Lucy walking .. or standing ?
Alexandre Grand-Clement
two legs.
But looking at the legs we're equipped with I see something more adapted
to standing, rather than walking.
The pillar-upon-pillar construction of our bones transfer the body
weight directly to our ankles, the weight then distributed via the
arch-like assembly of our foot bones to the soles.Our well developped
heel bones act as buttresses.
Ligaments stabilize our knees laterally and so, very little muscular
effort is needed to remain standing (compare to standing with knees a
little bent.)
But there's more : I don't know if Lucy would've been capable of it, but
if we shift our pelvis sideways, in the classic contrapposto stance,
there's even less muscular effort involved: ligaments limit the sideway
travel to positioning our centre of mass directly above one ankle,
allowing the other leg to relax completely.
Walking on the other hand is not quite as impressive: with straight legs
we're capable only of relatively short strides, shortened further by
above mentioned heel. Of all bipeds we're surely the slowest. No wonder
that 'pedestrian', in English at least, is synonymous with 'dull.'
So my question is: could it not be that our bipedalism is the result of
needing to *stand* for long periods of time ?
Alex
Tim Johnson
news:3C5D13E3...@chello.se...
> Bipedalism is often explained as the result of needing to get around on
> two legs.
> But looking at the legs we're equipped with I see something more adapted
> to standing, rather than walking.
You are a skeletal biologist then?
> The pillar-upon-pillar construction of our bones transfer the body
> weight directly to our ankles, the weight then distributed via the
> arch-like assembly of our foot bones to the soles.Our well developped
> heel bones act as buttresses.
> Ligaments stabilize our knees laterally and so, very little muscular
> effort is needed to remain standing (compare to standing with knees a
> little bent.)
> But there's more : I don't know if Lucy would've been capable of it, but
> if we shift our pelvis sideways, in the classic contrapposto stance,
> there's even less muscular effort involved: ligaments limit the sideway
> travel to positioning our centre of mass directly above one ankle,
> allowing the other leg to relax completely.
>
> Walking on the other hand is not quite as impressive: with straight legs
> we're capable only of relatively short strides, shortened further by
> above mentioned heel. Of all bipeds we're surely the slowest.
I could run faster than a sparrow last time I tried.
> No wonder
> that 'pedestrian', in English at least, is synonymous with 'dull.'
>
> So my question is: could it not be that our bipedalism is the result of
> needing to *stand* for long periods of time ?
Yawn....
Algis Kuliukas
Interesting point. I think you have to distinguish, in this debate,
between the bipedalism we exhibit today and that postulated for the
original bipeds - of which Lucy provides the most complete fossil
evidence to date.
Like most people, I suspect, I think our bipedalism today is very much
a specialist terrestrial mode of locomotion and is probably best
suited to long distances at low speeds. There is no contradiction
between that idea and the need to stand up straight - perhaps for long
periods of time. I think the features you highlight are exactly what
one would expect from such a specialism.
A more interesting question, IMHO, is how bipedalism began. In that
regard I take the view that wading through shallow water is the most
plausible model - although it is probably the one that has been
studied least to date. In this regard I know I am in much more of a
minority but the idea would appear to be gaining in popularity. Chris
Stringer gave a public lecture at the end of 2000 where he suggested
the same thing and I have just watched an excellent BBC documentary
"Gorilla" about the Western Lowland group in Mbeli Bai with Richard
Attenborough narrating. At one point, with gorillas wading bipedally
through water he asked if this could have been the way our ancestors
first began to move about bipedally and that these gorillas were
trully "amphibious apes."
Of course, in water, the need to stand upright - as well as move
bipedally - is obvious. So I think you might be closer to the mark
than you might have thought - although not so much for the way we are
today but the way the very first bipeds started getting upright.
Algis Kuliukas
Alexandre Grand-Clement
>
<snip>
> You are a skeletal biologist then?
>
<snip>
> I could run faster than a sparrow last time I tried.
>
<snip>
> Yawn....
Why so snotty ?
Alex
Tim Johnson
> Tim Johnson wrote:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > You are a skeletal biologist then?
Correct and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I assume you haven't actually
researched this with primary literature, or conducted your own analysis of
the bones of early hominines or anything like this to find out if your idea
is supported by anything?
> > I could run faster than a sparrow last time I tried.
This was a serious point. What other, faster bipeds are you referring to?
There are no other bipedal primates. The only other ones I can think of are
birds.
> Why so snotty ?
Yes, bipedalism does enable us to stand for long periods of time, but surely
the energetic/transportation advantage of bipedalism would be a far more
significant selective pressure. Sure, being able to stand is a convenient,
but necessary by-product of bipedal walking allowing us to see our
surroundings better, signal to others etc. but what else? Why would early
hominines need to stand around for long periods of time, but still be unable
to walk?
Phil was talking in another post about pet theories, and not supporting them
with acceptable evidence, and being unable to prove or disprove them. There
is a difference between this and well thought out, researched ideas, or the
informed discussion of issues raised while reading about palaeoanthropology.
I apologise if I was snotty, but I was expressing in less verbose form the
same kind of concern.
Tim
Robt Gotschall
al...@RiverApes.com says...
Just saw an interesting show on Discovery channel. They documented
Black and White Colobus (C. polykomos ) monkeys entering a clearing
from the forest. These monkeys are ordinarily forest dwellers but on
entering the clearing rose up on their hind legs to look around
frequently, and even managed several strides upright. When they
entered the stream in the clearing however, they got down on all
fours or swam, even in very shallow water.
--
rg
remove spam to mail
http://home.att.net/~hobgots/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
Robt Gotschall
> Bipedalism is often explained as the result of needing to get around on
> two legs.
> But looking at the legs we're equipped with I see something more adapted
> to standing, rather than walking.
> So my question is: could it not be that our bipedalism is the result of
> needing to *stand* for long periods of time ?
>
> Alex
Another question might be: Is it better to run fast on four legs or is it
better to run more slowly on two legs but also carry a big stick, or
food, or maybe even your baby?
The chimps might have a different opinion of course.
Michael Clark
news:MPG.16c8a403c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
[snip]
> Just saw an interesting show on Discovery channel. They documented
> Black and White Colobus (C. polykomos ) monkeys entering a clearing
> from the forest. These monkeys are ordinarily forest dwellers but on
> entering the clearing rose up on their hind legs to look around
> frequently, and even managed several strides upright. When they
> entered the stream in the clearing however, they got down on all
> fours or swam, even in very shallow water.
>
> --
> rg
You can bet the wet apes won't be using that data point. :-)
firstjois
"Robt Gotschall" <Surp...@sea.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16c8a403c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
: Just saw an interesting show on Discovery channel. They documented
Black and White Colobus (C. polykomos ) monkeys entering a clearing from
the forest. These monkeys are ordinarily forest dwellers but on entering
the clearing rose up on their hind legs to look around frequently, and
even managed several strides upright. When they entered the stream in the
clearing however, they got down on all fours or swam, even in very shallow
water.
:
: --
: rg
LOL!
Just tried to get this into my return address . . .
Jois
Algis Kuliukas
> Just saw an interesting show on Discovery channel. They documented
> Black and White Colobus (C. polykomos ) monkeys entering a clearing
> from the forest. These monkeys are ordinarily forest dwellers but on
> entering the clearing rose up on their hind legs to look around
> frequently, and even managed several strides upright. When they
> entered the stream in the clearing however, they got down on all
> fours or swam, even in very shallow water.
Thanks for this, which would appear to be clear evidence contrary to
the wading origins model for bipedalism. I should say this is the
first such evidence I have come across.
There are a number of questions/points raised:
1) It would be interesting to have some kind of Hunt study on them to
rank the frequencies of incidences of terrestrial facultative
bipedalism. 'Merecat peering', the one you noticed on the film, might
be the most frequent but it would be good to have a proper study.
2) The relative small size of a colobus (compared to apes) is likely
to favour swimming as a general strategy for locomotion in water
(versus bipedal wading) simply becuase it is more likely that the
water would be too deep to wade in.
3) In very shallow water (and water that is clearly so - so that the
animals can make such an assumption) all apes are likely to go
quadrupedal. Only the most hydrophobic (i.e. chimps and bonobos) have
been observed to go bipedal even when its muddy.
4) Where were these colobus filmed? Did chimps live in the same
habitat? It would be interesting, if that were the case, to speculate
why the colobus are so able to swim and yet chimpanzees are not.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
A case of "the pot calling the kettle black" if ever there was one.
Considering that the orthodox PA have provided precisely 0 column
inches in the academic journals studying the perfectly plausible
wading origins model in the 42 years since Hardy published his paper,
this kind of hypocritical slur is just astonishing.
I'll be using this observation as a counter-argument to the wading
origins model - of course I will. Otherwise people would think I was
biased. It's good to have *something*. Apart from this all you have is
"well, they wouldn't go in the water, would they?"
Algis Kuliukas
Robt Gotschall
I didn't see the very beginning of the film but there were several
references to the Congo. Chimps were not present but gorillas were,
along with forest elephant. It was a very unusual place.
I agree that not too much importance should be placed on something like
this. I saw no indication that the observers were even interested in the
AAT. They were far more interested in the ecosystem of the Congolese rain
forest. They may have observed monkeys wading upright and not thought
anything of it. The interesting thing is that many animals seem to
value the ability to get up and look around. Many rodents exhibit the
same behavior(Prairie dogs, meerkats, etc.), but aren't predisposed to
bipedalism.
I personally believe that demanding simplistic one to one relationships
in biology is usually a mistake.
Alexandre Grand-Clement
Thanks for taking the time to expand your response.
Tim Johnson wrote:
> > > I could run faster than a sparrow last time I tried.
>
> This was a serious point. What other, faster bipeds are you referring to?
> There are no other bipedal primates. The only other ones I can think of are
> birds.
Well, you can outrun -if not outwalk- pretty much anything the size of a sparrow.
A chicken is trickier. An ostrich, roughly comparable in size and weight
to a human, will leave you in the dust.
And yes I'm being argumentative.
> Yes, bipedalism does enable us to stand for long periods of time, but surely
> the energetic/transportation advantage of bipedalism would be a far more
> significant selective pressure. Sure, being able to stand is a convenient,
> but necessary by-product of bipedal walking allowing us to see our
> surroundings better, signal to others etc. but what else? Why would early
> hominines need to stand around for long periods of time, but still be unable
> to walk?
So it's:
A) Primate needs to get around on two legs (free its arms to carry
food/child/tools ?) and in the process acquires the ability to stand.
or
B) Primate needs to keep a good look on surroundings (ą la meerkat)
while rest of group forages. Over the generations this watch standing
necessity brings about a morphological change: straightening and
lengthening of the bones, apparition of a heel etc. allowing the
individual to stand watch with less expenditure of energy, but
eventually losing the ability to knuckle walk.
The problem I have with A, is that for one, you can't carry much more
with two arms than with one (e.g. KW'ing), and what about the
intermediate stages ?
Any energetic/transportation advantage offered by bipedalism is there
only in its full fledged form.
In fact my back hurts just trying to imagine any intermediate stage.
Whereas B offers a much smoother transition, getting about knuckle
walking and standing when on location.
Straightening the thigh- and shin bones doesn't hinder KW'ing, nor does
adding a heel. It's not until we lengthen the bones and add triple
curvature to the spine we need forgo it, and by that time we're able to
walk on two legs.
Does this make sense ?
> Phil was talking in another post about pet theories, and not supporting them
> with acceptable evidence, and being unable to prove or disprove them. There
> is a difference between this and well thought out, researched ideas, or the
> informed discussion of issues raised while reading about palaeoanthropology.
Fear not, I not proposing a Standing Ape Theory (although the possible
follow-up Grand Unified Theory Of Standing Autistic Wet Apes has a
certain ring to it ..), merely pointing out what I perceive as a wrinkle.
Alex
Algis Kuliukas
> references to the Congo. Chimps were not present but gorillas were,
> along with forest elephant. It was a very unusual place.
Ah, so was this Mbeli bai? If so it was the place where western
lowland gorillas were first observed being comfortable in water,
comfortable enough - if the water is deep enough - to wade bipedally.
In this regard cladistics would dictate that more emphasis be placed
on the gorilla behaviour in water than that of the colobus.
> I agree that not too much importance should be placed on something like
> this. I saw no indication that the observers were even interested in the
> AAT. They were far more interested in the ecosystem of the Congolese rain
> forest. They may have observed monkeys wading upright and not thought
> anything of it. The interesting thing is that many animals seem to
> value the ability to get up and look around. Many rodents exhibit the
> same behavior(Prairie dogs, meerkats, etc.), but aren't predisposed to
> bipedalism.
The 'merecat peering' idea for the origin of bipedalism is well
understood and has much support because of its simplicity. However
since the earliest bipeds were associated with quite heavily forested
areas the idea has AFAIK become less popular. Also it is not backed up
by either of the two major studies into chimp/bonobo facultative
bipedalism (Hunt and Videan & McGrew.)
> I personally believe that demanding simplistic one to one relationships
> in biology is usually a mistake.
I tend to agree with you and when it comes to bipedal origins you are
probably in good company. However, what I think has happenned is that
a perfectly plausible, very simple and clearly demonstrable (in extant
apes) model has been completely overlooked - the wading origins model.
This is probably because of its close association with the 'heretical'
AAH. That this situation has come about can only be accounted for as
bad science.
Algis Kuliukas
Michael Clark
There is a third possibility (and probably more):
C) A large bodied primate developed a propensity to stand on top
of large branches and, supporting itself by grasping other branches with
its hands, began to move along the branches --bipedally. I have watched
gibbons and chimps do this. Once the standing behavior was practical,
moving to the ground to forage presented an environment where standing
was reinforced by enabling the primate to spot danger early. No doubt
there was a transitional time where the proto human traveled between the
two resource bases. Whatever advantage this tree-base foraging provided
allowed the PH to move progressively out into the savanna. (A savanna is
NOT a short grass prairie --regardless of the wet apes attempts to make
it so. A savanna can be a variety of environments --dotted with trees and
laced with fresh water sources).
So, in this scenario, bipedalism was not something that developed on the
ground but rather originated in the trees and was ~developed~ at the base
of the trees.
[snip]
>
> Alex
Lorenzo L. Love
D) A large bodied primate developed a habitual itch in both butt cheeks
at the same time. As a knuckle-walking primate can only scratch one butt
cheek at a time without falling on it's face, a habitual itch in both
butt cheeks requires the primate to stand upright in order to scratch
both cheeks. Perhaps an isolated population was subjected to
environmental factors which caused a propensity for itching in both
creeks, biting ants, poisen ivy, etc; which caused this behavior to
become common. Not falling on ones face certainly provides selective
pressure to be able to stand upright.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.
Michael Clark
news:3C60CF5A...@thegrid.net...
> Michael Clark wrote:
> >
> > "Alexandre Grand-Clement" <ale...@chello.se> wrote in message
> > news:3C606022...@chello.se...
> > > Hi Tim,
> > >
E.) Proto humans, hangin' out in the trees one day, chanced to see a
group of ostriches pass by. So impressed by the strange gait, everyone
attempted to imitate the behavior. Attempts were so entertaining, that
the practice was quickly enshrined as a ritual. Prizes were given away
to the best performer and the females were often more receptive to the
winner. Learning this, the males vied hard for the honor and diligently
worked at the technique. After several hundred generations, folks forgot
about the ostriches.
Everybody's a comedian. :-)
Philip Deitiker
<mcl...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>E.) Proto humans, hangin' out in the trees one day, chanced to see a
>group of ostriches pass by. So impressed by the strange gait, everyone
>attempted to imitate the behavior. Attempts were so entertaining, that
>the practice was quickly enshrined as a ritual. Prizes were given away
>to the best performer and the females were often more receptive to the
>winner. Learning this, the males vied hard for the honor and diligently
>worked at the technique. After several hundred generations, folks forgot
>about the ostriches.
F.) They got tired of looking and smelling each
others A-holes, particularly since they were
eating all that meat, so they stood up to get
fresh air. While they were standing up they begin
to notice the figure of females, used 2 hands to
make a good wolf whistle and then started chasing
the females. Females naturally tried to run on all
fours, but found this made 'doggy' to easy so they
had to stand up also and run. Inevitably the males
found that two-fisted females where too difficult
to 'court' so they began making showy tools,
jewelry and decorations in order to mask their
intent and ambush the females. Females likewise
used fashion to conceal attributes and thus begins
the fashion industry. See they stood so they
could adorn themselves with ornamentation and hide
their smelly asses.
Philip
[pdeitik @ bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~pdeitik/
ejudy
(snippage)
>" While they were standing up they began to notice the figure of females"....
(snippage)
Now you probably didn't realize how brilliant this insight
may in fact be. I am just wanting to point that out.
I mean knucklewalking females can't be as attractive
and showy. So my thought was that maybe that's when the hair
started thinning and getting decoratively positioned
on the key issues anyway.
ejudy
Lorenzo L. Love
I don't know about that. Female chimps are pretty "showy" when in heat
and male chimps certainly seem to find them attractive. It's the upright
females that lacked sex appeal and had to develop new decorative
attributes to attract the boys. So you may be right for the wrong reason
that hairlessness and other interesting modern features started after
bipedalism started.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is
no woman around to hear him...is he still wrong?"
George Carlin
ejudy
So maybe you could say
"Upright females can't be as attractive and showy
unless they move some of the furniture around and sorta
put a little effort into augmentation and emphasis whether it be in
the walk, or the padding or the voice or a whole slew of other
possibilities."
How is this related to a female having a heat or not?
ejudy
Lorenzo L. Love
The relationship between bipedalism and hidden estrous is pretty foggy.
It may be part of it but it's probably more related to human social
structure, long infant dependency and the need to get daddy bringing
home the bacon daily, not just when the female is in heat.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"Women…can't live with them; can't chain them in the yard."
Joxer the Mighty
ejudy
> "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote :
>The relationship between bipedalism and hidden estrous is pretty
foggy.
>It may be part of it but it's probably more related to human social
>structure, long infant dependancy and the need to get daddy bringing
>home the bacon daily, not just when the female is in heat.
>
>Lorenzo L. Love
>http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
>"Women...can't live with them; can't chain them in the yard."
> Joxer the Mighty
Too foggy.
Its interesting that the LCA most likely was not burdened by showy
swellings
as once you start down that road of establishing swellings as
arousal signals they may never be lost. The one's who don't have it
are less successful.
In the bonobo this devise seems to have become a rather
cumbersome high price to pay as it is hard to sit down, easily
damaged, heavy etc.....
Sort of like the odd things we do in fashion to our poor bodies
when we go too far out on a limb. Thorsten Veblen wrote a great book
bringing the world of fashion and heirarchical showiness and how odd
it can get into the public consciousness.
Going from purely physical attractivity to externally augmentation in
the accoutrement zone could probably dramatically
increase success and adaptability and reward clever resourcefulness.
Could have contributed to being able to let go of estrus.
I wonder if you could make a case for early sexual aesthetics
and decoration. It would be interesting to try but again its a
speculative
sorta thing to do.
Its mind boggling how many factors there
are to juggle in going from the LCA to now.
ejudy
ejudy
> ej...@my-deja.com (ejudy) wrote :
> > "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote :
>
> >The relationship between bipedalism and hidden estrous is pretty
> foggy.
> >It may be part of it but it's probably more related to human social
> >structure, long infant dependancy and the need to get daddy bringing
> >home the bacon daily, not just when the female is in heat.
> >
> >Lorenzo L. Love
> >http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
> >
> >"Women...can't live with them; can't chain them in the yard."
> > Joxer the Mighty
>
> Too foggy.
~biggosnippodeluxo~
> Its mind boggling how many factors there
> are to juggle in going from the LCA to now.
Gotta say giving old Joxer the mighty a simple google search
put a much missed smile back on. I felt naked without it.
Muchos gracias, LLL. ;-).
Is anybody else out there roving thru the enormous stacks of
paleoanthropology materials for this supposed SAP web page
and/or mr.d's website? Its like parachuting into afghanistan alone
with a backpack and an invisibility cloak to look for you know who.
Somebody oughta just make a map of how to navigate the billions of
nice linkings with all the pleasant caverns filled with papers.
Unfortuneately, its overwhelming and probably alot is inpenetrable for
all practical purposes.
Especially BECAUSE how much of it is out of date?
Or has to be sorted thru for relevance as to how current it is.
....hmmmm we should have catagories.:
1.useless PA
2.fruity/spongyPA (not wet)
3.pertinent PA
4. ugly PA
5. technically challenging PA
a. balderdash
b. well done TC PA
6. PA for the technically challenged (my group)
7.ejudy's paleocaveart wall paper webstore
8. hogwashian theories
9. current papers (monthly updates)
10. core issues
11.BONES
etc...............
There needs to be a system that page and site builders in paleo use to
help each other work together as they are being built.
Like a mini indexing system or something which if the site owner used
it would gain entrance into the great hall where the mega search
engine specifically used for paleo does alot of ~Organising~ .
Imagine dreaming of the paleo spider jumping outa the stacks of papers
and fossils!
I mean its a self expression holy chaos out there.
Makes me shiver.
Maybe if there was a system it could be set into search machine
tactics so each topic had more of a chance to be viewed instead of
just happened upon if the site owner is lucky or knows the right words
to plug.
Aren't there a group of Hss budded-off shoots who obsessively love to
catagorize who could devise some better methodology in the
tangled internetting or spiderwebbing by maybe extending their
imaginations into the future
at intervals of say one year, five, twenty etc............?
Maybe this is being done already?
Ok, if anyone would like to level me with criticism i probably deserve
a good flogging for being uncooperative or something this week
so.......my old karate coach used to say i was such a softy so he'd
bow outa the ring then hit me from behind really hard then he'd laugh
at me so loud till i would get so mad. And only then i could do a
better job. ;-)
Since paleoanthropology is a societal subset or something maybe it
could show
its pride by taking the initiative.
Hint hint
It might also be a way to reduce some of the friction inherent in the
discipline. Just joking.
my $.o2
"If ya chain the woman in the back yard she will wanna bite the bone
just like a cross between a sweet little puppy and wild coyote
would."
ejudy
Charles
most convincing argument will win the history.... and the search engines attention.
Re: the field of psychiatry & the DSM-III established a "bruised and battered" opinion as the
prevailing theory currently at work in most, if not all, mental hospitals. That is, the biomedical
model was NOT the prevailing theory of mental illness prior to 1980.
the PA field is lacking a "charter document" that is convincing and believable to the general public
and academics at the same time.
and i like to point out in this connection that the wet ape theory is currently, 1. a bruised and
battered theory, and 2. dismissed as hogwash with what appears to be largely ad hominem argument (re:
pre-1980 psychiatry) and 3. currently producing "believable" arguments to the general public.
make sense? if the PA field is not careful, then the very theory they like to hate might become
dominant by force of a charter document.
--chas
ejudy
> i have said this in another thread, but purely from a rhetorical POV, the "person" that publishes the
> most convincing argument will win the history.... and the search engines attention.
> Re: the field of psychiatry & the DSM-III established a "bruised and battered" opinion as the
> prevailing theory currently at work in most, if not all, mental hospitals. That is, the biomedical
> model was NOT the prevailing theory of mental illness prior to 1980.
> the PA field is lacking a "charter document" that is convincing and believable to the general public
> and academics at the same time.
> and i like to point out in this connection that the wet ape theory is currently, 1. a bruised and
> battered theory, and 2. dismissed as hogwash with what appears to be largely ad hominem argument (re:
> pre-1980 psychiatry) and 3. currently producing "believable" arguments to the general public.
> make sense? if the PA field is not careful, then the very theory they like to hate might become
> dominant by force of a charter document.
> --chas
>
That's pretty interesting considering how long it takes to get back on
track.
Probably means it becomes a bit of a responsibility to not babble on
about stupid theories if you don't want to lend weight to their
hogwash.
Who can generate the heaviest pile. Hmmmmm. Like a competition.
The internet needs to become consciously and thoughtfully
organised. Could special interest areas do more to work
as a cooperative system? All would benefit if our goal is truth.
Problem always comes down to the few real good folks doing their job
well end up having to compete in the wrong arena.
Allowing public fashion and hype to steer science is
foolish and an enormous waste of valuable time .
But its a democratic forum and very innovative. It becomes the mind
of
the collective. Peer review of the internet possibly?
Voted in by the best in the field perhaps?
The ~temporal lobe~ of the internet.
Hey there's an idea.
We could set up the organisation of the internet more like our own
brains.
And then we probably would notice that over time we are so connected
from early in our childhoods that we have the ability to direct the
development of our brains by simply making new internetted organised
functions. Then you would really have to worry about the thought
police eh?
I just wonder how to make it run more efficiently and plan for the
future.
ejudy
Robt Gotschall
al...@RiverApes.com says...
> Robt Gotschall <Surp...@sea.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.16c9c62cd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> > In article <77a70442.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> > al...@RiverApes.com says...
> > > Robt Gotschall <Surp...@sea.com> wrote in message
> > > 4) Where were these colobus filmed? Did chimps live in the same
> > > habitat? It would be interesting, if that were the case, to speculate
> > > why the colobus are so able to swim and yet chimpanzees are not.
> >
> > I didn't see the very beginning of the film but there were several
> > references to the Congo. Chimps were not present but gorillas were,
> > along with forest elephant. It was a very unusual place.
>
> Ah, so was this Mbeli bai?
Very probably.
> If so it was the place where western
> lowland gorillas were first observed being comfortable in water,
> comfortable enough - if the water is deep enough - to wade bipedally.
> In this regard cladistics would dictate that more emphasis be placed
> on the gorilla behaviour in water than that of the colobus.
I didn't mean to discount the idea that a close relation to us might
wade in water. It's a question of priority. If chimps, gorillas and
especially orangutans are all occasionally walking bipedally, sometimes
in water, how important is the water?
> > I agree that not too much importance should be placed on something like
> > this. I saw no indication that the observers were even interested in the
> > AAT. They were far more interested in the ecosystem of the Congolese rain
> > forest. They may have observed monkeys wading upright and not thought
> > anything of it. The interesting thing is that many animals seem to
> > value the ability to get up and look around. Many rodents exhibit the
> > same behavior(Prairie dogs, meerkats, etc.), but aren't predisposed to
> > bipedalism.
>
> The 'merecat peering' idea for the origin of bipedalism is well
> understood and has much support because of its simplicity. However
> since the earliest bipeds were associated with quite heavily forested
> areas the idea has AFAIK become less popular. Also it is not backed up
> by either of the two major studies into chimp/bonobo facultative
> bipedalism (Hunt and Videan & McGrew.)
Please let's don't go into the savanna argument again. And I would only
point out that restricting yourself to the 'meerkats peering' argument is
no better then AAT or wading or a host of others. It's like saying
feathers are for flying.
Bipedalism has to be a disadvantage, otherwise we would see it more
often. Far more profitable I think, to look for a suite of advantages to
overcome this.
> > I personally believe that demanding simplistic one to one relationships
> > in biology is usually a mistake.
>
> I tend to agree with you and when it comes to bipedal origins you are
> probably in good company. However, what I think has happenned is that
> a perfectly plausible, very simple and clearly demonstrable (in extant
> apes) model has been completely overlooked - the wading origins model.
> This is probably because of its close association with the 'heretical'
> AAH. That this situation has come about can only be accounted for as
> bad science.
>
> Algis Kuliukas
The trouble is that the argument is usually introduced schismatically. It
would be foolish to say that our early bipedal ancestors could _not_
wade, after all, we still do. How important is it now? It depends on
were you live. Maybe it was the same with our early bipedal ancestors.
Algis Kuliukas
> In article <77a70442.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> al...@RiverApes.com says...
> > Robt Gotschall <Surp...@sea.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.16c9c62cd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > In article <77a70442.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> > > al...@RiverApes.com says...
> > > > Robt Gotschall <Surp...@sea.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > 4) Where were these colobus filmed? Did chimps live in the same
> > > > habitat? It would be interesting, if that were the case, to speculate
> > > > why the colobus are so able to swim and yet chimpanzees are not.
> > >
> > > I didn't see the very beginning of the film but there were several
> > > references to the Congo. Chimps were not present but gorillas were,
> > > along with forest elephant. It was a very unusual place.
> >
> > Ah, so was this Mbeli bai?
>
> Very probably.
>
> > If so it was the place where western
> > lowland gorillas were first observed being comfortable in water,
> > comfortable enough - if the water is deep enough - to wade bipedally.
> > In this regard cladistics would dictate that more emphasis be placed
> > on the gorilla behaviour in water than that of the colobus.
>
> I didn't mean to discount the idea that a close relation to us might
> wade in water. It's a question of priority. If chimps, gorillas and
> especially orangutans are all occasionally walking bipedally, sometimes
> in water, how important is the water?
Agreed. For my masters thesis I found that whereas captive bonobos at
Planckendael were bipedal about 3% of the time when terrestrial (even
less whilst arboreal) they were bipedal over 90% of the time whilst in
water. I'd say that was a pretty big factor. Put it this way can you
give me any other situation where you could predict, with absolute
confidence, that an ape would be bipedal other than in waist deep
water?
>
> > > I agree that not too much importance should be placed on something like
> > > this. I saw no indication that the observers were even interested in the
> > > AAT. They were far more interested in the ecosystem of the Congolese rain
> > > forest. They may have observed monkeys wading upright and not thought
> > > anything of it. The interesting thing is that many animals seem to
> > > value the ability to get up and look around. Many rodents exhibit the
> > > same behavior(Prairie dogs, meerkats, etc.), but aren't predisposed to
> > > bipedalism.
> >
> > The 'merecat peering' idea for the origin of bipedalism is well
> > understood and has much support because of its simplicity. However
> > since the earliest bipeds were associated with quite heavily forested
> > areas the idea has AFAIK become less popular. Also it is not backed up
> > by either of the two major studies into chimp/bonobo facultative
> > bipedalism (Hunt and Videan & McGrew.)
>
> Please let's don't go into the savanna argument again. And I would only
> point out that restricting yourself to the 'meerkats peering' argument is
> no better then AAT or wading or a host of others. It's like saying
> feathers are for flying.
I'm not restricting myself to merecat peering. I've looked at all 14
models for bipedal origins and they all make sense to some degree. The
problem is none of them make an immediate life-saving difference apart
from wading. I am not suggesting that wading was the exclusive reason
for the bipedalism, merely that it was a big factor at the start. The
irony is that this most (IMHO) plausible model is the only one which
has probably received the least serious attention from
paleoanthropologists. The reason for that is easy enough to work out -
it's close association with the 'heretical' AAH - which *must* be
wrong, right?
> Bipedalism has to be a disadvantage, otherwise we would see it more
> often. Far more profitable I think, to look for a suite of advantages to
> overcome this.
A suite of advantages is fine but how about - it allows you to breath
and therefore survive the next few minutes? Isn't that an advantage
that would get selected for pretty quickly?
> > > I personally believe that demanding simplistic one to one relationships
> > > in biology is usually a mistake.
