be surprised
if
>> some of them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
>> [...]
>
>Who said anything about swimming "on the back"?
Why do you think they could not have done that?? It's the easiest way to
swim at the surface - try. Sea otters (tool users) do it.
>> 3) You can't read? Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"?? You don't
have
>> to blame Hardy for something I said. Try to keep our ideas apart please.
>
>Running from your snorkel nosed neanderthals theory, eh? Don't blame
>you.
Don't be ridiculous: *you* snipped the relevant stuff. Perhaps you should
try to learn what a hypothesis is. I didn't say
neandertals often swam on the back, but would not be surprised if some of
them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
> <3C0191E5...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
>
> >> >> >Scars? Like snorkel noses?
> >> >> >(And he wonders why it generates hostility...)
> >> >>
> >> >> Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"??
> >> >> (Of course you can't know: you haven't even read Hardy.
> >> >> And you wonder why your ignorant pedantry generates hostility...)
> >> >
> >> >Snorkels? You don't remember your own fantasies?
> >>
> >> 1) Fantasy?? A very simple truth. Neandertals had very protruding noses,
> no?
> >> (I hope you know that??) If they swam on the back, their noses would have
> >> functioned as a snorkel, OK? What else? Not more difficult than that.
> >
> >Try it. Lay on your back in the water. Or get someone with a big nose to
> >try. Make sure you or someone nearby knows CPR.
>
> ?? Lying on your back with a longer airway functions as a snorkel.
FInd someone with a big nose and try it. Don't fantasize. (Hey, lookee,
a chance to do an actual bit of AAT research!)
> >> 2) I didn't say they often swam on the back, but would not be surprised
> if
> >> some of them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
> >> [...]
> >
> >Who said anything about swimming "on the back"?
>
> Why do you think they could not have done that?? It's the easiest way to
> swim at the surface - try. Sea otters (tool users) do it.
Otters are quadrupeds. Easiest? Have you asked a swimmer?
> >> 3) You can't read? Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"?? You don't
> have
> >> to blame Hardy for something I said. Try to keep our ideas apart please.
> >
> >Running from your snorkel nosed neanderthals theory, eh? Don't blame
> >you.
>
> Don't be ridiculous: *you* snipped the relevant stuff. Perhaps you should
I only snipped the ridiculous stuff.
marc verhaegen
>> >> >> >Scars? Like snorkel noses?
>> >> >> >(And he wonders why it generates hostility...)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where did Hardy use the word "snorkel"??
>> >> >> (Of course you can't know: you haven't even read Hardy.
>> >> >> And you wonder why your ignorant pedantry generates hostility...)
>> >> >
>> >> >Snorkels? You don't remember your own fantasies?
>> >>
>> >> 1) Fantasy?? A very simple truth. Neandertals had very protruding
noses,
>> no?
>> >> (I hope you know that??) If they swam on the back, their noses would
have
>> >> functioned as a snorkel, OK? What else? Not more difficult than that.
>> >
>> >Try it. Lay on your back in the water. Or get someone with a big nose to
>> >try. Make sure you or someone nearby knows CPR.
>>
>> ?? Lying on your back with a longer airway functions as a snorkel.
>
>FInd someone with a big nose and try it. Don't fantasize. (Hey, lookee,
>a chance to do an actual bit of AAT research!)
Buy a dictionary instead af talking nonsense: "air tube that can rise above
the surface of water". I hope you don't deny neandertals had more protruding
midfaces & longer noses than sapiens?? IOW, the longer nose & midface simply
functioned as a snorkel in a neadertal swimming on his back. A simple fact a
child can see.
>> >> 2) I didn't say they often swam on the back, but would not be
surprised
>> >>if some of them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
>> >> [...]
Travsky snipped the following facts:
(typical of religious fanatics: burn books)
a) Some neandertal skulls (eg, la Chapelle) had bilateral & extensive ear
exostoses (which are almost exclusively seen in human divers).
b) An external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis
monkeys, tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception? Note it's
never seen in fully aquatic mammals, only in waders (eg, hooded seals &
elephant seals on the beach).
c) Neandertals (still?) had thicker bones than modern humans (though less
than erectus). Thick bones are typical of slow bottom-diving mammals
(walruses diving for shellfish, seacows diving for seaweeds, the extinct
Kolponomos & Ododbenocetops).
d) We know (some?) neandertals ate diverse aquatic foods: some stone tools
bear traces of cattails; shelfish (Italian coast); fish remains (even dried
fish: P-F. & S.Puech 1993 in J.Maroto ed."La mandibula de Banyoles" Centre
d'Investig.Arqueol. Gerona:105-115).
e) Neandertal diet was halfway that of wolves & mammoths, see the figure in
M.P.Richards etc.2000 "Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal
predation: The evidence from stable isotopes" PNAS 97:7663–6. Mammoths
(stomach contents) fed on sedges in marshes etc.
Conclusion: Perhaps neandertals (or some of them) only waded and/or dived
only seasonllay, perhaps only the males did (AFAIK, ear exostoses are only
seen in males), perhaps not all populations did, perhaps only in some
regions, but the combination of the evidence suggests generally they seem to
have spent more time in & near water than modern humans.
>> >Who said anything about swimming "on the back"?
>>
>> Why do you think they could not have done that?? It's the easiest way to
>> swim at the surface - try. Sea otters (tool users) do it.
>
>Otters are quadrupeds.
So?
>Easiest? Have you asked a swimmer?
Can't you swim?
Rich Travsky
Tell us where the nasal holes are: on the tip of the nose, or flush
with the upper lip? No human (or human related species like
neanderthals)
has nasal holes on the *tip* of the nose. That'd make it like an
elephant's
trunk.
> >> >> 2) I didn't say they often swam on the back, but would not be
> surprised
> >> >>if some of them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
> >> >> [...]
>
> Travsky snipped the following facts:
> (typical of religious fanatics: burn books)
No, snip fantasies.
> a) Some neandertal skulls (eg, la Chapelle) had bilateral & extensive ear
> exostoses (which are almost exclusively seen in human divers).
"Some" - very few. And they can be caused by other things.
> b) An external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis
> monkeys, tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception? Note it's
> never seen in fully aquatic mammals, only in waders (eg, hooded seals &
> elephant seals on the beach).
Irrelevant. Sexual selection can account for it.
> c) Neandertals (still?) had thicker bones than modern humans (though less
> than erectus). Thick bones are typical of slow bottom-diving mammals
> (walruses diving for shellfish, seacows diving for seaweeds, the extinct
> Kolponomos & Ododbenocetops).
It's associated with activity level. Modern humans can show this
also without diving etc.
It's illogical to assume the same functional equivalence in such widely
separated species. If it were you'd expect more similarities.
> d) We know (some?) neandertals ate diverse aquatic foods: some stone tools
> bear traces of cattails; shelfish (Italian coast); fish remains (even dried
> fish: P-F. & S.Puech 1993 in J.Maroto ed."La mandibula de Banyoles" Centre
> d'Investig.Arqueol. Gerona:105-115).
They also ate meat and hunted. Big deal. Or are you going to
deny they ate meat and hunted?
> e) Neandertal diet was halfway that of wolves & mammoths, see the figure in
> M.P.Richards etc.2000 "Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal
> predation: The evidence from stable isotopes" PNAS 97:7663–6. Mammoths
> (stomach contents) fed on sedges in marshes etc.
Proves nothing. Mammoths also ate other stuff as well. Stomach contents
of
frozen mammoths show different kinds of leaves (willow, fir, alder).
Humans
(and relatives like neanderthal) are good at exploiting their
environment.
Eating the mammoths can give you the same isotope signature.
> Conclusion: Perhaps neandertals (or some of them) only waded and/or dived
> only seasonllay, perhaps only the males did (AFAIK, ear exostoses are only
> seen in males), perhaps not all populations did, perhaps only in some
> regions, but the combination of the evidence suggests generally they seem to
> have spent more time in & near water than modern humans.
Conclusion: another Marc fantasy.
> >> >Who said anything about swimming "on the back"?
> >>
> >> Why do you think they could not have done that?? It's the easiest way to
> >> swim at the surface - try. Sea otters (tool users) do it.
> >
> >Otters are quadrupeds.
>
> So?
Humans aren't.
> >Easiest? Have you asked a swimmer?
>
> Can't you swim?
Does this mean you haven't asked a swimmer?
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
You simply don't know. When the Moustier neandertal was excavated in 1908,
the dicoverers described the nostrils (which they said they could discern at
that moment) as situated at the tip rather than underneath the nose as in
sapiens.
And even if the nostrils were situated in the same place as in sapiens, the
neandertal protruding midface & long low skull lengthened the airway, no?
Remember: snorkel = air tube that can rise above the surface of water.
>)
>has nasal holes on the *tip* of the nose. That'd make it like an
>elephant's trunk.
More like a probocis monkey nose. :-)
>> >> >> 2) I didn't say they often swam on the back, but would not be
>> surprised
>> >> >>if some of them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
>> >> >> [...]
>>
>> Travsky snipped the following facts:
>> (typical of religious fanatics: burn books)
>
>No, snip fantasies.
No: facts.
>> a) Some neandertal skulls (eg, la Chapelle) had bilateral & extensive ear
>> exostoses (which are almost exclusively seen in human divers).
>
>"Some" - very few.
A few, yes, but:
1) Not all skulls have auditory canals.
2) Ear exostoses only develop in *cold* water, IOW, neandertals swimming in
warmer water would not have developed them.
3) It's true that AFAIK only male skulls show ear exostoses. If somebody
knows exceptions, please let know.
>And they can be caused by other things.
Yes, but nearly always in divers.
Any reason why these neandertals must be an exception??
>> b) An external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis
>> monkeys, tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception? Note
it's
>> never seen in fully aquatic mammals, only in waders (eg, hooded seals &
>> elephant seals on the beach).
>
>Irrelevant. Sexual selection can account for it.
No fantasies, man. Sexual selection can account for everything. An external
nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis monkeys,
tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception?
>> c) Neandertals (still?) had thicker bones than modern humans (though less
>> than erectus). Thick bones are typical of slow bottom-diving mammals
>> (walruses diving for shellfish, seacows diving for seaweeds, the extinct
>> Kolponomos & Ododbenocetops).
>
>It's associated with activity level. Modern humans can show this
>also without diving etc.
Nonsense. Apes have no thick bones, apiths (except A.robustus femora) had no
thick bones, monkeys have no thick bones, sapiens has no thick bones. Only
erectus & to a lesser extent neandertals had. Among all primates! Explain
that.
>It's illogical to assume the same functional equivalence in such widely
>separated species.
Birds & bees & bats have wings. Are they widely separated IYO?
>If it were you'd expect more similarities.
??
>> d) We know (some?) neandertals ate diverse aquatic foods: some stone
tools
>> bear traces of cattails; shelfish (Italian coast); fish remains (even
dried
>> fish: P-F. & S.Puech 1993 in J.Maroto ed."La mandibula de Banyoles"
Centre
>> d'Investig.Arqueol. Gerona:105-115).
>
>They also ate meat and hunted. Big deal. Or are you going to
>deny they ate meat and hunted?
No, little doubt some at least did. So do humans. Yet we descend from
seaside ancestors.
>> e) Neandertal diet was halfway that of wolves & mammoths, see the figure
in
>> M.P.Richards etc.2000 "Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal
>> predation: The evidence from stable isotopes" PNAS 97:7663–6. Mammoths
>> (stomach contents) fed on sedges in marshes etc.
>
>Proves nothing. Mammoths also ate other stuff as well.
>Stomach contents of frozen mammoths show different
>kinds of leaves (willow, fir, alder).
Yes.
>Humans (and relatives like neanderthal) are good at exploiting their
>environment.
Yes, of course: they have arboreal as well as waterside ancestors, climbing
as well as diving ancestors. No wonder they're good at expoiting different
environments.
>Eating the mammoths can give you the same isotope signature.
Possibly, yes. But mammoths ate sedges etc.
>> Conclusion: Perhaps neandertals (or some of them) only waded and/or dived
>> only seasonllay, perhaps only the males did (AFAIK, ear exostoses are
only
>> seen in males), perhaps not all populations did, perhaps only in some
>> regions, but the combination of the evidence suggests generally they seem
to
>> have spent more time in & near water than modern humans.
>
>Conclusion: another Marc fantasy.
No: you have given no argument why generally neandertals would not have
spent more time in & near water than sapiens.
>> >> >Who said anything about swimming "on the back"?
>> >>
>> >> Why do you think they could not have done that?? It's the easiest way
to
>> >> swim at the surface - try. Sea otters (tool users) do it.
>> >
>> >Otters are quadrupeds.
>>
>> So?
>
>Humans aren't.
So?
>> >Easiest? Have you asked a swimmer?
>>
>> Can't you swim?
>
>Does this mean you haven't asked a swimmer?
Sigh.
1) I have asked a lot of swimmers.
2) Can't you know that by yourself?
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> > There is, no doubt, an element of truth in what you say. But there are
> > a couple of points I think you should bear in mind.
> >
> > Firstly, Hardy was very well respected indeed. Becoming an FRS is not
> > easy. His theory had been kept to himself for 30 years and, as such,
> > has to be the most carefully considered scientific theory in history.
> > (Can you name another that was in gestation for so long?) By
> > dismissing it so easily yourself, as doubtless did his peers at the
> > time, you are showing a comptemptous lack of respect for him that only
> > reflects badly on yourself.
>
> How do yuou know it was dismissed so easily? Hardy was
> no amateur. And as an FRS he could reasonably be expected
> to have had access to Nature as a venue for publication. But
> Nature is peer-reviewed so Hardy, having to make recourse,
> to a relatively new publication, probably already
> had the comments he requested - but they weren't favourable.
> I don't know that he submitted to Nature but why wouldn't he?