> >
> > I tend to agree with you and when it comes to bipedal origins you are
> > probably in good company. However, what I think has happenned is that
> > a perfectly plausible, very simple and clearly demonstrable (in extant
> > apes) model has been completely overlooked - the wading origins model.
> > This is probably because of its close association with the 'heretical'
> > AAH. That this situation has come about can only be accounted for as
> > bad science.
> >
> > Algis Kuliukas
>
> The trouble is that the argument is usually introduced schismatically. It
> would be foolish to say that our early bipedal ancestors could _not_
> wade, after all, we still do. How important is it now? It depends on
> were you live. Maybe it was the same with our early bipedal ancestors.
I think that the factors inducing the earliest bipeds to get up on
their hindlegs are probably very different from the reasons we
continue to do so today. Wading just seems the most plausible (dare I
say obvious) reason for how it might have begun. It has the strongest
for it in extant apes. It is supported by the fossil evidence and it
makes perfect sense in terms of Darwinian natural selection.
Algis Kuliukas
Bob Keeter
al...@RiverApes.com wrote on 2/10/02 10:22 AM:
Snip
>>
>> I didn't mean to discount the idea that a close relation to us might
>> wade in water. It's a question of priority. If chimps, gorillas and
>> especially orangutans are all occasionally walking bipedally, sometimes
>> in water, how important is the water?
>
> Agreed. For my masters thesis I found that whereas captive bonobos at
> Planckendael were bipedal about 3% of the time when terrestrial (even
> less whilst arboreal) they were bipedal over 90% of the time whilst in
> water. I'd say that was a pretty big factor. Put it this way can you
> give me any other situation where you could predict, with absolute
> confidence, that an ape would be bipedal other than in waist deep
> water?
>
>
Algis,
As we discussed once before, statistics dont lie, just statisticians! Matter
of fact just last week a couple of MIT profs got all caught up in a major
wringer over stating "incomplete" statistics!
Now the above is NOT exactly a lie, but perhaps just not the "whole truth".
In order to meaningfully interpret the "importance" of your numbers you MUST
include another little scaling factor or two. Im sure that you tabulated
the time "in motion" or at least not sitting down/laying down/sleeping/etc,
and the "total time" in some absolute measure, i.e. minutes/day or hours per
week, right?
Maybe something like a table would work. Tables or graphs get the ideas
much clearer than just words and are so much less difficult to "get
straight", you know! 8-)
Bonobos state (when not sitting/laying down, lets say 4 hrs/day)
% of time - % bipedal - % of life - min/day
Terrestrial 75 3 2.1 - 6 min
Arboreal 24 1 0.25 - 0.6 min
Wading 1 90 0.9 - 3 min
---- ---- ------
100 N/A +/- 5
Now the first column ("% of time" ) is nothing more than just my imagined,
completely WAG numbers, iow, pure fabrication, and Im sure that from your
masters thesis research you could obviously supply some real, supportable
numbers. So, will be looking forward to your ACCURATE assessment of the time
spent aquatically wading as a function of the TOTAL time spent standing
erect, nuckle-walking and wading. If we find that the time spent wading is
at all significant with respect to the total time spent moving around, THEN
you might have an arguement for some degree of aquatic adaption,
particularly if the adaptations do not interfere with the perhaps MORE
significant terrestrial and arboreal existences. (Cant have an adaptation
that is "5% important" in the lives of the bonobo to detract too much from a
capability that is "70% important" now can wel?) Given the thorough research
and study required for a Masters' thesis, that info should be readily
available in well documented and fully supportable form, right?
May seem like Im just being a bit of a stickler, but having just recently
had the need to read over the thesis requirements for Johns Hopkins Masters
programs, cant imagine how you requirements would have been much different.
8-)
Regards
bk
Rich Travsky
> [...]
> Agreed. For my masters thesis I found that whereas captive bonobos at
> Planckendael were bipedal about 3% of the time when terrestrial (even
> less whilst arboreal) they were bipedal over 90% of the time whilst in
> water. I'd say that was a pretty big factor. Put it this way can you
> give me any other situation where you could predict, with absolute
> confidence, that an ape would be bipedal other than in waist deep
> water?
The real question: what is the percentage of time spent on land and
what percentage in water?
I confidently predict
time on land >>>>>> time in water
Do you have those percentages?
> [...]
Richard Wagler
Rich Travsky wrote:
Another question. What does this moat look like? Is it gently
sloping so the apes have the option of two legs or four? Or does
it have a vertical face so the option for the apes is jump/dive in
or climb in feet first thus being forced into a bipedal position?
Rick Wagler
Michael Clark
news:3C66F6E0...@hotMOVEmail.com...
Deja-Vu? Algis doesn't want to answer this question. Nor
will he say if he has taken any research design classes or if
he understands the implications of these questions. I predict
we'll get more evasions and some big, blistered whine about
how misunderstood his "theories" are.
Yawn.
> > [...]
Algis Kuliukas
> in article 77a70442.0202...@posting.google.com, Algis Kuliukas at
> al...@RiverApes.com wrote on 2/10/02 10:22 AM:
>
> of fact just last week a couple of MIT profs got all caught up in a major
> wringer over stating "incomplete" statistics!
Hi Bob. Absolutely right and thanks for your interest.
> Now the above is NOT exactly a lie, but perhaps just not the "whole truth".
> In order to meaningfully interpret the "importance" of your numbers you MUST
> include another little scaling factor or two. Im sure that you tabulated
> the time "in motion" or at least not sitting down/laying down/sleeping/etc,
> and the "total time" in some absolute measure, i.e. minutes/day or hours per
> week, right?
>
> Maybe something like a table would work. Tables or graphs get the ideas
> much clearer than just words and are so much less difficult to "get
> straight", you know! 8-)
Agreed. No problem. (I did put a series of tables liek you suggested
in my thesis but I thought it would be boring just to rpeat it all out
here.)
No you're not being a stickler. I was very keen to stress this point
myself in my thesis.
I did two types of study - one focal, where I just followed an
individual around whatever they did and wherever they went for 30
minute slots. This is the only type that matters for the kind of data
you want. In fact it is precisely for that reason - to be clear how
little time the bonobos spent in water - that I did it. The other kind
was simply looking out for those rare ocassions when they did go into
the water to see how they behaved - which I used only to get a more
accurate assessment of what they did when they were in water.
I stress, from slightly over two hours of pure focal studies only, the
data was as follows...
% of time - % bipedal - % of life -
min/day
Terrestrial 72.6 2 2.1 - 91
min
Arboreal 27 1 0.25 - 34
min
In Water 0.4 91 0.9 - 28
sec
---- ---- ------
100 N/A +/- 5
I have never pretended that the bonobos spent very long in water,
merely that when they are there they are almost exclusively bipedal.
The implication from this seems pretty clear to me - that if a group
of apes was exposed to such a habitat that regular wading was required
they would be likely to adopt bipedal locomotion very regularly and
that such traits that favoured this would rapidly be selected for.
I dispute that absolute time doing something is the only measure that
counts. Apes spend more than half of their lives sleeping, after all.
The importance is skewed by how much a particular behaviour may help
it survive. I would argue that in habitats where a putative
semi-aquatic ape had to regularly cross waist deep water the ability
to wade bipedally would be a bit of a life saver.
Algis Kuliukas
PS
Found any swimming chimps yet?
Bob Keeter
at al...@RiverApes.com wrote on 2/10/02 7:44 PM:
Snip. . . .
> Hi Bob. Absolutely right and thanks for your interest.
>
Well, thats ONE way of seeing it. . . Guess for the sake of discussion, I'll
agree, therefore "You are most welcome!" 8-)
Snippage. . . . .
>>
>> Maybe something like a table would work. Tables or graphs get the ideas
>> much clearer than just words and are so much less difficult to "get
>> straight", you know! 8-)
>
> Agreed. No problem. (I did put a series of tables liek you suggested
> in my thesis but I thought it would be boring just to rpeat it all out
> here.)
>
In a SCIENTIFIC discussion, as opposed to a religious discussion, supporting
FACTS are very rarely boring, particularly when the proposed hypothesis is
rather controversial! IOW, go for it dude! 8-)
Snip. . . .
>>
>> May seem like Im just being a bit of a stickler, but having just recently
>> had the need to read over the thesis requirements for Johns Hopkins Masters
>> programs, cant imagine how you requirements would have been much different.
>> 8-)
>
> No you're not being a stickler. I was very keen to stress this point
> myself in my thesis.
>
And that point is. . . . . . . You see MY point was that an adaptation
must have a "forcing function". For example, a moose spends some percentage
of its time swimming rivers, bays and ponds here in the north country, but
has just about zero adaptations for swimming. It spends quite a bit of its
time wading and has some very significant adaptations (when compared to
large mule deer or elk that survive in much dryer climates.) BRIEF
exposures, even if critical to survival, i.e. to escape forest fires,
wolves, or humans, to a SWIMMING need, just has not effected the moose,
while less "traumatic" but consistent exposure to an evolutionary incentive
have given moose very long legs and "snowshoe" feet!
> I did two types of study - one focal, where I just followed an
> individual around whatever they did and wherever they went for 30
> minute slots. This is the only type that matters for the kind of data
> you want. In fact it is precisely for that reason - to be clear how
> little time the bonobos spent in water - that I did it. The other kind
> was simply looking out for those rare ocassions when they did go into
> the water to see how they behaved - which I used only to get a more
> accurate assessment of what they did when they were in water.
>
> I stress, from slightly over two hours of pure focal studies only, the
> data was as follows...
>
You based this all on four 30-minute sessions of observation? At least you
did get real data, but with that incredibly small sample, what is your
confidence that the data applies to more than the one bonobo (who might have
been a veritable Johnny Weismiller, Mark Spitz to the younger crew, amongst
simians!)
> % of time - % bipedal - % of life -
> min/day
>
> Terrestrial 72.6 2 2.1 - 91
> min
> Arboreal 27 1 0.25 - 34
> min
> In Water 0.4 91 0.9 - 28
> sec
> ---- ---- ------
> 100 N/A +/- 5
>
If Im reading your numbers rightm, and if Im not, PLEASE correct me. You
watched the bomobos for two hours or 120 minutes. Im assuming that for this
WHOLE two hours, the apes were awake, right? But how much of the time were
they "moving around" instead of sitting or lounging. . . . Oh, nevermind,
lets just say that these were bonobos on amphetimines and were active for
the eitire 30 minutes during each of the four observing sessions. Using
your own numbers now, 0.4% of this would be 0.004 * 120 minutes or 0.48
minutes (or 28.8 SECONDS) that the apes were in water. Of that time, the
bonobo would have been standing erect 26.2 seconds. Now I can hold my
breath for 26.2 seconds with absolutely NO resort to any natural adaptation
for holding my breath, soI could "Swim" fo this period of time even with
rocks in my pockets. Where would there be ANY incentive to "adapt" to this
water borne 26.2 seconds ever two hours?
Lets see now if I got it right. . . .
2 hrs = 120 minutes
0.004 X 120 = 0.48 minutes
0.48 * 60 = 28.8 seconds (total time in water over 2 hrs)
28.8 * .91 = 26.208 seconds
Yep, looks really close to me.
> I have never pretended that the bonobos spent very long in water,
> merely that when they are there they are almost exclusively bipedal.
> The implication from this seems pretty clear to me - that if a group
> of apes was exposed to such a habitat that regular wading was required
> they would be likely to adopt bipedal locomotion very regularly and
> that such traits that favoured this would rapidly be selected for.
>
But you see that is just a hypothesis supported by another hypothesis!
OBVIOUSLY if there were a significant benefit to wading bipedally, the apes
would gradually adapt. The PROBLEM is what form would that adaptation take.
For example, of all OTHER semi-aquatic creatures, how may have adopted a
bipedal posture to support their wading? Wading birds have in fact evolved
LONGER legs, but they were bipedal a long time before they had long legs.
Look at the hominid "adaptations" claimed to be indisputable traceable to an
aquatic ape. What would have been the effect of those adaptations on the
99.636 % of the time (based on your own study) where they were NOT needed?
Now, on the other hand, IF these adaptations were ADVANTAGEOUS in those
other modes of bonobo-dom, well, the numbers would be working strongly
against you! A trait advantageous in 99.6 % of the bonobo's movements would
HARDLY require an aquatic input to be selected! 8-)
The "box" is getting a bit snug I fear! 8-)
> I dispute that absolute time doing something is the only measure that
> counts. Apes spend more than half of their lives sleeping, after all.
> The importance is skewed by how much a particular behaviour may help
> it survive. I would argue that in habitats where a putative
> semi-aquatic ape had to regularly cross waist deep water the ability
> to wade bipedally would be a bit of a life saver.
>
We discounted sleeping. . . . How much of the two hours of observation
time were the bonobos sacked out?
> Algis Kuliukas
>
> PS
>
> Found any swimming chimps yet?
Glad to see that YOU have not forgotten. I havent and google.com wont!
8-))
Keep me honest now. . . . . Wouldnt want me to sneak something by you now
would we? 8-)
Regards
bk
Algis Kuliukas
> >> May seem like Im just being a bit of a stickler, but having just recently
> >> had the need to read over the thesis requirements for Johns Hopkins Masters
> >> programs, cant imagine how you requirements would have been much different.
> >> 8-)
> >
> > No you're not being a stickler. I was very keen to stress this point
> > myself in my thesis.
> >
>
> And that point is. . . . . . . You see MY point was that an adaptation
> must have a "forcing function". For example, a moose spends some percentage
> of its time swimming rivers, bays and ponds here in the north country, but
> has just about zero adaptations for swimming. It spends quite a bit of its
> time wading and has some very significant adaptations (when compared to
> large mule deer or elk that survive in much dryer climates.) BRIEF
> exposures, even if critical to survival, i.e. to escape forest fires,
> wolves, or humans, to a SWIMMING need, just has not effected the moose,
> while less "traumatic" but consistent exposure to an evolutionary incentive
> have given moose very long legs and "snowshoe" feet!
Fine. It's a balancing act, of course it is. If a group of forest
dwelling apes found themselves isolated by a significant bosy of water
- say a swamp - then that introduces a new selective pressure that
wasn't there before. My argument is that this new pressure would tend
to make them more bipedal because they would ocassionally have to
wade. Traits that supported orthograde posture and bipedl locomotion
would be selected for, no matter how rarely they were done, but the
more 'extreme' the aquatic pressure (e.g. the sparser the trees, the
wider the stretches of water) the more quickly these traits would
evolve. Of course, if they still lived in trees - which is the model I
am suggesting - other traits for climbing will also continue to be
selected for and a kind of equilibrium between competing requirements
will arise.
> > I did two types of study - one focal, where I just followed an
> > individual around whatever they did and wherever they went for 30
> > minute slots. This is the only type that matters for the kind of data
> > you want. In fact it is precisely for that reason - to be clear how
> > little time the bonobos spent in water - that I did it. The other kind
> > was simply looking out for those rare ocassions when they did go into
> > the water to see how they behaved - which I used only to get a more
> > accurate assessment of what they did when they were in water.
> >
> > I stress, from slightly over two hours of pure focal studies only, the
> > data was as follows...
> >
>
> You based this all on four 30-minute sessions of observation? At least you
> did get real data, but with that incredibly small sample, what is your
> confidence that the data applies to more than the one bonobo (who might have
> been a veritable Johnny Weismiller, Mark Spitz to the younger crew, amongst
> simians!)
I accept 30 minute sessions are not long. Hunt used 2-minutes sessions
but I was short of time and was a masters student, not a professional
with a big fat grant. My confidence that the data was right came from
talking to other students who had been studying them for months. One
such guy, Marten, said that they regularly go into the water -
practically every day. My figures seemed to be fairly typical of the
general pattern of behaviour. I certainly wasn't hiding the fact that
they spend percentage wise very little time in the water.
Again, you miss the point. The fact that bonobos or chimps rarely go
into water is really quite irrelevant. The fact which is significant
here is simply that they *do* go into water when they have an
incentive to do so and when they do they do so bipedally. Now if we
are discussing possible reasons for the earliest bipeds, it is
reasonable (and probably the best possible method) to look at extant
apes to see which situations they are bipedal.
Hunt found 97 incidents of bipedalism in 700 hours of continual
observation. I found 137 in about four hours. The difference being
probably due to the fact that the bonobos I studied were captive and
had learned to perform an upright 'begging' behaviour. Still, the
point is if you are criticising my approach of infering anything from
this data you must also dismiss Hunt's work too. I think it is one of
the most insightful approaches.
> > I have never pretended that the bonobos spent very long in water,
> > merely that when they are there they are almost exclusively bipedal.
> > The implication from this seems pretty clear to me - that if a group
> > of apes was exposed to such a habitat that regular wading was required
> > they would be likely to adopt bipedal locomotion very regularly and
> > that such traits that favoured this would rapidly be selected for.
> >
>
> But you see that is just a hypothesis supported by another hypothesis!
> OBVIOUSLY if there were a significant benefit to wading bipedally, the apes
> would gradually adapt. The PROBLEM is what form would that adaptation take.
> For example, of all OTHER semi-aquatic creatures, how may have adopted a
> bipedal posture to support their wading? Wading birds have in fact evolved
> LONGER legs, but they were bipedal a long time before they had long legs.
We evolved from apes, Bob. Remember that. So the only comparisons that
matter here are those with primates.
> Look at the hominid "adaptations" claimed to be indisputable traceable to an
> aquatic ape. What would have been the effect of those adaptations on the
> 99.636 % of the time (based on your own study) where they were NOT needed?
> Now, on the other hand, IF these adaptations were ADVANTAGEOUS in those
> other modes of bonobo-dom, well, the numbers would be working strongly
> against you! A trait advantageous in 99.6 % of the bonobo's movements would
> HARDLY require an aquatic input to be selected! 8-)
>
> The "box" is getting a bit snug I fear! 8-)
When they were not in water, they were probably safe. If they weren't
they'd get up in the trees. So their climbing traits would continue to
be selected for as before - no contradiction. But the only 'new'
pressure would be that provided by water - hence wading, hence
bipedality.
> > I dispute that absolute time doing something is the only measure that
> > counts. Apes spend more than half of their lives sleeping, after all.
> > The importance is skewed by how much a particular behaviour may help
> > it survive. I would argue that in habitats where a putative
> > semi-aquatic ape had to regularly cross waist deep water the ability
> > to wade bipedally would be a bit of a life saver.
> >
> We discounted sleeping. . . . How much of the two hours of observation
> time were the bonobos sacked out?
None. I only observed active bonobos. If they fell asleep (which did
happen once) I stopped the focal study and started observing another
instead.
But answer the point - if the amount of time spent doing a certain
behaviour was the only factor that we needed to consider then sleeping
would be the number one behaviour being selected for.
> > Found any swimming chimps yet?
>
> Glad to see that YOU have not forgotten. I havent and google.com wont!
> 8-))
>
> Keep me honest now. . . . . Wouldnt want me to sneak something by you now
> would we? 8-)
So, do you give up on that idea? Are you ready to accept that there is
something interesting about humans and their nearest relative whenit
comes to their relative abilities in water? If so how do you explain
the fact that since the lca of Pan/Homo - say 5.5 mya - something
happenned to our ancestors that made us good at wading, swimming and
diving and something whilst something happenned to theirs that made
them able to wade but not swim and not dive?
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
Good question. The moat has been designed with safety of the apes as a
paramount concern. Therefore it starts shallow all the way around. In
every case of bipedal wading I saw they could certainly have gone in
on all fours - the water was shallow enough for that.
Remember they've been living there for years - some of them for their
whole lives.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
See the reply to Bob Keeter's posting. The time spent in water versus
on land is not the point. The significant thing is that the *do* go in
the water when they have an incentive to do so and when they do they
do so bipedally - almost exclusively.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
See the reply to Bob Keeter's posting. The time spent in water versus
Bob Keeter
Snippage. . . . . . .
>>
>> You based this all on four 30-minute sessions of observation? At least you
>> did get real data, but with that incredibly small sample, what is your
>> confidence that the data applies to more than the one bonobo (who might have
>> been a veritable Johnny Weismiller, Mark Spitz to the younger crew, amongst
>> simians!)
>
> I accept 30 minute sessions are not long. Hunt used 2-minutes sessions
> but I was short of time and was a masters student, not a professional
> with a big fat grant. My confidence that the data was right came from
> talking to other students who had been studying them for months. One
> such guy, Marten, said that they regularly go into the water -
> practically every day. My figures seemed to be fairly typical of the
> general pattern of behaviour. I certainly wasn't hiding the fact that
> they spend percentage wise very little time in the water.
>
OK. Lets address this from a different angle. Do wilderbeast have a
compelling reason to go into the water, one that would "select" for the best
adapted swimmers? True its not ALL that frequently that they actually have
to exercise their swimming capability, but several times each year, on their
migrations during the rainy season, they are forced to ford/swim every
single flood-enhanced river that they come to. The effacy of the
"selection" process can be proven by the piles of wilderbeast carcasses, the
smiley-faced Nile crocs, and all of those National Geographic TV specials!
Do we have any real, meaningful "adaptations" to an aquatic environment
amongst wilderbeasts? No "webbed" hooves, no "diving response", no
"floatation fat layer"? The thing MIGHT be that even though the
selection/elimination process can be pretty drastic, its just not effective
im forcing the change!
Snippage. . . . .
>> 2 hrs = 120 minutes
>> 0.004 X 120 = 0.48 minutes
>> 0.48 * 60 = 28.8 seconds (total time in water over 2 hrs)
>> 28.8 * .91 = 26.208 seconds
>>
>> Yep, looks really close to me.
>
> Again, you miss the point. The fact that bonobos or chimps rarely go
> into water is really quite irrelevant. The fact which is significant
> here is simply that they *do* go into water when they have an
> incentive to do so and when they do they do so bipedally. Now if we
> are discussing possible reasons for the earliest bipeds, it is
> reasonable (and probably the best possible method) to look at extant
> apes to see which situations they are bipedal.
>
OK. Now THAT is a fair question! ". . . see which situations they are
bipedal. . . ." Hummmmmmmmm. OK, what percentage of the time that chimps
are using "clubs" are they bipedal? Not carrying around the tree limbs, but
actually USING the clubs? Now cant argue that clubbing a leopard or
braining a monkey for food is not contributing to the survival of the
species now can we? Dont even have to hypothesize some diet that just isnt
seen amongst "extant apes" or ANYTHING! Matter of fact, dont have to
hypothesize any behavior, because the "total story" is readily observable!
Admittedly, only a small portion of a chimp's life is spent using a club
(but you already pointed out, debatably, that the actual time spent is not
the issue!). Would a bipedal chimp, bringing down a sturdy tree limb on the
head of a marauding leopard enhance his chances of passing on the genes that
gave him the ability to stand on two legs and swing with both arms instead
of only one? Would a bipedal chimp, using a club to secure meat during the
"off season" or a drought be more likely to father a bunch of little apelets
than the one that starved? Could those influences be more significant than
wading around a swamp? Guess we both can agree to disagree, huh? 8-)
> Hunt found 97 incidents of bipedalism in 700 hours of continual
> observation. I found 137 in about four hours. The difference being
> probably due to the fact that the bonobos I studied were captive and
> had learned to perform an upright 'begging' behaviour. Still, the
> point is if you are criticising my approach of infering anything from
> this data you must also dismiss Hunt's work too. I think it is one of
> the most insightful approaches.
>
Again, let me state what I "THINK" I heard you say. These bonobos that you
observed for two hours were CAPTIVE apes, with a very artificially "learned"
begging behavior that drew them into the water? So then, if I can find a
picture of a trained chimp dog-paddling in his trainers swimming pool you
will abandon the idea that there is a fundamental physical difference in
apes aquatic abilities and humans? i.e. that there is no fundamental
aquatic adaptation on the part of humans over apes?
8-) You see, I have NOT forgotten! Just did not know that "trained"
behaviors were fair game, but then if your hypothesis is BASED on a
trained/learned behavior, guess my counter can be as well, right? ;-)
Since a human is at least argueably more able to "learn" a different
behavior, is there just a chance that Mark Spitz's successes were based upon
a) competing against other, non-aquatic-adapted humans and not seals, and
b) a leaned skill, perfected with a great deal of practice and a basic
athletic ability?
>>> I have never pretended that the bonobos spent very long in water,
>>> merely that when they are there they are almost exclusively bipedal.
>>> The implication from this seems pretty clear to me - that if a group
>>> of apes was exposed to such a habitat that regular wading was required
>>> they would be likely to adopt bipedal locomotion very regularly and
>>> that such traits that favoured this would rapidly be selected for.
>>>
>>
>> But you see that is just a hypothesis supported by another hypothesis!
>> OBVIOUSLY if there were a significant benefit to wading bipedally, the apes
>> would gradually adapt. The PROBLEM is what form would that adaptation take.
>> For example, of all OTHER semi-aquatic creatures, how may have adopted a
>> bipedal posture to support their wading? Wading birds have in fact evolved
>> LONGER legs, but they were bipedal a long time before they had long legs.
>
> We evolved from apes, Bob. Remember that. So the only comparisons that
> matter here are those with primates.
>
But you see, that is a very dangerous logical progression. If we throw out
all of the indisputably, observably aquatic species, how do we know WHAT
characteristics constitute "aquatic adaptations"! The ONLY semi-aquatic apes
are the Japanese Snow Monkies and you have already said that we can not
really consider them, as well as truely aquatic adapted animals such as
otters, beavers, ducks, swans, flamingos, and even the blue-footed boobie,
as examples of a pre-hominid aquatic ape or as examples of aquatic
adaptation! Its those tie-ins to the "real world" that always make theory
forging so tough! If it dont match the real world, is it a theory that
everyone is just predjudiced against or is it fantasy! 8-)
>> Look at the hominid "adaptations" claimed to be indisputable traceable to an
>> aquatic ape. What would have been the effect of those adaptations on the
>> 99.636 % of the time (based on your own study) where they were NOT needed?
>> Now, on the other hand, IF these adaptations were ADVANTAGEOUS in those
>> other modes of bonobo-dom, well, the numbers would be working strongly
>> against you! A trait advantageous in 99.6 % of the bonobo's movements would
>> HARDLY require an aquatic input to be selected! 8-)
>>
>> The "box" is getting a bit snug I fear! 8-)
>
> When they were not in water, they were probably safe. If they weren't
> they'd get up in the trees. So their climbing traits would continue to
> be selected for as before - no contradiction. But the only 'new'
> pressure would be that provided by water - hence wading, hence
> bipedality.
>
Are there ANY other drivers that we might insert around some of those
"hences"? Are there any OTHER possibilities? If there are, then we have to
resort to PROBABILITIES, and that is where the "What if. . . ." approaches
start to fall on the rocks.
>>> I dispute that absolute time doing something is the only measure that
>>> counts. Apes spend more than half of their lives sleeping, after all.
>>> The importance is skewed by how much a particular behaviour may help
>>> it survive. I would argue that in habitats where a putative
>>> semi-aquatic ape had to regularly cross waist deep water the ability
>>> to wade bipedally would be a bit of a life saver.
>>>
>> We discounted sleeping. . . . How much of the two hours of observation
>> time were the bonobos sacked out?
>
> None. I only observed active bonobos. If they fell asleep (which did
> happen once) I stopped the focal study and started observing another
> instead.
>
Good. At least you had two whole hours of watching active bonobos upon
which to base your total theory of human evolution! 8-)
> But answer the point - if the amount of time spent doing a certain
> behaviour was the only factor that we needed to consider then sleeping
> would be the number one behaviour being selected for.
>
Well, perhaps you may have hit on something there! If sleeping is 1/3 of
the total time, the skills that would allow a bonobo to sleep without
becoming cat food WOULD be very heavily "selected for" on a daily basis!
Now with bonobos, when they sleep (in the wild of course!) does the whole
family group sack out at once or do they put some of the members "on watch"?
sounds like a selection issue for intellect, at least enough for some
cooperative effort in maintaining overwatch. Do they climb up in trees to
sleep? Now we could have a big selection process for retained climbing
capability. And being bipedal for a few seconds while demonstrating a
learned begging behavior in a cage with "water walls" demonstrates that
bonobos must be close relativs to your "aquatic ape"! Perhaps not, huh?
>>> Found any swimming chimps yet?
>>
>> Glad to see that YOU have not forgotten. I havent and google.com wont!
>> 8-))
>>
>> Keep me honest now. . . . . Wouldnt want me to sneak something by you now
>> would we? 8-)
>
> So, do you give up on that idea? Are you ready to accept that there is
> something interesting about humans and their nearest relative whenit
> comes to their relative abilities in water? If so how do you explain
> the fact that since the lca of Pan/Homo - say 5.5 mya - something
> happenned to our ancestors that made us good at wading, swimming and
> diving and something whilst something happenned to theirs that made
> them able to wade but not swim and not dive?
>
Yep, there is something different between apes and humans in terms of the
water. Humans have learned to swim, awkwardly and inefficiently, but still
"swim". Just like your bonobos had learned to wade bipedally and catch
thrown food with their free hands I suppose! Got to wonder if the need to
catch the treats was a bigger influence not just on their wading behavior
but also on their bipedal posture! Hummmmmmmmm, gotta say Hmmmmmmm just a
couple of more times! ;-))
Was it more important to "stand erect" in the water because they were in the
water or because they wanted to catch the thrown food?
Regards
bk
Algis Kuliukas
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3C66F6E0...@hotMOVEmail.com...
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Agreed. For my masters thesis I found that whereas captive bonobos at
> > > Planckendael were bipedal about 3% of the time when terrestrial (even
> > > less whilst arboreal) they were bipedal over 90% of the time whilst in
> > > water. I'd say that was a pretty big factor. Put it this way can you
> > > give me any other situation where you could predict, with absolute
> > > confidence, that an ape would be bipedal other than in waist deep
> > > water?
> >
> > The real question: what is the percentage of time spent on land and
> > what percentage in water?
> >
> > I confidently predict
> >
> > time on land >>>>>> time in water
> >
> > Do you have those percentages?
>
> Deja-Vu? Algis doesn't want to answer this question.
I did answer the question and I'll give you any further information
you want.
> Nor will he say if he has taken any research design classes
I did take a class. Volker Sommer, primatologist, took us through how
to do focal studies. I also read most of Altmann's 40 page manual
about these techniques on which Hunt and later Videan & McGrew based
their papers, which I read also. The only place I deviated from their
recommendations was that I decided to record everything on video. This
enabled me to examine the behaviour frame by frame, giving me almost
as many data points from four hours as Hunt had in 700. It also
allowed me to take stills from the actual behaviour being reported,
check identitification and, most importantly, the video footage is
there for anyone to view if they doubt my figures.
> or if he understands the implications of these questions.
The implications are very clear. The origins of bipedalism are still
not understood but despite the fact that we have a plausible,
testable, observable (in extant apes) model it has not even been
considered, let alone properly investigated, simply because it
supports the heretical aquatic ape hypothesis, which must be wong,
right?
> I predict
> we'll get more evasions and some big, blistered whine about
> how misunderstood his "theories" are.
If you call these responses an evasion I doubt that you are capable of
understanding anything.
Algis Kuliukas
Rich Travsky
The time spent in water versus land IS the point. If they spend 98% (or more)
of their time on land, the time in water is insignificant and loses all
importance.
pete
> The time spent in water versus land IS the point.
> If they spend 98% (or more)
> of their time on land,
> the time in water is insignificant and loses all
> importance.
Lemmings spend most of their time on land,
but their time in the water is significant.
A lot of them drown.
--
pete
Richard Wagler
pete wrote:
But have lemmings developed adaptations to deal
with the situation? Do lemmings rush en masse into
the water specifically or do they, on occasion, rush
en masse anywhere at all and sometimes it just happens
to be water? The point Rich is making is that behaviour
that exerts insignificant to non-existent selective pressure
is not going to produce the kind of profound adaptive
response Algis proposes. Bonobos are facultative bipeds.
Which is to say it is an available form of locomotion that
can be used in any number of circumstances. We are
obligate bipeds. It is the way we move in all circumstances.
Human quadrupedalism - crawling on our knees - is profoundly
different from ape quadrupedalism because our limb proportions
are very different. Bonobos are so little the way down the
road to obligate bipedalism that one may question if they are
even on it , which is to say, it does not matter what bonobos do.
Rick Wagler
Algis Kuliukas
> pete wrote:
>
> > Rich Travsky wrote:
> >
> > > The time spent in water versus land IS the point.
> > > If they spend 98% (or more)
> > > of their time on land,
> > > the time in water is insignificant and loses all
> > > importance.
And they spend most of their time spleeping - so presumably that's the
most important behaviour that's being selected for.
How much of your lifetime have you been bashed on the head? A tiny,
tiny fraction - if at all - but once would kill you if it weren't for
the very thick and robust skull you take for granted. How come that
skull evolved? Was it because our ancestors were being bashed on the
head 98% of the time? Or is it because once was enough to kill them
and if it happened before puberty the genes that made such skulls
would be eliminated from the pool?
> > Lemmings spend most of their time on land,
> > but their time in the water is significant.
> > A lot of them drown.
Exactly. The likelihood that the behaviour may cause an individual to
survive or to reproduce massively magnifies its importance. To claim
that just because it doesn't happen very much means it's insignificant
is facile.
> But have lemmings developed adaptations to deal
> with the situation? Do lemmings rush en masse into
> the water specifically or do they, on occasion, rush
> en masse anywhere at all and sometimes it just happens
> to be water? The point Rich is making is that behaviour
> that exerts insignificant to non-existent selective pressure
> is not going to produce the kind of profound adaptive
> response Algis proposes.
If apes inhabited a niche where they had to wade every now and then -
then they would have had an extra selective pressure for bipedalism
that would have been absent if there had been no such water. It's as
simple as that.
> Bonobos are facultative bipeds.
> Which is to say it is an available form of locomotion that
> can be used in any number of circumstances. We are
> obligate bipeds.
Yes but most pas think that oligate bipedalism arose from ancestors
who did so in a facultative way. That's why Hunt's study and Videan &
McGrew's were so interesting. Wading is almost always bipedal in
extant apes and therefore I suggest it is the best model going for
facultative bipedalism.
> It is the way we move in all circumstances.
> Human quadrupedalism - crawling on our knees - is profoundly
> different from ape quadrupedalism because our limb proportions
> are very different. Bonobos are so little the way down the
> road to obligate bipedalism that one may question if they are
> even on it , which is to say, it does not matter what bonobos do.
You assume that. But perhaps they are actually far down the road
_away_ from bipedalism. We just don't know.
The fact is that they (with chimps) are the nearest extant species to
H. sapiens so that makes the factors that lead to their facultative
bipedalism of particular interest. Of course you must dismiss the
bonobo evidence (and that from chimps, gorillas and orang-utans too)
because the fact that wading is the most easily demonstrable model for
facultative bipedalism in extant apes is strong evidence for the
heretical aquatic ape hypothesis - and we just can't have that, can
we?
Algis Kuliukas
Richard Wagler
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3C6BE925...@shaw.ca>...
> > pete wrote:
> >
> > > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > The time spent in water versus land IS the point.
> > > > If they spend 98% (or more)
> > > > of their time on land,
> > > > the time in water is insignificant and loses all
> > > > importance.
>
> And they spend most of their time spleeping - so presumably that's the
> most important behaviour that's being selected for.
Sleeping is a primitive, not a derived trait, in all mammals.
How and where a particular animal sleeps is a behavioral
question not an adaptive one. Hibernation/estivation can, I
think, be regarded as a separtate entity.
>
>
> How much of your lifetime have you been bashed on the head? A tiny,
> tiny fraction - if at all - but once would kill you if it weren't for
> the very thick and robust skull you take for granted. How come that
> skull evolved? Was it because our ancestors were being bashed on the
> head 98% of the time? Or is it because once was enough to kill them
> and if it happened before puberty the genes that made such skulls
> would be eliminated from the pool?
Primitive, not derived. All mammals have extensive bony protection
for the brain. Are human skulls relatively thick/thin relative to nonhuman
primates or other mammals?
>
>
> > > Lemmings spend most of their time on land,
> > > but their time in the water is significant.
> > > A lot of them drown.
>
> Exactly. The likelihood that the behaviour may cause an individual to
> survive or to reproduce massively magnifies its importance. To claim
> that just because it doesn't happen very much means it's insignificant
> is facile.
By this argument you have declared it impossible to detect
selective pressures operating on any organism. Rare and even
singular events happen all the time to all organisms. You still
want profound adaptive responses to insignificant pressure.
>
>
> > But have lemmings developed adaptations to deal
> > with the situation? Do lemmings rush en masse into
> > the water specifically or do they, on occasion, rush
> > en masse anywhere at all and sometimes it just happens
> > to be water? The point Rich is making is that behaviour
> > that exerts insignificant to non-existent selective pressure
> > is not going to produce the kind of profound adaptive
> > response Algis proposes.
>
> If apes inhabited a niche where they had to wade every now and then -
> then they would have had an extra selective pressure for bipedalism
> that would have been absent if there had been no such water. It's as
> simple as that.
Your massive assumption is that wading *has* to be bipedal.
Thee is absolutely no reason to assume this. "Because they can't
swim" simply demostrates how ludicrous this is. All mammals
swim. The exception may be the chimp. *That* is what may
require some special explanation - not human swimming. You
assume the LCA could not swim. Why? Are you assuming the
LCA is identical to modern chimps?
>
>
> > Bonobos are facultative bipeds.
> > Which is to say it is an available form of locomotion that
> > can be used in any number of circumstances. We are
> > obligate bipeds.
>
> Yes but most pas think that oligate bipedalism arose from ancestors
> who did so in a facultative way. That's why Hunt's study and Videan &
> McGrew's were so interesting. Wading is almost always bipedal in
> extant apes and therefore I suggest it is the best model going for
> facultative bipedalism.
Is wading almost 'always bipedal' in modern apes. You
simply ignore field studies that indicate otherwise. Not a
sound procedure in one who would seek to create a
solid foundation for his hypothesis. As for studying chimp
bipedalism one may discern the ways in which the LCA
could not have been simply a chimp or gorilla and that
knuckle-walking is a highly derived form of locomotion.
>
>
> > It is the way we move in all circumstances.
> > Human quadrupedalism - crawling on our knees - is profoundly
> > different from ape quadrupedalism because our limb proportions
> > are very different. Bonobos are so little the way down the
> > road to obligate bipedalism that one may question if they are
> > even on it , which is to say, it does not matter what bonobos do.
>
> You assume that. But perhaps they are actually far down the road
> _away_ from bipedalism. We just don't know.
This is a good point. This may indeed be the case. Bipedalism
has been marked as the defining feature of the hominins but I
wonder? But this does you no good since it removes your
wading hypothesis from consideration since human obligate
bipedalism is good for traveling distances and requires skeletal
reorganization of significant proportion so the weight can be
carried on two legs. Wading is largely postural - getting food-
or involves traveling very short distances - crossing a stream.
And most apes do not go bipedal to do this. They can. But
that's because facultative bipedalism is already present.
>
>
> The fact is that they (with chimps) are the nearest extant species to
> H. sapiens so that makes the factors that lead to their facultative
> bipedalism of particular interest.
How significant is chimp facultative bipedalism? Virtually all
primates are facultative bipeds. It's built into the body plan.
Human bipedalism is derivative of below-branch, slow vertical
climbing - and that has been around for a long time.
> Of course you must dismiss the
> bonobo evidence (and that from chimps, gorillas and orang-utans too)
> because the fact that wading is the most easily demonstrable model for
> facultative bipedalism in extant apes is strong evidence for the
> heretical aquatic ape hypothesis - and we just can't have that, can
> we?
If wading played a role in selecting for facultative bipedalism it
was doing its business on the Omomyids. Your implicit assumption
is that the LCA and the line of hominoid apes leading to it was
a full bore quadruped much like the Cercopithecid monkeys -
who are also facultative bipeds - and this requires demonstration.
Look at modern human bipedalism - how it works and what it
allows Homo sapiens to do. Look at the fossil record and at
the palaeoenvironments of the fossil hominid sites. It's not more
complicated than that. Of course this would involve dealing with
issues of taphonomy and we can't have that, can we?
Rick Wagler
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> > Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3C6BE925...@shaw.ca>...
> > > pete wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The time spent in water versus land IS the point.
> > > > > If they spend 98% (or more)
> > > > > of their time on land,
> > > > > the time in water is insignificant and loses all
> > > > > importance.
> >
> > And they spend most of their time spleeping - so presumably that's the
> > most important behaviour that's being selected for.
>
> Sleeping is a primitive, not a derived trait, in all mammals.
Agreed, altough i'm not sure that that helps your arguemnt.
> How and where a particular animal sleeps is a behavioral
> question not an adaptive one. Hibernation/estivation can, I
> think, be regarded as a separtate entity.
I think you're right about this. I only threw in the sleeping as an
extreme example of the traits-mist-be-time-related viewpoint.
> >
> > How much of your lifetime have you been bashed on the head? A tiny,
> > tiny fraction - if at all - but once would kill you if it weren't for
> > the very thick and robust skull you take for granted. How come that
> > skull evolved? Was it because our ancestors were being bashed on the
> > head 98% of the time? Or is it because once was enough to kill them
> > and if it happened before puberty the genes that made such skulls
> > would be eliminated from the pool?
>
> Primitive, not derived.
So what? The trait must have evolved at some point. Are you suggesting
that when it did evolve their possesors animals needed them because
they were getting bashed on the head 98% of the day. And that, even
though that is no longer the case, the expensive robust skull remained
as a ancestral legacy from the old head-hitting days?
> All mammals have extensive bony protection
> for the brain. Are human skulls relatively thick/thin relative to nonhuman
> primates or other mammals?
The point is this. If you are arguing that traits that helped apes
wade bipedally could not have resulted *because* they didn't spend
enough *time* in the water, how can you accept that thick skulls ever
evolved and remained selected for ever since?
> > > > Lemmings spend most of their time on land,
> > > > but their time in the water is significant.
> > > > A lot of them drown.
> >
> > Exactly. The likelihood that the behaviour may cause an individual to
> > survive or to reproduce massively magnifies its importance. To claim
> > that just because it doesn't happen very much means it's insignificant
> > is facile.
>
> By this argument you have declared it impossible to detect
> selective pressures operating on any organism. Rare and even
> singular events happen all the time to all organisms. You still
> want profound adaptive responses to insignificant pressure.
It's a balancing act. As Dawkins puts it - a species is an averaging
computer showing, through its phenotype the average habitat of its
ancestors. Something that was extremely lethal - like a blow to the
head - would evolve traits even if the likelihood was very rare.
Something that was risky but usually safe - like wading - would exerpt
less pressure but if the frequency of the wading events was great
enough it would exerpt a pressure all the same.
> >
> >
> > > But have lemmings developed adaptations to deal
> > > with the situation? Do lemmings rush en masse into
> > > the water specifically or do they, on occasion, rush
> > > en masse anywhere at all and sometimes it just happens
> > > to be water? The point Rich is making is that behaviour
> > > that exerts insignificant to non-existent selective pressure
> > > is not going to produce the kind of profound adaptive
> > > response Algis proposes.
> >
> > If apes inhabited a niche where they had to wade every now and then -
> > then they would have had an extra selective pressure for bipedalism
> > that would have been absent if there had been no such water. It's as
> > simple as that.
>
> Your massive assumption is that wading *has* to be bipedal.
> Thee is absolutely no reason to assume this.
> "Because they can't
> swim" simply demostrates how ludicrous this is. All mammals
> swim. The exception may be the chimp. *That* is what may
> require some special explanation - not human swimming. You
> assume the LCA could not swim. Why? Are you assuming the
> LCA is identical to modern chimps?
The evidence from extant apes suggests this is this is the case. Even
gorillas, who can swim, tend to wade unless the water is too deep. And
of course, so do humans.
Its the juxtaposition ( in relation to their cladistics) of
chimp/bonobo and human abilities in water that is so striking and
demands an explanation. But it's not just chimps anyway. Orang-utans
are also poor and gorillas are nowhere near as good as we are.
Actually I assume (based on parsimony) that the lca was rather like
the gorilla - in terms of aquatic abilities. From that point chimps
became less aquatic and we became more aquatic. Whatever you think
about all this water was clearly involved somewhere. It is the fact
that the aqua-sceptics continue to deny that it could possible have
been is the only thing that is odd about the concept.
> > > Bonobos are facultative bipeds.
> > > Which is to say it is an available form of locomotion that
> > > can be used in any number of circumstances. We are
> > > obligate bipeds.
> >
> > Yes but most pas think that oligate bipedalism arose from ancestors
> > who did so in a facultative way. That's why Hunt's study and Videan &
> > McGrew's were so interesting. Wading is almost always bipedal in
> > extant apes and therefore I suggest it is the best model going for
> > facultative bipedalism.
>
> Is wading almost 'always bipedal' in modern apes.
It is another example of facultative bipedalism. They commonly use
other examples, such as carrying food or branches, climbing, foraging
bushes, posturing etc. etc. So, are you saying that wading doesn't
count as one such model? On what basis? Because it involves water?
> You
> simply ignore field studies that indicate otherwise. Not a
> sound procedure in one who would seek to create a
> solid foundation for his hypothesis.
> As for studying chimp
> bipedalism one may discern the ways in which the LCA
> could not have been simply a chimp or gorilla and that
> knuckle-walking is a highly derived form of locomotion.
What are you on about? Hunt's paper is one of the most respected in
the field in this area and nobody criticised him for looking for
analogues of bipedalism in extant apes. I know. It's because I've used
his methods but looked at the efefct of water, isn't it? Sorry i
should have remembered - any study looking at the effects of water
must be bad science.
> > > It is the way we move in all circumstances.
> > > Human quadrupedalism - crawling on our knees - is profoundly
> > > different from ape quadrupedalism because our limb proportions
> > > are very different. Bonobos are so little the way down the
> > > road to obligate bipedalism that one may question if they are
> > > even on it , which is to say, it does not matter what bonobos do.
> >
> > You assume that. But perhaps they are actually far down the road
> > _away_ from bipedalism. We just don't know.
>
> This is a good point. This may indeed be the case. Bipedalism
> has been marked as the defining feature of the hominins but I
> wonder? But this does you no good since it removes your
> wading hypothesis from consideration since human obligate
> bipedalism is good for traveling distances and requires skeletal
> reorganization of significant proportion so the weight can be
> carried on two legs.
It does the wading origins hypothesis a power of good, actually.
Because it is the best model that explains how the lca was bipedal
already in the context of the habitats that they probably lived in -
wet and wooded.
> Wading is largely postural - getting food-
> or involves traveling very short distances - crossing a stream.
> And most apes do not go bipedal to do this. They can. But
> that's because facultative bipedalism is already present.
You simply ignore the facts. "Most apes do not go bipedal"? If you are
talking about western lowland gorillas in water that is centimetres
deep then I would say you have a point but for all other apes in
deeper water they almost exclusively wade bipedally. If you decide to
just ignore the facts that contradict your ideas then there is not
much point discussing these matters.
> > The fact is that they (with chimps) are the nearest extant species to
> > H. sapiens so that makes the factors that lead to their facultative
> > bipedalism of particular interest.
>
> How significant is chimp facultative bipedalism? Virtually all
> primates are facultative bipeds. It's built into the body plan.
> Human bipedalism is derivative of below-branch, slow vertical
> climbing - and that has been around for a long time.
The significance for me is that it is rare on land - about 2%. It is
rare in trees - about 2% of the time spent there. But in water it is
the opposite - over 90% of the time. Ignore that fact if you want but
sooner or later the scientific community will have to take it's
significance on board.
> > Of course you must dismiss the
> > bonobo evidence (and that from chimps, gorillas and orang-utans too)
> > because the fact that wading is the most easily demonstrable model for
> > facultative bipedalism in extant apes is strong evidence for the
> > heretical aquatic ape hypothesis - and we just can't have that, can
> > we?
>
> If wading played a role in selecting for facultative bipedalism it
> was doing its business on the Omomyids. Your implicit assumption
> is that the LCA and the line of hominoid apes leading to it was
> a full bore quadruped much like the Cercopithecid monkeys -
> who are also facultative bipeds - and this requires demonstration.
No I don't. Not at all. My assumption about the LCA is based on Marc
Verhaegen's concept of an aquarboreal (climbing-wading) ancestor
actually. I've been posting this regularly enough.
> Look at modern human bipedalism - how it works and what it
> allows Homo sapiens to do. Look at the fossil record and at
> the palaeoenvironments of the fossil hominid sites. It's not more
> complicated than that. Of course this would involve dealing with
> issues of taphonomy and we can't have that, can we?
Modern Homo sapiens is clearly a fully terrestrial biped. I have never
disputed that. It is the origin of bipedalism that I am speculating
about.
Algis Kuliukas
pete
> The point is this. If you are arguing that traits that helped apes
> wade bipedally could not have resulted *because* they didn't spend
> enough *time* in the water, how can you accept that thick skulls ever
> evolved and remained selected for ever since?
Modern skulls are not as thick as ancient ones.
--
pete
Rich Travsky
> [...]
> The point is this. If you are arguing that traits that helped apes
> wade bipedally could not have resulted *because* they didn't spend
> enough *time* in the water, how can you accept that thick skulls ever
> evolved and remained selected for ever since?
Thick skulls - red herring. Thick skulls make good foundations for
large muscle attachments. If you look at human development, skulls
have gotten thinner and muscle attachment points have diminished.
The skulls have gotten thinner right when we need them the most, for
protecting the enlarged brain.
> [...]
> The significance for me is that it is rare on land - about 2%. It is
> rare in trees - about 2% of the time spent there. But in water it is
> the opposite - over 90% of the time. Ignore that fact if you want but
> sooner or later the scientific community will have to take it's
> significance on board.
Unless you can give the amount of time spent in water versus time spent
on land, your observation is meaningless. Ninety percent of ten minutes
once in a while versus two percent of the rest of the time makes it
pretty clear cut how insignificant the water time is.
Can you give figures showing how often they're in the water? Once a day?
Every other day? Twice a week? At what age do they go into water? Is mostly
males or both sexes equally? Have you even bothered to consider such
questions???
> [...]
Algis Kuliukas
Thanks. This is consistant with my point. If being beaten around the
head became less likely then one would predict that natural selection
would place fewer respurces into building thick skulls.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > [...]
> > The point is this. If you are arguing that traits that helped apes
> > wade bipedally could not have resulted *because* they didn't spend
> > enough *time* in the water, how can you accept that thick skulls ever
> > evolved and remained selected for ever since?
>
> Thick skulls - red herring. Thick skulls make good foundations for
> large muscle attachments. If you look at human development, skulls
> have gotten thinner and muscle attachment points have diminished.
> The skulls have gotten thinner right when we need them the most, for
> protecting the enlarged brain.
No its the large brain which is a red herring. You need protection
against a blow to the brain, no matter how big it is. An ant with a
crushed brain is just as dead as a Nobel prize winner. I suspect the
reason for the reduction in skull thickness is because a) We learned
new ways of killing people (spears/knives etc) rather than
(presumably) just bashing them over the head and b) (more
controversially) We became slightly more civilised and peaceful to
each other as time went on.
> > [...]
> > The significance for me is that it is rare on land - about 2%. It is
> > rare in trees - about 2% of the time spent there. But in water it is
> > the opposite - over 90% of the time. Ignore that fact if you want but
> > sooner or later the scientific community will have to take it's
> > significance on board.
>
> Unless you can give the amount of time spent in water versus time spent
> on land, your observation is meaningless. Ninety percent of ten minutes
> once in a while versus two percent of the rest of the time makes it
> pretty clear cut how insignificant the water time is.
I've given that figure - in the reply to Bob Keeter. It's no secret
that the amount of time in water I observed in bonobos amounted to
less than one minute out of about four hours.
But you (willfully?) miss the point, which is that in a water-side
habitat a putative semi-aquatic ape would be exposed to the need to
wade far more than that - providing a very compelling incentive to get
upright and bipedal and a pretty clear selection pressure for it. I'd
say that wading was a far more compelling reason than any of the other
terrestrial/arboreal models published to date.
> Can you give figures showing how often they're in the water? Once a day?
It very much depended on the visitors. It was a behaviour that could
theoretically be induced at will. If someonw threw a tempting piece of
food into the moat they would go in and get it - practically every
time (unless it was too far into the moat - where it got pretty deep).
The practice is clearly discouraged by the park keepers at
Planckendael but when there are large groups of children present it is
not long before some bright spark starts to do it.
> Every other day? Twice a week?
One guy who had been studying a mature female for two months told me
that some of the them (the dominant females usually) tend to do it at
least once a day (I suspect far more on average). Some of the males
don't bother - but only because they know the females would fight them
for the food they salvaged.
> At what age do they go into water?
The youngest I saw was a male called Reddy (born 1990) but the really
young ones tend to avoid it, although they seem to be fascinated by
water and are very keen to climb on mum's back whilst she wades.
> Is mostly males or both sexes equally?
It's mostly females but that's because of their dominance. Males will
do it too when no-one's looking.
> Have you even bothered to consider such
> questions???
Yes I have.
Why are you so dismissive of the idea and presuming of my lack of
scientific objectivity? Could it be just because I've found some
evidence that favours the AAH?
Algis Kuliukas
Bob Keeter
al...@RiverApes.com wrote on 2/17/02 7:27 PM:
Does this mean that ALL AAT believers inherently have thick skulls?
Ba-da-BING!!
Sorry, not even Grocho in his prime could resist such a "set up"
Regards
bk
Rich Travsky
I saw those numbers, is that for one observation session? An average
for ALL sessions? What?
> But you (willfully?) miss the point, which is that in a water-side
> habitat a putative semi-aquatic ape would be exposed to the need to
> wade far more than that - providing a very compelling incentive to get
> upright and bipedal and a pretty clear selection pressure for it. I'd
> say that wading was a far more compelling reason than any of the other
> terrestrial/arboreal models published to date.
As you say yourself, they rarely go in the water. Again, uncompelling.
> > Can you give figures showing how often they're in the water? Once a day?
>
> It very much depended on the visitors. It was a behaviour that could
> theoretically be induced at will. If someonw threw a tempting piece of
> food into the moat they would go in and get it - practically every
> time (unless it was too far into the moat - where it got pretty deep).
> The practice is clearly discouraged by the park keepers at
> Planckendael but when there are large groups of children present it is
> not long before some bright spark starts to do it.
It depended on the visitors????? Only when someone threw food in the
water??? And that was discouraged by the keepers?
And this is your DATA???? Artificial learned behavior?
> > Every other day? Twice a week?
>
> One guy who had been studying a mature female for two months told me
> that some of the them (the dominant females usually) tend to do it at
> least once a day (I suspect far more on average). Some of the males
> don't bother - but only because they know the females would fight them
> for the food they salvaged.
Only "some" and apparently only once a day. And males don't want to
because the females would fight. Very compelling. Not.
> > At what age do they go into water?
>
> The youngest I saw was a male called Reddy (born 1990) but the really
How old? What about the others?
> young ones tend to avoid it, although they seem to be fascinated by
> water and are very keen to climb on mum's back whilst she wades.
Young ones avoid it. And if people didn't throw food in the water
they'd never go in?
> > Is mostly males or both sexes equally?
>
> It's mostly females but that's because of their dominance. Males will
> do it too when no-one's looking.
Mostly females do it and the males only if no female is watching. Why don't
you break your numbers down by age and gender?
> > Have you even bothered to consider such
> > questions???
>
> Yes I have.
>
> Why are you so dismissive of the idea and presuming of my lack of
> scientific objectivity? Could it be just because I've found some
> evidence that favours the AAH?
Ye gads, the animals have to be bribed to go in the water, and it's
an activity you say is rare!
This is evidence???
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C6F119E...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > The point is this. If you are arguing that traits that helped apes
> > > wade bipedally could not have resulted *because* they didn't spend
> > > enough *time* in the water, how can you accept that thick skulls ever
> > > evolved and remained selected for ever since?
> >
> > Thick skulls - red herring. Thick skulls make good foundations for
> > large muscle attachments. If you look at human development, skulls
> > have gotten thinner and muscle attachment points have diminished.
> > The skulls have gotten thinner right when we need them the most, for
> > protecting the enlarged brain.
>
> No its the large brain which is a red herring. You need protection
> against a blow to the brain, no matter how big it is. An ant with a
> crushed brain is just as dead as a Nobel prize winner. I suspect the
> reason for the reduction in skull thickness is because a) We learned
> new ways of killing people (spears/knives etc) rather than
> (presumably) just bashing them over the head and b) (more
> controversially) We became slightly more civilised and peaceful to
> each other as time went on.
You say we need protection to protect the brain, yet ignore the fact
that we need it more than ever to protect that brain. The statement
that thickness reduced because of more efficient means of killing
is nonsensical. Why would a more efficient weapon mean a reduction
in skull thickness?
The evolutionary trend is unmistakenly towards thinner skulls as
the brain got bigger. A large brain and a thick skull would be a
lot of weight. It would require stronger necks. Plus, cooling of
the brain is more easily handled with a thinner skull.
The lessening of muscle attachments also indicates a change of diet.
And the cultural evidence is strongly against the "more civilised and
peaceful to each other as time went on" scenario.
The iceman is now known to have been shot in the back with an arrow,
and scalping is now known from 2500 years ago
(http://www.sciencenews.org/20020209/note11ref.asp)
And you only have to look at, say, Egyptian history to see evidence of
early organized warfare.
> [...]
Algis Kuliukas
No, the opposite. We're not as dense as the rest.
Algis Kuliukas
Richard Wagler
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> t.
>
> > >
> > > How much of your lifetime have you been bashed on the head? A tiny,
> > > tiny fraction - if at all - but once would kill you if it weren't for
> > > the very thick and robust skull you take for granted. How come that
> > > skull evolved? Was it because our ancestors were being bashed on the
> > > head 98% of the time? Or is it because once was enough to kill them
> > > and if it happened before puberty the genes that made such skulls
> > > would be eliminated from the pool?
> >
> > Primitive, not derived.
>
> So what? The trait must have evolved at some point. Are you suggesting
> that when it did evolve their possesors animals needed them because
> they were getting bashed on the head 98% of the day. And that, even
> though that is no longer the case, the expensive robust skull remained
> as a ancestral legacy from the old head-hitting days?
You introduced the notion of the skull being evolved to deal
with episodes of head-bashing. This is a nonsensical way to
make the point that the skeloton provides a dandy way to
provide protection to vulnerable organs as well as allowing
a place to anchor large masses of soft tissue thus allowing
vertebrates to become very big relative to invertebrates the
vast majority of which are very small.So, no, the skull did
not evolve to counter head-bashing any more than bipedal
wading evolved to forestall drowning.
>
>
> > All mammals have extensive bony protection
> > for the brain. Are human skulls relatively thick/thin relative to nonhuman
> > primates or other mammals?
>
> The point is this. If you are arguing that traits that helped apes
> wade bipedally could not have resulted *because* they didn't spend
> enough *time* in the water, how can you accept that thick skulls ever
> evolved and remained selected for ever since?
Because I don't accept your silly scenario for skull evolution. I
would say that the apes did not evolve bipedal wading to deal
with water because it is an inept response to a dangerous set
of circumstances ie a non-swimmer in deep water.
>
>
> > > > > Lemmings spend most of their time on land,
> > > > > but their time in the water is significant.
> > > > > A lot of them drown.
> > >
> > > Exactly. The likelihood that the behaviour may cause an individual to
> > > survive or to reproduce massively magnifies its importance. To claim
> > > that just because it doesn't happen very much means it's insignificant
> > > is facile.
> >
> > By this argument you have declared it impossible to detect
> > selective pressures operating on any organism. Rare and even
> > singular events happen all the time to all organisms. You still
> > want profound adaptive responses to insignificant pressure.
>
> It's a balancing act. As Dawkins puts it - a species is an averaging
> computer showing, through its phenotype the average habitat of its
> ancestors. Something that was extremely lethal - like a blow to the
> head - would evolve traits even if the likelihood was very rare.
> Something that was risky but usually safe - like wading - would exerpt
> less pressure but if the frequency of the wading events was great
> enough it would exerpt a pressure all the same.
But why evolve a wholly new form of locomotion to do it?
Just use what you got - which in the case of primates includes
bipoedalism. Please try and remember what your argument is.
>
> > > > But have lemmings developed adaptations to deal
> > > > with the situation? Do lemmings rush en masse into
> > > > the water specifically or do they, on occasion, rush
> > > > en masse anywhere at all and sometimes it just happens
> > > > to be water? The point Rich is making is that behaviour
> > > > that exerts insignificant to non-existent selective pressure
> > > > is not going to produce the kind of profound adaptive
> > > > response Algis proposes.
> > >
> > > If apes inhabited a niche where they had to wade every now and then -
> > > then they would have had an extra selective pressure for bipedalism
> > > that would have been absent if there had been no such water. It's as
> > > simple as that.
> >
> > Your massive assumption is that wading *has* to be bipedal.
> > Thee is absolutely no reason to assume this.
> > "Because they can't
> > swim" simply demostrates how ludicrous this is. All mammals
> > swim. The exception may be the chimp. *That* is what may
> > require some special explanation - not human swimming. You
> > assume the LCA could not swim. Why? Are you assuming the
> > LCA is identical to modern chimps?
>
> The evidence from extant apes suggests this is this is the case. Even
> gorillas, who can swim, tend to wade unless the water is too deep. And
> of course, so do humans.
And so does every other animal that has ever
ventured into water, Deep is relative. You are still
arguing for a deep-water non-swimmer and this is
so extraordinary a proposition that you simply have to
try and back it up. But, of course, you can't. Do the
smart thing and give it up. You have a major interest
in PA and are investing time and money into it. Why
waste it on this guff?