It is what Phillip Tobias is on record for saying. Something like "we
thought he'd gone mad". It is what Langdon wrote in JHE - something
like "not worthy of the trouble of rebuttal." As to why it was not
published in Nature... I think it was because his original speech - at
the Brighton Aqua club - had been grossly misrepresented in the
popular press and it was thought that a 'popular' science journal
would be the best way of countering that misrepresentation. It would
seem, however, that the established paleoanthropologists were more
persuaded by the drammatic portayal of Hardy's idea in "The Daily
Express" than his carefully written account in New Scientist that
followed.
> > Secondly, at the time the savannah theory was at its peak of
> > respectability. It would certainly have sounded a crazy idea for
> > mainstream paleoanthropologists in those days. Of course, since then a
> > whole load of evidence has come to light showing that dry, open
> > grassland was not the place where bipedalism began. In fact as time
> > has gone by, bipeds have been associated with increasingly earlier,
> > wetter and more wooded habitats. Curiously this has not yet led to a
> > re-evaluation of Hardy's theory, even today.
>
> Because that is not the essence of his theory. More rain and
> forest cover does not equal an aquatic habitat. If it does
> provide more opportunity to be "by" rivers and lakes so what?
> Every mammal outside full blown deserts spends time being
> "by" water. Again what does the AAT propose? And how
> does the reconstruction of early hominid habitats as wetter
> and more forested bring it into play? You take your stand
> on this 'theory' but you don't seem to understand what you
> are committing to.
I think this is your misunderstanding, Rick. All Hardy asked was "Was
Man more aquatic in the past?" Sure he hypothesised about a coastal
habitat but that wasn't necessary for his argument. The actual
location of the habitat for the proposed aquaticism may be in question
but its effect - a pressure to wade, swim and dive - are not.
> > One would have thought
> > that open minded scientists would at least have the common sense to
> > re-test their assumptions when new evidence emerged even if they
> > lacked the respect in someone of such high standing and of a theory
> > that had been so carefully considered.
>
> They did re-test their assumptions. Or more to the
> point Dart's model was significantly re-worked and
> Africa was firmly established as the birthplace of
> humanity.
Ok. But it was only a shift of emphasis from 'grassland' towards
'woodland' and *never* to include 'water-side.'
> The science of palaeoanthropology was
> a volatile place in the sixties and seventies and the
> notion of a firmly entrenched paradigm just does
> not wash.
Maybe. But neither can you deny that the 'savannah' - and by this I
*do* mean open, relatively woodless, grasslands is still the image in
most people's minds for our ancestral homes. This is not my invention.
The BBC production Ape-Man - which was shown only last year - more ore
less says so directly. It talks quite explicitly about this. "As
increasingly hot conditions reduced forest areas, tree-living primates
were forced to adapt to life on the open savannah." (From the book of
the series p62) You have to accept that many specialists (Leslie
Aeillo & Mark Collard are two) still very much favour the
'traditional' savannah-based model. Claiming, as you do, that this is
a staw doll that AAH supporters create to knock down is just creating
another straw doll yourself.
> There were disputes and new theories
> all the time. Remember Ramapithecus? Hardy was
> not facing a closed shop and a serene orthodoxy.
I think the likelihood he is, he was. That's why he was so *very*
cautious about publishing the idea.
> But his little theory had a little problem - no evidence
> backing it up and an overreliance on a thorough
> mischaracterization of human anatomy.
You're kidding yourself. The differences between humans and other apes
are most parsimoniusly explained by adapations to more aquatic
habitats - the alternative explanations are just a diverse string of
'just-so' stories in comparison. You have created for youself and
aquatic straw doll - a view that the AAH says we were 'aquatic' so
that your comparison with whales and dolphins can easily defeat it.
I think you should take on board what Daniel Dennett (1995 p 243)
wrote about it...
"... and over a period of a million years or so they began the
evolutionary process of returning to the sea that we know was
undergone earlier by whales, dolphins, seals and otters, for instance.
The process was well under way, leading to the fixation of many
curious characteristics that are otherwise found only in aquatic
mammals - not in any other primate, for example - when circumstances
changed once again, and these semi-seagoing apes returned to a life on
the land (but typically on the shore of sea, lake or river.)"
and (p 244)...
"... many of the counterarguments seem awfully thin and ad hoc. During
the last few years, when I have found myself in the company of
distinguished biologists, evolutionary theorists,
paleo-anthropologists, and other experts, I have often asked them just
to tell me, please, exactly why Elaine Morgan must be wrong about the
aquatic ape theory. I haven't yet had a reply worth mentioning, aside
from those who admit, with a twinkle in their eyes, that they have
often wondered the same thing."
> Nothing has changed in forty years.
I only partly agree. The evidence has built up for earlier and earlier
bipedalism in wetter and woodier habitats - and yet nothing has really
changed in terms of the main models used to explain it.
> Hardy was an FRS but he was no anthropologist
> or human anatomist/physiologist. As for marine
> biology this is a vast field. What was Hardy's
> particular area of expertise? I don't know. Do you?
Plankton and whale feeding, I believe.
> In any event stop whining about the AAT not getting
> a fair hearing. For that to happen it has to mount
> a credible hypothesis. That's your job. Do that
> and you'll get your hearing. Aiello certainly gave
> you a fair shot.
You're right, UCL gave the idea a very fair hearing. I was very
pleasantly surprised that my thesis received a distinction. The fact
that they were able to give it praise, despite its 'controversial'
subject matter, and accept the logic of most of its argument, even
though it was completely contrary to the UCL's favoured position on
human origins, restored muuch of my 'faith' in the scientific
establishment.
What I am whining about really is that people like yourself seem
determined to shoot down a simple, modest, plausible explanation of
many of the differences between humans and other apes when your own
ideas plainly do not explain those differences at all. I am amazed,
and somewhat depressed, at the the lack of imagination and strength of
conservatism that people like yourself demonstrate.
Algis Kuliukas
marc verhaegen
Algis Kuliukas heeft geschreven in bericht
<77a70442.01120...@posting.google.com>...
.....
>What I am whining about really is that people like yourself seem
>determined to shoot down a simple, modest, plausible explanation of
>many of the differences between humans and other apes when your own
>ideas plainly do not explain those differences at all. I am amazed,
>and somewhat depressed, at the the lack of imagination and strength of
>conservatism that people like yourself demonstrate. Algis Kuliukas
Well-said, Algis.
Marc
First Jois
"marc verhaegen" <marc.ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote in message
news:3c09260f$0$12227$4d4e...@news.be.uu.net...
Well, you probably are going to just keep on whining.
I not sure what the Savannah (?) theory is, I do know that this semi
religious presentation of yours and Marc's automatically make me (and
probably many others) back up and say, "You have to be kidding!"
I have only ever seen and read creationists "do" science in this manner.
Bless you both,
Jois
Michael Clark
news:MvaO7.70615$Ze5.39...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Well-said, Jois.
Bob Keeter
mcl...@skypoint.com wrote on 12/1/01 5:23 PM:
At the risk of being a "me_too_er", BRAVO, Jois, Encore! 8-)
Regards
bk
First Jois
> >>
> > Well-said, Jois.
> >
> >
>
> At the risk of being a "me_too_er", BRAVO, Jois, Encore! 8-)
>
> Regards
> bk
>
Thank you, thank you, thank you ::bows in a manner consistent with
great dignity to both Bob and Michael::
Can't we come up with better topics and leave this religious stuff
behind?
*Scientists say they made a boo-boo in a study that showed nearly half
the chimps born in a group weren't fathered by the males in that group;
fixed the mess and now say it is down to one in ten. Are they better
behaved than we are?
*Paabo and all just published a new article about pcr artifacts in
ancient DNA which I may almost understand. Anyone else seen it?
*How old are patellae? Does everything with legs have them? All
mammals? Same with ball and socket joints at the hip?
Shouldn't scientists be able to tell which form of locomotion was used
by origins and insertions of the leg/hip muscles?
Semi-informed minds want to know.
Jois
Richard Wagler
First Jois wrote:
> Can't we come up with better topics and leave this religious stuff
> behind?
>
>
>
> *Paabo and all just published a new article about pcr artifacts in
> ancient DNA which I may almost understand. Anyone else seen it?
Nucleic Acids Res 2001 Dec 1;29(23):4793-9
DNA sequences from multiple amplifications reveal
artifacts induced by cytosine deamination in ancient
DNA.
Hofreiter M, Jaenicke V, Serre D, Haeseler Av A, Paabo S.
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Inselstrasse 22,
D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.
We show that DNA molecules amplified by PCR from DNA extracted
from animal bones and teeth that vary in age between 25 000 and over
50 000 years carry C-->T and G-->A substitutions. These substitutions
can reach high proportions among the molecules amplified and are due
to the occurrence of modified deoxycytidine residues in the template
DNA. If the template DNA is treated with uracil N-glycosylase, these
substitutions are dramatically reduced. They are thus likely to result from
deamination of deoxycytidine residues. In addition, 'jumping PCR', i.e.
the occurrence of template switching during PCR, may contribute to
these substitutions. When DNA sequences are amplified from ancient
DNA extracts where few template molecules initiate the PCR,
precautions such as DNA sequence determination of multiple clones
derived from more than one independent amplification are necessary in
order to reduce the risk of determination of incorrect DNA sequences.
When such precautionary measures are taken, errors induced by
damage to the DNA template are unlikely to be more frequent than
approximately 0.1% even under the unlikely scenario where each
amplification starts from a single template molecule.
Take it away, Phil.....
Rick Wagler
Bob Keeter
wrote on 12/1/01 10:56 PM:
Rick,
As Im reading this, it almost sounds like another phenomena that I DO know
just a little bit about. When you get a bit over-enthusiastic "enhancing" a
photo, or some kinds of DSP, random noise starts to "allign" and before you
know it, you start seeing things in the signal (or picture) that look very
real but that are total fabrications.
After NASA opened up the Mars Orbiter picture database some enterprising
amateurs "turned up the gain" on their public domain image processing
software packages and started seeing "aircraft hangers". Turned out the
"walls" of the aircraft hangers matched the "rows and columns" of the LCD
detectors! 8-o !!!
Is that anything like what is going on here? Random noise amplified until
it starts to look meaningful?
Regards
bk
Algis Kuliukas
> > <77a70442.01120...@posting.google.com>...
> > >What I am whining about really is that people like yourself seem
> > >determined to shoot down a simple, modest, plausible explanation of
> > >many of the differences between humans and other apes when your own
> > >ideas plainly do not explain those differences at all. I am amazed,
> > >and somewhat depressed, at the the lack of imagination and strength
> of
> > >conservatism that people like yourself demonstrate. Algis Kuliukas
> >
> > Well-said, Algis.
> >
> > Marc
> >
>
> Well, you probably are going to just keep on whining.
>
> I not sure what the Savannah (?) theory is, I do know that this semi
> religious presentation of yours and Marc's automatically make me (and
> probably many others) back up and say, "You have to be kidding!"
>
> I have only ever seen and read creationists "do" science in this manner.
>
> Bless you both,
> Jois
The fact is that the AAH is probably more scientifically based than
the contrary views:
It relies on...
1) Simple biological observations from cladistic relationships (e.g.
we can swim but our closest living relatives, the chimps, cannot.)
2) Comparative anatomy (of the 300 or-so primates we are the only ones
that are naked and have so much subcutaneous fat etc. Where else do
you find that kind of trait? - in aquatic mammals.)
3) Parsimony. (We can swim, we have a cluster of traits similar to
aquatic mammals etc - all explained by one, modest, assumption)
4) Fossil evidence. (Early hominids associated with wetter habitats
and almost all paleo-sites are semi-aquatic.)
5) The efforts of keen amateurs and non-specialists, interested in
finding answers to awkward questions, who have no reputations to
protect.
The contrary view relies on...
1) An ex-cathedra status and false authority that simply arose due to
being established first. If Lucy had been discovered when the Taung
child had, we would almost certainly have a completely different (and
significantly wetter) view of our past today. Because the 'arid' view
established itself first, it has led to academic unculturation where
students learn what they're told to study and then, surprise surprise,
what do they teach when they get into positions of authority
themselves? All this has strong parallels with religion.
2) A cocky assumption that we 'got it right already' and we don't need
any further explanations - even though there is no concensus of the
origin of bipedalism and hardly any discussion about other traits such
as nakedness, sc fat etc. Again, this is very similar to the way
creationists have argued for years - 'The bible explains it all, we
don't need your natural selection'.
3) An unbelievably conconcted and very unparsimonious story line to
explain all the traits and behaviours that the AAH does in one step.
Listing to the aquasceptics explain bipedalism, hairlessness,
subcutaneous fat and the fact that we can swim reminds me of the way
bible bashers defend the 'Book of Genesis'.
4) A belief that all fossils associated with water-side niches are
merely due to taphonomic bias. 'Have faith bretheren - the fact that
every hominid died by water means nothing!'
5) An almost religious faith in the authority of peers and lack of
intellectual courage to objectively go against the tide of opinion for
fear of ridicule. The fact that Hardy held back his modest views for
30 years and that there has been practically no serious scientific
response to his ideas even after 41 years shows how true this is. The
only serious attempt of a refutation - Langon's JHE paper - is more a
childish critique of Elaine Morgan's early books than a serious
consideration of the theory. 'Who are these heretics who defy the
Truth that we have been told?'
Those of us who hold the AAH today are simply asking, as Hardy did in
1960, "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" A scientific response would
be something along the lines 'Interesting theory, let's all think how
it might be tested' instead all we've had is pathetic, childish
ridicule.
Algis Kuliukas
Doug Chandler
>2) Comparative anatomy (of the 300 or-so primates we are the only ones
>that are naked and have so much subcutaneous fat etc. Where else do
>you find that kind of trait? - in aquatic mammals.)
Speaking of aquatic mammals, the seal and the walrus have been in the water
long enough for their limbs to evolve into flippers, and they still have plenty
of fur. The sea otter has developed webbed feet and retains fur. How did man
venture into the water long enough to lose all fur and withdraw with limbs
still adapted to land?