>
>
> Its the juxtaposition ( in relation to their cladistics) of
> chimp/bonobo and human abilities in water that is so striking and
> demands an explanation. But it's not just chimps anyway. Orang-utans
> are also poor and gorillas are nowhere near as good as we are.
How good are we? Prior to the invention of the
Australian crawl human swimming was a rather
clumsy affair. The Australian crawl was invented
in the South Pacific, IIRC, by people who
moved into the place less than a millenia ago.
>
>
> Actually I assume (based on parsimony) that the lca was rather like
> the gorilla - in terms of aquatic abilities. From that point chimps
> became less aquatic and we became more aquatic. Whatever you think
> about all this water was clearly involved somewhere. It is the fact
> that the aqua-sceptics continue to deny that it could possible have
> been is the only thing that is odd about the concept.
Look to the evidence for the exploitation of
aquatic resources. It really got going with the
arrival of AMHs - before that the evidence
is a lot less that aquatic resources were a major
part of the hominid diet. What does this suggest?
>
>
> > > > Bonobos are facultative bipeds.
> > > > Which is to say it is an available form of locomotion that
> > > > can be used in any number of circumstances. We are
> > > > obligate bipeds.
> > >
> > > Yes but most pas think that oligate bipedalism arose from ancestors
> > > who did so in a facultative way. That's why Hunt's study and Videan &
> > > McGrew's were so interesting. Wading is almost always bipedal in
> > > extant apes and therefore I suggest it is the best model going for
> > > facultative bipedalism.
> >
> > Is wading almost 'always bipedal' in modern apes.
>
> It is another example of facultative bipedalism. They commonly use
> other examples, such as carrying food or branches, climbing, foraging
> bushes, posturing etc. etc. So, are you saying that wading doesn't
> count as one such model? On what basis? Because it involves water?
But I'm not saying that any of these activities
led to the evolution of the modest bipedal abilities
of chimps and gorillas. That's your argument.
>
>
> > You
> > simply ignore field studies that indicate otherwise. Not a
> > sound procedure in one who would seek to create a
> > solid foundation for his hypothesis.
> > As for studying chimp
> > bipedalism one may discern the ways in which the LCA
> > could not have been simply a chimp or gorilla and that
> > knuckle-walking is a highly derived form of locomotion.
>
> What are you on about? Hunt's paper is one of the most respected in
> the field in this area and nobody criticised him for looking for
> analogues of bipedalism in extant apes. I know. It's because I've used
> his methods but looked at the efefct of water, isn't it? Sorry i
> should have remembered - any study looking at the effects of water
> must be bad science.
No. Looking at the effects of water and constantly
assuming what you are required to demonstrate
is bad science.
>
>
> > > > It is the way we move in all circumstances.
> > > > Human quadrupedalism - crawling on our knees - is profoundly
> > > > different from ape quadrupedalism because our limb proportions
> > > > are very different. Bonobos are so little the way down the
> > > > road to obligate bipedalism that one may question if they are
> > > > even on it , which is to say, it does not matter what bonobos do.
> > >
> > > You assume that. But perhaps they are actually far down the road
> > > _away_ from bipedalism. We just don't know.
> >
> > This is a good point. This may indeed be the case. Bipedalism
> > has been marked as the defining feature of the hominins but I
> > wonder? But this does you no good since it removes your
> > wading hypothesis from consideration since human obligate
> > bipedalism is good for traveling distances and requires skeletal
> > reorganization of significant proportion so the weight can be
> > carried on two legs.
>
> It does the wading origins hypothesis a power of good, actually.
> Because it is the best model that explains how the lca was bipedal
> already in the context of the habitats that they probably lived in -
> wet and wooded.
Miocene hominoid apes lived in all types of habitats.
'Wet and wooded' means what? A permanently
flooded swamp forest? More than 30 inches of
rain in a year?
>
>
> > Wading is largely postural - getting food-
> > or involves traveling very short distances - crossing a stream.
> > And most apes do not go bipedal to do this. They can. But
> > that's because facultative bipedalism is already present.
>
> You simply ignore the facts. "Most apes do not go bipedal"? If you are
> talking about western lowland gorillas in water that is centimetres
> deep then I would say you have a point but for all other apes in
> deeper water they almost exclusively wade bipedally. If you decide to
> just ignore the facts that contradict your ideas then there is not
> much point discussing these matters.
What facts? Provide some references. Did not Hunt
tell you that he did not observe bipedal wading? Besides
no one denies that bonobos may wade bipeally. Kano
infers it though he did not observe it. But what is it
supposed to prove? That bipedal wading in bonobos and
gorillas did absolutely nothing to enhance their bipedal
proclivities which are very modest and can best be
understood as an ancestral primate characteristic.
>
>
> > > The fact is that they (with chimps) are the nearest extant species to
> > > H. sapiens so that makes the factors that lead to their facultative
> > > bipedalism of particular interest.
> >
> > How significant is chimp facultative bipedalism? Virtually all
> > primates are facultative bipeds. It's built into the body plan.
> > Human bipedalism is derivative of below-branch, slow vertical
> > climbing - and that has been around for a long time.
>
> The significance for me is that it is rare on land - about 2%. It is
> rare in trees - about 2% of the time spent there. But in water it is
> the opposite - over 90% of the time. Ignore that fact if you want but
> sooner or later the scientific community will have to take it's
> significance on board.
Sooner or later you are going to have to try
and understand what Bob Keeter has been
trying to explain to you. Do you not understand
that 90% of 10 is smaller than 2% of 10,000?.
Get a calculator and do the math. All should
become clear.
>
>
> > > Of course you must dismiss the
> > > bonobo evidence (and that from chimps, gorillas and orang-utans too)
> > > because the fact that wading is the most easily demonstrable model for
> > > facultative bipedalism in extant apes is strong evidence for the
> > > heretical aquatic ape hypothesis - and we just can't have that, can
> > > we?
> >
> > If wading played a role in selecting for facultative bipedalism it
> > was doing its business on the Omomyids. Your implicit assumption
> > is that the LCA and the line of hominoid apes leading to it was
> > a full bore quadruped much like the Cercopithecid monkeys -
> > who are also facultative bipeds - and this requires demonstration.
>
> No I don't. Not at all. My assumption about the LCA is based on Marc
> Verhaegen's concept of an aquarboreal (climbing-wading) ancestor
> actually. I've been posting this regularly enough.
Yeah well Marc has absolutely no evidence for this
acquaboreal ape of his. Infers it from the (non-existent)
resemblances between seals and humans and dismisses
all fossils as irrelevant. Surely to God a UCL MSc
can do better than that. But then I would have thought
a bona fide MD could do better than that. Oh well
obsession is a tricky business.
>
>
> > Look at modern human bipedalism - how it works and what it
> > allows Homo sapiens to do. Look at the fossil record and at
> > the palaeoenvironments of the fossil hominid sites. It's not more
> > complicated than that. Of course this would involve dealing with
> > issues of taphonomy and we can't have that, can we?
>
> Modern Homo sapiens is clearly a fully terrestrial biped. I have never
> disputed that. It is the origin of bipedalism that I am speculating
> about.
But your model - the bonobo - demonstrates the precise
opposite of what you think it does. Chimps can't swim.
Evidence *for* the AAT. Bonobos occasionally wade
bipedally. Evidence *for* the AAT. You've got yourself
into the position where everything argues *for* the
AAT both a and -a. This is bunk. What you need is
a testable hypothesis and a clear set of statements
about your assunptions. For example is it your position
that the LCA or the lineage leading up to it was wholly
quadrupedal and in no way, whatsoever, was a facultative
biped? The proposition that more wading would generate
an obligate biped is an interesting proposition. But what
do the bonobos prove. They wade bipedally at times.
But their bipedality is modest enough that there is nothing
to be made of their wading. Why do you think it is indicative
of anything?
Rick Wagler
Philip Deitiker
<trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:
>You say we need protection to protect the brain, yet ignore the fact
>that we need it more than ever to protect that brain. The statement
>that thickness reduced because of more efficient means of killing
>is nonsensical. Why would a more efficient weapon mean a reduction
>in skull thickness?
Rick, wake up!, you are not catching what he is
saying, because he has a thick skull only theories
like AAT can sink in, others just bounce right
off. Thats why having a thick skull is important
to AAT. Geez, its not a hard question to answer,
you sleeping of something.
Philip
[pdeitik @ bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~pdeitik/
Algis Kuliukas
All sessions. It was a total.
> > But you (willfully?) miss the point, which is that in a water-side
> > habitat a putative semi-aquatic ape would be exposed to the need to
> > wade far more than that - providing a very compelling incentive to get
> > upright and bipedal and a pretty clear selection pressure for it. I'd
> > say that wading was a far more compelling reason than any of the other
> > terrestrial/arboreal models published to date.
>
> As you say yourself, they rarely go in the water. Again, uncompelling.
Rarely, yes. But can you suggest another place where you could predict
with almost total certainty that bonobos could be compelled to be
bipedal?
> > > Can you give figures showing how often they're in the water? Once a day?
> >
> > It very much depended on the visitors. It was a behaviour that could
> > theoretically be induced at will. If someonw threw a tempting piece of
> > food into the moat they would go in and get it - practically every
> > time (unless it was too far into the moat - where it got pretty deep).
> > The practice is clearly discouraged by the park keepers at
> > Planckendael but when there are large groups of children present it is
> > not long before some bright spark starts to do it.
>
> It depended on the visitors????? Only when someone threw food in the
> water??? And that was discouraged by the keepers?
The point is that it can be induced at will. You could go there in the
summer and get any of them to be bipedal if you wanted to. It's
discouraged by the zookeepers because they can see how comfortable the
bonobos are in water and they're scared they'll go a few steps further
and escape.
> And this is your DATA???? Artificial learned behavior?
Nobody taught them to wade. They go into the water to get food - that
is hardly a trick they couldn't have worked out for themselves.
The chimps at Conkuoati do exactly the same in the river Congo and
they go in up to their shoulders. The gorillas at Mbeli Bai do so too
when the water is deeper than 2 ft. The orang-utans of Tanjung Puting
National Park have been observed doing the same too. So what do you
think? They're all being taught in secret by dispicable those AAT
supporters?
> > > Every other day? Twice a week?
> >
> > One guy who had been studying a mature female for two months told me
> > that some of the them (the dominant females usually) tend to do it at
> > least once a day (I suspect far more on average). Some of the males
> > don't bother - but only because they know the females would fight them
> > for the food they salvaged.
>
> Only "some" and apparently only once a day. And males don't want to
> because the females would fight. Very compelling. Not.
Considering Hunt only found 97 instances of bipedalism in 700 hours, I
think once a day (140 odd instances in four hours) is pretty
significant. If you had ever observed bonobos you wouldn't blame the
poor males for being so resigned to failure.
> > > At what age do they go into water?
> >
> > The youngest I saw was a male called Reddy (born 1990) but the really
>
> How old? What about the others?
How old - erm. Well it's the year 2002 now. He was born in 1990. That
makes 12. The others were older. (18, 23 and 30)
> > young ones tend to avoid it, although they seem to be fascinated by
> > water and are very keen to climb on mum's back whilst she wades.
>
> Young ones avoid it. And if people didn't throw food in the water
> they'd never go in?
Yes, yes. This pretend incredulity of yours is a bit hard to believe,
Rich.
> > > Is mostly males or both sexes equally?
> >
> > It's mostly females but that's because of their dominance. Males will
> > do it too when no-one's looking.
>
> Mostly females do it and the males only if no female is watching. Why don't
> you break your numbers down by age and gender?
Because it's not relevant. The point is simply that they are more than
happy to go into the water when they get the opportunity and an
incentive and when they do - it's almost always bipedally.
> > > Have you even bothered to consider such
> > > questions???
> >
> > Yes I have.
> >
> > Why are you so dismissive of the idea and presuming of my lack of
> > scientific objectivity? Could it be just because I've found some
> > evidence that favours the AAH?
>
> Ye gads, the animals have to be bribed to go in the water, and it's
> an activity you say is rare!
>
> This is evidence???
Yes, it's evidence. And when you put it next to the evidence of the
Conkuati chimps, the gorillas of Mbeli Bai and the Orang-utans of
Tanjung Puting National Park it's all pretty convincing - apes are
happy to go into water when necessary and when they do they do so
bipedally. It's the strongest model for bipedalism in extant apes that
has been proposed to date. Your strained, pretend incredulity is
clearly just a sham to hide the fact that you are just not objective
enough to admit it.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> >
> > t.
> >
> > > >
> > > > How much of your lifetime have you been bashed on the head? A tiny,
> > > > tiny fraction - if at all - but once would kill you if it weren't for
> > > > the very thick and robust skull you take for granted. How come that
> > > > skull evolved? Was it because our ancestors were being bashed on the
> > > > head 98% of the time? Or is it because once was enough to kill them
> > > > and if it happened before puberty the genes that made such skulls
> > > > would be eliminated from the pool?
> > >
> > > Primitive, not derived.
> >
> > So what? The trait must have evolved at some point. Are you suggesting
> > that when it did evolve their possesors animals needed them because
> > they were getting bashed on the head 98% of the day. And that, even
> > though that is no longer the case, the expensive robust skull remained
> > as a ancestral legacy from the old head-hitting days?
>
> You introduced the notion of the skull being evolved to deal
> with episodes of head-bashing. This is a nonsensical way to
> make the point that the skeloton provides a dandy way to
> provide protection to vulnerable organs as well as allowing
> a place to anchor large masses of soft tissue thus allowing
> vertebrates to become very big relative to invertebrates the
> vast majority of which are very small.So, no, the skull did
> not evolve to counter head-bashing any more than bipedal
> wading evolved to forestall drowning.
I am just countering the (IMHO mistaken) view that traits evlove only
as a consequence of some kind of time-related factor - how much time
they spend doing x will determine the likelihood an x-related trait
will evolve. You ignore the survival impact of x. If x keeps you alive
then x will get selected for even if it only happens once in a
lifetime.
Thick skulls help to make it unlikely that a bump on the head will
kill you. I accept that skulls fulfil other roles too but you can't
deny mine. Wading ability - if it helps an individual survive will,
similarly, get selected for even if it doesn't happen very often. I
assume that the earliest bipeds did wade fairly regularly, however
(aay several times a day) and ceratinly far more than extant apes do
today.
If a putative aquatic ape lived near water, wading traits are likely
to have kept them alive frequently.
> > > All mammals have extensive bony protection
> > > for the brain. Are human skulls relatively thick/thin relative to nonhuman
> > > primates or other mammals?
> >
> > The point is this. If you are arguing that traits that helped apes
> > wade bipedally could not have resulted *because* they didn't spend
> > enough *time* in the water, how can you accept that thick skulls ever
> > evolved and remained selected for ever since?
>
> Because I don't accept your silly scenario for skull evolution. I
> would say that the apes did not evolve bipedal wading to deal
> with water because it is an inept response to a dangerous set
> of circumstances ie a non-swimmer in deep water.
Primates are not generally good swimmers. The Hominoidae are generally
not good swimmers. It is therefore parsimonious to assume that the lca
was not a particularly good swimmer either. Therefore if they lived by
water they are certainly likely to wade rather than swim if they can.
Wading is faster and more efficient than swimming at shallower depths.
I assume the habitat of these putative apes was mangrove forest/swamp
- where trees would be close at hand and therfore the need to swim
would therefore be minimal.
[..]
> > > By this argument you have declared it impossible to detect
> > > selective pressures operating on any organism. Rare and even
> > > singular events happen all the time to all organisms. You still
> > > want profound adaptive responses to insignificant pressure.
> >
> > It's a balancing act. As Dawkins puts it - a species is an averaging
> > computer showing, through its phenotype the average habitat of its
> > ancestors. Something that was extremely lethal - like a blow to the
> > head - would evolve traits even if the likelihood was very rare.
> > Something that was risky but usually safe - like wading - would exerpt
> > less pressure but if the frequency of the wading events was great
> > enough it would exerpt a pressure all the same.
>
> But why evolve a wholly new form of locomotion to do it?
> Just use what you got - which in the case of primates includes
> bipoedalism. Please try and remember what your argument is.
It's not a whole new form - apes were already predisposed to wade.
They wade bipedally even today. All I'm saying is that several million
years of living in that kind of habitat would gradually improve those
traits.
[..]
> > > Your massive assumption is that wading *has* to be bipedal.
> > > Thee is absolutely no reason to assume this.
> > > "Because they can't
> > > swim" simply demostrates how ludicrous this is. All mammals
> > > swim. The exception may be the chimp. *That* is what may
> > > require some special explanation - not human swimming. You
> > > assume the LCA could not swim. Why? Are you assuming the
> > > LCA is identical to modern chimps?
> >
> > The evidence from extant apes suggests this is this is the case. Even
> > gorillas, who can swim, tend to wade unless the water is too deep. And
> > of course, so do humans.
>
> And so does every other animal that has ever
> ventured into water, Deep is relative. You are still
> arguing for a deep-water non-swimmer and this is
> so extraordinary a proposition that you simply have to
> try and back it up. But, of course, you can't. Do the
> smart thing and give it up. You have a major interest
> in PA and are investing time and money into it. Why
> waste it on this guff?
I studied it, specifically becuase you made this very point to me a
couple of years ago. Wading is faster than swimming at shallow depths.
Even humans wade rather than swim at waist depth and below. Wading
would come before swimming as long as the habitat had relatively
short, shallow stretches of water.
I'll give up when I hear a single convincing argument as to why
bipedalism could not have evolved in water - but I know that there
aren't any.
> > Its the juxtaposition ( in relation to their cladistics) of
> > chimp/bonobo and human abilities in water that is so striking and
> > demands an explanation. But it's not just chimps anyway. Orang-utans
> > are also poor and gorillas are nowhere near as good as we are.
>
> How good are we? Prior to the invention of the
> Australian crawl human swimming was a rather
> clumsy affair. The Australian crawl was invented
> in the South Pacific, IIRC, by people who
> moved into the place less than a millenia ago.
Compared to a seal we are piss-poor but compared to chimps, bonobos,
gorillas and orang-utans we are actually pretty good. That is the only
comparison that matters, Rick. Remember cladistics?
How do you - or anyone - know how well people swam 100,000 years ago?
> > Actually I assume (based on parsimony) that the lca was rather like
> > the gorilla - in terms of aquatic abilities. From that point chimps
> > became less aquatic and we became more aquatic. Whatever you think
> > about all this water was clearly involved somewhere. It is the fact
> > that the aqua-sceptics continue to deny that it could possible have
> > been is the only thing that is odd about the concept.
>
> Look to the evidence for the exploitation of
> aquatic resources. It really got going with the
> arrival of AMHs - before that the evidence
> is a lot less that aquatic resources were a major
> part of the hominid diet. What does this suggest?
Where's the earliest evidence for modern human culture - e.g. use of
red ochre? Klasies river mouth cave, South Africa. - 130,000 bp.
> > > > > Bonobos are facultative bipeds.
> > > > > Which is to say it is an available form of locomotion that
> > > > > can be used in any number of circumstances. We are
> > > > > obligate bipeds.
> > > >
> > > > Yes but most pas think that oligate bipedalism arose from ancestors
> > > > who did so in a facultative way. That's why Hunt's study and Videan &
> > > > McGrew's were so interesting. Wading is almost always bipedal in
> > > > extant apes and therefore I suggest it is the best model going for
> > > > facultative bipedalism.
> > >
> > > Is wading almost 'always bipedal' in modern apes.
> >
> > It is another example of facultative bipedalism. They commonly use
> > other examples, such as carrying food or branches, climbing, foraging
> > bushes, posturing etc. etc. So, are you saying that wading doesn't
> > count as one such model? On what basis? Because it involves water?
>
> But I'm not saying that any of these activities
> led to the evolution of the modest bipedal abilities
> of chimps and gorillas. That's your argument.
I meant that other examples of facultative ape bipedalism are used as
models for human bipedal origins.
> > > You
> > > simply ignore field studies that indicate otherwise. Not a
> > > sound procedure in one who would seek to create a
> > > solid foundation for his hypothesis.
> > > As for studying chimp
> > > bipedalism one may discern the ways in which the LCA
> > > could not have been simply a chimp or gorilla and that
> > > knuckle-walking is a highly derived form of locomotion.
> >
> > What are you on about? Hunt's paper is one of the most respected in
> > the field in this area and nobody criticised him for looking for
> > analogues of bipedalism in extant apes. I know. It's because I've used
> > his methods but looked at the efefct of water, isn't it? Sorry i
> > should have remembered - any study looking at the effects of water
> > must be bad science.
>
> No. Looking at the effects of water and constantly
> assuming what you are required to demonstrate
> is bad science.
Well, if several hundred professional pas and their students weren't
interested enough to look into it, that is not my fault. It seems a
little unfair to accuse me of that when the entire field has been
doing exactly the same thing themselves for 42 years (in assuming that
water was not involved). But then I should know better than to expect
aquasceptics to be fair minded.
> > > > > It is the way we move in all circumstances.
> > > > > Human quadrupedalism - crawling on our knees - is profoundly
> > > > > different from ape quadrupedalism because our limb proportions
> > > > > are very different. Bonobos are so little the way down the
> > > > > road to obligate bipedalism that one may question if they are
> > > > > even on it , which is to say, it does not matter what bonobos do.
> > > >
> > > > You assume that. But perhaps they are actually far down the road
> > > > _away_ from bipedalism. We just don't know.
> > >
> > > This is a good point. This may indeed be the case. Bipedalism
> > > has been marked as the defining feature of the hominins but I
> > > wonder? But this does you no good since it removes your
> > > wading hypothesis from consideration since human obligate
> > > bipedalism is good for traveling distances and requires skeletal
> > > reorganization of significant proportion so the weight can be
> > > carried on two legs.
> >
> > It does the wading origins hypothesis a power of good, actually.
> > Because it is the best model that explains how the lca was bipedal
> > already in the context of the habitats that they probably lived in -
> > wet and wooded.
>
> Miocene hominoid apes lived in all types of habitats.
> 'Wet and wooded' means what? A permanently
> flooded swamp forest? More than 30 inches of
> rain in a year?
An environment where wading could have been regularly needed to get
from one clump of trees to another, of course.
> > > Wading is largely postural - getting food-
> > > or involves traveling very short distances - crossing a stream.
> > > And most apes do not go bipedal to do this. They can. But
> > > that's because facultative bipedalism is already present.
> >
> > You simply ignore the facts. "Most apes do not go bipedal"? If you are
> > talking about western lowland gorillas in water that is centimetres
> > deep then I would say you have a point but for all other apes in
> > deeper water they almost exclusively wade bipedally. If you decide to
> > just ignore the facts that contradict your ideas then there is not
> > much point discussing these matters.
>
> What facts? Provide some references. Did not Hunt
> tell you that he did not observe bipedal wading?
Groan. I did in my thesis. There was no water there - so it would have
been remarkable if he had.
> Besides
> no one denies that bonobos may wade bipeally. Kano
> infers it though he did not observe it.
Infers it is better than nothing. Put with the other evidence it
simply shows what we already know - apes wade when they have to and
when they do it's almost always bipedally.
> But what is it
> supposed to prove? That bipedal wading in bonobos and
> gorillas did absolutely nothing to enhance their bipedal
> proclivities which are very modest and can best be
> understood as an ancestral primate characteristic.
Groan. Yes but if even bonobos, chimps, gorillas and orang-utans wade
bipedally when none of them live in particularly wet and wooded
environments doesn't that imply that an ancestor that did live in such
a habitat would be even more likely to wade?
> > > > The fact is that they (with chimps) are the nearest extant species to
> > > > H. sapiens so that makes the factors that lead to their facultative
> > > > bipedalism of particular interest.
> > >
> > > How significant is chimp facultative bipedalism? Virtually all
> > > primates are facultative bipeds. It's built into the body plan.
> > > Human bipedalism is derivative of below-branch, slow vertical
> > > climbing - and that has been around for a long time.
> >
> > The significance for me is that it is rare on land - about 2%. It is
> > rare in trees - about 2% of the time spent there. But in water it is
> > the opposite - over 90% of the time. Ignore that fact if you want but
> > sooner or later the scientific community will have to take it's
> > significance on board.
>
> Sooner or later you are going to have to try
> and understand what Bob Keeter has been
> trying to explain to you. Do you not understand
> that 90% of 10 is smaller than 2% of 10,000?.
> Get a calculator and do the math. All should
> become clear.
90% of 10 life saving events is more significant than 2% of 100,000
trivial ones.
> > > > Of course you must dismiss the
> > > > bonobo evidence (and that from chimps, gorillas and orang-utans too)
> > > > because the fact that wading is the most easily demonstrable model for
> > > > facultative bipedalism in extant apes is strong evidence for the
> > > > heretical aquatic ape hypothesis - and we just can't have that, can
> > > > we?
> > >
> > > If wading played a role in selecting for facultative bipedalism it
> > > was doing its business on the Omomyids. Your implicit assumption
> > > is that the LCA and the line of hominoid apes leading to it was
> > > a full bore quadruped much like the Cercopithecid monkeys -
> > > who are also facultative bipeds - and this requires demonstration.
> >
> > No I don't. Not at all. My assumption about the LCA is based on Marc
> > Verhaegen's concept of an aquarboreal (climbing-wading) ancestor
> > actually. I've been posting this regularly enough.
>
> Yeah well Marc has absolutely no evidence for this
> acquaboreal ape of his. Infers it from the (non-existent)
> resemblances between seals and humans and dismisses
> all fossils as irrelevant. Surely to God a UCL MSc
> can do better than that. But then I would have thought
> a bona fide MD could do better than that. Oh well
> obsession is a tricky business.
You are, as always, very unfair to Marc. He was one of the few people
I know of that was predicting that bipedalism predated the Pan/Homo
split (prior to December 2000, quoted with increasing confidence at
5.5mya). When Orrorin was discovered (and dated at 6my) I swallowed my
pride and began to accept that he was probably right about his
aquarboreal model after all. Of course you guys are incapable of
admitting you are wrong about anything. You'll still be slagging him
off on your death bed, when the AAH is firmly established in the
mainstream!
> > > Look at modern human bipedalism - how it works and what it
> > > allows Homo sapiens to do. Look at the fossil record and at
> > > the palaeoenvironments of the fossil hominid sites. It's not more
> > > complicated than that. Of course this would involve dealing with
> > > issues of taphonomy and we can't have that, can we?
> >
> > Modern Homo sapiens is clearly a fully terrestrial biped. I have never
> > disputed that. It is the origin of bipedalism that I am speculating
> > about.
>
> But your model - the bonobo - demonstrates the precise
> opposite of what you think it does. Chimps can't swim.
> Evidence *for* the AAT. Bonobos occasionally wade
> bipedally. Evidence *for* the AAT. You've got yourself
> into the position where everything argues *for* the
> AAT both a and -a.
No. You willfully misunderstand. Chimps & bonobos can't swim but *we
can*. Therefore the 'something' that happenned to our ancestors that
was different to their ancestors must have involved water. Yes.
Evidence *for* the AAH. - Very much so.
Bonobos wade bipedally, chimps wade bipedally, orang-utans wade
bipedally, gorillas wade bipedally - therefore the lca of the
Hominoidae probably waded bipedally. If that Hominoid lived in a
habitat where it was necessary more regularly than today's extant apes
it would be more likely to wade bipedally than they are - hence a very
plausible model for bipedal origins. Yes, again. More evidence *for*
the AAH.
> This is bunk. What you need is
> a testable hypothesis and a clear set of statements
> about your assunptions.
My thesis made four testable predictions and every one was met easily.
> For example is it your position
> that the LCA or the lineage leading up to it was wholly
> quadrupedal and in no way, whatsoever, was a facultative
> biped?
That's just an irrelevant diversion. What difference does that make?
The AAH suggests that the lca was a wading ape - a bipedal wading ape.
It was probably facultative to start with but after several million
years it became more obligatory untill a point of no return was
reached for some of them (Homo ancestors) but not others
(Pan/Gorilla).
> The proposition that more wading would generate
> an obligate biped is an interesting proposition. But what
> do the bonobos prove. They wade bipedally at times.
> But their bipedality is modest enough that there is nothing
> to be made of their wading. Why do you think it is indicative
> of anything?
How many times do I have to spell this out to you? If extant apes are
bipedal 90% of the time they spend in water and if the lca lived in a
habitat that was often flooded then isn't it rather likely that the
lca would become more bipedal?
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
I repeat. A crushed brain is as lethal for an ant as it is for a Nobel
prize winner. You can't be more dead than dead. If people started
being killed by other means (such as a sword through the rib cage)
than blows to the head then less selective pressure would exist for
traits that protected the skull than existed before.
> The evolutionary trend is unmistakenly towards thinner skulls as
> the brain got bigger.
But according to you it should be getting thicker because the brainier
we became the more it needed protecting.
> A large brain and a thick skull would be a
> lot of weight. It would require stronger necks. Plus, cooling of
> the brain is more easily handled with a thinner skull.
> The lessening of muscle attachments also indicates a change of diet.
>
> And the cultural evidence is strongly against the "more civilised and
> peaceful to each other as time went on" scenario.
> The iceman is now known to have been shot in the back with an arrow,
> and scalping is now known from 2500 years ago
> (http://www.sciencenews.org/20020209/note11ref.asp)
>
> And you only have to look at, say, Egyptian history to see evidence of
> early organized warfare.
>
Fair arguments, one and all.
I was only invoking the skull argument to point out that traits
needn't evolve only as a consequence of the amount of time that they
are being tested. You can't ignore the survival consequence of the
activity that is testing them. One blow to the head would kill you if
it weren't for the skull. I accept that it evolved for other reasons
too but protecting the brain against blows is one of them - surely you
would concede that.
If wading helped an ape to survive it would be selected for to a
greater extent than that predicted purely by the amount of time spent
doing so and more than other activities that were not so potentially
lethal.
Algis Kuliukas
Bob Keeter
at al...@RiverApes.com wrote on 2/18/02 3:05 AM:
Ah, but being beaten about the head and shoulders, if even for a short
thime, should rapidly select for those with thick skulls, EVEN if the total
ammount of time being beaten is snall! OBTW, you said so yourself! 8-))
Regards
bk
Paul Crowley
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > No its the large brain which is a red herring. You need protection
> > against a blow to the brain, no matter how big it is. An ant with a
> > crushed brain is just as dead as a Nobel prize winner. I suspect the
> > reason for the reduction in skull thickness is because a) We learned
> > new ways of killing people (spears/knives etc) rather than
> > (presumably) just bashing them over the head and b) (more
> > controversially) We became slightly more civilised and peaceful to
> > each other as time went on.
>
> You say we need protection to protect the brain, yet ignore the fact
> that we need it more than ever to protect that brain. The statement
> that thickness reduced because of more efficient means of killing
> is nonsensical.
Algis is right here. He has learnt something!
(And it's a point _against_ his wading theory.)