Have you noticed that among humans the female has more subcutaneous fat and
less body hair than the male? Perhaps we should explore the possibility that
our females ancestors remained in the water longer. Any ideas on that?
>The contrary view relies on...
>1) An ex-cathedra status and false authority
>2) A cocky assumption
>3) An unbelievably conconcted and very unparsimonious story line
>4) A belief that all fossils associated with water-side niches are
>merely due to taphonomic bias.
>5) An almost religious faith in the authority of peers and lack of
>intellectual courage
> all we've had is pathetic, childish
>ridicule.
Ah, there is nothing like an unbiased analysis.
Bob Keeter
prig...@aol.comline wrote on 12/2/01 11:21 AM:
Snippage. . . .
>
> Have you noticed that among humans the female has more subcutaneous fat and
> less body hair than the male? Perhaps we should explore the possibility that
> our females ancestors remained in the water longer. Any ideas on that?
>
Er, ah. . . .Sounds like a quick path to the extinction of the species if
you ask me! ;-)
snip. . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> Ah, there is nothing like an unbiased analysis.
>
The sad thing is that there is just a glimmer of truth to some of the
assertions of stodgy "religious fervor" dogmatism and childish bickering in
science. That is unfortunately one of the most insidious attractions of
these "fringe theories" to the more gullible or less informed. (Matter of
fact, dont know how Ive managed to escape the grasps! 8-) )
Often you do have two competing and mutually exclusive scientific
theories with generally equal merit that face off with no real defining
facts to separate the two into theory and fiction. Then it distressingly
often boils down to an ego-centric bar-room brawl of "my PhD thesis or
latest publication, or latest lecture, or CNN soundbite could not prossibly
be wrong,. . . . . . . yours is pure fantasy and. . . . . . I can yell the
loudest and can afford to have my ideas printed more often in the vanity
press!!!"! Sad, but can you deny it?
Then you get some wild, half-baked hypotheses like the AAT that gain
credibility by masquerading as one of the "simply unpopular and
controversial" theories based on the general scorn heaped upon them by the
"establishment" rather than on any basic merit of the hypotheses! Again,
sad, but Im afraid all too true!
If ONLY the soft "interpretive" sciences were in the same ballpark as
physics and math with hard proofs instead of "best guesses". Have you
noticed that in comparison, physics is far less afflicted by crackpot
theories that just dont go away? Yes there are ALWAYS the "perpetual
motion/ Free energy" ideas but those tend to loose their glitter quickly!Its
a shame that Sagan and Hawkin have not written in the fields of anthropology
and palentology so that the principles of these sciences were more
understandable to the "non-guru's" and therefore less subject to assault by
the crackpots
Regards
bk
marc verhaegen
Well-said, Algis.
:-D
Marc
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas argues for the aquatic ape:
> Speaking of aquatic mammals, the seal and the walrus have been in the water
> long enough for their limbs to evolve into flippers, and they still have plenty
> of fur. The sea otter has developed webbed feet and retains fur. How did man
> venture into the water long enough to lose all fur and withdraw with limbs
> still adapted to land?
I think you need to read up a little about the AAH, Doug. We are
descended from apes, not seals. The AAH suggests that wewere exposed
to (quite mild) aquatic pressure for a relatively short length of time
compared to those animals. Don't fall into the Rick Wagler binary - we
were aquatic or non-aquatic - trap.
> Have you noticed that among humans the female has more subcutaneous fat and
> less body hair than the male? Perhaps we should explore the possibility that
> our females ancestors remained in the water longer. Any ideas on that?
I think the difference is best explained by a greater selective
pressure on the weakest swimmers in a group to evolve traits that
might help them - i.e. hair loss to reduce water resistance and sc fat
to incrase bouyancy and make swimming easier.
> >The contrary view relies on...
>
> >1) An ex-cathedra status and false authority
>
> >2) A cocky assumption
>
> >3) An unbelievably conconcted and very unparsimonious story line
>
> >4) A belief that all fossils associated with water-side niches are
> >merely due to taphonomic bias.
>
> >5) An almost religious faith in the authority of peers and lack of
> >intellectual courage
>
> > all we've had is pathetic, childish
> >ridicule.
>
> Ah, there is nothing like an unbiased analysis.
I was merely responding to an even more biased accusation that the AAH
be renamed AAR and that it is based on blind faith. It is not. If
anything the reverse is true.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> Often you do have two competing and mutually exclusive scientific
> theories with generally equal merit that face off with no real defining
> facts to separate the two into theory and fiction. Then it distressingly
> often boils down to an ego-centric bar-room brawl of "my PhD thesis or
> latest publication, or latest lecture, or CNN soundbite could not prossibly
> be wrong,. . . . . . . yours is pure fantasy and. . . . . . I can yell the
> loudest and can afford to have my ideas printed more often in the vanity
> press!!!"! Sad, but can you deny it?
Exactly. That's why more objective scientific study is needed. I have
tried to do this. I gave up a year of my work to try to find out why
the AAH was not taken seriously. I went to UCL to do a masters degree
in the subject. I went to all the lectures and seminars. I read the
journals oin the reading lists. I read the textbooks. I asked the
professionals.
The fact of the matter is that the subject hasn't seriously been
studied at all. Most dismiss it out of hand, some even misunderstand
it. I chose to study bipedalism where the idea that it might have had
a wading origin has simply not been considered. I find this
staggering. 41 years after Hardy did all the thinking no-one has
bothered to even look into the subject and test to see if extant apes
wade bipedally. The facts are they do. The wading model is not
discussed in human evolution text books, not because there is no
evidence for it - but simply because no-one has bothered to find out
if there is any evidence foir it - which there is. This has simply
produced a self-fulfilling profesy - the AAH can't be right because
there's no studies in favour of it. But, there's no studies in favour
of it because none of the professionals encourage their students to
look into it. And none of the professionals promote it because...
there's so few studies been done into it.
> Then you get some wild, half-baked hypotheses like the AAT that gain
> credibility by masquerading as one of the "simply unpopular and
> controversial" theories based on the general scorn heaped upon them by the
> "establishment" rather than on any basic merit of the hypotheses! Again,
> sad, but Im afraid all too true!
The theory is not wild at all - it's just that our ancestors lived in
water-side niches and became nfluenced by that habitat. The only thing
'wild' is the hysterical response of some of the lunatics on this
forum that rush, like moronic sheep, to defend the status quo at any
cost.
Algis Kuliukas
Rich Travsky
>
> Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<B82FBAEA.15A4%rke...@earthlink.net>...
> > Often you do have two competing and mutually exclusive scientific
> > theories with generally equal merit that face off with no real defining
> > facts to separate the two into theory and fiction. Then it distressingly
> > often boils down to an ego-centric bar-room brawl of "my PhD thesis or
> > latest publication, or latest lecture, or CNN soundbite could not prossibly
> > be wrong,. . . . . . . yours is pure fantasy and. . . . . . I can yell the
> > loudest and can afford to have my ideas printed more often in the vanity
> > press!!!"! Sad, but can you deny it?
>
> Exactly. That's why more objective scientific study is needed. I have
> tried to do this. I gave up a year of my work to try to find out why
> the AAH was not taken seriously. I went to UCL to do a masters degree
> in the subject. I went to all the lectures and seminars. I read the
> journals oin the reading lists. I read the textbooks. I asked the
> professionals.
You did all that and still didn't know about morotopithecus...
marc verhaegen
Bob Keeter heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>in article 20011202102109...@mb-fw.aol.com, Doug Chandler at
>prig...@aol.comline wrote on 12/2/01 11:21 AM:
(snipped Bob's nonsense)
>> Have you noticed that among humans the female
>> has more subcutaneous fat and less body hair
>> than the male? Perhaps we should explore the
>> possibility that our females ancestors remained
>> in the water longer. Any ideas on that?
Yes, I've written a bit on that:
"Aquatic versus savanna: comparative and paleo-environmental evidence"
Nutrition & Health 9:165-191, 1993:
"... Women have less body hair, more superficial fat and a better
thermo-insulation in water than men (Hong & Rahn, 1967), which suggests that
until recently they stayed in the water during a greater part of the day.
Even today, in most Oceanic native societies, “there appears to have been a
fairly sharp division of fishing labour by sex: females did most of the
gathering (usually by hand or probing stick) of mollusks, crayfish and other
creatures found in shallow waters; males did most or all of the rest”
(Oliver, 1989, 261), e.g., open sea fishing by boat, underwater fishing,
throwing harpoons (Oliver, 1989, 251-266)."
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
>You did all that and still didn't know about morotopithecus...
Evading the discussion, as usual?
Savanna logic?? savanna tactics??
Grow up, man.
BTW, there's *nothing* in the anatomy etc. of Morotopith. that contradicts
our view of ape & human evolution.
Bob Keeter
at al...@riverapes.com wrote on 12/2/01 3:28 PM:
> Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<B82FBAEA.15A4%rke...@earthlink.net>...
>> Often you do have two competing and mutually exclusive scientific
>> theories with generally equal merit that face off with no real defining
>> facts to separate the two into theory and fiction. Then it distressingly
>> often boils down to an ego-centric bar-room brawl of "my PhD thesis or
>> latest publication, or latest lecture, or CNN soundbite could not prossibly
>> be wrong,. . . . . . . yours is pure fantasy and. . . . . . I can yell the
>> loudest and can afford to have my ideas printed more often in the vanity
>> press!!!"! Sad, but can you deny it?
>
> Exactly. That's why more objective scientific study is needed. I have
> tried to do this. I gave up a year of my work to try to find out why
> the AAH was not taken seriously. I went to UCL to do a masters degree
> in the subject. I went to all the lectures and seminars. I read the
> journals oin the reading lists. I read the textbooks. I asked the
> professionals.
The problem, Algis, is that unfortunately you have hooked your cart to a
dead horse. Find another cause to champion. Find one that you can dedicate
yourself to that is not so blasted contrived. The problem is that you and
Marc get way to focused on trying to say that mankind had some connection to
the water that you completely trash out the basic idea, which is in itself
not all that offensive, with pathetic "proofs". You would be much better
off to present the facts, the simple "uncontorted" facts as shown in the
fossil record, rather than trying to discount the contradictions in the
fossil record and contrive details. You would be much, MUCH better off if
you found a better cause entirely, but I already said that!
>
> The fact of the matter is that the subject hasn't seriously been
> studied at all. Most dismiss it out of hand, some even misunderstand
> it. I chose to study bipedalism where the idea that it might have had
> a wading origin has simply not been considered. I find this
> staggering. 41 years after Hardy did all the thinking no-one has
> bothered to even look into the subject and test to see if extant apes
> wade bipedally. The facts are they do. The wading model is not
> discussed in human evolution text books, not because there is no
> evidence for it - but simply because no-one has bothered to find out
> if there is any evidence foir it - which there is. This has simply
> produced a self-fulfilling profesy - the AAH can't be right because
> there's no studies in favour of it. But, there's no studies in favour
> of it because none of the professionals encourage their students to
> look into it. And none of the professionals promote it because...
> there's so few studies been done into it.
>
If you were to present me with a "theory" that 2 plus 2 was 7, it would not
take long for me to discount that as BS. math is easy, you put two stones
in a pile, you put two more stones in the pile and then you count them. If
you dont get seven, the theory is trash! In paleontology and anthropology
its not QUITE as easy, so the method falls back on the powers of reason (not
imagination, but REASON!) and the facts as known.
For example, what is the FIRST adaptation seen in practically all aquatic or
semi-aquatic animals (mammals, birds, reptiles, etc)? Is it the loss of
body hair? Is it the development of a subcutaneous fat layer? Is it
bipedalism? . . . . OK, what about WEBBED FEET? Now with webbed feet we
have a basic problem. First and formost we have a trackway from Apith times
that shows a very modern styled foot! No spreading and certainly no
webbing! Thats a really big OOOPS! Then we have birds (red-footed boobie
from the Galapagos Islands!) that started out as a semi-aquatic adaptation
with webbed feet, that then move very awkwardly back into the trees when it
found that the galapagos was very short on "perching" birds!
VERY awkward with those webbed feet wouldnt you say!
http://www.diab.com/heinphoto/galapagos/BISE-10305.htm
>> Then you get some wild, half-baked hypotheses like the AAT that gain
>> credibility by masquerading as one of the "simply unpopular and
>> controversial" theories based on the general scorn heaped upon them by the
>> "establishment" rather than on any basic merit of the hypotheses! Again,
>> sad, but Im afraid all too true!
>
> The theory is not wild at all - it's just that our ancestors lived in
> water-side niches and became nfluenced by that habitat. The only thing
> 'wild' is the hysterical response of some of the lunatics on this
> forum that rush, like moronic sheep, to defend the status quo at any
> cost.
>
>
If I had spent my time getting and advanced degree for the sake of the
knowledge that it would bring, I would hardly discount all of that knowledge
to sing the praises of an improbable if not impossible theory! If you went
to school for a year JUST to learn why the truth according to Marc and a
handfull of others was not "rightly admired" by all graced with its insight,
Im very sorry that you wasted that time. All of that pity doesnt make the
AAH (by the way, I DO appreciate the fact that you changed the "T" to the
more proper "H"!) any more reasonable nor supportable.
Afraid that Ive been called MANY things in my time, more than a few
uncomplementary, including amongst some far worse "lunatic", but you have
reached a new pinnacle! Never ONCE have I been called a sheep! A wolf in
sheeps' clothing, . . . . . many times, but a sheep?!?!?!? Nope, dont think
so!!!!! In this, you have even managed to exceed the incredulity of the
AAH! Definitely got the wrong mammalian quadruped. . . er. . . biped here!
;-)
Regards
bk
Bob Keeter
marc.ve...@village.uunet.be wrote on 12/2/01 5:01 PM:
>
> Bob Keeter heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>> in article 20011202102109...@mb-fw.aol.com, Doug Chandler at
>> prig...@aol.comline wrote on 12/2/01 11:21 AM:
>
>
> (snipped Bob's nonsense)
>
>
I am truely honored! Must be doing SOMETHING right in my old age! 8-)
Id like to thank, . . . . . . . . . .
Oh you know the whole story if youve ever watched the Academy Awards, but I
just felt compelled to a respond to such high praise! 8-)
Regards
bk
Rich Travsky
Yes, we do, because they belong to homo.
> the dicoverers described the nostrils (which they said they could discern at
> that moment) as situated at the tip rather than underneath the nose as in
> sapiens.
Le Moustier? 1908? By Otto Hauser? There's a very nice page on this at
http://www.med.abaco-mac.it/issue001/articles/doc/002.htm#A3
with pictures of the remains. Nasal region is not preserved. See also
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/images/Le_Moustier_front.jpg
a reconstruction. Nasal region inferred.
> And even if the nostrils were situated in the same place as in sapiens, the
> neandertal protruding midface & long low skull lengthened the airway, no?
> Remember: snorkel = air tube that can rise above the surface of water.
A snorkel is a LONG tube. You don't find those in homo...
> >has nasal holes on the *tip* of the nose. That'd make it like an
> >elephant's trunk.
>
> More like a probocis monkey nose. :-)
ANd what do they use this nose for? Laying on their back in the
water? You'd best find another example.
> >> >> >> 2) I didn't say they often swam on the back, but would not be
> >> surprised
> >> >> >>if some of them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
> >> >> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Travsky snipped the following facts:
> >> (typical of religious fanatics: burn books)
> >
> >No, snip fantasies.
>
> No: facts.
Facts that don't apply, facts that are irrelevant, facts that are
construed
into a fantasy.
> >> a) Some neandertal skulls (eg, la Chapelle) had bilateral & extensive ear
> >> exostoses (which are almost exclusively seen in human divers).
> >
> >"Some" - very few.
>
> A few, yes, but:
> 1) Not all skulls have auditory canals.
> 2) Ear exostoses only develop in *cold* water, IOW, neandertals swimming in
> warmer water would not have developed them.
> 3) It's true that AFAIK only male skulls show ear exostoses. If somebody
> knows exceptions, please let know.
All of which makes it an even rarer thing and more likely of a
pathological origin.
> >And they can be caused by other things.
>
> Yes, but nearly always in divers.
> Any reason why these neandertals must be an exception??
Exostoses are also the result of birth defects.
Since, as I recall, these exostoses only occur in a couple of
neanderthal specimens, it's rather grasping of you to hang so much
on them.
> >> b) An external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis
> >> monkeys, tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception? Note
> it's
> >> never seen in fully aquatic mammals, only in waders (eg, hooded seals &
> >> elephant seals on the beach).
> >
> >Irrelevant. Sexual selection can account for it.
>
> No fantasies, man. Sexual selection can account for everything. An external
> nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis monkeys,
> tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception?
You're agreeing with me? Thanks!
> >> c) Neandertals (still?) had thicker bones than modern humans (though less
> >> than erectus). Thick bones are typical of slow bottom-diving mammals
> >> (walruses diving for shellfish, seacows diving for seaweeds, the extinct
> >> Kolponomos & Ododbenocetops).
> >
> >It's associated with activity level. Modern humans can show this
> >also without diving etc.
>
> Nonsense. Apes have no thick bones, apiths (except A.robustus femora) had no
> thick bones, monkeys have no thick bones, sapiens has no thick bones. Only
> erectus & to a lesser extent neandertals had. Among all primates! Explain
> that.
Lifestyle and activity DOESN'T affect the bones??? Elephants and rhinos
have thick bones, does that make the divers??? Explain it? How about
iodine
deficiency?
> >It's illogical to assume the same functional equivalence in such widely
> >separated species.
>
> Birds & bees & bats have wings. Are they widely separated IYO?
Yes.
> >If it were you'd expect more similarities.
>
> ??
!
> >> d) We know (some?) neandertals ate diverse aquatic foods: some stone
> tools
> >> bear traces of cattails; shelfish (Italian coast); fish remains (even
> dried
> >> fish: P-F. & S.Puech 1993 in J.Maroto ed."La mandibula de Banyoles"
> Centre
> >> d'Investig.Arqueol. Gerona:105-115).
> >
> >They also ate meat and hunted. Big deal. Or are you going to
> >deny they ate meat and hunted?
>
> No, little doubt some at least did. So do humans. Yet we descend from
> seaside ancestors.
Seaside ancestors? What happened to swamps?
> >> e) Neandertal diet was halfway that of wolves & mammoths, see the figure
> in
> >> M.P.Richards etc.2000 "Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal
> >> predation: The evidence from stable isotopes" PNAS 97:7663–6. Mammoths
> >> (stomach contents) fed on sedges in marshes etc.
> >
> >Proves nothing. Mammoths also ate other stuff as well.
> >Stomach contents of frozen mammoths show different
> >kinds of leaves (willow, fir, alder).
>
> Yes.
>
> >Humans (and relatives like neanderthal) are good at exploiting their
> >environment.
>
> Yes, of course: they have arboreal as well as waterside ancestors, climbing
> as well as diving ancestors. No wonder they're good at expoiting different
> environments.
>
> >Eating the mammoths can give you the same isotope signature.
>
> Possibly, yes. But mammoths ate sedges etc.
And other things.
> >> Conclusion: Perhaps neandertals (or some of them) only waded and/or dived
> >> only seasonllay, perhaps only the males did (AFAIK, ear exostoses are
> only
> >> seen in males), perhaps not all populations did, perhaps only in some
> >> regions, but the combination of the evidence suggests generally they seem
> to
> >> have spent more time in & near water than modern humans.
> >
> >Conclusion: another Marc fantasy.
>
> No: you have given no argument why generally neandertals would not have
> spent more time in & near water than sapiens.
You have given no argument that they did.
> >> >> >Who said anything about swimming "on the back"?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do you think they could not have done that?? It's the easiest way
> to
> >> >> swim at the surface - try. Sea otters (tool users) do it.
> >> >
> >> >Otters are quadrupeds.
> >>
> >> So?
> >
> >Humans aren't.
>
> So?
Then quit comparing humans to things so far removed.
> >> >Easiest? Have you asked a swimmer?
> >>
> >> Can't you swim?
> >
> >Does this mean you haven't asked a swimmer?
>
> Sigh.
> 1) I have asked a lot of swimmers.
> 2) Can't you know that by yourself?
I've timed swim meets and my wife and all her sisters are swimmers.
Try breast stroke or a crawl...
First Jois
[snip]
> >Those of us who hold the AAH today are simply asking, as Hardy did in
> >1960, "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" A scientific response would
> >be something along the lines 'Interesting theory, let's all think how
> >it might be tested' instead all we've had is pathetic, childish
> >ridicule.
> >
> >Algis Kuliukas
>
In real science, I think that consistent response would be studied and
action might be taken.
Just a thought,
Jois
Michael Clark
>
[snip, snip]
>
> BTW, there's *nothing* in the anatomy etc. of Morotopith. that contradicts
> our view of ape & human evolution.
>
> Marc Verhaegen
> http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Let's start w/ something simple, Marc.
1.) An apple is red.
2.) Your daddy's nose is red
3.) It does not then follow that your daddy's nose is a fruit.
Read this over several times and when you think you get it,
let me know and then we can progress to more syllables and
begin to replace words like "red" and "nose" and "fruit" with
some big, nasty anthropological terms.
Philip Deitiker
<taxi...@home.com> wrote:
> Nucleic Acids Res 2001 Dec 1;29(23):4793-9
>
>DNA sequences from multiple amplifications reveal
>artifacts induced by cytosine deamination in ancient
>DNA.
See I told you.
>Hofreiter M, Jaenicke V, Serre D, Haeseler Av A, Paabo S.
>
>Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Inselstrasse 22,
>D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.
>
>We show that DNA molecules amplified by PCR from DNA extracted
>from animal bones and teeth that vary in age between 25 000 and over
>50 000 years carry C-->T and G-->A substitutions. These substitutions
>can reach high proportions among the molecules amplified and are due
>to the occurrence of modified deoxycytidine residues in the template
>DNA. If the template DNA is treated with uracil N-glycosylase, these
>substitutions are dramatically reduced. They are thus likely to result from
>deamination of deoxycytidine residues. In addition, 'jumping PCR', i.e.
>the occurrence of template switching during PCR, may contribute to
>these substitutions. When DNA sequences are amplified from ancient
>DNA extracts where few template molecules initiate the PCR,
>precautions such as DNA sequence determination of multiple clones
>derived from more than one independent amplification are necessary in
>order to reduce the risk of determination of incorrect DNA sequences.
>When such precautionary measures are taken, errors induced by
>damage to the DNA template are unlikely to be more frequent than
>approximately 0.1% even under the unlikely scenario where each
>amplification starts from a single template molecule.
>
>Take it away, Phil.....
[Too busy patting himself on the back].
But we have to think of this in terms of quantum
mechanics. They are not PCRing one molecule but
hundreds of molecules, and the deaminated
cytosines might be at small frequencies at certain
positions.
As I warned 3 years ago, the way to know this is
if there is a shift in sequence of "different"
residues (not human or chimp) that reflects the
affects of cytosine deamination, this shift would
have to be more than 30% to be noticable. Thus the
original find of neadertals is not significantly
different. However, if you will recall I made
mention of the fact that of the 19 or so
differences between humans and neadertals, based
on the chimp consensus, evolutionary rate
"appears" to have favor neadertals, so it is
possible that 4 or so positional changes are the
result of more intense deamination. If this were
true it would drop the LCA of human/N down to
about 1.2 million years (based on 4.5 C/H LCA).
However, in the calibration of C/H LCA, since this
obviously reflects erectoid branching, and since
we have other indicative signs to push the clock
back, it gives us more room to shove the rate down
and the LCA event backwards in time.
So if paavo can go back and correct his
sequence, I would be willing to use it as the
primary indicator of branch points. Again, I
cannot emphasize enough that these "ancient"
sequences are not really expected to be 100%
correct, but we should have some idea of how
incorrect they are. In my examination I found that
cytosine deamination could not explain the degree
of differences between humans and neadertals, but
I did find anomolies. The base assumption is that
since AT/CG is bicombinatorial that we have very
little leverage to determine exactly which
positions since, for example, if you have 11
mutations from "stem" and 4 are AT and 7 are CG
this lies in the binomial probability distribution
96% percentile. Its only when you get to the point
that 2 are AT and 9 are CG that things become
troubling.
THere is one other thing also, two sequences
appear similar whereas one appears less distantly
related. It is possible that neadertal biforkation
is less than the 600 kya (4.5 my H/C) branch point
in age; however, with recalibration this branch
point would be close to 960 ky, and the
differences would likely only explain away a
couple 100k years at best. So it would put us
right back where we were, at about 600 ky. My
opinion is that you are not going to find 4 bad
positions, that the divergence is still
significantly older than 700ky.
Then finally with human it would probably push
radiation to about 160 ky, which is were I expect
it to be any way. I am still leaning on a
radiation point somewhere between 150 and 190 ky.
My reasoning is that there should be a high
probability that eurasian specific mtDNA patterns
should coalesce in NE africa, even if we don't see
that now. Thus finding human remains in asia at 65
kya or middle east at 80 kya is well too early for
the 58ky divergence based on 4.5 my C/H LCA. Thus
my thinking is that we should "look" (joking,
cause you will never find a small seed population)
for presence in NE africa ~100 kya to explain the
worldwide distribution of human artifacts. I
intend to stick with, and let the molecular sort
itself out when folks wake up.
You can Tell ole Nick C, when you see too eat his
heart out. Jeeze, trying to deduce DNA damage with
acidic amino acid composition. The DNA
damage/conversion has long been known, cytosine
deamination was at the top of the list.
Philip
[pdeitik @ bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~pdeitik/
Philip Deitiker
<rke...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>As Im reading this, it almost sounds like another phenomena that I DO know
>just a little bit about. When you get a bit over-enthusiastic "enhancing" a
>photo, or some kinds of DSP, random noise starts to "allign" and before you
>know it, you start seeing things in the signal (or picture) that look very
>real but that are total fabrications.
>
>After NASA opened up the Mars Orbiter picture database some enterprising
>amateurs "turned up the gain" on their public domain image processing
>software packages and started seeing "aircraft hangers". Turned out the
>"walls" of the aircraft hangers matched the "rows and columns" of the LCD
>detectors! 8-o !!!
>
>Is that anything like what is going on here? Random noise amplified until
>it starts to look meaningful?
Yes but you need to have control, if your
randomized control starts looking like Giza then
its time to reduced the signal transformation.
In the case of PCR, amplification is the name of
the game, It was determined that the enzymes make
a mistake about 1/500 positions. So if you start
with a single strand of DNA every 500 positions
you will get a ? (cause the mistake will not occur
at exactly the same position twice and the parent
molecules remain as template). If you have more
than one template and since you are not doing 500
cycles of amplification, the mistakes become
tolerable level of background. Priming is a
different problem. Personal experience here,
computers cannot design primers, always make
numbers of primers on both ends and try different
combinations till you get a pair that results in a
single sharp band with sequence you already no is
downstream of the primer.
THis problem out of the way you get little PCR
fragments in their case 20-30 bp in length. So you
link them alltogether and have a party. But noise
and nature aside, the 'deamon' of this type
science is parsing out and artifact that occurs
before you take a sample. We make the logical
assumption that an individuals DNA is direct
sample until that individual dies and their
ability to maintain sequence integrity declines.
In interment, natures labratory coldstorage (sort
of like the coldroom at LAPD crime lab) things can
happen, chemicals leach in, preservatives leach
out, cosmic rays pound, isotopes decay, chemicals
undergo autolysis, heat, humidity, ice . . . . And
then some contruction worker with a 5 ton
bulldozer slams into them and after all of that us
scientist suddenly decide we want to take a sample
or 2.