It does not matter that much how big your brain is.
A blow on it which crushes your skull will end your
life. The thickness of our ancestors skulls merely
shows that they were liable to suffer a fair number
of heavy blows on their heads
> Why would a more efficient weapon mean a reduction
> in skull thickness?
A thick skull does not protect you from a slit throat,
or a stab in the guts.
> The evolutionary trend is unmistakenly towards thinner skulls as
> the brain got bigger. A large brain and a thick skull would be a
> lot of weight. It would require stronger necks.
True, but brain size has gone _down_ over the last
300 Kyr or so. And skull thickness has gone down
a LOT.
> Plus, cooling of
> the brain is more easily handled with a thinner skull.
Nah. That's done with blood vessels and sweating.
> The lessening of muscle attachments also indicates a change of diet.
Since when?
> And the cultural evidence is strongly against the "more civilised and
> peaceful to each other as time went on" scenario.
Maybe. Only now we use smart bombs and lasers.
Our recent ancestors used knives and poisoned
arrows, etc.
> The iceman is now known to have been shot in the back with an arrow,
> and scalping is now known from 2500 years ago
> (http://www.sciencenews.org/20020209/note11ref.asp)
>
> And you only have to look at, say, Egyptian history to see evidence of
> early organized warfare.
Have you read Goodall, et al., on chimpanzee behaviour?
Note the difference in skull thickness in modern
humans. Women have much thinner skulls than
men. Why is that? Or, to put it another way, why
do human males acquire thick skulls after puberty?
Chinese, and other asiatics have much thinner
skulls than Europeans. They have long had a
good supply of cheap knives -- from bamboo.
So their males did not need large size (i.e. the
greater sexual dimorphism of westerners) nor
large hands. They did not fight with fists, nor
with clubs. They used knives.
Another item of evidence here is the vestigial
nature of beards the nearer you get to 'bamboo
country'.
Heck, I'm bringing in evidence. Isn't that against
the SAP charter or something?
Paul.
--
Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)
Rich Travsky
This fails on even casual examination. For this to be plausible you'd have
to have hominids, chimps, and gorillas exhibiting a very high rate of
going around and bashing others on the head in order for this to have
exerted selective pressure in favor of thick skulls. This is nonsense.
Do chimps do this? No. Do gorillas? No. And there's no evidence of it in
the fossil record for other hominids.
Helmets have been around for a long time. The danger of blows to the
head have never gone away, regardless of advancements in technology.
> > The evolutionary trend is unmistakenly towards thinner skulls as
> > the brain got bigger.
>
> But according to you it should be getting thicker because the brainier
> we became the more it needed protecting.
No, according to YOU. You say it's to protect the brain, but now that it's
bigger than ever, by your scenario we need a thicker skull more than ever.
> > A large brain and a thick skull would be a
> > lot of weight. It would require stronger necks. Plus, cooling of
> > the brain is more easily handled with a thinner skull.
>
> > The lessening of muscle attachments also indicates a change of diet.
> >
> > And the cultural evidence is strongly against the "more civilised and
> > peaceful to each other as time went on" scenario.
>
> > The iceman is now known to have been shot in the back with an arrow,
> > and scalping is now known from 2500 years ago
> > (http://www.sciencenews.org/20020209/note11ref.asp)
> >
> > And you only have to look at, say, Egyptian history to see evidence of
> > early organized warfare.
> >
>
> Fair arguments, one and all.
>
> I was only invoking the skull argument to point out that traits
> needn't evolve only as a consequence of the amount of time that they
> are being tested. You can't ignore the survival consequence of the
> activity that is testing them. One blow to the head would kill you if
> it weren't for the skull. I accept that it evolved for other reasons
> too but protecting the brain against blows is one of them - surely you
> would concede that.
So, since rabbits have skulls, it's to protect them against blows to the
head? How many rabbits use clubs?
We have ribs too. Is that to protect our organs from blows to the body?
A skeleton is primarily a frame.
> If wading helped an ape to survive it would be selected for to a
> greater extent than that predicted purely by the amount of time spent
> doing so and more than other activities that were not so potentially
> lethal.
An activity that's rare has even less chance of influencing development.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:3C70830D...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> > > No its the large brain which is a red herring. You need protection
> > > against a blow to the brain, no matter how big it is. An ant with a
> > > crushed brain is just as dead as a Nobel prize winner. I suspect the
> > > reason for the reduction in skull thickness is because a) We learned
> > > new ways of killing people (spears/knives etc) rather than
> > > (presumably) just bashing them over the head and b) (more
> > > controversially) We became slightly more civilised and peaceful to
> > > each other as time went on.
> >
> > You say we need protection to protect the brain, yet ignore the fact
> > that we need it more than ever to protect that brain. The statement
> > that thickness reduced because of more efficient means of killing
> > is nonsensical.
>
> Algis is right here. He has learnt something!
> (And it's a point _against_ his wading theory.)
Algis is wrong again - and it still doesn't help his wading theory.
> It does not matter that much how big your brain is.
> A blow on it which crushes your skull will end your
> life. The thickness of our ancestors skulls merely
> shows that they were liable to suffer a fair number
> of heavy blows on their heads
For this to be viable, there'd have to be a high rate of head bashing.
And it wouldn't explain the thick skulls of chimps or gorillas.
> > Why would a more efficient weapon mean a reduction
> > in skull thickness?
>
> A thick skull does not protect you from a slit throat,
> or a stab in the guts.
Then why haven't we evolved something to protect our throat
or guts???
> > The evolutionary trend is unmistakenly towards thinner skulls as
> > the brain got bigger. A large brain and a thick skull would be a
> > lot of weight. It would require stronger necks.
>
> True, but brain size has gone _down_ over the last
> 300 Kyr or so. And skull thickness has gone down
> a LOT.
Compared to the last 4+ million years, it's negligible.
> > Plus, cooling of
> > the brain is more easily handled with a thinner skull.
>
> Nah. That's done with blood vessels and sweating.
The head still radiates heat. Estimates range over 50% of body heat
is through the head. The human skull evolved numerous veins in the skull
to facilitate heat dissipation, veins that don't show in thicker skulled
australopithicines.
> > The lessening of muscle attachments also indicates a change of diet.
>
> Since when?
Since australopithecus and related hominids. What do you think a sagittal
crest is for? Reduction in tooth size and number?
> > And the cultural evidence is strongly against the "more civilised and
> > peaceful to each other as time went on" scenario.
>
> Maybe. Only now we use smart bombs and lasers.
> Our recent ancestors used knives and poisoned
> arrows, etc.
And they still had clubs. Sticks require little if any preparation
and are highly effective. I have over 20 years in the martial arts, and
stick weapons have a prominent position (I'm partial to the jo myself).
Military helmets go back a long ways. If blows to the head
weren't an issue, there'd be no need for helmets.
> > The iceman is now known to have been shot in the back with an arrow,
> > and scalping is now known from 2500 years ago
> > (http://www.sciencenews.org/20020209/note11ref.asp)
> >
> > And you only have to look at, say, Egyptian history to see evidence of
> > early organized warfare.
>
> Have you read Goodall, et al., on chimpanzee behaviour?
Yup. How often do they club each other?
> Note the difference in skull thickness in modern
> humans. Women have much thinner skulls than
> men. Why is that? Or, to put it another way, why
> do human males acquire thick skulls after puberty?
Females are less robust in general. Why is that?
> Chinese, and other asiatics have much thinner
> skulls than Europeans. They have long had a
> good supply of cheap knives -- from bamboo.
> So their males did not need large size (i.e. the
> greater sexual dimorphism of westerners) nor
> large hands. They did not fight with fists, nor
> with clubs. They used knives.
This is the region famous for the development of martial
arts and you're saying they don't fight with fists or
clubs???
Algis Kuliukas
No. Your argument is nonsense - and circular. You can get bashed on
the head in more ways than just by being hit with a club -
swinign/running/jumping through trees would appear a pretty good way
of getting a blow on the head. If it weren't for the skull one such
blow would kill.
> Helmets have been around for a long time. The danger of blows to the
> head have never gone away, regardless of advancements in technology.
The danger must have reduced in the last 15,000 years.
> > > The evolutionary trend is unmistakenly towards thinner skulls as
> > > the brain got bigger.
> >
> > But according to you it should be getting thicker because the brainier
> > we became the more it needed protecting.
>
> No, according to YOU. You say it's to protect the brain, but now that it's
> bigger than ever, by your scenario we need a thicker skull more than ever.
I just don't accept that link. A tiny brain needs protecting just as
much as a big brain. Can't you see? That is what I am arguing.
> > > A large brain and a thick skull would be a
> > > lot of weight. It would require stronger necks. Plus, cooling of
> > > the brain is more easily handled with a thinner skull.
>
> > > The lessening of muscle attachments also indicates a change of diet.
> > >
> > > And the cultural evidence is strongly against the "more civilised and
> > > peaceful to each other as time went on" scenario.
>
> > > The iceman is now known to have been shot in the back with an arrow,
> > > and scalping is now known from 2500 years ago
> > > (http://www.sciencenews.org/20020209/note11ref.asp)
> > >
> > > And you only have to look at, say, Egyptian history to see evidence of
> > > early organized warfare.
> > >
> >
> > Fair arguments, one and all.
> >
> > I was only invoking the skull argument to point out that traits
> > needn't evolve only as a consequence of the amount of time that they
> > are being tested. You can't ignore the survival consequence of the
> > activity that is testing them. One blow to the head would kill you if
> > it weren't for the skull. I accept that it evolved for other reasons
> > too but protecting the brain against blows is one of them - surely you
> > would concede that.
>
> So, since rabbits have skulls, it's to protect them against blows to the
> head? How many rabbits use clubs?
They have skulls, in part, to protect their brains from blows, yes -
absolutely. 'Blows to the head' does not equal 'Clubbing the head' -
there are many ways a rabbit might get a blow on the head. What are
you arguing? That skulls do *not* protect the brain?
> We have ribs too. Is that to protect our organs from blows to the body?
In part, yes. Of course. Can a body part only have one function?
> A skeleton is primarily a frame.
Primarily, yes. But soley - no.
> > If wading helped an ape to survive it would be selected for to a
> > greater extent than that predicted purely by the amount of time spent
> > doing so and more than other activities that were not so potentially
> > lethal.
>
> An activity that's rare has even less chance of influencing development.
Not if it saves your life.
Algis Kuliukas
Richard Wagler
Will men abed in England (or anywhere else) think
themselves accursed that they were not with me
on this day? Not bloody likely.....
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3C70B194...@shaw.ca>...
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> >[I wrote]
> > You introduced the notion of the skull being evolved to deal
> > with episodes of head-bashing. This is a nonsensical way to
> > make the point that the skeloton provides a dandy way to
> > provide protection to vulnerable organs as well as allowing
> > a place to anchor large masses of soft tissue thus allowing
> > vertebrates to become very big relative to invertebrates the
> > vast majority of which are very small.So, no, the skull did
> > not evolve to counter head-bashing any more than bipedal
> > wading evolved to forestall drowning.
>
> I am just countering the (IMHO mistaken) view that traits evlove only
> as a consequence of some kind of time-related factor - how much time
> they spend doing x will determine the likelihood an x-related trait
> will evolve. You ignore the survival impact of x. If x keeps you alive
> then x will get selected for even if it only happens once in a
> lifetime.
A) It is not a time-related factor but rather the intensity
of selective pressure. Mating involves very little of an
organisms time. Mayflies do it once every seven years.
But you will agree that all organisms are under intense
selective pressure to get the job done and those which
do it better than others of their species have the advantage.
B) You single out wading as having some unique survival
advantage. All viable responses to selective pressure have
survival advantages. For bipedalism wading is not a method
to avoid drowning. It is a mathod to get particular kinds of
food or to cross a water barrier. Standing up to look around
and detect predators has a more immediate survival advantage
than wading. Standing up to get food is equal to wading to get
food. All of the proposed reasons for why bipedalism would
be advantageous to some particular hominoids involve the
identification of a survival advantage. 'Fooling around' or 'It
seemed like a good idea at the time' are never listed as proposed
selective pressures for why some particualar apes would have
become obligate bipeds.
>
>
> Thick skulls help to make it unlikely that a bump on the head will
> kill you. I accept that skulls fulfil other roles too but you can't
> deny mine. Wading ability - if it helps an individual survive will,
> similarly, get selected for even if it doesn't happen very often. I
> assume that the earliest bipeds did wade fairly regularly, however
> (aay several times a day) and ceratinly far more than extant apes do
> today.
What do you base this assumption on. "Wetter" is pretty vague.
>
>
> If a putative aquatic ape lived near water, wading traits are likely
> to have kept them alive frequently.
Why? No animal will willingly drown itself. Wading is walking
in water. If that already includes facultative bipedalism then
that will be used from time to time just as we see today.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > The point is this. If you are arguing that traits that helped apes
> > > wade bipedally could not have resulted *because* they didn't spend
> > > enough *time* in the water, how can you accept that thick skulls ever
> > > evolved and remained selected for ever since?
> >
> > Because I don't accept your silly scenario for skull evolution. I
> > would say that the apes did not evolve bipedal wading to deal
> > with water because it is an inept response to a dangerous set
> > of circumstances ie a non-swimmer in deep water.
>
> Primates are not generally good swimmers. The Hominoidae are generally
> not good swimmers. It is therefore parsimonious to assume that the lca
> was not a particularly good swimmer either. Therefore if they lived by
> water they are certainly likely to wade rather than swim if they can.
> Wading is faster and more efficient than swimming at shallower depths.
> I assume the habitat of these putative apes was mangrove forest/swamp
> - where trees would be close at hand and therfore the need to swim
> would therefore be minimal.
Got any mangrove swamps in mind? You have not a shred
of evidence for this mangrove dwelling hominoid ape.
As a WAG (=wild assed guess, a standard usent acronym)
it is serviceable enough but it is only that. Meanwhile the
palaeoenvironments of known fossil homind locales don't
seem to include swamp forests of any description, And modern
apes living in these sorts of environments are not any more
bipedal than there dry(er) land cousins.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > It's a balancing act. As Dawkins puts it - a species is an averaging
> > > computer showing, through its phenotype the average habitat of its
> > > ancestors. Something that was extremely lethal - like a blow to the
> > > head - would evolve traits even if the likelihood was very rare.
> > > Something that was risky but usually safe - like wading - would exerpt
> > > less pressure but if the frequency of the wading events was great
> > > enough it would exerpt a pressure all the same.
> >
> > But why evolve a wholly new form of locomotion to do it?
> > Just use what you got - which in the case of primates includes
> > bipoedalism. Please try and remember what your argument is.
>
> It's not a whole new form - apes were already predisposed to wade.
> They wade bipedally even today. All I'm saying is that several million
> years of living in that kind of habitat would gradually improve those
> traits.
How? What would this improvement consist of? What
the heck is a 'wading trait' anyway?
>
> > >
> > > Even gorillas, who can swim, tend to wade unless the water is too deep. And
> > > of course, so do humans.
> >
> > And so does every other animal that has ever
> > ventured into water, Deep is relative. You are still
> > arguing for a deep-water non-swimmer and this is
> > so extraordinary a proposition that you simply have to
> > try and back it up. But, of course, you can't. Do the
> > smart thing and give it up. You have a major interest
> > in PA and are investing time and money into it. Why
> > waste it on this guff?
>
> I studied it, specifically becuase you made this very point to me a
> couple of years ago. Wading is faster than swimming at shallow depths.
> Even humans wade rather than swim at waist depth and below. Wading
> would come before swimming as long as the habitat had relatively
> short, shallow stretches of water.
No doubt. Any animal will do this. What is specific to
apes that it would have some extraordinary effect on
them as opposed to all other mammals. I'll leave aside
the inconvenient fact that modern apes don't seem to
have benefited from their wading even though they
have been at it for a very long time.
>
>
> I'll give up when I hear a single convincing argument as to why
> bipedalism could not have evolved in water - but I know that there
> aren't any.
Nor does there need to be. You are proposing that
water had this extraordianry effect. Using as evidence
modern apes where water has*not* had this extraordinary
effect. What, as a skeptic, am I required to demonstrate?
Just ask. I'll do my best.
>
>
> > > Its the juxtaposition ( in relation to their cladistics) of
> > > chimp/bonobo and human abilities in water that is so striking and
> > > demands an explanation. But it's not just chimps anyway. Orang-utans
> > > are also poor and gorillas are nowhere near as good as we are.
> >
> > How good are we? Prior to the invention of the
> > Australian crawl human swimming was a rather
> > clumsy affair. The Australian crawl was invented
> > in the South Pacific, IIRC, by people who
> > moved into the place less than a millenia ago.
>
> Compared to a seal we are piss-poor but compared to chimps, bonobos,
> gorillas and orang-utans we are actually pretty good. That is the only
> comparison that matters, Rick. Remember cladistics?
Cladistics?? As for comparisons to chimps etc why
restrict it to swimming? For example how do we compare
as distance travellers? Pretty favourably I should think.
As tool makers? Bicycle riders? Space cadets? I could
go on....
>
>
> How do you - or anyone - know how well people swam 100,000 years ago?
Well you do, for one. Your whole argument is predicated
on this very assumption. If it is nothing but a wag how can you
think you can base a theory of hominid evolution on it?
>
>
> > > Actually I assume (based on parsimony) that the lca was rather like
> > > the gorilla - in terms of aquatic abilities. From that point chimps
> > > became less aquatic and we became more aquatic. Whatever you think
> > > about all this water was clearly involved somewhere. It is the fact
> > > that the aqua-sceptics continue to deny that it could possible have
> > > been is the only thing that is odd about the concept.
> >
> > Look to the evidence for the exploitation of
> > aquatic resources. It really got going with the
> > arrival of AMHs - before that the evidence
> > is a lot less that aquatic resources were a major
> > part of the hominid diet. What does this suggest?
>
> Where's the earliest evidence for modern human culture - e.g. use of
> red ochre? Klasies river mouth cave, South Africa. - 130,000 bp.
?? Your point?
>
>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Is wading almost 'always bipedal' in modern apes.
> > >
> > > It is another example of facultative bipedalism. They commonly use
> > > other examples, such as carrying food or branches, climbing, foraging
> > > bushes, posturing etc. etc. So, are you saying that wading doesn't
> > > count as one such model? On what basis? Because it involves water?
> >
> > But I'm not saying that any of these activities
> > led to the evolution of the modest bipedal abilities
> > of chimps and gorillas. That's your argument.
>
> I meant that other examples of facultative ape bipedalism are used as
> models for human bipedal origins.
Origins? Or as a suite of advantages that would lead
to obligate bipedalism? But I think until and unless we
fill out the fossil record and nail down the origin and
history of this form of locomotion all of these discussions
are so much handwaving. But we *can* look at modern
human bipedalism and see how that works and what
advantages it conferred on an animal that possessed it.
And, IMHO, ability to operate in aquatic environments
is such a minor part of this that I see no reason to consider
it much if at al. You take a diametrically opposed view.
Why? What does obligate bipedalism give to humans by
way of aquatic adaptations?
>
>
> > > > You
> > > > simply ignore field studies that indicate otherwise. Not a
> > > > sound procedure in one who would seek to create a
> > > > solid foundation for his hypothesis.
> > > > As for studying chimp
> > > > bipedalism one may discern the ways in which the LCA
> > > > could not have been simply a chimp or gorilla and that
> > > > knuckle-walking is a highly derived form of locomotion.
> > >
> > > What are you on about? Hunt's paper is one of the most respected in
> > > the field in this area and nobody criticised him for looking for
> > > analogues of bipedalism in extant apes. I know. It's because I've used
> > > his methods but looked at the efefct of water, isn't it? Sorry i
> > > should have remembered - any study looking at the effects of water
> > > must be bad science.
> >
> > No. Looking at the effects of water and constantly
> > assuming what you are required to demonstrate
> > is bad science.
>
> Well, if several hundred professional pas and their students weren't
> interested enough to look into it, that is not my fault. It seems a
> little unfair to accuse me of that when the entire field has been
> doing exactly the same thing themselves for 42 years (in assuming that
> water was not involved). But then I should know better than to expect
> aquasceptics to be fair minded.
What are we required to be fair minded about?
The role of water in human evolution? Okay.
You and others have made the argument. We have
looked at them here on sap and elsewhere. And
we find the proposition wanting - to put it mildly.
What's so unfair about that? If you can't mount
a proper hypothetical argument to which the
standards of scientific analysis can be applied
what are we supposed to do??
>
>
>
> > Miocene hominoid apes lived in all types of habitats.
> > 'Wet and wooded' means what? A permanently
> > flooded swamp forest? More than 30 inches of
> > rain in a year?
>
> An environment where wading could have been regularly needed to get
> from one clump of trees to another, of course.
Think real estate, Location, location, location....
WHERE IS THIS SWAMP??
>
>
>
> > What facts? Provide some references. Did not Hunt
> > tell you that he did not observe bipedal wading?
>
> Groan. I did in my thesis. There was no water there - so it would have
> been remarkable if he had.
You did not provide much of a quote. I read the statement
to mean that the wading in chimps he observed was not bipedal.
Are you saying this was just a jocular aside? Can't wade on
dry land, ho-ho.....
>
>
> > Besides
> > no one denies that bonobos may wade bipeally. Kano
> > infers it though he did not observe it.
>
> Infers it is better than nothing. Put with the other evidence it
> simply shows what we already know - apes wade when they have to and
> when they do it's almost always bipedally.
And what effect does it have on the development
of bipedalism in bonobos? Why would more produce
an obligate biped? That is the essence of your argument
is it not?
>
>
> > But what is it
> > supposed to prove? That bipedal wading in bonobos and
> > gorillas did absolutely nothing to enhance their bipedal
> > proclivities which are very modest and can best be
> > understood as an ancestral primate characteristic.
>
> Groan. Yes but if even bonobos, chimps, gorillas and orang-utans wade
> bipedally when none of them live in particularly wet and wooded
> environments doesn't that imply that an ancestor that did live in such
> a habitat would be even more likely to wade?
Probably. But what would cause you to think that
this would lead to obligate bipedalism? To repeat
a point I've made many times - the circumstances
that produce wading do not require obligate bipedalism
to deal with it so why would it be evolved in these
circumstances? That's the big question you need to
address. And to repeat myself again since modern apes
are not anywhere close to being full bipeds what does
it matter what they do?
>
>
>
> > > The significance for me is that it is rare on land - about 2%. It is
> > > rare in trees - about 2% of the time spent there. But in water it is
> > > the opposite - over 90% of the time. Ignore that fact if you want but
> > > sooner or later the scientific community will have to take it's
> > > significance on board.
> >
> > Sooner or later you are going to have to try
> > and understand what Bob Keeter has been
> > trying to explain to you. Do you not understand
> > that 90% of 10 is smaller than 2% of 10,000?.
> > Get a calculator and do the math. All should
> > become clear.
>
> 90% of 10 life saving events is more significant than 2% of 100,000
> trivial ones.
See above. What's trivial about detecting predators
soon enough to get yourself and your troopmates
safely up a tree? What's trivial about adopting feeding
and foraging strategies that are greatly enhanced by
bipedalism. What's trivial about being the dominant male??
>
>
>
> > > No I don't. Not at all. My assumption about the LCA is based on Marc
> > > Verhaegen's concept of an aquarboreal (climbing-wading) ancestor
> > > actually. I've been posting this regularly enough.
> >
> > Yeah well Marc has absolutely no evidence for this
> > acquaboreal ape of his. Infers it from the (non-existent)
> > resemblances between seals and humans and dismisses
> > all fossils as irrelevant. Surely to God a UCL MSc
> > can do better than that. But then I would have thought
> > a bona fide MD could do better than that. Oh well
> > obsession is a tricky business.
>
> You are, as always, very unfair to Marc. He was one of the few people
> I know of that was predicting that bipedalism predated the Pan/Homo
> split (prior to December 2000, quoted with increasing confidence at
> 5.5mya). When Orrorin was discovered (and dated at 6my) I swallowed my
> pride and began to accept that he was probably right about his
> aquarboreal model after all. Of course you guys are incapable of
> admitting you are wrong about anything. You'll still be slagging him
> off on your death bed, when the AAH is firmly established in the
> mainstream!
In your dreams. Marc has the same problem you do.
He just dumps his apes into the water for no discernible
reason. He can't, and nor can you, demonstrate why
an aquatic, acquaboreal, streamside wader etc etc
phase in human evolution provides a solution to the
many mysteries yet to be solved. It all derives from
a wacky misinterpretation of human anatomy and
physiology and a ludicrously inept attempt at
comparative anatomy. Having swallowed this guff
wholehog you are now floundering around trying
to come up with some reason to get your apes
into the water and have seized on wading as your
magic bullet. Give it up! Life is too short.
>
>
> > > > Look at modern human bipedalism - how it works and what it
> > > > allows Homo sapiens to do. Look at the fossil record and at
> > > > the palaeoenvironments of the fossil hominid sites. It's not more
> > > > complicated than that. Of course this would involve dealing with
> > > > issues of taphonomy and we can't have that, can we?
> > >
> > > Modern Homo sapiens is clearly a fully terrestrial biped. I have never
> > > disputed that. It is the origin of bipedalism that I am speculating
> > > about.
> >
> > But your model - the bonobo - demonstrates the precise
> > opposite of what you think it does. Chimps can't swim.
> > Evidence *for* the AAT. Bonobos occasionally wade
> > bipedally. Evidence *for* the AAT. You've got yourself
> > into the position where everything argues *for* the
> > AAT both a and -a.
>
> No. You willfully misunderstand. Chimps & bonobos can't swim but *we
> can*. Therefore the 'something' that happenned to our ancestors that
> was different to their ancestors must have involved water. Yes.
> Evidence *for* the AAH. - Very much so.
It's called cultural development, niche expansion, the
development of the intellectual capacity to discern
promise and advantge in doing new things. It's a
wonderful story and has not much to do with what
was going on 6 or 7 million years ago in some
phantom swamp forest.
>
>
> Bonobos wade bipedally, chimps wade bipedally, orang-utans wade
> bipedally, gorillas wade bipedally - therefore the lca of the
> Hominoidae probably waded bipedally. If that Hominoid lived in a
> habitat where it was necessary more regularly than today's extant apes
> it would be more likely to wade bipedally than they are - hence a very
> plausible model for bipedal origins. Yes, again. More evidence *for*
> the AAH.
Bonobo wading, gorilla wading, and orang wading has
not enhanced their bipedal abilities one bit. This is
supposed to be evidence for more bouts of wading
producing an obligate biped????
>
>
> > This is bunk. What you need is
> > a testable hypothesis and a clear set of statements
> > about your assunptions.
>
> My thesis made four testable predictions and every one was met easily.
Says who?
>
>
> > For example is it your position
> > that the LCA or the lineage leading up to it was wholly
> > quadrupedal and in no way, whatsoever, was a facultative
> > biped?
>
> That's just an irrelevant diversion. What difference does that make?
> The AAH suggests that the lca was a wading ape - a bipedal wading ape.
> It was probably facultative to start with but after several million
> years it became more obligatory untill a point of no return was
> reached for some of them (Homo ancestors) but not others
> (Pan/Gorilla).
Fossil evidence for this wading ape? No.
Any sound anatomical hypothesis for what
wading bipedally is supposed to accomplish? No.
See the problem? No?
>
>
>
> > The proposition that more wading would generate
> > an obligate biped is an interesting proposition. But what
> > do the bonobos prove. They wade bipedally at times.
> > But their bipedality is modest enough that there is nothing
> > to be made of their wading. Why do you think it is indicative
> > of anything?
>
> How many times do I have to spell this out to you? If extant apes are
> bipedal 90% of the time they spend in water and if the lca lived in a
> habitat that was often flooded then isn't it rather likely that the
> lca would become more bipedal?
The evidence the modern apes provide says
no.There is no reason to think this is at all likely
Sorry.
Rick Wagler
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > It does not matter that much how big your brain is.
> > A blow on it which crushes your skull will end your
> > life. The thickness of our ancestors skulls merely
> > shows that they were liable to suffer a fair number
> > of heavy blows on their heads
>
> For this to be viable, there'd have to be a high rate of head bashing.
There is (and was) a high rate of head bashing. Read
_any_ account of pre-industrial societies. (I'm just reading
about the Indian societies encountered by the first English
colonialists in Virginia.)
> And it wouldn't explain the thick skulls of chimps or gorillas.
Gorillas fight. Exactly how, I doubt if anyone knows.
But I'd bet they hit each other's heads -- possibly
with their own, and that their heads hit trees, etc.
Chimps use heavy rocks against each other.
> > > Why would a more efficient weapon mean a reduction
> > > in skull thickness?
> >
> > A thick skull does not protect you from a slit throat,
> > or a stab in the guts.
>
> Then why haven't we evolved something to protect our throat
> or guts???
Not enough time; the task is complex, and there's
nothing much to work with. I can't see anyone
being selected because they have thicker skin
on their bellies. Although on their necks, beards
may have been extended down a bit, where they
existed already.
> > > The evolutionary trend is unmistakenly towards thinner skulls as
> > > the brain got bigger. A large brain and a thick skull would be a
> > > lot of weight. It would require stronger necks.
> >
> > True, but brain size has gone _down_ over the last
> > 300 Kyr or so. And skull thickness has gone down
> > a LOT.
>
> Compared to the last 4+ million years, it's negligible.
>
> > > Plus, cooling of
> > > the brain is more easily handled with a thinner skull.
> >
> > Nah. That's done with blood vessels and sweating.
>
> The head still radiates heat. Estimates range over 50% of body heat
> is through the head.
God knows what that figure means. Is it normal
resting energy? Were they talking about babies
or infants? In our context we are thinking of adult
males, where the need for cooling comes when
the animal is under pressure. The 'radiant heat'
lost in such circumstances, through all that bone
and muscle, would be trivial. It's the blood vessels
and sweating that do all the work.
> The human skull evolved numerous veins in the skull
> to facilitate heat dissipation, veins that don't show in thicker skulled
> australopithicines.
That's only because we don't have the soft tissue.
> > > The lessening of muscle attachments also indicates a change of diet.
> >
> > Since when?
>
> Since australopithecus and related hominids. What do you think a sagittal
> crest is for? Reduction in tooth size and number?
That's really bad thinking (if the bog-standard,
mindless PA stuff). Male gorillas have enormous
crests. Female gorillas have none AFAIR (or very
small ones if they have any). Why the difference?
A different diet for males as against females?
> > > And the cultural evidence is strongly against the "more civilised and
> > > peaceful to each other as time went on" scenario.
> >
> > Maybe. Only now we use smart bombs and lasers.
> > Our recent ancestors used knives and poisoned
> > arrows, etc.
>
> And they still had clubs. Sticks require little if any preparation
> and are highly effective. I have over 20 years in the martial arts, and
> stick weapons have a prominent position (I'm partial to the jo myself).
If you really wanted to kill someone (and weren't
bothered about the amount of blood -- or anything
else), would you go out with a knife or a club?
If you were afraid of being attacked and killed,
which would you take out for protection?
> Military helmets go back a long ways. If blows to the head
> weren't an issue, there'd be no need for helmets.
Blows to the head have always been an issue.
But before there were good cutting and stabbing
weapons, they were about the most important
issue. Since they didn't have good supplies of
bronze, they grew bone instead. And military
helmets were mostly designed to minimise the
effects of projectiles and sharp edges.
> > Have you read Goodall, et al., on chimpanzee behaviour?
>
> Yup. How often do they club each other?
She describes the violence as intense. A
lot of it is directed to the head, and weapons
are used.
> > Note the difference in skull thickness in modern
> > humans. Women have much thinner skulls than
> > men. Why is that? Or, to put it another way, why
> > do human males acquire thick skulls after puberty?
>
> Females are less robust in general. Why is that?
I realise that it's probably a rare occurrence, but
next time you encounter a female of the species
in the company of a male of the species, compare
their heads; then compare their general anatomy.
The heads are _enormously_ different. Male
heads are about 50% larger. In spite of that, male
eyes are much smaller than female ones. The
bone structure is utterly different. Male heads have
a much greater density of bone, muscle and other
tissue.
(I know you won't have seen any of this before.
After all, what the heck has it got to do with PA?
Also PC thinking requires us to believe that men
and women are really just the same.)
> > Chinese, and other asiatics have much thinner
> > skulls than Europeans. They have long had a
> > good supply of cheap knives -- from bamboo.
> > So their males did not need large size (i.e. the
> > greater sexual dimorphism of westerners) nor
> > large hands. They did not fight with fists, nor
> > with clubs. They used knives.
>
> This is the region famous for the development of martial
> arts and you're saying they don't fight with fists or
> clubs???
Over the last 30-50 Kyr, they've killed each other
with knives, spears and arrows, much more than
they have with fists or clubs. It's the killing that
has determined the selection, not the kung-fu.
Michael Clark
news:QNVc8.2140$W8.1...@news.indigo.ie...
> "Rich Travsky" <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C731685...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
[snip crowley-isms]
"tar baby"
n.
A situation or problem from which it is virtually impossible to disentangle oneself.
Hey Rich. You must have a ton of free time on your hands. I looked over that
stuff I snipped thinking about replying but then I thought, how does one reply to a
man who claims a mans' head is 50% larger than a womans'?
Tar baby.
Rich Travsky
I don't think you realize it, but you just pulled the rug out from under
yourself. You list a number of other ways for skull injuries to occur -
yet somehow, in your scenario, that exerts no selective pressure to keep
skulls thick???
> > Helmets have been around for a long time. The danger of blows to the
> > head have never gone away, regardless of advancements in technology.
>
> The danger must have reduced in the last 15,000 years.
No, it's gotten worse with the advent of organized warfare.
> > > > The evolutionary trend is unmistakenly towards thinner skulls as
> > > > the brain got bigger.
> > >
> > > But according to you it should be getting thicker because the brainier
> > > we became the more it needed protecting.
> >
> > No, according to YOU. You say it's to protect the brain, but now that it's
> > bigger than ever, by your scenario we need a thicker skull more than ever.
>
> I just don't accept that link. A tiny brain needs protecting just as
> much as a big brain. Can't you see? That is what I am arguing.
Can't you see that the bigger brain in a thin skull is more vulnerable?
You're the one who brought up weapons use.
> > We have ribs too. Is that to protect our organs from blows to the body?
>
> In part, yes. Of course. Can a body part only have one function?
If one function is to protect the organs, then why aren't they
more protective?
> > A skeleton is primarily a frame.
>
> Primarily, yes. But soley - no.
>
> > > If wading helped an ape to survive it would be selected for to a
> > > greater extent than that predicted purely by the amount of time spent
> > > doing so and more than other activities that were not so potentially
> > > lethal.
> >
> > An activity that's rare has even less chance of influencing development.
>
> Not if it saves your life.
Then it only occurs in rare situations. Even less chance then of influencing
things...
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:3C731685...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > > It does not matter that much how big your brain is.
> > > A blow on it which crushes your skull will end your
> > > life. The thickness of our ancestors skulls merely
> > > shows that they were liable to suffer a fair number
> > > of heavy blows on their heads
> >
> > For this to be viable, there'd have to be a high rate of head bashing.
>
> There is (and was) a high rate of head bashing. Read
> _any_ account of pre-industrial societies. (I'm just reading
> about the Indian societies encountered by the first English
> colonialists in Virginia.)
Then, if there's all this recent head bashing, where are the thickened
skulls?
> > And it wouldn't explain the thick skulls of chimps or gorillas.
>
> Gorillas fight. Exactly how, I doubt if anyone knows.
> But I'd bet they hit each other's heads -- possibly
> with their own, and that their heads hit trees, etc.
There've been numerous films of gorilla fights. I've even seen
film of female gorillas fighting. (Guess what? A lot of it
is bipedal.) Lots of arm blows, screaming, bite attempts.
> Chimps use heavy rocks against each other.
Cite?
> > > > Why would a more efficient weapon mean a reduction
> > > > in skull thickness?
> > >
> > > A thick skull does not protect you from a slit throat,
> > > or a stab in the guts.
> >
> > Then why haven't we evolved something to protect our throat
> > or guts???
>
> Not enough time; the task is complex, and there's
> nothing much to work with. I can't see anyone
> being selected because they have thicker skin
> on their bellies. Although on their necks, beards
> may have been extended down a bit, where they
> existed already.
So, there was plenty of time for skulls to get less thick, not
to mention that features like nuchal crests, sagittals, mastoids,
etc get smaller too, but not enough for throat and gut
protection???
> > > > The evolutionary trend is unmistakenly towards thinner skulls as
> > > > the brain got bigger. A large brain and a thick skull would be a
> > > > lot of weight. It would require stronger necks.
> > >
> > > True, but brain size has gone _down_ over the last
> > > 300 Kyr or so. And skull thickness has gone down
> > > a LOT.
> >
> > Compared to the last 4+ million years, it's negligible.
> >
> > > > Plus, cooling of
> > > > the brain is more easily handled with a thinner skull.
> > >
> > > Nah. That's done with blood vessels and sweating.
> >
> > The head still radiates heat. Estimates range over 50% of body heat
> > is through the head.
>
> God knows what that figure means. Is it normal
Thermal studies. You come across this sort of thing in cold
weather preparation (admonitions to wear a hat).
> resting energy? Were they talking about babies
> or infants? In our context we are thinking of adult
> males, where the need for cooling comes when
> the animal is under pressure. The 'radiant heat'
> lost in such circumstances, through all that bone
> and muscle, would be trivial. It's the blood vessels
> and sweating that do all the work.
Doesn't matter. The figure goes up the higher the level of activity.
Quick search for an online link:
http://www.discoveralberta.com/Articles/BackCountryClothing/8-14.html
The body does not loose heat evenly. The head is notoriously bad,
while it makes up only 9% the body's surface area, we loose almost
half our body heat from it.
> > The human skull evolved numerous veins in the skull
> > to facilitate heat dissipation, veins that don't show in thicker skulled
> > australopithicines.
>
> That's only because we don't have the soft tissue.
Neither did the australopithecines...
> > > > The lessening of muscle attachments also indicates a change of diet.
> > >
> > > Since when?
> >
> > Since australopithecus and related hominids. What do you think a sagittal
> > crest is for? Reduction in tooth size and number?
>
> That's really bad thinking (if the bog-standard,
> mindless PA stuff). Male gorillas have enormous
> crests. Female gorillas have none AFAIR (or very
> small ones if they have any). Why the difference?
> A different diet for males as against females?
The males have the extra duty of defense and agression.
> > > > And the cultural evidence is strongly against the "more civilised and
> > > > peaceful to each other as time went on" scenario.
> > >
> > > Maybe. Only now we use smart bombs and lasers.
> > > Our recent ancestors used knives and poisoned
> > > arrows, etc.
> >
> > And they still had clubs. Sticks require little if any preparation
> > and are highly effective. I have over 20 years in the martial arts, and
> > stick weapons have a prominent position (I'm partial to the jo myself).
>
> If you really wanted to kill someone (and weren't
> bothered about the amount of blood -- or anything
> else), would you go out with a knife or a club?
Club, actually. Less chance of being grabbed. Knife is too short
range, defender can take a cut or two in the process of taking
on the attacker. Plus, you can use a LOT of things as a shield.
> If you were afraid of being attacked and killed,
> which would you take out for protection?
Club. Good distance weapon. Works great on dogs too (if you've
ever been jumped by one - or more).
> > Military helmets go back a long ways. If blows to the head
> > weren't an issue, there'd be no need for helmets.
>
> Blows to the head have always been an issue.
> But before there were good cutting and stabbing
> weapons, they were about the most important
> issue. Since they didn't have good supplies of
> bronze, they grew bone instead. And military
> helmets were mostly designed to minimise the
> effects of projectiles and sharp edges.
Let's see: Romans, good cutting and stabbing weapons, STILL
used helmets...
> > > Have you read Goodall, et al., on chimpanzee behaviour?
> >
> > Yup. How often do they club each other?
>
> She describes the violence as intense. A
> lot of it is directed to the head, and weapons
> are used.
And none of that changed as hominids developed. Yet, skulls
got thinner.
> > > Note the difference in skull thickness in modern
> > > humans. Women have much thinner skulls than
> > > men. Why is that? Or, to put it another way, why
> > > do human males acquire thick skulls after puberty?
> >
> > Females are less robust in general. Why is that?
>
> I realise that it's probably a rare occurrence, but
> next time you encounter a female of the species
> in the company of a male of the species, compare
> their heads; then compare their general anatomy.
> The heads are _enormously_ different. Male
> heads are about 50% larger. In spite of that, male
> eyes are much smaller than female ones. The
> bone structure is utterly different. Male heads have
> a much greater density of bone, muscle and other
> tissue.
MALE HEADS ARE 50% LARGER????? Now I know you're full of it.
And I asked why they're less robust, not how.
> (I know you won't have seen any of this before.
> After all, what the heck has it got to do with PA?
> Also PC thinking requires us to believe that men
> and women are really just the same.)
>
> > > Chinese, and other asiatics have much thinner
> > > skulls than Europeans. They have long had a
> > > good supply of cheap knives -- from bamboo.
> > > So their males did not need large size (i.e. the
> > > greater sexual dimorphism of westerners) nor
> > > large hands. They did not fight with fists, nor
> > > with clubs. They used knives.
> >
> > This is the region famous for the development of martial
> > arts and you're saying they don't fight with fists or
> > clubs???
>
> Over the last 30-50 Kyr, they've killed each other
> with knives, spears and arrows, much more than
> they have with fists or clubs. It's the killing that
> has determined the selection, not the kung-fu.
Ah. You have stats to cite for these crime figures of the
last 30-50 kya???
Bob Keeter
wrote on 2/20/02 6:13 PM:
> Once more into the breech.....
>
> Will men abed in England (or anywhere else) think
> themselves accursed that they were not with me
> on this day? Not bloody likely.....
>
snip. . . . . . .
Along with most of the snipped arguement, have to agree with the first
statement; not bloody likely . . . . . . . not even the ones who stayed too
long in the midday sun, but you did do a good job of it! 8-)
>
> The evidence the modern apes provide says
> no.There is no reason to think this is at all likely
>
> Sorry.
>
> Rick Wagler
True, but it hardly makes any difference to the "true believers"!
Great discussion but fear that you are simultaneously preaching to the choir
and whispering into deaf ears!
Regards
bk
Algis Kuliukas
> Once more into the breech.....
>
> Will men abed in England (or anywhere else) think
> themselves accursed that they were not with me
> on this day? Not bloody likely.....
:-)
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
[..]
> > I am just countering the (IMHO mistaken) view that traits evlove only
> > as a consequence of some kind of time-related factor - how much time
> > they spend doing x will determine the likelihood an x-related trait
> > will evolve. You ignore the survival impact of x. If x keeps you alive
> > then x will get selected for even if it only happens once in a
> > lifetime.
>
> A) It is not a time-related factor but rather the intensity
> of selective pressure. Mating involves very little of an
> organisms time. Mayflies do it once every seven years.
> But you will agree that all organisms are under intense
> selective pressure to get the job done and those which
> do it better than others of their species have the advantage.
Fine. I agree with this. But Rich Travsky (and I think yourself) were
arguing that because the bonobo wading frequency was so low, it didn't
count.
> B) You single out wading as having some unique survival
> advantage. All viable responses to selective pressure have
> survival advantages. For bipedalism wading is not a method
> to avoid drowning. It is a mathod to get particular kinds of
> food or to cross a water barrier. Standing up to look around
> and detect predators has a more immediate survival advantage
> than wading. Standing up to get food is equal to wading to get
> food. All of the proposed reasons for why bipedalism would
> be advantageous to some particular hominoids involve the
> identification of a survival advantage. 'Fooling around' or 'It
> seemed like a good idea at the time' are never listed as proposed
> selective pressures for why some particualar apes would have
> become obligate bipeds.
It's pretty clear, Rick. In waist deep water being bipedal is a life
saver because if you're quadrupedal your face is below the surface.
They have no choice but to move (not just posture) bipedally. I accept
the reasons you gave are also survival benefits - although they would
probably be seen even less frequently in extant apes than wading on
those living near to water - but they are not as clear cut survival
benefits.
In waist deep water if you don't go bipedal you drown in about two
minutes - and with absolute certainty if you can't swim.
If you are getting food (picking berries, carrying food - whatever
model you like) you are not going to die in two minutes if you don't
go bipedal. In fact it is likely to make very little difference at
all.
If you didn't detect predators you might die in two minutes but you
might die anyway, even if you did detect them and you might have
detected them on all fours.
> > Thick skulls help to make it unlikely that a bump on the head will
> > kill you. I accept that skulls fulfil other roles too but you can't
> > deny mine. Wading ability - if it helps an individual survive will,
> > similarly, get selected for even if it doesn't happen very often. I
> > assume that the earliest bipeds did wade fairly regularly, however
> > (aay several times a day) and ceratinly far more than extant apes do
> > today.
>
> What do you base this assumption on. "Wetter" is pretty vague.
The earliest bipeds - Oreopithecus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus,
Kenyanthropus and earliest Australopithecus - lived in *wetter*
habitats than extant apes. If extant apes wade in water they are more
likely to have done so. This seems to me to be a very plausible model
for the origins of bipedlaism. Stop pretending you don't understand my
point. You have read the papers on those early habitats, haven't you?
> > If a putative aquatic ape lived near water, wading traits are likely
> > to have kept them alive frequently.
>
> Why? No animal will willingly drown itself. Wading is walking
> in water. If that already includes facultative bipedalism then
> that will be used from time to time just as we see today.
Yes, walking. Here's a factor that encourages walking - one that kills
the ones that don't walk or can't walk and one that doesn't affect
those that don't go in water at all.
[..]
> Got any mangrove swamps in mind? You have not a shred
> of evidence for this mangrove dwelling hominoid ape.
> As a WAG (=wild assed guess, a standard usent acronym)
> it is serviceable enough but it is only that. Meanwhile the
> palaeoenvironments of known fossil homind locales don't
> seem to include swamp forests of any description, And modern
> apes living in these sorts of environments are not any more
> bipedal than there dry(er) land cousins.
Oreopithecus was a swamp-dwelling ape AFAIK. If this model existed in
one Miocene pre-hominid ape it is likely to have existed in other,
later, ones too. Why do you find this so fantastic?
[..]
> > It's not a whole new form - apes were already predisposed to wade.
> > They wade bipedally even today. All I'm saying is that several million
> > years of living in that kind of habitat would gradually improve those
> > traits.
>
> How? What would this improvement consist of? What
> the heck is a 'wading trait' anyway?
Upright posture, reorganization of the limbs for powerful upright
movement. As you say - a wading trait is really a walking trait - just
an easy one to get because the habitat in which it is likely to
develop provides a constant and gentle pressure at every stage.
[..]
> > I studied it, specifically becuase you made this very point to me a
> > couple of years ago. Wading is faster than swimming at shallow depths.
> > Even humans wade rather than swim at waist depth and below. Wading
> > would come before swimming as long as the habitat had relatively
> > short, shallow stretches of water.
>
> No doubt. Any animal will do this. What is specific to
> apes that it would have some extraordinary effect on
> them as opposed to all other mammals. I'll leave aside
> the inconvenient fact that modern apes don't seem to
> have benefited from their wading even though they
> have been at it for a very long time.
Modern apes don't wade very frequently, remember? (that was your
original objection) So, as they are not exposed to much aquatic
pressure it is no wonder they have not become more bipedal. What is
specific to apes? Easy. They have a predisposition to upright
'truncal' posture anyway. Even extant apes wade.
> > I'll give up when I hear a single convincing argument as to why
> > bipedalism could not have evolved in water - but I know that there
> > aren't any.
>
> Nor does there need to be. You are proposing that
> water had this extraordianry effect. Using as evidence
> modern apes where water has*not* had this extraordinary
> effect. What, as a skeptic, am I required to demonstrate?
> Just ask. I'll do my best.
That the earliest bipeds were less likely to be exposed to wading
pressure than extant apes. That would be a difficult piece of evidence
to argue against.
[..]
> > Compared to a seal we are piss-poor but compared to chimps, bonobos,
> > gorillas and orang-utans we are actually pretty good. That is the only
> > comparison that matters, Rick. Remember cladistics?
>
> Cladistics?? As for comparisons to chimps etc why
> restrict it to swimming? For example how do we compare
> as distance travellers? Pretty favourably I should think.
> As tool makers? Bicycle riders? Space cadets? I could
> go on....
Been there, done that. Take away technology. Strip us naked. What can
we do that they can't then? Things that are part of the natural world.
Common forms of locomotion in the animal world? Which ones? Swim,
dive.
> > How do you - or anyone - know how well people swam 100,000 years ago?
>
> Well you do, for one. Your whole argument is predicated
> on this very assumption. If it is nothing but a wag how can you
> think you can base a theory of hominid evolution on it?
Well today, rounded to the nearest integer, humans are 100%
terrestrial. No-one could dispute that. We are 0% bipedal and 0%
arboreal. However I'd say the average person spent more time in water
than they did up trees, and yet no-one questions that we had a more
arboreal past? What is so fantastic that we also had a more aquatic
one? The fact we can swim and dive far, far better than our nearest
relatives in the animal kingdom is a bit of a clue that it probably
was that way.
> > > > Actually I assume (based on parsimony) that the lca was rather like
> > > > the gorilla - in terms of aquatic abilities. From that point chimps
> > > > became less aquatic and we became more aquatic. Whatever you think
> > > > about all this water was clearly involved somewhere. It is the fact
> > > > that the aqua-sceptics continue to deny that it could possible have
> > > > been is the only thing that is odd about the concept.
> > >
> > > Look to the evidence for the exploitation of
> > > aquatic resources. It really got going with the
> > > arrival of AMHs - before that the evidence
> > > is a lot less that aquatic resources were a major
> > > part of the hominid diet. What does this suggest?
> >
> > Where's the earliest evidence for modern human culture - e.g. use of
> > red ochre? Klasies river mouth cave, South Africa. - 130,000 bp.
>
> ?? Your point?
They inhabitated a seaside habitat, of course.
[..]
> > > But I'm not saying that any of these activities
> > > led to the evolution of the modest bipedal abilities
> > > of chimps and gorillas. That's your argument.
> >
> > I meant that other examples of facultative ape bipedalism are used as
> > models for human bipedal origins.
>
> Origins? Or as a suite of advantages that would lead
> to obligate bipedalism? But I think until and unless we
> fill out the fossil record and nail down the origin and
> history of this form of locomotion all of these discussions
> are so much handwaving.
Fair point. But we need to have a model for how it might have begun.
All I'm saying is that wading has not been considered because it's
part of the heretical AAH. It should have been considered long before
now and it should still be seriously considered in the future.
> But we *can* look at modern
> human bipedalism and see how that works and what
> advantages it conferred on an animal that possessed it.
> And, IMHO, ability to operate in aquatic environments
> is such a minor part of this that I see no reason to consider
> it much if at al. You take a diametrically opposed view.
> Why? What does obligate bipedalism give to humans by
> way of aquatic adaptations?
Agreed. Modern human bipedalism probably has nothing to do with
wading. It's bipedal origins that the model works for.
[..]
> > Well, if several hundred professional pas and their students weren't
> > interested enough to look into it, that is not my fault. It seems a
> > little unfair to accuse me of that when the entire field has been
> > doing exactly the same thing themselves for 42 years (in assuming that
> > water was not involved). But then I should know better than to expect
> > aquasceptics to be fair minded.
>
> What are we required to be fair minded about?
Since Hardy the thoery has not been investigated at all (hardly.) It
has been dismissed out of hand. Rejected - but on what basis? Those
that support the idea, or those who have even been open to it, have
been vilified and condemned by their aquasceptic peers. Established
pas know they are best to keep quiet about this for fear of ridicule.
That, Rick, is not fair mindedness and has *nothing* to do with
scientific progress.
> The role of water in human evolution? Okay.
> You and others have made the argument. We have
> looked at them here on sap and elsewhere.
On the sap, yes. But elsewhere? Where? The Roede et al work and
Langdon - that's it. In 42 years. It's a poor show.
> And
> we find the proposition wanting - to put it mildly.
> What's so unfair about that? If you can't mount
> a proper hypothetical argument to which the
> standards of scientific analysis can be applied
> what are we supposed to do??
'We' (the scientists) are supposed to be scientific about it and not
act like a bunch of clerics from the middle-ages. It hasn't been
studied so how can it be dismissed?
> > > Miocene hominoid apes lived in all types of habitats.
> > > 'Wet and wooded' means what? A permanently
> > > flooded swamp forest? More than 30 inches of
> > > rain in a year?
> >
> > An environment where wading could have been regularly needed to get
> > from one clump of trees to another, of course.
>
> Think real estate, Location, location, location....
> WHERE IS THIS SWAMP??
Med/Red (ex Tethys) Sea on Arabian/African/island coastline.
Flood/dessication cycles.
> > > What facts? Provide some references. Did not Hunt
> > > tell you that he did not observe bipedal wading?
> >
> > Groan. I did in my thesis. There was no water there - so it would have
> > been remarkable if he had.
>
> You did not provide much of a quote. I read the statement
> to mean that the wading in chimps he observed was not bipedal.
> Are you saying this was just a jocular aside? Can't wade on
> dry land, ho-ho.....
He told me that he didn't observe them wading becuase they never went
near water. Fair enough. But if he'd have studied the ones at Conkuati
he'd have produced *very* different data.
> > > Besides
> > > no one denies that bonobos may wade bipeally. Kano
> > > infers it though he did not observe it.
> >
> > Infers it is better than nothing. Put with the other evidence it
> > simply shows what we already know - apes wade when they have to and
> > when they do it's almost always bipedally.
>
> And what effect does it have on the development
> of bipedalism in bonobos? Why would more produce
> an obligate biped? That is the essence of your argument
> is it not?
No. They are not exposed to wading frequently. Don't you get it?
> > > But what is it
> > > supposed to prove? That bipedal wading in bonobos and
> > > gorillas did absolutely nothing to enhance their bipedal
> > > proclivities which are very modest and can best be
> > > understood as an ancestral primate characteristic.
> >
> > Groan. Yes but if even bonobos, chimps, gorillas and orang-utans wade
> > bipedally when none of them live in particularly wet and wooded
> > environments doesn't that imply that an ancestor that did live in such
> > a habitat would be even more likely to wade?
>
> Probably. But what would cause you to think that
> this would lead to obligate bipedalism? To repeat
> a point I've made many times - the circumstances
> that produce wading do not require obligate bipedalism
> to deal with it so why would it be evolved in these
> circumstances? That's the big question you need to
> address. And to repeat myself again since modern apes
> are not anywhere close to being full bipeds what does
> it matter what they do?
The move to obligate bipedalism is more difficult, granted. I suspect
it was because a) the wading traits (upright posture, power bipedal
movement) developed to a point of no return that Homo (but not
Pan/Gorilla) crossed and b) Some isolated population became marooned
on an island where predators died out removing the need to climb trees
(as Paul Crowley argues) took away the climbing element and led to a
new phase of fully terrestrial bipedalism and then (other) selection
pressures.
> > > > The significance for me is that it is rare on land - about 2%. It is
> > > > rare in trees - about 2% of the time spent there. But in water it is
> > > > the opposite - over 90% of the time. Ignore that fact if you want but
> > > > sooner or later the scientific community will have to take it's
> > > > significance on board.
> > >
> > > Sooner or later you are going to have to try
> > > and understand what Bob Keeter has been
> > > trying to explain to you. Do you not understand
> > > that 90% of 10 is smaller than 2% of 10,000?.
> > > Get a calculator and do the math. All should
> > > become clear.
> >
> > 90% of 10 life saving events is more significant than 2% of 100,000
> > trivial ones.
>
> See above. What's trivial about detecting predators
> soon enough to get yourself and your troopmates
> safely up a tree? What's trivial about adopting feeding
> and foraging strategies that are greatly enhanced by
> bipedalism. What's trivial about being the dominant male??
See above. Not trivial, but not so clear cut and not so immediate.
> > > > No I don't. Not at all. My assumption about the LCA is based on Marc
> > > > Verhaegen's concept of an aquarboreal (climbing-wading) ancestor
> > > > actually. I've been posting this regularly enough.
> > >
> > > Yeah well Marc has absolutely no evidence for this
> > > acquaboreal ape of his. Infers it from the (non-existent)
> > > resemblances between seals and humans and dismisses
> > > all fossils as irrelevant. Surely to God a UCL MSc
> > > can do better than that. But then I would have thought
> > > a bona fide MD could do better than that. Oh well
> > > obsession is a tricky business.
> >
> > You are, as always, very unfair to Marc. He was one of the few people
> > I know of that was predicting that bipedalism predated the Pan/Homo
> > split (prior to December 2000, quoted with increasing confidence at
> > 5.5mya). When Orrorin was discovered (and dated at 6my) I swallowed my
> > pride and began to accept that he was probably right about his
> > aquarboreal model after all. Of course you guys are incapable of
> > admitting you are wrong about anything. You'll still be slagging him
> > off on your death bed, when the AAH is firmly established in the
> > mainstream!
>
> In your dreams. ;-D
> Marc has the same problem you do.
> He just dumps his apes into the water for no discernible
> reason. He can't, and nor can you, demonstrate why
> an aquatic, acquaboreal, streamside wader etc etc
> phase in human evolution provides a solution to the
> many mysteries yet to be solved.
That is just your opinion. If you won't open your mind to the notion
there's not much we can do for you.
> It all derives from
> a wacky misinterpretation of human anatomy and
> physiology and a ludicrously inept attempt at
> comparative anatomy. Having swallowed this guff
> wholehog you are now floundering around trying
> to come up with some reason to get your apes
> into the water and have seized on wading as your
> magic bullet. Give it up! Life is too short.
So explain, please, why the paleohabitats of the ealier bipeds are
wetter than the later ones. Why would bipedalism start if it was just
woodland? Why are no other forest primates bipedal?
[..]
> > > But your model - the bonobo - demonstrates the precise
> > > opposite of what you think it does. Chimps can't swim.
> > > Evidence *for* the AAT. Bonobos occasionally wade
> > > bipedally. Evidence *for* the AAT. You've got yourself
> > > into the position where everything argues *for* the
> > > AAT both a and -a.
> >
> > No. You willfully misunderstand. Chimps & bonobos can't swim but *we
> > can*. Therefore the 'something' that happenned to our ancestors that
> > was different to their ancestors must have involved water. Yes.
> > Evidence *for* the AAH. - Very much so.
>
> It's called cultural development, niche expansion, the
> development of the intellectual capacity to discern
> promise and advantge in doing new things. It's a
> wonderful story and has not much to do with what
> was going on 6 or 7 million years ago in some
> phantom swamp forest.
So strip away the culture - look at infant chimps and infant humans -
how come we are so much better in water than them? Your answer -
serendipity?
> > Bonobos wade bipedally, chimps wade bipedally, orang-utans wade
> > bipedally, gorillas wade bipedally - therefore the lca of the
> > Hominoidae probably waded bipedally. If that Hominoid lived in a
> > habitat where it was necessary more regularly than today's extant apes
> > it would be more likely to wade bipedally than they are - hence a very
> > plausible model for bipedal origins. Yes, again. More evidence *for*
> > the AAH.
>
> Bonobo wading, gorilla wading, and orang wading has
> not enhanced their bipedal abilities one bit. This is
> supposed to be evidence for more bouts of wading
> producing an obligate biped????
You willfully miss the point. See above.
> > > This is bunk. What you need is
> > > a testable hypothesis and a clear set of statements
> > > about your assunptions.
> >
> > My thesis made four testable predictions and every one was met easily.
>
> Says who?
Me, of course! but I did get a distinction so Leslie Aiello, Volker
Sommer and a.n. other must have thought my reasoning was not *so*
wacky.
> > > For example is it your position
> > > that the LCA or the lineage leading up to it was wholly
> > > quadrupedal and in no way, whatsoever, was a facultative
> > > biped?
> >
> > That's just an irrelevant diversion. What difference does that make?
> > The AAH suggests that the lca was a wading ape - a bipedal wading ape.
> > It was probably facultative to start with but after several million
> > years it became more obligatory untill a point of no return was
> > reached for some of them (Homo ancestors) but not others
> > (Pan/Gorilla).
>
> Fossil evidence for this wading ape? No.
I think so.
> Any sound anatomical hypothesis for what
> wading bipedally is supposed to accomplish? No.
I think so.
> See the problem? No?
I think so.
> > > The proposition that more wading would generate
> > > an obligate biped is an interesting proposition. But what
> > > do the bonobos prove. They wade bipedally at times.
> > > But their bipedality is modest enough that there is nothing
> > > to be made of their wading. Why do you think it is indicative
> > > of anything?
> >
> > How many times do I have to spell this out to you? If extant apes are
> > bipedal 90% of the time they spend in water and if the lca lived in a
> > habitat that was often flooded then isn't it rather likely that the
> > lca would become more bipedal?
>
> The evidence the modern apes provide says
> no.There is no reason to think this is at all likely
>
> Sorry.
>
> Rick Wagler
Don't be sorry. Just open your mind a little to the possibility you
might be wrong, that's all. It's not difficult to do.
Algis Kuliukas
Paul Crowley
> > There is (and was) a high rate of head bashing. Read
> > _any_ account of pre-industrial societies. (I'm just reading
> > about the Indian societies encountered by the first English
> > colonialists in Virginia.)
>
> Then, if there's all this recent head bashing, where are the thickened
> skulls?
Thickened skulls are expensive. They also
need stronger neck muscles, etc., and all
than can slow you down and make you more
liable to be caught by the spear or knife of
the lighter guy who is not carrying so much
weight. It's always a trade-off.