What paavo is saying is that Since ole N is dead
his DNA does replicate. Since it does not
replicate the sample cannot spontaneously convert
uracil (not present in true DNA) to thymine
(uracils DNA analog). So basically if you treat
DNA with a chemical that reacts with Uracil and
not thymine, you stop amplification of modified
DNA.
So big picture is this
x-x-x-C-x-x-x ---Time, Elements--> x-x-x-U-x-x-x
x-x-x-U-x-x-x ---PCR----> x-x-x-T-x-x-x
x-x-x-T-x-x-x ---PCR----> y-y-y-A-y-y-y
With chemical
x-x-x-U-x-x-x --U-NG----> x-x-x-SU-x-x-x
S = sugar
x-x-x-SU-x-x-x ---PCR----> no product.
Since N is dead and can no longer replicate DNA,
the sample cannot transform the uracil to thymine,
and since the laboratory treats the uracil to make
it a "stop" residue, it cannot longer be
replicated, so problem is solved now everyone
needs to go back and figure out which of the
sequences they published has 0-6 erroneous
positions in it.
Enough science, my brain hurts.
Algis Kuliukas
> The problem, Algis, is that unfortunately you have hooked your cart to a
> dead horse.
No it's not. It's a new horse that has never even been tried.
> Find another cause to champion. Find one that you can dedicate
> yourself to that is not so blasted contrived. The problem is that you and
> Marc get way to focused on trying to say that mankind had some connection to
> the water that you completely trash out the basic idea, which is in itself
> not all that offensive, with pathetic "proofs". You would be much better
> off to present the facts, the simple "uncontorted" facts as shown in the
> fossil record, rather than trying to discount the contradictions in the
> fossil record and contrive details. You would be much, MUCH better off if
> you found a better cause entirely, but I already said that!
Much better off for you guys, perhaps - but until science can explain
clearly and simply why humans have so many aquatic traits and are so
very much better at moving through water than any other primate - and
as long as there are people who are curious enough to ask those
questions and not get fobbed off with just-so stories that collapse
into dust upon close scrutiny then I'm afraid people like Marc and I
will keep coming back to expose the fallacies of the orthodox dogma.
> > The fact of the matter is that the subject hasn't seriously been
> > studied at all. Most dismiss it out of hand, some even misunderstand
> > it. I chose to study bipedalism where the idea that it might have had
> > a wading origin has simply not been considered. I find this
> > staggering. 41 years after Hardy did all the thinking no-one has
> > bothered to even look into the subject and test to see if extant apes
> > wade bipedally. The facts are they do. The wading model is not
> > discussed in human evolution text books, not because there is no
> > evidence for it - but simply because no-one has bothered to find out
> > if there is any evidence foir it - which there is. This has simply
> > produced a self-fulfilling profesy - the AAH can't be right because
> > there's no studies in favour of it. But, there's no studies in favour
> > of it because none of the professionals encourage their students to
> > look into it. And none of the professionals promote it because...
> > there's so few studies been done into it.
>
> If you were to present me with a "theory" that 2 plus 2 was 7, it would not
> take long for me to discount that as BS. math is easy, you put two stones
> in a pile, you put two more stones in the pile and then you count them. If
> you dont get seven, the theory is trash! In paleontology and anthropology
> its not QUITE as easy, so the method falls back on the powers of reason (not
> imagination, but REASON!) and the facts as known.
Yes. The facts as known. For instance... we can swim and chimps can't?
And the explanation is... well, erm, yeah! I got it! We can do *lots*
of things chimps can't. We can ride bikes, we can play musical
instruments, we can live in the Arctic.
> For example, what is the FIRST adaptation seen in practically all aquatic or
> semi-aquatic animals (mammals, birds, reptiles, etc)? Is it the loss of
> body hair? Is it the development of a subcutaneous fat layer? Is it
> bipedalism? . . . . OK, what about WEBBED FEET?
Stil flapping about on your webbed feet I see, Bob.
> Now with webbed feet we
> have a basic problem. First and formost we have a trackway from Apith times
> that shows a very modern styled foot! No spreading and certainly no
> webbing! Thats a really big OOOPS! Then we have birds (red-footed boobie
> from the Galapagos Islands!) that started out as a semi-aquatic adaptation
> with webbed feet, that then move very awkwardly back into the trees when it
> found that the galapagos was very short on "perching" birds!
1) How do you know what degree of webbing there was in the earliest
bipeds?
2) We do have more webbing than chimps/gorillas.
3) Our feet might not be webbed but they're certainly very flat and
have short toes - unlike other terrestrial bipeds - like kangaroos and
ostriches.
> VERY awkward with those webbed feet wouldnt you say!
> http://www.diab.com/heinphoto/galapagos/BISE-10305.htm
No. You're clutching at wet straws again, Bob.
> > The theory is not wild at all - it's just that our ancestors lived in
> > water-side niches and became nfluenced by that habitat. The only thing
> > 'wild' is the hysterical response of some of the lunatics on this
> > forum that rush, like moronic sheep, to defend the status quo at any
> > cost.
> >
> >
>
> If I had spent my time getting and advanced degree for the sake of the
> knowledge that it would bring, I would hardly discount all of that knowledge
> to sing the praises of an improbable if not impossible theory!
I'm not dismissing the people in academia - just some those on this
newsgroup. Notice that few academics are so foolish as to openly
dismiss the idea as you have. Leslie Aeillo told me that she was not
against the AAH and that she was open to paradigm shifts but she said
it was up to people like me to find the evidence for it and test it.
This I tried to do and I received a distinction for my efforts.
> If you went
> to school for a year JUST to learn why the truth according to Marc and a
> handfull of others was not "rightly admired" by all graced with its insight,
> Im very sorry that you wasted that time.
Such arrogance. How do *you* know it is wrong?
> All of that pity doesnt make the
> AAH (by the way, I DO appreciate the fact that you changed the "T" to the
> more proper "H"!) any more reasonable nor supportable.
It's not supported because there's not been much effort made to test
it. There's not been much effort to test it because so few support it.
It's a self-fulfilling prophesy due to a cycle of academic
inculturation.
> Afraid that Ive been called MANY things in my time, more than a few
> uncomplementary, including amongst some far worse "lunatic", but you have
> reached a new pinnacle! Never ONCE have I been called a sheep! A wolf in
> sheeps' clothing, . . . . . many times, but a sheep?!?!?!? Nope, dont think
> so!!!!! In this, you have even managed to exceed the incredulity of the
> AAH! Definitely got the wrong mammalian quadruped. . . er. . . biped here!
So, if you're not a sheep, show a bit of independent thought and tell
me which of the 14 orthodox theories of bipedalism gets your support.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
Meaning?
Algis Kuliukas
marc verhaegen
Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
>> >Tell us where the nasal holes are: on the tip of the nose, or flush
>> >with the upper lip? No human (or human related species like
>> >neanderthals
>>
>> You simply don't know. When the Moustier neandertal was excavated in
1908,
>
>Yes, we do, because they belong to homo.
Yes, they belong to Homo. So what??
>> the dicoverers described the nostrils (which they said they could discern
at
>> that moment) as situated at the tip rather than underneath the nose as in
>> sapiens.
>
>Le Moustier? 1908? By Otto Hauser? There's a very nice page on this at
> http://www.med.abaco-mac.it/issue001/articles/doc/002.htm#A3
>with pictures of the remains. Nasal region is not preserved
Yes, but AFAIR Hauser said that at the moment of the discovry he could stil
see where the nostrila had been.
>. See also
>http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/images/Le_Moustier_front.jpg
>a reconstruction. Nasal region inferred.
Thanks! I'll have a look.
>> And even if the nostrils were situated in the same place as in sapiens,
the
>> neandertal protruding midface & long low skull lengthened the airway, no?
>> Remember: snorkel = air tube that can rise above the surface of water.
>
>A snorkel is a LONG tube. You don't find those in homo...
Sigh. If snorkels are LONG tubes, I should not have used the word. Happy?
>> >has nasal holes on the *tip* of the nose. That'd make it like an
>> >elephant's trunk.
>>
>> More like a probocis monkey nose. :-)
>
>ANd what do they use this nose for? Laying on their back in the
>water? You'd best find another example.
Sigh again. Most biological features have multiple functions. And functions
change through evolution.
>> >> >> >> 2) I didn't say they often swam on the back, but would not be
>> >> surprised
>> >> >> >>if some of them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
>> >> >> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> Travsky snipped the following facts:
>> >> (typical of religious fanatics: burn books)
>> >
>> >No, snip fantasies.
>>
>> No: facts.
>
>Facts that don't apply, facts that are irrelevant, facts that are
>construed into a fantasy.
1) You snipped facts. Not fantasies.
2) Refusing to look at hypotheses is typical of religious fanatics.
>> >> a) Some neandertal skulls (eg, la Chapelle) had bilateral & extensive
ear
>> >> exostoses (which are almost exclusively seen in human divers).
>> >
>> >"Some" - very few.
>>
>> A few, yes, but:
>> 1) Not all skulls have auditory canals.
>> 2) Ear exostoses only develop in *cold* water, IOW, neandertals swimming
in
>> warmer water would not have developed them.
>> 3) It's true that AFAIK only male skulls show ear exostoses. If somebody
>> knows exceptions, please let know.
>
>All of which makes it an even rarer thing and more likely of a
>pathological origin.
So? Fact is that auditory exostoses in humans are nearly always seen in
frequent divers in cold water. Any particular reason why neandertals would
be an exception?
>> >And they can be caused by other things.
>>
>> Yes, but nearly always in divers.
>> Any reason why these neandertals must be an exception??
>
>Exostoses are also the result of birth defects.
Don't be ridiculous. Read a handbook ENT.
>Since, as I recall, these exostoses only occur in a couple of
>neanderthal specimens, it's rather grasping of you to hang so much
>on them.
??
It's very likely that the old man of LaChapelle with his extensive &
bilateral ear exostoses had swum a lot during his life.
>> >> b) An external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals,
>> >>proboscis monkeys, tapirs...). Any reason why humans should
>> >>be an exception? Note it's never seen in fully aquatic mammals,
>> >>only in waders (eg, hooded seals & elephant seals on the beach).
>> >
>> >Irrelevant. Sexual selection can account for it.
>>
>> No fantasies, man. Sexual selection can account for everything. An
external
>> nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis monkeys,
>> tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception?
>
>You're agreeing with me? Thanks!
??
An external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis
monkeys, tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception?
>> >> c) Neandertals (still?) had thicker bones than modern humans (though
less
>> >> than erectus). Thick bones are typical of slow bottom-diving mammals
>> >> (walruses diving for shellfish, seacows diving for seaweeds, the
extinct
>> >> Kolponomos & Ododbenocetops).
>> >
>> >It's associated with activity level. Modern humans can show this
>> >also without diving etc.
>>
>> Nonsense. Apes have no thick bones, apiths (except A.robustus femora) had
no
>> thick bones, monkeys have no thick bones, sapiens has no thick bones.
Only
>> erectus & to a lesser extent neandertals had. Among all primates! Explain
>> that.
>
>Lifestyle and activity DOESN'T affect the bones???
I didn't say that.
>Elephants and rhinos have thick bones
Ah? thicker than expected for their size? Interesting. Do you have
comparative data? refs? I'd very much like to see them.
>, does that make the divers??? Explain it?
??
Apes have no thick bones, apiths (except A.robustus femora) had no thick
bones, monkeys have no thick bones, sapiens has no thick bones. Only erectus
& to a lesser extent neandertals had. Among all primates! Explain that.
>How about iodine deficiency?
:-D
What about it?
>> >> d) We know (some?) neandertals ate diverse aquatic foods:
>> >> some stone tools bear traces of cattails; shelfish
>> >> (Italian coast); fish remains (even dried fish: P-F. & S.Puech
>> >> 1993 in J.Maroto ed."La mandibula de Banyoles"
>> >> Centre d'Investig.Arqueol. Gerona:105-115).
>> >
>> >They also ate meat and hunted. Big deal. Or are you going to
>> >deny they ate meat and hunted?
>>
>> No, little doubt some at least did. So do humans.
>> Yet we descend from seaside ancestors.
>
>Seaside ancestors? What happened to swamps?
You still don't get it, do you?
Again FYI:
PAs focus on the fossil evidence, but the comparative evidence (morphology,
physiology, DNA, behaviour) is much more reliable, complete & systematic.
Humans developed features different from the apes: no fur, thicker SC fat,
bigger brain, external nose, more linear stature, very long legs,
language...
Comparisons with other mammals (climbing, savanna, diving, wading species)
suggest that our hominid ancestors did not leave the forests to live on the
open & dry African savanna (physiologically improbable), but lived in
flooded/swampy/coastal forests, where they, like proboscis monkeys, waded
bipedally between the mangrove trees. Dextrous & thick-enamelled
frugi/omnivores, they could collect & open coconuts & oysters on the
mangrove & palm trees (as capuchin monkeys do) – the beginning of Stone Age
technologies. Gradually they learned to dive for shellfish in deeper water,
developing the skills which today allow subsistence human cultures (eg,
Pacific islanders, Korean Ama) to gather shellfish or seaweed through
breath-hold diving.
Diving probably explains why we are the only primates that can voluntarily
control our breathing – a preadaptation to voluntary speech.
They lost most of their climbing adaptations and became
walking-wading-diving omnivores near the Indian Ocean seas & rivers, fishing
& collecting sea food & land animals & plants. From there the different Homo
species colonized the inland, at first along rivers & lakes, later more
independent of the water.
This comparative evidence fits well with the fossil evidence. Although
coastal areas are less likely to leave fossils than the inland regions where
our australopithecine relatives lived, many H.erectus fossils and tools have
been found at beaches amid corals, shellfish & barnacles, throughout the
Pleistocene: from Mojokerto 1.8 Ma to Eritrea 0.12 Ma.