> > > And it wouldn't explain the thick skulls of chimps or gorillas.
> >
> > Gorillas fight. Exactly how, I doubt if anyone knows.
> > But I'd bet they hit each other's heads -- possibly
> > with their own, and that their heads hit trees, etc.
>
> There've been numerous films of gorilla fights. I've even seen
> film of female gorillas fighting. (Guess what? A lot of it
> is bipedal.) Lots of arm blows, screaming, bite attempts.
>
> > Chimps use heavy rocks against each other.
>
> Cite?
Goodall, "Through a Window" , page 92 " . . old
Rudolf, usually so benign, standing upright to
hurl a four-pound rock at Godi's prostrate body"
This is all I have to hand. There are numerous
references in Goodall's major works.
> > > Then why haven't we evolved something to protect our throat
> > > or guts???
> >
> > Not enough time; the task is complex, and there's
> > nothing much to work with. I can't see anyone
> > being selected because they have thicker skin
> > on their bellies. Although on their necks, beards
> > may have been extended down a bit, where they
> > existed already.
>
> So, there was plenty of time for skulls to get less thick, not
> to mention that features like nuchal crests, sagittals, mastoids,
> etc get smaller too, but not enough for throat and gut
> protection???
Yes. It is much easier (and quicker) to lose
features that are no longer necessary, or that
have become substantially obsolete, than it
is to evolve new ones out of nowhere.
[..]
> > > Since australopithecus and related hominids. What do you think a sagittal
> > > crest is for? Reduction in tooth size and number?
> >
> > That's really bad thinking (if the bog-standard,
> > mindless PA stuff). Male gorillas have enormous
> > crests. Female gorillas have none AFAIR (or very
> > small ones if they have any). Why the difference?
> > A different diet for males as against females?
>
> The males have the extra duty of defense and agression.
Those are the normal male roles in social mammals.
So why rule them out for early hominids?
> > If you really wanted to kill someone (and weren't
> > bothered about the amount of blood -- or anything
> > else), would you go out with a knife or a club?
>
> Club, actually. Less chance of being grabbed. Knife is too short
> range, defender can take a cut or two in the process of taking
> on the attacker. Plus, you can use a LOT of things as a shield.
>
> > If you were afraid of being attacked and killed,
> > which would you take out for protection?
>
> Club. Good distance weapon. Works great on dogs too (if you've
> ever been jumped by one - or more).
Then you would not have survived long in any
society which had sharp weapons. It was
almost unknown for adult males to carry clubs
in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Swords
and knives were the universal weapons of
choice -- until guns became good enough.
> > > Military helmets go back a long ways. If blows to the head
> > > weren't an issue, there'd be no need for helmets.
> >
> > Blows to the head have always been an issue.
> > But before there were good cutting and stabbing
> > weapons, they were about the most important
> > issue. Since they didn't have good supplies of
> > bronze, they grew bone instead. And military
> > helmets were mostly designed to minimise the
> > effects of projectiles and sharp edges.
>
> Let's see: Romans, good cutting and stabbing weapons, STILL
> used helmets...
They used them mainly for protection against
sword blows and axe blows -- ones that would
cut their heads open or leave them with fatal
wounds.
> > She describes the violence as intense. A
> > lot of it is directed to the head, and weapons
> > are used.
>
> And none of that changed as hominids developed. Yet, skulls
> got thinner.
None of it changed? Skulls got very thick when
weapons were primarily clubs. They stayed thick
until there were good piercing and cutting weapons.
Then they got thin -- rapidly. End of story
> > > > Note the difference in skull thickness in modern
> > > > humans. Women have much thinner skulls than
> > > > men. Why is that? Or, to put it another way, why
> > > > do human males acquire thick skulls after puberty?
> > >
> > > Females are less robust in general. Why is that?
> >
> > I realise that it's probably a rare occurrence, but
> > next time you encounter a female of the species
> > in the company of a male of the species, compare
> > their heads; then compare their general anatomy.
> > The heads are _enormously_ different. Male
> > heads are about 50% larger. In spite of that, male
> > eyes are much smaller than female ones. The
> > bone structure is utterly different. Male heads have
> > a much greater density of bone, muscle and other
> > tissue.
>
> MALE HEADS ARE 50% LARGER????? Now I know you're full of it.
People wonder why I get so angry at the stupidity
of PA people. Modern PA is not merely inane
beyond belief about its own subject-matter, it
even prevents those it's indoctrinated from using
their eyes about things they see every minute of
every day. Take the first ten males you see in a
day; take the first ten females; compare their
skulls. Tough, eh?
The 50% is probably mass -- i.e. weight. IF the
density was the same (in males and females)
then we would be talking of a 14.5% difference
in each dimension. Given that males have much
more bone, then it's a bit less than that.
Take a look -- if you're capable.
> And I asked why they're less robust, not how.
Males have the roles of defence and aggression.
-- as in most (all?) other social mammals.
Robustness is usually an advantage in fighting.
> > > > Chinese, and other asiatics have much thinner
> > > > skulls than Europeans. They have long had a
> > > > good supply of cheap knives -- from bamboo.
> > > > So their males did not need large size (i.e. the
> > > > greater sexual dimorphism of westerners) nor
> > > > large hands. They did not fight with fists, nor
> > > > with clubs. They used knives.
> > >
> > > This is the region famous for the development of martial
> > > arts and you're saying they don't fight with fists or
> > > clubs???
> >
> > Over the last 30-50 Kyr, they've killed each other
> > with knives, spears and arrows, much more than
> > they have with fists or clubs. It's the killing that
> > has determined the selection, not the kung-fu.
>
> Ah. You have stats to cite for these crime figures of the
> last 30-50 kya???
Who said anything about crime? Most deaths
from violence occurred in war. Although, we
might call a lot of if 'feuding'. The Chinese,
etc., didn't use kung-fu much in war.
Robt Gotschall
al...@RiverApes.com says...
> They have skulls, in part, to protect their brains from blows, yes -
> absolutely. 'Blows to the head' does not equal 'Clubbing the head' -
> there are many ways a rabbit might get a blow on the head. What are
> you arguing? That skulls do *not* protect the brain?
>
> > We have ribs too. Is that to protect our organs from blows to the body?
>
> In part, yes. Of course. Can a body part only have one function?
>
> > A skeleton is primarily a frame.
>
> Primarily, yes. But soley - no.
>
> > > If wading helped an ape to survive it would be selected for to a
> > > greater extent than that predicted purely by the amount of time spent
> > > doing so and more than other activities that were not so potentially
> > > lethal.
> >
> > An activity that's rare has even less chance of influencing development.
>
> Not if it saves your life.
>
> Algis Kuliukas
This discussion about skulls is indicative of what _I_ perceive is an
error in your thinking. The reason the brain is in the skull in the
first place is because the "brain" is just the anterior end of the spinal
cord. In chordates, the entire spinal cord and "brain" is enclosed. This
was a trick developed by indeed an aquatic organism. A chordate's spinal
column probably evolved as much due to selective pressure concerned with
locomotion as anything else. If physically protecting the brain was the
primary goal, it logically would have been placed somewhere other then
the first thing to run into trouble.
The skull does protect the brain. Selective pressure to protect the brain
could involve a thicker skull, or quicker reflexes, or better hearing.
Look at a humming bird's skull to see how Byzantine selection can get.
The fact that chimps, gorillas, and orangs are all facultative bipeds
indicates a genetic predisposition to bipedalism, possibly linked to
brachiation. You have demonstrated that bonobos can wade bipedally,
fine. You're insistence that this is a matter of life and death has not
been demonstrated however. Or that wading carries more selective
advantage then tool carrying, reconnoitering, or even sexual attraction.
Don't forget, fitness is about passing on genes and chordate males are
for the most part, expendable.
--
rg
remove spam to mail
http://home.att.net/~hobgots/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
Algis Kuliukas
> This discussion about skulls is indicative of what _I_ perceive is an
> error in your thinking. The reason the brain is in the skull in the
> first place is because the "brain" is just the anterior end of the spinal
> cord. In chordates, the entire spinal cord and "brain" is enclosed. This
> was a trick developed by indeed an aquatic organism. A chordate's spinal
> column probably evolved as much due to selective pressure concerned with
> locomotion as anything else. If physically protecting the brain was the
> primary goal, it logically would have been placed somewhere other then
> the first thing to run into trouble.
Obviously natural selection has to work on what it has now and cannot
re-engineer a body with the benefit of hindsight. We know that.
> The skull does protect the brain. Selective pressure to protect the brain
> could involve a thicker skull, or quicker reflexes, or better hearing.
> Look at a humming bird's skull to see how Byzantine selection can get.
Fine. I'm not arguing that the skull is the *only* trait that protects
the brain nor that the skull's *only* function is to protect the
brain. But it is clearly part of that role. The only reason I
introduced the concept is because Rich was arguing that 'time spent'
was the main factor that would lead to the evolution of a trait when
this is clearly false. A single blow to the head would kill. Primates
spend more than half their lives sleeping and, of course, they spend a
tiny fraction of their lives having sex - but that is rather an
important factor. (With hundsight I should have invoked sex rather
than skulls - a far stronger case in point.)
> The fact that chimps, gorillas, and orangs are all facultative bipeds
> indicates a genetic predisposition to bipedalism, possibly linked to
> brachiation. You have demonstrated that bonobos can wade bipedally,
> fine. You're insistence that this is a matter of life and death has not
> been demonstrated however. Or that wading carries more selective
> advantage then tool carrying, reconnoitering, or even sexual attraction.
Well this is quite a simple matter to demonstrate.
An ape is in waist deep water will survive if it moves bipedally but
it will drown in about a few minutes if it attempts to do so
quadrupedally.
Tool carrying may be done more efficiently bipedally but it *can* be
done on three limbs or (if brachiating) using feet or quadrupedally
using the teeth. Either way, it's hard to argue that being bipedal is
a life saver.
Reconnoitering may save your life if you do it bipedally but do you
have to *move* whilst reconnoitering? And it is not so clear-cut as
wading. You might still get eaten, even if you spot the predator
bipeally and you may have spoted the predator if you were on all
fours.
I have never heard sexual attraction used as an argument for bipedal
origins. Please could you run that one past me.
> Don't forget, fitness is about passing on genes and chordate males are
> for the most part, expendable.
But females are not expendable and the wading model very much includes
them. If they are able to move bipedally through waist-deep water they
(and their offspring) survive, if not they drown. It's obvious,
really.
Algis Kuliukas
Charles
the percentage of time spent having sex. (all theories about males being at their prime at age 16 are hereby thrown
out the window.)
my wife is rather pleased with this result too. <grin>
Chas
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> Primates
> spend more than half their lives sleeping and, of course, they spend a
> tiny fraction of their lives having sex - but that is rather an
> important factor. (With hundsight I should have invoked sex rather
> than skulls - a far stronger case in point.)
>
> Algis Kuliukas
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:3C7479E3...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > > There is (and was) a high rate of head bashing. Read
> > > _any_ account of pre-industrial societies. (I'm just reading
> > > about the Indian societies encountered by the first English
> > > colonialists in Virginia.)
> >
> > Then, if there's all this recent head bashing, where are the thickened
> > skulls?
>
> Thickened skulls are expensive. They also
> need stronger neck muscles, etc., and all
> than can slow you down and make you more
> liable to be caught by the spear or knife of
> the lighter guy who is not carrying so much
> weight. It's always a trade-off.
You still haven't shown a relationship between this current "high rate
of head bashing" and the lack of thickened skulls. If a thick
skull is expensive NOW, it was expensive long ago. Yet, where are the
thickened skulls?
> > > > And it wouldn't explain the thick skulls of chimps or gorillas.
> > >
> > > Gorillas fight. Exactly how, I doubt if anyone knows.
> > > But I'd bet they hit each other's heads -- possibly
> > > with their own, and that their heads hit trees, etc.
> >
> > There've been numerous films of gorilla fights. I've even seen
> > film of female gorillas fighting. (Guess what? A lot of it
> > is bipedal.) Lots of arm blows, screaming, bite attempts.
> >
> > > Chimps use heavy rocks against each other.
> >
> > Cite?
>
> Goodall, "Through a Window" , page 92 " . . old
> Rudolf, usually so benign, standing upright to
> hurl a four-pound rock at Godi's prostrate body"
>
> This is all I have to hand. There are numerous
> references in Goodall's major works.
And not a good example either. Hurled at "Godi's prostrate
body" could mean anything. Does Goodal record all the head injuries
that your scenario requires? If head bashing is so prevalent among chimps,
then the literature would be filled with accounts of alllll those
fights.
> > > > Then why haven't we evolved something to protect our throat
> > > > or guts???
> > >
> > > Not enough time; the task is complex, and there's
> > > nothing much to work with. I can't see anyone
> > > being selected because they have thicker skin
> > > on their bellies. Although on their necks, beards
> > > may have been extended down a bit, where they
> > > existed already.
> >
> > So, there was plenty of time for skulls to get less thick, not
> > to mention that features like nuchal crests, sagittals, mastoids,
> > etc get smaller too, but not enough for throat and gut
> > protection???
>
> Yes. It is much easier (and quicker) to lose
> features that are no longer necessary, or that
> have become substantially obsolete, than it
> is to evolve new ones out of nowhere.
Gee, then skulls must once have been THIN, and then a high
rate of head bashing started to make them thick???
Golly, we're lucky they had enough time to develop those
thick skulls, eh?
> [..]
> > > > Since australopithecus and related hominids. What do you think a sagittal
> > > > crest is for? Reduction in tooth size and number?
> > >
> > > That's really bad thinking (if the bog-standard,
> > > mindless PA stuff). Male gorillas have enormous
> > > crests. Female gorillas have none AFAIR (or very
> > > small ones if they have any). Why the difference?
> > > A different diet for males as against females?
> >
> > The males have the extra duty of defense and agression.
>
> Those are the normal male roles in social mammals.
> So why rule them out for early hominids?
Very good. So those big skulls anchor big muscles that are
not only for chewing, but for *biting* as well. The thick
skull is a platform for massive jaw muscles, jaw muscles
that have considerable skrunk as our diet changed and
incidentally has also been reflected in our smaller (and less
numerous) teeth.
> > > If you really wanted to kill someone (and weren't
> > > bothered about the amount of blood -- or anything
> > > else), would you go out with a knife or a club?
> >
> > Club, actually. Less chance of being grabbed. Knife is too short
> > range, defender can take a cut or two in the process of taking
> > on the attacker. Plus, you can use a LOT of things as a shield.
> >
> > > If you were afraid of being attacked and killed,
> > > which would you take out for protection?
> >
> > Club. Good distance weapon. Works great on dogs too (if you've
> > ever been jumped by one - or more).
>
> Then you would not have survived long in any
> society which had sharp weapons. It was
Hogwash. Martial arts history has traditions stick weapon
practicioners doing quite well against edged weapons. Look
into escrima, jo, and bo weapons.
> almost unknown for adult males to carry clubs
> in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Swords
> and knives were the universal weapons of
> choice -- until guns became good enough.
More hogwash. Never heard of maces? Morning stars??? Staves???
Ye gads:
http://www.quarterstaff.org/frame.html
> > > > Military helmets go back a long ways. If blows to the head
> > > > weren't an issue, there'd be no need for helmets.
> > >
> > > Blows to the head have always been an issue.
> > > But before there were good cutting and stabbing
> > > weapons, they were about the most important
> > > issue. Since they didn't have good supplies of
> > > bronze, they grew bone instead. And military
> > > helmets were mostly designed to minimise the
> > > effects of projectiles and sharp edges.
> >
> > Let's see: Romans, good cutting and stabbing weapons, STILL
> > used helmets...
>
> They used them mainly for protection against
> sword blows and axe blows -- ones that would
> cut their heads open or leave them with fatal
> wounds.
And against rocks and clubs... Clubs, sticks, etc, used by many
of the peoples they subjugated. They've never gone out of style,
or effectiveness.
> > > She describes the violence as intense. A
> > > lot of it is directed to the head, and weapons
> > > are used.
> >
> > And none of that changed as hominids developed. Yet, skulls
> > got thinner.
>
> None of it changed? Skulls got very thick when
> weapons were primarily clubs. They stayed thick
> until there were good piercing and cutting weapons.
> Then they got thin -- rapidly. End of story
Skulls didn't get thick because of weapons - they started
thick on hominids. They got thinner as a result of changes in
diet (the skull is the anchor for those massive chewing
muscles) and a neotenous like retention of early stages
of growth development that permitted prolonged learning
and brain growth.
Unless you can show us some thin early hominid skulls...
I think that PA people know that if you give a figure of
50% they know what units to attach to that figure...
And they can give figure along with being sure of what it is
(not "probably mass").
> > And I asked why they're less robust, not how.
>
> Males have the roles of defence and aggression.
> -- as in most (all?) other social mammals.
> Robustness is usually an advantage in fighting.
And is exhibited in the rest of the male body as well. So the
skull is not special.
> > > > > Chinese, and other asiatics have much thinner
> > > > > skulls than Europeans. They have long had a
> > > > > good supply of cheap knives -- from bamboo.
> > > > > So their males did not need large size (i.e. the
> > > > > greater sexual dimorphism of westerners) nor
> > > > > large hands. They did not fight with fists, nor
> > > > > with clubs. They used knives.
> > > >
> > > > This is the region famous for the development of martial
> > > > arts and you're saying they don't fight with fists or
> > > > clubs???
> > >
> > > Over the last 30-50 Kyr, they've killed each other
> > > with knives, spears and arrows, much more than
> > > they have with fists or clubs. It's the killing that
> > > has determined the selection, not the kung-fu.
> >
> > Ah. You have stats to cite for these crime figures of the
> > last 30-50 kya???
>
> Who said anything about crime? Most deaths
> from violence occurred in war. Although, we
> might call a lot of if 'feuding'. The Chinese,
> etc., didn't use kung-fu much in war.
Call it what you want. Got the stats??? And then explain why
every army (or nearly every) trains their troops in unarmed
combat...
Rich Travsky
A single blow to the throat can kill too. Or even to the chest.
Time spent *is* a critical factor. You have to show that wading time
is somehow necessary in the lifestyle of the creature (and not just an
extra). Sex is, regardless of the time spent, because sez is how the
species gets propagated.
> > The fact that chimps, gorillas, and orangs are all facultative bipeds
> > indicates a genetic predisposition to bipedalism, possibly linked to
> > brachiation. You have demonstrated that bonobos can wade bipedally,
> > fine. You're insistence that this is a matter of life and death has not
> > been demonstrated however. Or that wading carries more selective
> > advantage then tool carrying, reconnoitering, or even sexual attraction.
>
> Well this is quite a simple matter to demonstrate.
>
> An ape is in waist deep water will survive if it moves bipedally but
> it will drown in about a few minutes if it attempts to do so
> quadrupedally.
Problem: They don't have to go into the water.
> Tool carrying may be done more efficiently bipedally but it *can* be
> done on three limbs or (if brachiating) using feet or quadrupedally
> using the teeth. Either way, it's hard to argue that being bipedal is
> a life saver.
Life saving is not the only issue. Competitive advantage should be kept
in mind. Those tools allow the animal to do things it couldn't before,
in fact, in the case of sapiens, it's one of our determining advantages.
> Reconnoitering may save your life if you do it bipedally but do you
> have to *move* whilst reconnoitering? And it is not so clear-cut as
Huh? You can do it standing still or moving.
> wading. You might still get eaten, even if you spot the predator
> bipeally and you may have spoted the predator if you were on all
> fours.
Crocs catch animals in the water. They even catch animals on the shore
at the water's edge. And standing up doesn't seem to help in spotting
them.
> I have never heard sexual attraction used as an argument for bipedal
> origins. Please could you run that one past me.
Check out De Waal and Lanting's "Bonobos The Fogotten Ape". Numerous (!)
instances of bipedal behavior. In particular, see the section "Intimate
Relations" following chapter 4. I quote the caption accompanying a picture
of a bipedal male: "The male carries sugarcane while exhibiting an erection,
inviting a female for sex in typical bonobo fashion: food triggers sexual
excitement, and sex, in turn, paves the way for sharing."
> > Don't forget, fitness is about passing on genes and chordate males are
> > for the most part, expendable.
>
> But females are not expendable and the wading model very much includes
> them. If they are able to move bipedally through waist-deep water they
> (and their offspring) survive, if not they drown. It's obvious,
> really.
They spend most of their time on land. If there's no water body around to
go in, then all of their bipdeal behavior will be on land. There is no need
for wading. They wouldn't be able to wade bipedally if they hadn't been
exhibiting bipedal behavior on land in the first place. And that includes
bipedal behavior in trees. Broaden your scope and look at even monkeys.
All can exhibit bipedal behavior. *no* water needed.
You really really really want to push this wading thing, you're going
to have to go back, way back in time, and include ALL primates. Even
prosimians.
Unless you want to claim sifaka bipedal behavior is due to wading?
(Go back even farther and you'll have to explain wading and theropods...)
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > "Rich Travsky" <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:3C7479E3...@hotMOVEmail.com...
> >
> > > > There is (and was) a high rate of head bashing. Read
> > > > _any_ account of pre-industrial societies. (I'm just reading
> > > > about the Indian societies encountered by the first English
> > > > colonialists in Virginia.)
> > >
> > > Then, if there's all this recent head bashing, where are the thickened
> > > skulls?
> >
> > Thickened skulls are expensive. They also
> > need stronger neck muscles, etc., and all
> > than can slow you down and make you more
> > liable to be caught by the spear or knife of
> > the lighter guy who is not carrying so much
> > weight. It's always a trade-off.
>
> You still haven't shown a relationship between this current "high rate
> of head bashing" and the lack of thickened skulls.
I want to modify my statement about the current "high rate
of head bashing" -- I was making that in the context of
the idiotic PC/PA notion we are all normally peaceful,
and that it's only modern capitalism (or something) that
has distorted it. I maintain that in the 'natural' state (i.e.
without police forces, etc.) levels of male-on-male
aggression are high, and they have selected almost
all of the distinctive aspects of male morphology. But
for the last 100 Kyr or so (and especially for the last
15 Kyr or so) sharpened weapons have done most
of the killing, so head-bashing (as such) has fallen to
a _relatively_ minor role.
> If a thick
> skull is expensive NOW, it was expensive long ago. Yet, where are the
> thickened skulls?
What are you on about? Most fossil skulls >20 kya are
amazingly thick.
> > > > Chimps use heavy rocks against each other.
> > >
> > > Cite?
> >
> > Goodall, "Through a Window" , page 92 " . . old
> > Rudolf, usually so benign, standing upright to
> > hurl a four-pound rock at Godi's prostrate body"
> >
> > This is all I have to hand. There are numerous
> > references in Goodall's major works.
>
> And not a good example either. Hurled at "Godi's prostrate
> body" could mean anything. Does Goodal record all the head injuries
> that your scenario requires? If head bashing is so prevalent among chimps,
> then the literature would be filled with accounts of alllll those
> fights.
The literature is full of accounts of such fights.
Another quote from 'Though a Window' (page 87)
"The Kalende group was in a shallow, steep-sided
ravine, calling loudly and charging about in the
undergrowth. Sniff, uttering deep roar-like hoots,
performed a spectacular display along a trail near
the top of the ravine. As he charged he hurled at
least thirteen huge rocks down onto the strangers.
An occasional missile - a stone or a stick -- flew
up from the undergrowth below, but the fell far
short of Sniff . . ."
> > > The males have the extra duty of defense and agression.
> >
> > Those are the normal male roles in social mammals.
> > So why rule them out for early hominids?
>
> Very good. So those big skulls anchor big muscles that are
> not only for chewing, but for *biting* as well.
Biting? What's all this about? Do big gorilla
males do a lot of biting? They have massive
sagittal crests to anchor huge muscles, to
support enormous jaws. But what use would
that biting power be to them? Maybe they do
use it in some way, but IMO they have massive
jaws, because if they were any smaller they'd
be likely to get broken in their fights with other
gorillas of about the same size. A broken jaw
for a gorilla is a death sentence. The size of
their jaw has absolutely nothing to do with
their diet.
And -- probably -- exactly the same would have
applied to the sagittal crests of early hominids.
> The thick
> skull is a platform for massive jaw muscles, jaw muscles
> that have considerable skrunk as our diet changed
Where do you get this nonsense about 'change
in diet'? I suppose it's the standard PA shite
that fills your brain.
> > > Club, actually. Less chance of being grabbed. Knife is too short
> > > range, defender can take a cut or two in the process of taking
> > > on the attacker. Plus, you can use a LOT of things as a shield.
> > >
> > > > If you were afraid of being attacked and killed,
> > > > which would you take out for protection?
> > >
> > > Club. Good distance weapon. Works great on dogs too (if you've
> > > ever been jumped by one - or more).
> >
> > Then you would not have survived long in any
> > society which had sharp weapons. It was
>
> Hogwash. Martial arts history has traditions stick weapon
> practicioners doing quite well against edged weapons. Look
> into escrima, jo, and bo weapons.
I am more interested in the facts of history, rather
than any crap theory. The words you use are not
even in my dictionary.
> > almost unknown for adult males to carry clubs
> > in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Swords
> > and knives were the universal weapons of
> > choice -- until guns became good enough.
>
> More hogwash. Never heard of maces? Morning stars??? Staves???
Take a look at some historical pictures from
medieval or early modern Europe. How often
are soldiers (or any adult males in peacetime)
shown carrying maces or 'morning stars' or
staves? Whereas nearly everyone will have a
dagger, and often a sword. As one indication of
their relative popularity, the word 'sword' comes
up 454 times in Shakespeare's works; the word
'mace' comes up 8 times -- and most of those are
ceremonial uses -- e.g. emblems of government.
'Stave' comes up 9 times, and most are in a non-
martial context.
> > None of it changed? Skulls got very thick when
> > weapons were primarily clubs. They stayed thick
> > until there were good piercing and cutting weapons.
> > Then they got thin -- rapidly. End of story
>
> Skulls didn't get thick because of weapons - they started
> thick on hominids. They got thinner as a result of changes in
> diet (the skull is the anchor for those massive chewing
> muscles) and a neotenous like retention of early stages
> of growth development that permitted prolonged learning
> and brain growth.
So you believe that male gorillas have a
different diet from the females? And that
male hominids had a different diet from
their females?
What an idiot! (If one of a solid mass of
PA idiots.)
> > > MALE HEADS ARE 50% LARGER????? Now I know you're full of it.
> >
> > People wonder why I get so angry at the stupidity
> > of PA people. Modern PA is not merely inane
> > beyond belief about its own subject-matter, it
> > even prevents those it's indoctrinated from using
> > their eyes about things they see every minute of
> > every day. Take the first ten males you see in a
> > day; take the first ten females; compare their
> > skulls. Tough, eh?
> >
> > The 50% is probably mass -- i.e. weight. IF the
> > density was the same (in males and females)
> > then we would be talking of a 14.5% difference
> > in each dimension. Given that males have much
> > more bone, then it's a bit less than that.
> >
> > Take a look -- if you're capable.
>
> I think that PA people know that if you give a figure of
> 50% they know what units to attach to that figure...
>
> And they can give figure along with being sure of what it is
> (not "probably mass").
Given that they are incapable of seeing the
plain facts that surround them every minute
of every day, the units in which they fail to
describe such matters are more than a bit
academic.
> > > And I asked why they're less robust, not how.
> >
> > Males have the roles of defence and aggression.
> > -- as in most (all?) other social mammals.
> > Robustness is usually an advantage in fighting.
>
> And is exhibited in the rest of the male body as well.
Err . . . your accept that the difference is
there as a result of fighting . . . but that's as
far as you go? The fighting had no _other_
selective effects?
> So the skull is not special.
The skull (as you probably don't know) is
the location of some fairly important organs:
those of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and
of the brain itself. It's also where the food
goes in. So it has to be especially well
protected. That's why motor cyclists, for
example, wear such large helmets; they
don't seek to protect, say, their feet in the
same way. And that's why males (whose
ancestors often died as the result of fights)
have such large skulls, in comparison to
females.
Males also have much larger hands than
females -- much more than the standard
8% or so extra size for general body size.
Figures on these things are hard to obtain.
No one studies them. It is politically correct
to ignore the ordinary facts of life. That's one
reason why PA is such a great 'science'.
> > Who said anything about crime? Most deaths
> > from violence occurred in war. Although, we
> > might call a lot of if 'feuding'. The Chinese,
> > etc., didn't use kung-fu much in war.
>
> Call it what you want. Got the stats??? And then explain why
> every army (or nearly every) trains their troops in unarmed
> combat...
Well, soldiers need physical training, and
they enjoy it. And armed combat, with live
ammunition is risky and expensive. The
training in unarmed combat only came in
once it was realised that soldiers didn't
need fighting skills with normal close-
fighting weapons -- pikes, swords, etc.
There was no time for training in unarmed
combat in the Roman and Medieval eras.
Algis Kuliukas
Yes but the brain is particularly sensitive and needs the most
protection.
> Time spent *is* a critical factor. You have to show that wading time
> is somehow necessary in the lifestyle of the creature (and not just an
> extra). Sex is, regardless of the time spent, because sez is how the
> species gets propagated.
If the creature lived in a waterside habitat then wading would
inevitably and often be necessary. If the water is waist deep then
bipedality is a life saver in apes.
> > > The fact that chimps, gorillas, and orangs are all facultative bipeds
> > > indicates a genetic predisposition to bipedalism, possibly linked to
> > > brachiation. You have demonstrated that bonobos can wade bipedally,
> > > fine. You're insistence that this is a matter of life and death has not
> > > been demonstrated however. Or that wading carries more selective
> > > advantage then tool carrying, reconnoitering, or even sexual attraction.
> >
> > Well this is quite a simple matter to demonstrate.
> >
> > An ape is in waist deep water will survive if it moves bipedally but
> > it will drown in about a few minutes if it attempts to do so
> > quadrupedally.
>
> Problem: They don't have to go into the water.
If they lived in a waterside habitat I expect they often wouldn't have
the choice.
> > Tool carrying may be done more efficiently bipedally but it *can* be
> > done on three limbs or (if brachiating) using feet or quadrupedally
> > using the teeth. Either way, it's hard to argue that being bipedal is
> > a life saver.
>
> Life saving is not the only issue. Competitive advantage should be kept
> in mind. Those tools allow the animal to do things it couldn't before,
> in fact, in the case of sapiens, it's one of our determining advantages.
Fine. Wading from one clump of trees to another may give you access to
extra food - competitive advantage 1. Wading from one clump of trees
to a another may give you access to a new group of males/females -
competitive advantage 2. Wading from away from a land predator to a
another clump of trees may save your life - competitive advantage 3.
Wading out into a river may allow you to see further (for food) than
staying in the woods - competitive advantage 4. Wading out into the
water may give you access to food (on branches) inaccessible from land
- competitive advantage 5. Wading out into waist deep water would help
you to keep cool - competitive advantage 6.