>> >> Conclusion: Perhaps neandertals (or some of them) only
>> >> waded and/or dived only seasonllay, perhaps only the males
>> >> did (AFAIK, ear exostoses are only seen in males), perhaps
>> >> not all populations did, perhaps only in some regions, but
>> >> the combination of the evidence suggests generally they seem
>> >> to have spent more time in & near water than modern humans.
>> >
>> >Conclusion: another Marc fantasy.
>>
>> No: you have given no argument why generally neandertals would not have
>> spent more time in & near water than sapiens.
>
>You have given no argument that they did.
No?
a) Some neandertal skulls (eg, la Chapelle) had bilateral & extensive ear
exostoses (which are almost exclusively seen in human divers).
b) Neandertals had bigger noses & more protruding midfaces than sapiens. An
external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis monkeys,
tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception? Note it's never
seen in fully aquatic mammals, only in waders (eg, hooded seals & elephant
seals on the beach).
c) Neandertals (still?) had medullary stenosis & denser bones than modern
humans (though less than erectus). These are typical of slow bottom-diving
mammals (walruses diving for shellfish, seacows diving for seaweeds, the
extinct Kolponomos & Ododbenocetops).
d) We know (some?) neandertals ate diverse aquatic foods: some stone tools
bear traces of cattails; shelfish (Italian coast); fish remains (even dried
fish: P-F. & S.Puech 1993 in J.Maroto ed."La mandibula de Banyoles" Centre
d'Investig.Arqueol. Gerona:105-115).
e) Neandertal diet was halfway that of wolves & mammoths, see the figure in
M.P.Richards etc.2000 "Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal
predation: The evidence from stable isotopes" PNAS 97:7663–6. Mammoths
(stomach contents) fed on sedges in marshes etc.
>> >> >> >Who said anything about swimming "on the back"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why do you think they could not have done that?? It's the easiest
way
>> to
>> >> >> swim at the surface - try. Sea otters (tool users) do it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Otters are quadrupeds.
>> >>
>> >> So?
>> >
>> >Humans aren't.
>>
>> So?
>
>Then quit comparing humans to things so far removed.
Remember what we said on wings in birds & bees & bats?
>> >> >Easiest? Have you asked a swimmer?
>> >>
>> >> Can't you swim?
>> >
>> >Does this mean you haven't asked a swimmer?
>>
>> Sigh.
>> 1) I have asked a lot of swimmers.
>> 2) Can't you know that by yourself?
>
>I've timed swim meets and my wife and all her sisters are swimmers.
>Try breast stroke or a crawl...
It's about "easy", remember. Not about moving in water. About floating or
surface swimming.
Richard Wagler
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<B830421F.1620%
>
> > The problem, Algis, is that unfortunately you have hooked your cart to a
> > dead horse.
>
> No it's not. It's a new horse that has never even been tried.
>
> > Find another cause to champion. Find one that you can dedicate
> > yourself to that is not so blasted contrived. The problem is that you and
> > Marc get way to focused on trying to say that mankind had some connection to
> > the water that you completely trash out the basic idea, which is in itself
> > not all that offensive, with pathetic "proofs". You would be much better
> > off to present the facts, the simple "uncontorted" facts as shown in the
> > fossil record, rather than trying to discount the contradictions in the
> > fossil record and contrive details. You would be much, MUCH better off if
> > you found a better cause entirely, but I already said that!
>
> Much better off for you guys, perhaps - but until science can explain
> clearly and simply why humans have so many aquatic traits and are so
> very much better at moving through water than any other primate - and
> as long as there are people who are curious enough to ask those
> questions and not get fobbed off with just-so stories that collapse
> into dust upon close scrutiny then I'm afraid people like Marc and I
> will keep coming back to expose the fallacies of the orthodox dogma.
Name one fallacy you have exposed. Name one single
piece of the 'orthodox dogma' that you have effectively
countered. One will do.
Think about that for a moment, Algis? Why can humans
play musical instruments? More importantly why would
they want to?
>
>
> > For example, what is the FIRST adaptation seen in practically all aquatic or
> > semi-aquatic animals (mammals, birds, reptiles, etc)? Is it the loss of
> > body hair? Is it the development of a subcutaneous fat layer? Is it
> > bipedalism? . . . . OK, what about WEBBED FEET?
>
> Stil flapping about on your webbed feet I see, Bob.
>
> > Now with webbed feet we
> > have a basic problem. First and formost we have a trackway from Apith times
> > that shows a very modern styled foot! No spreading and certainly no
> > webbing! Thats a really big OOOPS! Then we have birds (red-footed boobie
> > from the Galapagos Islands!) that started out as a semi-aquatic adaptation
> > with webbed feet, that then move very awkwardly back into the trees when it
> > found that the galapagos was very short on "perching" birds!
>
> 1) How do you know what degree of webbing there was in the earliest
> bipeds?
Indeed. So there is absolutely no evidentiary value
to the claim
>
>
> 2) We do have more webbing than chimps/gorillas.
Oh puh-leeze!! Take a look at some genuine
aquatics and see what webbing actually looks like.
>
>
> 3) Our feet might not be webbed but they're certainly very flat and
> have short toes - unlike other terrestrial bipeds - like kangaroos and
> ostriches.
Cheetahs have short toes. We, therefore, were at some
point extremely fast runners. How do I know? Comparative
anatomy AAT style tells me so.
>
>
> > VERY awkward with those webbed feet wouldnt you say!
> > http://www.diab.com/heinphoto/galapagos/BISE-10305.htm
>
> No. You're clutching at wet straws again, Bob.
>
> > > The theory is not wild at all - it's just that our ancestors lived in
> > > water-side niches and became nfluenced by that habitat. The only thing
> > > 'wild' is the hysterical response of some of the lunatics on this
> > > forum that rush, like moronic sheep, to defend the status quo at any
> > > cost.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If I had spent my time getting and advanced degree for the sake of the
> > knowledge that it would bring, I would hardly discount all of that knowledge
> > to sing the praises of an improbable if not impossible theory!
>
> I'm not dismissing the people in academia - just some those on this
> newsgroup. Notice that few academics are so foolish as to openly
> dismiss the idea as you have. Leslie Aeillo told me that she was not
> against the AAH and that she was open to paradigm shifts but she said
> it was up to people like me to find the evidence for it and test it.
> This I tried to do and I received a distinction for my efforts.
Hey, Algis, I'm not against the AAT either. If you can
make a case for it good on ya. But I just can't accept
the poor quality of argumentation made for it as being
in any way sufficient to accept your proposed paradigm
shift. Sorry but there are some basics of the methods
and philosophy of science that need to be brought
into play. Marc's complete inability to make any kind
of argument for his sc fat analogies should make you
pause for reflection
>
>
> > If you went
> > to school for a year JUST to learn why the truth according to Marc and a
> > handfull of others was not "rightly admired" by all graced with its insight,
> > Im very sorry that you wasted that time.
>
> Such arrogance. How do *you* know it is wrong?
Neither Bob nor anyone else has to *know* it is
wrong. This is just a variation on the "can't prove
it wrong" business which, if you were paying attention,
you would note is one of the more frequently used
of the battery of logical fallacies used to buttress
the AAT. Think 'burden of proof' and who is required
to carry it.
>
>
> > All of that pity doesnt make the
> > AAH (by the way, I DO appreciate the fact that you changed the "T" to the
> > more proper "H"!) any more reasonable nor supportable.
>
> It's not supported because there's not been much effort made to test
> it. There's not been much effort to test it because so few support it.
> It's a self-fulfilling prophesy due to a cycle of academic
> inculturation.
What about you guys?? You claim a significant body
of following. It's your theory!! Do some goddamn
work! [This is not directed at you, Algis, you have
made the attempt but as far as I can tell it is the first]
Marc's two aged refs for the sc fat stuff should tell
you who is falling down on the job. Why should
"savannah ape theory" PA do your job? They have,
while being thoroughly bamboozled by visions of
open bushland dancing in their noggins, amassed a
a considerable body of fossils and supporting analyses
in favour of terrestrial models. What has the AAT done?
Diddly squat.
>
>
> > Afraid that Ive been called MANY things in my time, more than a few
> > uncomplementary, including amongst some far worse "lunatic", but you have
> > reached a new pinnacle! Never ONCE have I been called a sheep! A wolf in
> > sheeps' clothing, . . . . . many times, but a sheep?!?!?!? Nope, dont think
> > so!!!!! In this, you have even managed to exceed the incredulity of the
> > AAH! Definitely got the wrong mammalian quadruped. . . er. . . biped here!
>
> So, if you're not a sheep, show a bit of independent thought and tell
> me which of the 14 orthodox theories of bipedalism gets your support.
>
How about any of them that can demonstrate a benefit
for bipedal behaviour? Still looking for the magic bolt
of lightning - The One Big Thing That Explains It All.
Rick Wagler
Algis Kuliukas
Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<B830421F.1620%rke...@earthlink.net>...
Algis Kuliukas
Bob, you snipped the bit (again) about me asking if you would concede
some ground if you couldn't find evidence of a chimp swimming. Why did
you do that?
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> Name one fallacy you have exposed. Name one single
> piece of the 'orthodox dogma' that you have effectively
> countered. One will do.
That water played no significant part in human evolution. Marc has
shown that humans are totally maladapted to the savannah. Our physical
dependence on water makes a savannah ancestry impossible. I think the
fact that all the modern text books do not even mention the fact that
humans can swim whilst chimps cannot shows that the orthodox dogma
says it is not important. It clearly is very significant.
> Think about that for a moment, Algis? Why can humans
> play musical instruments? More importantly why would
> they want to?
It's to do with culture. Swimming ability is not.
> > 2) We do have more webbing than chimps/gorillas.
>
> Oh puh-leeze!! Take a look at some genuine
> aquatics and see what webbing actually looks like.
You're taking a binary view again, Rick. Are you familiar with
Dawkins' argument about stick insects? An insect that is 5% stick
insect might not look much like a stick insect but, in some
circumstances, it is more likely to survive than a 4% stick insect.
The same for stick insects is the same for all traits - they are on a
continuous line. *Some* aquatic traits are better than none if you
live by water.
> > 3) Our feet might not be webbed but they're certainly very flat and
> > have short toes - unlike other terrestrial bipeds - like kangaroos and
> > ostriches.
>
> Cheetahs have short toes. We, therefore, were at some
> point extremely fast runners. How do I know? Comparative
> anatomy AAT style tells me so.
Yes but they don't have big, flat, flappy feet like we do.
> Hey, Algis, I'm not against the AAT either.
Really? You could have fooled me!
> If you can
> make a case for it good on ya. But I just can't accept
> the poor quality of argumentation made for it as being
> in any way sufficient to accept your proposed paradigm
> shift.
The argumentation is very simple: We can swim, chimps cannot (sorry!)
and we have a cluster of traits that could all be explained if our
ancestors were more aquatic than theirs. It's called parsimony. Funny,
parsimony is used elsewhere in paleoanthropology but when it comes to
the AAH it seems not quite the right thing, somehow.
> Sorry but there are some basics of the methods
> and philosophy of science that need to be brought
> into play.
Don't start me off there!
> Marc's complete inability to make any kind
> of argument for his sc fat analogies should make you
> pause for reflection
Marc's knowledge is immense but he suffers, like all AAH supporters
do, from a severe lack of empiricle data to back up the theory. This
is not his fault. It is nobody's fault. But the fact remains. Academic
inculturation is a known phenomenon and it is clearly the biggest
problem here. I found almost nothing in the official literature about
bipedal wading in hominoidae. That did not mean that apes don't wade
bipedally - just that no-one had bothered to study it. I suspect the
same is true of sc fat, nakedness etc etc. Of course it is easy for me
to say that and, you're right to argue that until such data is
compiled people cannot be expected to be anything but sceptical. But
surely the fact that water has been so absolutely dismissed as an
influence in our past on absolutely no grounds other than a hunch -
suggests that something is seriosuly wrong here and that a bad
assumption might well have been made.
> Neither Bob nor anyone else has to *know* it is
> wrong. This is just a variation on the "can't prove
> it wrong" business which, if you were paying attention,
> you would note is one of the more frequently used
> of the battery of logical fallacies used to buttress
> the AAT. Think 'burden of proof' and who is required
> to carry it.
Fair enough. I don't expect aquasceptics to prove the AAH for me. All
I expect is for them to be open minded and to give us a fair hearing.
> > It's not supported because there's not been much effort made to test
> > it. There's not been much effort to test it because so few support it.
> > It's a self-fulfilling prophesy due to a cycle of academic
> > inculturation.
>
> What about you guys?? You claim a significant body
> of following.
Not really. I certainly don't.
> It's your theory!! Do some goddamn
> work! [This is not directed at you, Algis, you have
> made the attempt but as far as I can tell it is the first]
> Marc's two aged refs for the sc fat stuff should tell
> you who is falling down on the job. Why should
> "savannah ape theory" PA do your job?
Ditto above.
> They have,
> while being thoroughly bamboozled by visions of
> open bushland dancing in their noggins, amassed a
> a considerable body of fossils and supporting analyses
> in favour of terrestrial models. What has the AAT done?
> Diddly squat.
I agree we need to do more but to blame Hardy (a marine biologist),
Morgan (an English graduate/playwrite) and Verheagen (a medical
practitioner) for the lack of scientific investigation into this
subject is just plain unfair.
> How about any of them that can demonstrate a benefit
> for bipedal behaviour? Still looking for the magic bolt
> of lightning - The One Big Thing That Explains It All.
Wading is a distinct benefit in shallow water. Just because a
water-side niche explains so much and makes the resistance to it look
so stupid, does not make it wrong, Rick.
Algis Kuliukas
marc verhaegen
>> the AAT. Think 'burden of proof' and who is required
>> to carry it.
>
>Fair enough.
I don't think so. The PAs claim to know something on human evolution. It's
their duty. If they're incapable of discerning a possible theory (AAT) from
a ridiculous one (ST) they make fools of themselves.
Marc
Bob Keeter
at al...@RiverApes.com wrote on 12/4/01 2:33 PM:
Because I was trying to see if you were paying attention? No, actually I
just didnt notice and since I had posted to your email address I didnt think
that I needed to keep up the "public posturing". Still dont! but that is a
different story!
The fact of the matter is that a swimming chimp is a flagrant anomaly! They
are essentially afraid of the water! Numerous zoos use a simple water moat
to pen in chimps (of course they have to also make sure that there are no
raft-making materials around!
I have no doubt that a wild chimp will do just about anything to avoid
ending up in the water. On the other hand his cousins on the evolutionary
line, in both directions by the way, not only swim but enjoy it! Macaques
(at least the Japanese variety) and humans BOTH "play" and extract at least
a part of our livelihood from the water. The macaques are probably a bit
more adapted to a water environment with their feet and such (did I say
webbing?) but even there they are VERY marginally "adapted" and mearly
exploit the environment (just as humans are prone to do.).
To call a creature aquatic or semi-aquatic you have to have a couple of
preconditions Id suppose. First that a sizable percentage of the time that
animal is in the water. If the animal is in the water that much, then some
of the adaptations start to occur as evolutiony pressures balance between
the beneficial effects for an aquatic existence and the penalties for a
terrestrial existence. For example, a full "wet suit" of blubber might be a
grand thing to have if you spent 90% of your time in the cold northern water
(like a seal for example), but that same layer of fat might be a major
handicap on land! "Surviving" that 10% terrestrial existence for the
benefits of the 90% aquatic MIGHT just balance out the books. When you
argue that a few percent of the time a protohuman spent in the water and
THAT few percent drove the evolutionary bus, well, sorry, you loose me.
I think Im happy with that!
Regards
bk
First Jois
Sorry but I cank keep track of who said what hear so I [snipped] a lot
and copied the part that interested me:
Richard, our toes aren't shaped for swimming with webbed feet, the set
up for our legs is not like that of dog, for example, who can put their
webbed feet to good use (both front and back). Ditto for the front, the
dog closes the front feet, putshe them forward in the water and
thenmoves them back with webbing extended. Even the dogs who do not
have webbing do paddle this way. Webbing of our hands only makes us
slow the stokes of the hands to match the kicking - this type of webbing
comes in the form of gloves. Take a look at the baby again and see his
hands and feet would not benefit from webbing. Those animals that do
not dog paddle in the water use a side to side wiggle (we certainly
aren't built for that) or the wiggle that goes with the tale of a whale
and we aren't built for that either.
Jois
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
> <3C0AFF1C...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
>
> >> >Tell us where the nasal holes are: on the tip of the nose, or flush
> >> >with the upper lip? No human (or human related species like
> >> >neanderthals
> >>
> >> You simply don't know. When the Moustier neandertal was excavated in
> 1908,
> >
> >Yes, we do, because they belong to homo.
>
> Yes, they belong to Homo. So what??
So we share a great many characteristics.
> >> the dicoverers described the nostrils (which they said they could discern
> at
> >> that moment) as situated at the tip rather than underneath the nose as in
> >> sapiens.
> >
> >Le Moustier? 1908? By Otto Hauser? There's a very nice page on this at
> > http://www.med.abaco-mac.it/issue001/articles/doc/002.htm#A3
> >with pictures of the remains. Nasal region is not preserved
>
> Yes, but AFAIR Hauser said that at the moment of the discovry he could stil
> see where the nostrila had been.
Got a quote or cite?
> >. See also
> >http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/images/Le_Moustier_front.jpg
> >a reconstruction. Nasal region inferred.
>
> Thanks! I'll have a look.
>
> >> And even if the nostrils were situated in the same place as in sapiens,
> the
> >> neandertal protruding midface & long low skull lengthened the airway, no?
> >> Remember: snorkel = air tube that can rise above the surface of water.
> >
> >A snorkel is a LONG tube. You don't find those in homo...
>
> Sigh. If snorkels are LONG tubes, I should not have used the word. Happy?
Well, then they aren't snorkels then. Hopefully that's the last we'll
hear of this nonsense.
> >> >has nasal holes on the *tip* of the nose. That'd make it like an
> >> >elephant's trunk.
> >>
> >> More like a probocis monkey nose. :-)
> >
> >ANd what do they use this nose for? Laying on their back in the
> >water? You'd best find another example.
>
> Sigh again. Most biological features have multiple functions. And functions
> change through evolution.
Why don't you tell us what the probocis monkey uses that nose for. I'll
bet it's not for ;ying on its back in the water.
> >> >> >> >> 2) I didn't say they often swam on the back, but would not be
> >> >> surprised
> >> >> >> >>if some of them and/or their recent ancestors regularly did:
> >> >> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> Travsky snipped the following facts:
> >> >> (typical of religious fanatics: burn books)
> >> >
> >> >No, snip fantasies.
> >>
> >> No: facts.
> >
> >Facts that don't apply, facts that are irrelevant, facts that are
> >construed into a fantasy.
>
> 1) You snipped facts. Not fantasies.
> 2) Refusing to look at hypotheses is typical of religious fanatics.
Snorkel noses places you in those categories.
> >> >> a) Some neandertal skulls (eg, la Chapelle) had bilateral & extensive
> ear
> >> >> exostoses (which are almost exclusively seen in human divers).
> >> >
> >> >"Some" - very few.
> >>
> >> A few, yes, but:
> >> 1) Not all skulls have auditory canals.
> >> 2) Ear exostoses only develop in *cold* water, IOW, neandertals swimming
> in
> >> warmer water would not have developed them.
> >> 3) It's true that AFAIK only male skulls show ear exostoses. If somebody
> >> knows exceptions, please let know.
> >
> >All of which makes it an even rarer thing and more likely of a
> >pathological origin.
>
> So? Fact is that auditory exostoses in humans are nearly always seen in
> frequent divers in cold water. Any particular reason why neandertals would
> be an exception?
Exostoses are also the result of birth defects. And there aren't
very many neanderthals exhibiting exostoses.
> >> >And they can be caused by other things.
> >>
> >> Yes, but nearly always in divers.
> >> Any reason why these neandertals must be an exception??
> >
> >Exostoses are also the result of birth defects.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. Read a handbook ENT.
Exostose can occur to any bone.
http://www.pathguy.com/lectures/earpath.htm
Exostoses (bony overgrowths) sometimes occur in children with
other birth defects and the resulting hearing impairment does not
help the child's development.
And it appears in areas and populations where you don't find diving.
Hrdlicka did a study in 1934, having examined close to 8000 skulls.
A study and discussion of this can be found at
http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/drybones/ch4.html
This study built on Hrdlicka's earlier work, and, to make a long story
short, they found:
Notably, similar to Hrdlicka's findings, almost without exception
Upper Missouri River Basin auditory canal exostoses, past and present,
have been in adult temporal bones. This strengthens our conviction that
these are developmental abnormalities, the result of stimulae to
immature bone during its formative stages.
And it can be hereditary - Multiple Hereditary Exostoses - there are
even support groups for it.
> >Since, as I recall, these exostoses only occur in a couple of
> >neanderthal specimens, it's rather grasping of you to hang so much
> >on them.
>
> ??
>
> It's very likely that the old man of LaChapelle with his extensive &
> bilateral ear exostoses had swum a lot during his life.
As has already been explained, there are other causes for exostoses.
> >> >> b) An external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals,
> >> >>proboscis monkeys, tapirs...). Any reason why humans should
> >> >>be an exception? Note it's never seen in fully aquatic mammals,
> >> >>only in waders (eg, hooded seals & elephant seals on the beach).
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant. Sexual selection can account for it.
> >>
> >> No fantasies, man. Sexual selection can account for everything. An
> external
> >> nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis monkeys,
> >> tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception?
> >
> >You're agreeing with me? Thanks!
>
> ??
> An external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis
> monkeys, tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception?
And what do they use those noses for? Lying on their backs in the water
as you want it?
Shortened limbs are seen in seals etc. Do we have shortened limbs???
> >> >> c) Neandertals (still?) had thicker bones than modern humans (though
> less
> >> >> than erectus). Thick bones are typical of slow bottom-diving mammals
> >> >> (walruses diving for shellfish, seacows diving for seaweeds, the
> extinct
> >> >> Kolponomos & Ododbenocetops).
> >> >
> >> >It's associated with activity level. Modern humans can show this
> >> >also without diving etc.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Apes have no thick bones, apiths (except A.robustus femora) had
> no
> >> thick bones, monkeys have no thick bones, sapiens has no thick bones.
> Only
> >> erectus & to a lesser extent neandertals had. Among all primates! Explain
> >> that.
> >
> >Lifestyle and activity DOESN'T affect the bones???
>
> I didn't say that.
I said: It's associated with activity level. Modern humans can show this
also without diving etc
You said: Nonsense.
> >Elephants and rhinos have thick bones
>
> Ah? thicker than expected for their size? Interesting. Do you have
> comparative data? refs? I'd very much like to see them.
To support weight. This should be obvious.
> >, does that make the divers??? Explain it?
>
> ??
> Apes have no thick bones, apiths (except A.robustus femora) had no thick
> bones, monkeys have no thick bones, sapiens has no thick bones. Only erectus
> & to a lesser extent neandertals had. Among all primates! Explain that.
>
> >How about iodine deficiency?
>
> :-D
> What about it?
Iodine deficiencies can produce these effects. Jerome Dobson, December
1998
issue of The Geographical Review.
> >> >> d) We know (some?) neandertals ate diverse aquatic foods:
> >> >> some stone tools bear traces of cattails; shelfish
> >> >> (Italian coast); fish remains (even dried fish: P-F. & S.Puech
> >> >> 1993 in J.Maroto ed."La mandibula de Banyoles"
> >> >> Centre d'Investig.Arqueol. Gerona:105-115).
> >> >
> >> >They also ate meat and hunted. Big deal. Or are you going to
> >> >deny they ate meat and hunted?
> >>
> >> No, little doubt some at least did. So do humans.
> >> Yet we descend from seaside ancestors.
> >
> >Seaside ancestors? What happened to swamps?
>
> You still don't get it, do you?
> Again FYI:
> PAs focus on the fossil evidence, but the comparative evidence (morphology,
Fossil evidence is the only evidence we have.
> [...]
>
> >> >> Conclusion: Perhaps neandertals (or some of them) only
> >> >> waded and/or dived only seasonllay, perhaps only the males
> >> >> did (AFAIK, ear exostoses are only seen in males), perhaps
> >> >> not all populations did, perhaps only in some regions, but
> >> >> the combination of the evidence suggests generally they seem
> >> >> to have spent more time in & near water than modern humans.
> >> >
> >> >Conclusion: another Marc fantasy.
> >>
> >> No: you have given no argument why generally neandertals would not have
> >> spent more time in & near water than sapiens.
> >
> >You have given no argument that they did.
>
> No?
> a) Some neandertal skulls (eg, la Chapelle) had bilateral & extensive ear
> exostoses (which are almost exclusively seen in human divers).
Not this nonsense again. Exostoses are also the result of birth defects.
And theses only occurred in a couple of specimens.
> b) Neandertals had bigger noses & more protruding midfaces than sapiens. An
> external nose is often seen in semi-aquatics (some seals, proboscis monkeys,
> tapirs...). Any reason why humans should be an exception? Note it's never
> seen in fully aquatic mammals, only in waders (eg, hooded seals & elephant
> seals on the beach).
Why is this important? Sexual selection can produce this.
> c) Neandertals (still?) had medullary stenosis & denser bones than modern
> humans (though less than erectus). These are typical of slow bottom-diving
> mammals (walruses diving for shellfish, seacows diving for seaweeds, the
> extinct Kolponomos & Ododbenocetops).
Also produced by lifestyle.
> d) We know (some?) neandertals ate diverse aquatic foods: some stone tools
> bear traces of cattails; shelfish (Italian coast); fish remains (even dried
> fish: P-F. & S.Puech 1993 in J.Maroto ed."La mandibula de Banyoles" Centre
> d'Investig.Arqueol. Gerona:105-115).
So? They also ate meat. What does that prove? When I lived in Florida,
I went after crabs by the shore. Does that make me aquatic???
> e) Neandertal diet was halfway that of wolves & mammoths, see the figure in
> M.P.Richards etc.2000 "Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal
> predation: The evidence from stable isotopes" PNAS 97:7663–6. Mammoths
> (stomach contents) fed on sedges in marshes etc.
Wolves and mammoths were aquatic? Wolves ate sedges? Mammoths also
ate leaves (willow, fir, alder); did neanderthals? So because mammoths
ate
one kind of swamp plant this is somehow important?
Do you have any idea how grasping you sound?
> >> >> >> >Who said anything about swimming "on the back"?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why do you think they could not have done that?? It's the easiest
> way
> >> to
> >> >> >> swim at the surface - try. Sea otters (tool users) do it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Otters are quadrupeds.
> >> >>
> >> >> So?
> >> >
> >> >Humans aren't.
> >>
> >> So?
> >
> >Then quit comparing humans to things so far removed.
>
> Remember what we said on wings in birds & bees & bats?
That they're widely removed from each other (and humans).
> >> >> >Easiest? Have you asked a swimmer?
> >> >>
> >> >> Can't you swim?
> >> >
> >> >Does this mean you haven't asked a swimmer?
> >>
> >> Sigh.
> >> 1) I have asked a lot of swimmers.
> >> 2) Can't you know that by yourself?
> >
> >I've timed swim meets and my wife and all her sisters are swimmers.
> >Try breast stroke or a crawl...
>
> It's about "easy", remember. Not about moving in water. About floating or
> surface swimming.
If it's not about "easy", then why did you say it was?
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky heeft geschreven in bericht
> <3C0A8EF4...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
>
> >You did all that and still didn't know about morotopithecus...
>
> Evading the discussion, as usual?
> Savanna logic?? savanna tactics??
> Grow up, man.
Algis went to all that work for his paper and didn't know about
Morotopithecus...
> BTW, there's *nothing* in the anatomy etc. of Morotopith. that contradicts
> our view of ape & human evolution.
There's nothing in the anatomy that confirms your view.
Michael Clark
news:3C0DA00C...@hotMOVEmail.com...
> marc verhaegen wrote:
[snip]
> > So? Fact is that auditory exostoses in humans are nearly always seen in
> > frequent divers in cold water. Any particular reason why neandertals would
> > be an exception?
>
> Exostoses are also the result of birth defects. And there aren't
> very many neanderthals exhibiting exostoses.
Sorry Rich but the information I have says that auditory exostosis (AE) are found
most often among ~surfers~. In point of fact, the pathology is often referred to as
"surfers ear". Some examining physicans have even suggested that the incidence can
be correlated to the ear closest to the wave. Of course now, to employ the Puttian
bottle-washers technique, all we have to do is figure out how the Neanderthals made
it to California and back.
I asked Marc awhile ago if my middle woodland population were divers since I
"personally" had found AE in one or two of the males. I can't recall what he said
and I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm sure it was more meaningless mush. I have my
own theory, of course, and it involves the aboriginal's nasty habit of building
roaring fires in their ice houses. The thinning ice was consequently unable to
support the weight of the unfortunate fisherman and the whole works (including the
UF) plunged into the watery depths. As luck would often have it, the fire was doused
in the process which required the plucky UF to risk exposure (and hypothermia) and
ultimately end up in the local medicine man's lodge complaining about (ahem) AE.
This would seem intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer and cannot be
refuted --even by those craven lackies at your *Yewniversity*. In fact I know this
is true because chimps can't swim. Further, anybody who doesn't agree is a
poopyhead.
Might as well have some fun with it, huh? :-)
[snip some more]
Pauline M Ross
<trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:
>Exostoses are also the result of birth defects.
From www.proear2000.com:
"Exostoses - the body's mechanism for protecting the eardrum from the
adverse effects [of] external trauma like pressure, cold, etc.
Avoidance of cold water stimulation of the external ear canal will
undoubtedly prevent exostoses entirely."
I found a number of similar references on Google. On the other hand, I
couldn't find any references specifically to *ear* exostoses as birth
defects.
The only 2 references I have to ear exostoses on my bookshelf both
refer to prehistoric but recent populations, and both assume
unquestioningly that they arise from repeated swimming and diving in
cold water (and is therefore evidence of seafood consumption).
>And it appears in areas and populations where you don't find diving.
>Hrdlicka did a study in 1934, having examined close to 8000 skulls.
>A study and discussion of this can be found at
> http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/drybones/ch4.html
I couldn't find the part that suggested they didn't dive or swim.
>This study built on Hrdlicka's earlier work, and, to make a long story
>short, they found:
> Notably, similar to Hrdlicka's findings, almost without exception
> Upper Missouri River Basin auditory canal exostoses, past and present,
> have been in adult temporal bones. This strengthens our conviction that
> these are developmental abnormalities, the result of stimulae to
> immature bone during its formative stages.
So, in this sample, the exostoses were a lifestyle outcome, not birth
defects.
On the same site, the conclusion is as follows:
"The exciting cause of ear exostoses, where the predisposition to
these exists, may be anything mechanical or chemical that produces
prolonged irritation, with consequent hyperaemia to inflammation of
any part of the bony meatus."
I'd be interested to know what mechanical or chemical agent (other
than cold water) might cause sufficient irritation to result in
exostoses of the ear in these people.
--
Pauline Ross
Michael Clark
news:r5lr0ucb0s1snn8ff...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 21:18:20 -0700, Rich Travsky
> <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Exostoses are also the result of birth defects.
>
> From www.proear2000.com:
>
>
> >And it appears in areas and populations where you don't find diving.
> >Hrdlicka did a study in 1934, having examined close to 8000 skulls.
> >A study and discussion of this can be found at:
> > http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/drybones/ch4.html
Very nice site. I had run across the print version of this some time ago
but don't currently have it in my possession --thanks, Rich.
> I couldn't find the part that suggested they didn't dive or swim.
Neither could I. The Dakotas are right next to me and thus I have been
there on several occasions. Unlike Minnesota, where I live, SD is a short
grass prairie completely bereft of any body of water to speak of --with
the notable exception of the "Big Muddy". We can rule out swimming
in the Missouri in the winter since even brief exposure will kill you.
Swimming in the other three seasons is possible, I suppose, but I can't
see how rewarding since visibility is always zero (0). So yes, if I want
to ignore the other possibilities, I'd have to say that "swimming and diving"
were a possible explanation. The "other possibility" is of course that these
people didn't live in heated houses or travel in closed vehicles in the winter
and were thus subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous SD weather.
What is it like to travel unprotected in a January blizzard ~regularly~
throughout one's life? I'd say it was cold --damned cold; and frostbite
was a regular taveling companion.
I don't know the specific fossil material which is alleged to include these
pathologies but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that these were not
"tropical" specimens.
> >This study built on Hrdlicka's earlier work, and, to make a long story
> >short, they found:
>
> > Notably, similar to Hrdlicka's findings, almost without exception
> > Upper Missouri River Basin auditory canal exostoses, past and present,
> > have been in adult temporal bones. This strengthens our conviction that
> > these are developmental abnormalities, the result of stimulae to
> > immature bone during its formative stages.
>
> So, in this sample, the exostoses were a lifestyle outcome, not birth
> defects.
That isn't what they said (these are developmental abnormalities) but I
will agree with you that, IMO, it was a "lifestyle outcome".
I think we may be close to agreeing that the Neanderthals were just
as "semi-aquatic" as the subjects of these studies. Which is to say:
not at all. This should put to rest one of Marc's mantras --
that Neanderthal "swimming and diving" is further proof of his
AAT non-sense.
I'm a bit disturbed, and I think that I've said this before, that someone
who seems able to concoct and follow an argument should be devoting
their energies to carrying water (cough) for Verhaegen. There are two
possibilities as I see it: either you are completely devoid of any science
background and thus seek merit in his arguments because you are blind
to the looming problems, or, you are playing the devils advocate in an
effort to keep the rest of us honest. I'd like to believe it's the later.
> On the same site, the conclusion is as follows:
>
> "The exciting cause of ear exostoses, where the predisposition to
> these exists, may be anything mechanical or chemical that produces
> prolonged irritation, with consequent hyperaemia to inflammation of
> any part of the bony meatus."
>
> I'd be interested to know what mechanical or chemical agent (other
> than cold water) might cause sufficient irritation to result in
> exostoses of the ear in these people.
I'd say cold and wet should do it but I don't think it's necessary to
swim and dive to be cold and wet.
> --
> Pauline Ross
Gerrit Hanenburg
>From www.proear2000.com:
>
>"Exostoses - the body's mechanism for protecting the eardrum from the
>adverse effects [of] external trauma like pressure, cold, etc.
>Avoidance of cold water stimulation of the external ear canal will
>undoubtedly prevent exostoses entirely."
>
>I found a number of similar references on Google. On the other hand, I
>couldn't find any references specifically to *ear* exostoses as birth
>defects.
>
>The only 2 references I have to ear exostoses on my bookshelf both
>refer to prehistoric but recent populations, and both assume
>unquestioningly that they arise from repeated swimming and diving in
>cold water (and is therefore evidence of seafood consumption).
Here's a ref that questions an exclusively cold water etiology:
Hutchinson, D.L. et al. (1997). A Reevaluation of the Cold Water
Etiology of External Auditory Exostoses. Am. J. Phys. Anth.
103:417-422.
"The most common etiology for external ear infection is otitis
externa, which is due to a wide variety of chemical, biological,
surgical, or other stimulating factors. We argue that cold water is
not a sufficient exclusive etiology for external auditory exostoses
given the wealth of clinical information regarding otitis externa. It
is more likely that the formation of external auditory exostoses is
stimulated by a wide variety of epithelial conditions that reflect
hydration, pH imbalance, and other chemical, mechanical, and
biological factors." (p.421)
>On the same site, the conclusion is as follows:
>
>"The exciting cause of ear exostoses, where the predisposition to
>these exists, may be anything mechanical or chemical that produces
>prolonged irritation, with consequent hyperaemia to inflammation of
>any part of the bony meatus."
>
>I'd be interested to know what mechanical or chemical agent (other
>than cold water) might cause sufficient irritation to result in
>exostoses of the ear in these people.
Given that otitis externa is the primary pathological condition that
causes ear exostoses:
"Among the conditions that cause otitis externa are exposure to
excessive cold, heat, or water contact; seborrheic dermatitis; eczema;
psoriasis; contact dermatitis; sunburn; radiation; chemical burns;
fungi; trauma; hemorrhages; and senile changes" (p.420).
Gerrit
Pauline M Ross
<mcl...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>The Dakotas are right next to me and thus I have been
>there on several occasions. Unlike Minnesota, where I live, SD is a short
>grass prairie completely bereft of any body of water to speak of --with
>the notable exception of the "Big Muddy". We can rule out swimming
>in the Missouri in the winter since even brief exposure will kill you.
>Swimming in the other three seasons is possible, I suppose, but I can't
>see how rewarding since visibility is always zero (0). So yes, if I want
>to ignore the other possibilities, I'd have to say that "swimming and diving"
>were a possible explanation. The "other possibility" is of course that these
>people didn't live in heated houses or travel in closed vehicles in the winter
>and were thus subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous SD weather.
>What is it like to travel unprotected in a January blizzard ~regularly~
>throughout one's life? I'd say it was cold --damned cold; and frostbite
>was a regular taveling companion.
I hadn't thought of that. I don't know whether regular exposure to
blizzards would produce exostoses - possibly it would - but I
understood the sample was relatively recent (<10 kya) so one would
assume heated houses and protective clothing in winter.
[Snip]
>I think we may be close to agreeing that the Neanderthals were just
>as "semi-aquatic" as the subjects of these studies. Which is to say:
>not at all. This should put to rest one of Marc's mantras --
>that Neanderthal "swimming and diving" is further proof of his
>AAT non-sense.
The problem with the Neanderthal ear exostoses is that, in other
contexts, swimming/diving in cold water is unequivocally taken to be
the cause. This from Heather Pringle 'In Search of Ancient North
America' (1996):
"[...] evidence suggests that the islanders were practiced divers.
[...] some human remains unearthed on San Clemente reveal a condition
of the inner ear known as auditory exostosis, caused by repeated
diving and swimming in cold water."
No ifs, buts or maybes there - "caused by". Of course, it's an obvious
connection when the site is coastal (this one was at Eel Point,
California, circa 5 kya), but it also deserves to be considered as a
possible cause even in less obvious contexts (and humans have always
lived near water, right?).
>
>I'm a bit disturbed, and I think that I've said this before, that someone
>who seems able to concoct and follow an argument should be devoting
>their energies to carrying water (cough) for Verhaegen. There are two
>possibilities as I see it: either you are completely devoid of any science
>background and thus seek merit in his arguments because you are blind
>to the looming problems, or, you are playing the devils advocate in an
>effort to keep the rest of us honest. I'd like to believe it's the later.
Well... my degree was in pure maths, does that count as a science
background? :-) I'm not carrying water for Marc (he's perfectly
capable of carrying his own, you know) and I disagree with him on a
number of issues. Neither am I a card-carrying member of the AAH
brigade - I can see problems with it. Equally, I can see problems with
the conventional view, too, and on balance I see AAH as being more
plausible at the moment.
I don't often get involved in the arguments here, they get fairly
repetitive, but occasionally something new comes up, like Rich's
comment on ear exostoses. I'm not exactly playing devil's advocate,
but there are a lot of assumptions swilling about here, and sometimes
I like to find out if there's any substance behind them, that's all.
But I'm entirely open to reasoned argument - like your blizzards=>ear
exostoses idea. I find that plausible. Winter in SD is pretty severe.
There again, a quick search on Google shows that in summer, the Upper
Missouri is a popular swimming venue..... :-)
--
Pauline Ross
Rich Travsky
> [...]
> I hadn't thought of that. I don't know whether regular exposure to
> blizzards would produce exostoses - possibly it would - but I
> understood the sample was relatively recent (<10 kya) so one would
> assume heated houses and protective clothing in winter.
Northern populations would provide a way to test that.
> [...]
Rich Travsky
>
> "Pauline M Ross" <pmr...@ross-software.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:r5lr0ucb0s1snn8ff...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 21:18:20 -0700, Rich Travsky
> > <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Exostoses are also the result of birth defects.
> >
> > From www.proear2000.com:
> >
> [snip proear stuff]
> >
> > >And it appears in areas and populations where you don't find diving.
> > >Hrdlicka did a study in 1934, having examined close to 8000 skulls.
> > >A study and discussion of this can be found at:
> > > http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/drybones/ch4.html
>
> Very nice site. I had run across the print version of this some time ago
> but don't currently have it in my possession --thanks, Rich.
>
> > I couldn't find the part that suggested they didn't dive or swim.
>
> Neither could I. The Dakotas are right next to me and thus I have been
> there on several occasions. Unlike Minnesota, where I live, SD is a short
> grass prairie completely bereft of any body of water to speak of --with
> the notable exception of the "Big Muddy". We can rule out swimming
> in the Missouri in the winter since even brief exposure will kill you.
> Swimming in the other three seasons is possible, I suppose, but I can't
> see how rewarding since visibility is always zero (0). So yes, if I want
Heh. This was a sucker punch setup on my part. I've driven through the
Dakotas (BORING!) and its as you say. There's a definite lack of suitable
diving waters...
> [...]