> > Reconnoitering may save your life if you do it bipedally but do you
> > have to *move* whilst reconnoitering? And it is not so clear-cut as
>
> Huh? You can do it standing still or moving.
My point is that some of the models for bipedal origins do not require
*motion* - Merecat peering is one and bush foraging are two. Wading
does.
> > wading. You might still get eaten, even if you spot the predator
> > bipeally and you may have spoted the predator if you were on all
> > fours.
>
> Crocs catch animals in the water. They even catch animals on the shore
> at the water's edge. And standing up doesn't seem to help in spotting
> them.
True. Croc predation is clearly a big factor. I'm not ducking that
issue. But the early bipeds would be able to escape crocs easily by
climbing trees... If they lived out on the grasslands how would they
escape leopards? Living in a gallery forest gives them protection from
both.
> > I have never heard sexual attraction used as an argument for bipedal
> > origins. Please could you run that one past me.
>
> Check out De Waal and Lanting's "Bonobos The Fogotten Ape". Numerous (!)
> instances of bipedal behavior. In particular, see the section "Intimate
> Relations" following chapter 4. I quote the caption accompanying a picture
> of a bipedal male: "The male carries sugarcane while exhibiting an erection,
> inviting a female for sex in typical bonobo fashion: food triggers sexual
> excitement, and sex, in turn, paves the way for sharing."
So, do *you* think that's what motivated the first bipeds? Why aren't
bonobos and chimps bipedal then?
> > > Don't forget, fitness is about passing on genes and chordate males are
> > > for the most part, expendable.
> >
> > But females are not expendable and the wading model very much includes
> > them. If they are able to move bipedally through waist-deep water they
> > (and their offspring) survive, if not they drown. It's obvious,
> > really.
>
> They spend most of their time on land.
Do they? What are 'they'? Are you talking about chimps/bonobos? We
didn't evolve from chimps or bonobos but some lca that may well have
spent more time in the water.
> If there's no water body around to
> go in, then all of their bipdeal behavior will be on land. There is no need
> for wading.
I can't argue with that. Indeed if the fossil evidence of the earliest
bipeds indicated that wading was less likely than in the extant apes
then I'd have to seriously reconsider the wading origins model.
Unfortunately for you there is no such evidence. The big difference
between the paleohabitat of the earliest bipeds and the current
habitat of extant apes is, generally speaking, that they were wetter.
And of course there is absolutely no fossil evidence as yet of any
chimp/gorilla ancestor at all - Not even one chip off a single tooth.
If we have to ignore taphonomic bias, how do you explain that whereas
there are thousands of hominid fossils found in deposital substrates -
not a single chimp/gorilla ancestor has yet to be found? Isn't this...
a bit of a clue?
> They wouldn't be able to wade bipedally if they hadn't been
> exhibiting bipedal behavior on land in the first place. And that includes
> bipedal behavior in trees. Broaden your scope and look at even monkeys.
> All can exhibit bipedal behavior. *no* water needed.
Why's that? Why must terrestrial bipedalism have come first? I agree
that bipedal posture (more accurately an upright trunk through
swinging/climbing) is likely to encourage bipedal behaiour. But that's
no contradiction against the wading model.
> You really really really want to push this wading thing, you're going
> to have to go back, way back in time, and include ALL primates. Even
> prosimians.
Rubbish.
> Unless you want to claim sifaka bipedal behavior is due to wading?
'Sifaka'? Excuse me.
> (Go back even farther and you'll have to explain wading and theropods...)
Maybe.
Algis Kuliukas
Robt Gotschall
al...@RiverApes.com says...
> > The fact that chimps, gorillas, and orangs are all facultative bipeds
> > indicates a genetic predisposition to bipedalism, possibly linked to
> > brachiation. You have demonstrated that bonobos can wade bipedally,
> > fine. You're insistence that this is a matter of life and death has not
> > been demonstrated however. Or that wading carries more selective
> > advantage then tool carrying, reconnoitering, or even sexual attraction.
>
> Well this is quite a simple matter to demonstrate.
>
> An ape is in waist deep water will survive if it moves bipedally but
> it will drown in about a few minutes if it attempts to do so
> quadrupedally.
>
> Tool carrying may be done more efficiently bipedally but it *can* be
> done on three limbs or (if brachiating) using feet or quadrupedally
> using the teeth. Either way, it's hard to argue that being bipedal is
> a life saver.
>
> Reconnoitering may save your life if you do it bipedally but do you
> have to *move* whilst reconnoitering? And it is not so clear-cut as
> wading. You might still get eaten, even if you spot the predator
> bipeally and you may have spoted the predator if you were on all
> fours.
Except that one known wading ape need not wade in deep water and is
perfectly capable of _swimming_, right?
>
> I have never heard sexual attraction used as an argument for bipedal
> origins. Please could you run that one past me.
I've never bought into the tall dark and handsome thing myself, but I do
wonder about it's ubiquity.
Apropos to nothing whatever, I have heard that the one statistic that
shows the best correlation for human success is their standing height,
curious no?
I've also run across some undocumented references from the military. One
such concerned the style of the head gear that exaggerated the height.
This seems to indicate that humans place an inordinate importance upon
the _appearance_ of standing height on and off the battle field.
I have come across various studies on male territorial/sexual display
indicating that such things as raised hackles and the raised fur along
the spine was thought to increase the height and intimidation factor of
the disputants.
I only offer sexual attraction as one more factor favoring obligate
bipedalism among several extinct and one surviving form of primate.
You have offered no more for wading.
> > Don't forget, fitness is about passing on genes and chordate males are
> > for the most part, expendable.
>
> But females are not expendable and the wading model very much includes
> them. If they are able to move bipedally through waist-deep water they
> (and their offspring) survive, if not they drown. It's obvious,
> really.
>
> Algis Kuliukas
Yes and if they are already facultative, and nearly obligate bipeds, they
_will_ wade anyway, agreed.
BTW, I just saw an episode of _Animal Planet_ that did show wading apes.
The film crew and narrator were wading in water to film gibbons walking
bipedally on the beach. They were filming from the water apparently to
protect themselves from the gibbons.
--
rg
Zathrus is used to being beast of burden to
other peoples needs, very sad life, probably
have very sad death, but at least there is symmetry
_B5_
Richard Wagler
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3C741F9F...@shaw.ca>...
>
>
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> [..]
> > > I am just countering the (IMHO mistaken) view that traits evlove only
> > > as a consequence of some kind of time-related factor - how much time
> > > they spend doing x will determine the likelihood an x-related trait
> > > will evolve. You ignore the survival impact of x. If x keeps you alive
> > > then x will get selected for even if it only happens once in a
> > > lifetime.
> >
> > A) It is not a time-related factor but rather the intensity
> > of selective pressure. Mating involves very little of an
> > organisms time. Mayflies do it once every seven years.
> > But you will agree that all organisms are under intense
> > selective pressure to get the job done and those which
> > do it better than others of their species have the advantage.
>
> Fine. I agree with this. But Rich Travsky (and I think yourself) were
> arguing that because the bonobo wading frequency was so low, it didn't
> count.
Time can be a determinant of selective pressure though
importance to the animal's individual or species survival
is critical. If wading is a very minor part of an animal's
activities then selective pressure is low. Mating and the
associated behaviors are critical of course so time spent
is not really important.
>
>
> > B) You single out wading as having some unique survival
> > advantage. All viable responses to selective pressure have
> > survival advantages. For bipedalism wading is not a method
> > to avoid drowning. It is a mathod to get particular kinds of
> > food or to cross a water barrier. Standing up to look around
> > and detect predators has a more immediate survival advantage
> > than wading. Standing up to get food is equal to wading to get
> > food. All of the proposed reasons for why bipedalism would
> > be advantageous to some particular hominoids involve the
> > identification of a survival advantage. 'Fooling around' or 'It
> > seemed like a good idea at the time' are never listed as proposed
> > selective pressures for why some particualar apes would have
> > become obligate bipeds.
>
> It's pretty clear, Rick. In waist deep water being bipedal is a life
> saver because if you're quadrupedal your face is below the surface.
> They have no choice but to move (not just posture) bipedally.
The choce that *all* mammals and reptiles make
when in a situation where water is coming up over
their heads is to start swimming. The only animals
that do what you suggest are bipeds.
> I accept
> the reasons you gave are also survival benefits - although they would
> probably be seen even less frequently in extant apes than wading on
> those living near to water - but they are not as clear cut survival
> benefits.
Any proposed scenario for the origin of bipedalism
can be massaged to demonstrate a 'clear cut survival
benefit'. The problem with your scenario is not that
it does not represent a clear cut survival benefit to
your particular non-swimming ape but rather that it
proposes the development of bipedalism as a means
to gain this benefit and this is where our fundamental
disagreement is. And putting a non-swimming ape into
deep water is still a silly idea that needs some sound
evidence that such a thing actually occurred before it
can be taken seriously.
>
>
> In waist deep water if you don't go bipedal you drown in about two
> minutes - and with absolute certainty if you can't swim.
The nub of the problem. Non-swimming chimps are
dedicated aquaphobes. Since you like to analogize the
behaviours of modern people - love to go to the beach etc -
with the behaviours of our distant ancestors how many
non-swimmers do you know who would get into deep
water willingly?
>
> If you are getting food (picking berries, carrying food - whatever
> model you like) you are not going to die in two minutes if you don't
> go bipedal. In fact it is likely to make very little difference at
> all.
Depends entirely on the resources and especially
their distribution. I can easily construct feeding -foraging
strategies that would be absolutely dependent on
bipedalism. No problem at all. Of course I have no
evidence for what the daily activities of very early
hominids were or how they accomplished them so I
won't burden you with my set of WAGs.
>
> If you didn't detect predators you might die in two minutes but you
> might die anyway, even if you did detect them and you might have
> detected them on all fours.
At least, given the relative effectiveness of our
senses on land versus while in the water predators
would have been detectable :-)
>
>
> > > Thick skulls help to make it unlikely that a bump on the head will
> > > kill you. I accept that skulls fulfil other roles too but you can't
> > > deny mine. Wading ability - if it helps an individual survive will,
> > > similarly, get selected for even if it doesn't happen very often. I
> > > assume that the earliest bipeds did wade fairly regularly, however
> > > (aay several times a day) and ceratinly far more than extant apes do
> > > today.
> >
> > What do you base this assumption on. "Wetter" is pretty vague.
>
> The earliest bipeds - Oreopithecus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus,
> Kenyanthropus and earliest Australopithecus - lived in *wetter*
> habitats than extant apes.
Where do you get this? The habitat of Orrorin is
described as woodland. Ditto Ardipithicus. Kenyanthropus
is 3.5MMya so we have a pretty fair idea of what
was going on. Modern apes live in tropical rain
forests. You're not, I hope, buying into MV's total
unwillingness / inability to deal with the issue of the
depositional environments of fossils. It would seem
you are.
> If extant apes wade in water they are more
> likely to have done so. This seems to me to be a very plausible model
> for the origins of bipedlaism. Stop pretending you don't understand my
> point. You have read the papers on those early habitats, haven't you?
Yup. Woodland. In Orrorins case the major fossils found
with it were impalas. What papers are you referring to?
I understand your point. But even if you could establish
that these early habitats were wetter - and you can't - you can't
infer more wading. Why? Especially if the animals are non-swimmers.
>
>
> > > If a putative aquatic ape lived near water, wading traits are likely
> > > to have kept them alive frequently.
> >
> > Why? No animal will willingly drown itself. Wading is walking
> > in water. If that already includes facultative bipedalism then
> > that will be used from time to time just as we see today.
>
> Yes, walking. Here's a factor that encourages walking - one that kills
> the ones that don't walk or can't walk and one that doesn't affect
> those that don't go in water at all.
Actually it encourages swimming. If the animal can't
swim it encourages staying the hell out of the water.
Just like chimps.
>
>
> [..]
>
> > Got any mangrove swamps in mind? You have not a shred
> > of evidence for this mangrove dwelling hominoid ape.
> > As a WAG (=wild assed guess, a standard usent acronym)
> > it is serviceable enough but it is only that. Meanwhile the
> > palaeoenvironments of known fossil homind locales don't
> > seem to include swamp forests of any description, And modern
> > apes living in these sorts of environments are not any more
> > bipedal than there dry(er) land cousins.
>
> Oreopithecus was a swamp-dwelling ape AFAIK. If this model existed in
> one Miocene pre-hominid ape it is likely to have existed in other,
> later, ones too. Why do you find this so fantastic?
Oreopithecus remains have been found in swamps.
No surprise there. But I find it difficult to believe
that a low swampy island was a geographically
stable entity in a geologically active area like the
Mediterranean. Italy is quite hilly and mountainous
and I would suspect that Oeopithecus' basic
habitat was upland forest. Were there some swamps
on this isalnd. Sure. Why not? Would O have ventured
into them. Again, Why not? But Marcel Williams has
perfected the fine art of making mountains out of
mole hills. In any case just what this island looks like and
the palaeoenvironments are probably known. In any
case I have absolutely no problem with O being a swamp
ape. Or there being other swamp apes. That's not the
point.
>
>
> [..]
>
> > > It's not a whole new form - apes were already predisposed to wade.
> > > They wade bipedally even today. All I'm saying is that several million
> > > years of living in that kind of habitat would gradually improve those
> > > traits.
> >
> > How? What would this improvement consist of? What
> > the heck is a 'wading trait' anyway?
>
> Upright posture, reorganization of the limbs for powerful upright
> movement.
This is an arboreal, below branch slow vertical climber -
not a wader.
> As you say - a wading trait is really a walking trait - just
> an easy one to get because the habitat in which it is likely to
> develop provides a constant and gentle pressure at every stage.
The pressure to swim is much more powerful as is
the basic instinct to stay out of situations you can't
effectively deal with.
>
>
> [..]
> > > I studied it, specifically becuase you made this very point to me a
> > > couple of years ago. Wading is faster than swimming at shallow depths.
> > > Even humans wade rather than swim at waist depth and below. Wading
> > > would come before swimming as long as the habitat had relatively
> > > short, shallow stretches of water.
> >
> > No doubt. Any animal will do this. What is specific to
> > apes that it would have some extraordinary effect on
> > them as opposed to all other mammals. I'll leave aside
> > the inconvenient fact that modern apes don't seem to
> > have benefited from their wading even though they
> > have been at it for a very long time.
>
> Modern apes don't wade very frequently, remember? (that was your
> original objection) So, as they are not exposed to much aquatic
> pressure it is no wonder they have not become more bipedal. What is
> specific to apes? Easy. They have a predisposition to upright
> 'truncal' posture anyway. Even extant apes wade.
All this does is confirm my basic point. Modern apes
are facultative bipeds and provide *no* evidence that
wading enhances bipedalism. They argue against your
wading > bipedalism theory. How could you possibly
think they argue for it?
>
>
> > > I'll give up when I hear a single convincing argument as to why
> > > bipedalism could not have evolved in water - but I know that there
> > > aren't any.
> >
> > Nor does there need to be. You are proposing that
> > water had this extraordianry effect. Using as evidence
> > modern apes where water has*not* had this extraordinary
> > effect. What, as a skeptic, am I required to demonstrate?
> > Just ask. I'll do my best.
>
> That the earliest bipeds were less likely to be exposed to wading
> pressure than extant apes. That would be a difficult piece of evidence
> to argue against.
What would provide more opportunites to involve
yourself with water? A tropical rainforest or woodland
savannahs, grassy woodlands etc and all the other
habitats that have characterized early hominid fossil
localities? Gee, that was easy....
>
>
> [..]
> > > Compared to a seal we are piss-poor but compared to chimps, bonobos,
> > > gorillas and orang-utans we are actually pretty good. That is the only
> > > comparison that matters, Rick. Remember cladistics?
> >
> > Cladistics?? As for comparisons to chimps etc why
> > restrict it to swimming? For example how do we compare
> > as distance travellers? Pretty favourably I should think.
> > As tool makers? Bicycle riders? Space cadets? I could
> > go on....
>
> Been there, done that. Take away technology. Strip us naked. What can
> we do that they can't then?
Recreate and replace all the stuff you've taken away.
And teach ourselves to swim if needs be. Swimming
is *not* the central, defining difference between man
and the apes.
> Things that are part of the natural world.
> Common forms of locomotion in the animal world? Which ones? Swim,
> dive.
Huh? Explain chimp non-swimming not human
swimming.
>
>
> > > How do you - or anyone - know how well people swam 100,000 years ago?
> >
> > Well you do, for one. Your whole argument is predicated
> > on this very assumption. If it is nothing but a wag how can you
> > think you can base a theory of hominid evolution on it?
>
> Well today, rounded to the nearest integer, humans are 100%
> terrestrial. No-one could dispute that. We are 0% bipedal and 0%
> arboreal. However I'd say the average person spent more time in water
> than they did up trees, and yet no-one questions that we had a more
> arboreal past? What is so fantastic that we also had a more aquatic
> one? The fact we can swim and dive far, far better than our nearest
> relatives in the animal kingdom is a bit of a clue that it probably
> was that way.
Except that the evidence is is that Hom sapiens is today
as aquatic as it has ever been. We have been developing
these capacities for the last 100ky. Not standing around
and letting them atrophy.
>
>
>
> > > Where's the earliest evidence for modern human culture - e.g. use of
> > > red ochre? Klasies river mouth cave, South Africa. - 130,000 bp.
> >
> > ?? Your point?
>
> They inhabitated a seaside habitat, of course.
So? Anatomical moderns start being behavioral
moderns. Your point?
>
>
> [..]
> > > > But I'm not saying that any of these activities
> > > > led to the evolution of the modest bipedal abilities
> > > > of chimps and gorillas. That's your argument.
> > >
> > > I meant that other examples of facultative ape bipedalism are used as
> > > models for human bipedal origins.
> >
> > Origins? Or as a suite of advantages that would lead
> > to obligate bipedalism? But I think until and unless we
> > fill out the fossil record and nail down the origin and
> > history of this form of locomotion all of these discussions
> > are so much handwaving.
>
> Fair point. But we need to have a model for how it might have begun.
> All I'm saying is that wading has not been considered because it's
> part of the heretical AAH. It should have been considered long before
> now and it should still be seriously considered in the future.
Wading has not been considered because no one
can explain what it would contribute.All proposed
reasons for why bipedalism might have arisen or
enhanced bipedalism selected for can demonstrate
clear survival advantages. Avoiding drowning as a
reason to wade is a distant third to either swimming
or staying out of deep water.
>
>
> > But we *can* look at modern
> > human bipedalism and see how that works and what
> > advantages it conferred on an animal that possessed it.
> > And, IMHO, ability to operate in aquatic environments
> > is such a minor part of this that I see no reason to consider
> > it much if at al. You take a diametrically opposed view.
> > Why? What does obligate bipedalism give to humans by
> > way of aquatic adaptations?
>
> Agreed. Modern human bipedalism probably has nothing to do with
> wading. It's bipedal origins that the model works for.
And bipedal origins you situate where? If modern
human bipedalism has nothing to do with wading what
are you on about?
>
>
> [..]
> > > Well, if several hundred professional pas and their students weren't
> > > interested enough to look into it, that is not my fault. It seems a
> > > little unfair to accuse me of that when the entire field has been
> > > doing exactly the same thing themselves for 42 years (in assuming that
> > > water was not involved). But then I should know better than to expect
> > > aquasceptics to be fair minded.
> >
> > What are we required to be fair minded about?
>
> Since Hardy the thoery has not been investigated at all (hardly.) It
> has been dismissed out of hand. Rejected - but on what basis? Those
> that support the idea, or those who have even been open to it, have
> been vilified and condemned by their aquasceptic peers. Established
> pas know they are best to keep quiet about this for fear of ridicule.
Which established PAs are in the AAT closet? And
anything Hardy said would have been seriously considered.
But no one would relish making a fool of a well respected
scientist who has wandered way off his turf so little or
nothing would make it to print.
>
> That, Rick, is not fair mindedness and has *nothing* to do with
> scientific progress.
It is absolutely 'fair minded' to basically ignore fringe
theories that are as poorly mounted as the AAT.. And
scientific progress is not aided by chasing down runaway
hobbyhorses.
>
>
> > The role of water in human evolution? Okay.
> > You and others have made the argument. We have
> > looked at them here on sap and elsewhere.
>
> On the sap, yes. But elsewhere? Where? The Roede et al work and
> Langdon - that's it. In 42 years. It's a poor show.
It has gotten the attention it deserves. The anatomical
analogies are bogus and easily demonstrated to be so.
How much time and energy is required to show that
a seal's flipper and the human foot are not at all like
each other and the fuctional analogy the AAT seeks to
demonstrate is completely non-existent. Thirty seconds
with a pinniped skeleton does the job. The whole AAT
is like this.
>
>
> > And
> > we find the proposition wanting - to put it mildly.
> > What's so unfair about that? If you can't mount
> > a proper hypothetical argument to which the
> > standards of scientific analysis can be applied
> > what are we supposed to do??
>
> 'We' (the scientists) are supposed to be scientific about it and not
> act like a bunch of clerics from the middle-ages. It hasn't been
> studied so how can it be dismissed?
The AAT works are not of sufficient quality to justify
the effort. Nor has PA taken on Conrad's Carboniferous
man or Howard's testosterone theories. Should they?
Why?
>
>
> > > > Miocene hominoid apes lived in all types of habitats.
> > > > 'Wet and wooded' means what? A permanently
> > > > flooded swamp forest? More than 30 inches of
> > > > rain in a year?
> > >
> > > An environment where wading could have been regularly needed to get
> > > from one clump of trees to another, of course.
> >
> > Think real estate, Location, location, location....
> > WHERE IS THIS SWAMP??
>
> Med/Red (ex Tethys) Sea on Arabian/African/island coastline.
> Flood/dessication cycles.
Okay. Found any hominids?
>
>
> > > > What facts? Provide some references. Did not Hunt
> > > > tell you that he did not observe bipedal wading?
> > >
> > > Groan. I did in my thesis. There was no water there - so it would have
> > > been remarkable if he had.
> >
> > You did not provide much of a quote. I read the statement
> > to mean that the wading in chimps he observed was not bipedal.
> > Are you saying this was just a jocular aside? Can't wade on
> > dry land, ho-ho.....
>
> He told me that he didn't observe them wading becuase they never went
> near water. Fair enough. But if he'd have studied the ones at Conkuati
> he'd have produced *very* different data.
I'm confused. Your quote from Hunt's private
correspondence was a jocular aside?
>
>
> > > > Besides
> > > > no one denies that bonobos may wade bipeally. Kano
> > > > infers it though he did not observe it.
> > >
> > > Infers it is better than nothing. Put with the other evidence it
> > > simply shows what we already know - apes wade when they have to and
> > > when they do it's almost always bipedally.
> >
> > And what effect does it have on the development
> > of bipedalism in bonobos? Why would more produce
> > an obligate biped? That is the essence of your argument
> > is it not?
>
> No. They are not exposed to wading frequently. Don't you get it?
Yes, Algis, I do. Chimp aquaphobia is evidence for AAT.
Swimming gorillas is evidence for AAT. Everything's coming
up roses. What ape behavior would count as evidence against
the AAT?
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Groan. Yes but if even bonobos, chimps, gorillas and orang-utans wade
> > > bipedally when none of them live in particularly wet and wooded
> > > environments doesn't that imply that an ancestor that did live in such
> > > a habitat would be even more likely to wade?
> >
> > Probably. But what would cause you to think that
> > this would lead to obligate bipedalism? To repeat
> > a point I've made many times - the circumstances
> > that produce wading do not require obligate bipedalism
> > to deal with it so why would it be evolved in these
> > circumstances? That's the big question you need to
> > address. And to repeat myself again since modern apes
> > are not anywhere close to being full bipeds what does
> > it matter what they do?
>
> The move to obligate bipedalism is more difficult, granted. I suspect
> it was because a) the wading traits (upright posture, power bipedal
> movement) developed to a point of no return that Homo (but not
> Pan/Gorilla) crossed
These are *not* wading traits. They are traits that let
an animal wade bipedally if it is of a mind to. See the
difference?
> and b) Some isolated population became marooned
> on an island where predators died out removing the need to climb trees
> (as Paul Crowley argues) took away the climbing element and led to a
> new phase of fully terrestrial bipedalism and then (other) selection
> pressures.
What island? What hominid?
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > 90% of 10 life saving events is more significant than 2% of 100,000
> > > trivial ones.
> >
> > See above. What's trivial about detecting predators
> > soon enough to get yourself and your troopmates
> > safely up a tree? What's trivial about adopting feeding
> > and foraging strategies that are greatly enhanced by
> > bipedalism. What's trivial about being the dominant male??
>
> See above. Not trivial, but not so clear cut and not so immediate.
An inept response - can't swim - to drowning
is not likely to be selected for. The selectees will
be experiencing an attrition rate that normal
reproduction can't compensate for.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > You are, as always, very unfair to Marc. He was one of the few people
> > > I know of that was predicting that bipedalism predated the Pan/Homo
> > > split (prior to December 2000, quoted with increasing confidence at
> > > 5.5mya). When Orrorin was discovered (and dated at 6my) I swallowed my
> > > pride and began to accept that he was probably right about his
> > > aquarboreal model after all. Of course you guys are incapable of
> > > admitting you are wrong about anything. You'll still be slagging him
> > > off on your death bed, when the AAH is firmly established in the
> > > mainstream!
> >
> > In your dreams. ;-D
>
> > Marc has the same problem you do.
> > He just dumps his apes into the water for no discernible
> > reason. He can't, and nor can you, demonstrate why
> > an aquatic, acquaboreal, streamside wader etc etc
> > phase in human evolution provides a solution to the
> > many mysteries yet to be solved.
>
> That is just your opinion. If you won't open your mind to the notion
> there's not much we can do for you.
For which I am grateful :-)
>
>
> > It all derives from
> > a wacky misinterpretation of human anatomy and
> > physiology and a ludicrously inept attempt at
> > comparative anatomy. Having swallowed this guff
> > wholehog you are now floundering around trying
> > to come up with some reason to get your apes
> > into the water and have seized on wading as your
> > magic bullet. Give it up! Life is too short.
>
> So explain, please, why the paleohabitats of the ealier bipeds are
> wetter than the later ones. Why would bipedalism start if it was just
> woodland? Why are no other forest primates bipedal?
Obligate bipedalism is not an option for most primates
because they ar built all wrong. As for palaeohabitats
says who?
>
>
> [..]
> > > > But your model - the bonobo - demonstrates the precise
> > > > opposite of what you think it does. Chimps can't swim.
> > > > Evidence *for* the AAT. Bonobos occasionally wade
> > > > bipedally. Evidence *for* the AAT. You've got yourself
> > > > into the position where everything argues *for* the
> > > > AAT both a and -a.
> > >
> > > No. You willfully misunderstand. Chimps & bonobos can't swim but *we
> > > can*. Therefore the 'something' that happenned to our ancestors that
> > > was different to their ancestors must have involved water. Yes.
> > > Evidence *for* the AAH. - Very much so.
> >
> > It's called cultural development, niche expansion, the
> > development of the intellectual capacity to discern
> > promise and advantge in doing new things. It's a
> > wonderful story and has not much to do with what
> > was going on 6 or 7 million years ago in some
> > phantom swamp forest.
>
> So strip away the culture - look at infant chimps and infant humans -
> how come we are so much better in water than them? Your answer -
> serendipity?
Because Mommy's in the pool with them. For all that
water to a newborn can be toxic. Does not take much
to screw up salt concentrations in bodily fluid. It is
why any responsible pediatrician would strongly advise
against infant swimming lessons.
>
>
> > > Bonobos wade bipedally, chimps wade bipedally, orang-utans wade
> > > bipedally, gorillas wade bipedally - therefore the lca of the
> > > Hominoidae probably waded bipedally. If that Hominoid lived in a
> > > habitat where it was necessary more regularly than today's extant apes
> > > it would be more likely to wade bipedally than they are - hence a very
> > > plausible model for bipedal origins. Yes, again. More evidence *for*
> > > the AAH.
> >
> > Bonobo wading, gorilla wading, and orang wading has
> > not enhanced their bipedal abilities one bit. This is
> > supposed to be evidence for more bouts of wading
> > producing an obligate biped????
>
> You willfully miss the point. See above.
>
> > > > This is bunk. What you need is
> > > > a testable hypothesis and a clear set of statements
> > > > about your assunptions.
> > >
> > > My thesis made four testable predictions and every one was met easily.
> >
> > Says who?
>
> Me, of course! but I did get a distinction so Leslie Aiello, Volker
> Sommer and a.n. other must have thought my reasoning was not *so*
> wacky.
Indulgence is a wonderful thing. Do you plan to carry on?
>
>
> > > > For example is it your position
> > > > that the LCA or the lineage leading up to it was wholly
> > > > quadrupedal and in no way, whatsoever, was a facultative
> > > > biped?
> > >
> > > That's just an irrelevant diversion. What difference does that make?
> > > The AAH suggests that the lca was a wading ape - a bipedal wading ape.
> > > It was probably facultative to start with but after several million
> > > years it became more obligatory untill a point of no return was
> > > reached for some of them (Homo ancestors) but not others
> > > (Pan/Gorilla).
> >
> > Fossil evidence for this wading ape? No.
>
> I think so.
Which one?
>
>
> > Any sound anatomical hypothesis for what
> > wading bipedally is supposed to accomplish? No.
>
> I think so.
See Above
>
>
> > See the problem? No?
>
> I think so.
>
> > > > The proposition that more wading would generate
> > > > an obligate biped is an interesting proposition. But what
> > > > do the bonobos prove. They wade bipedally at times.
> > > > But their bipedality is modest enough that there is nothing
> > > > to be made of their wading. Why do you think it is indicative
> > > > of anything?
> > >
> > > How many times do I have to spell this out to you? If extant apes are
> > > bipedal 90% of the time they spend in water and if the lca lived in a
> > > habitat that was often flooded then isn't it rather likely that the
> > > lca would become more bipedal?
> >
> > The evidence the modern apes provide says
> > no.There is no reason to think this is at all likely
> >
> > Sorry.
> >
> > Rick Wagler
>
> Don't be sorry. Just open your mind a little to the possibility you
> might be wrong, that's all. It's not difficult to do.
>
I am always open to the possibility that I might
be wrong. It's just not possible for something
as poorly argued as the AAT of whatever stripe
to demonstrate it.
Rick Wagler
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:3C79AA13...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rich Travsky" <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:3C7479E3...@hotMOVEmail.com...
> > >
> > > > > There is (and was) a high rate of head bashing. Read
> > > > > _any_ account of pre-industrial societies. (I'm just reading
> > > > > about the Indian societies encountered by the first English
> > > > > colonialists in Virginia.)
> > > >
> > > > Then, if there's all this recent head bashing, where are the thickened
> > > > skulls?
> > >
> > > Thickened skulls are expensive. They also
> > > need stronger neck muscles, etc., and all
> > > than can slow you down and make you more
> > > liable to be caught by the spear or knife of
> > > the lighter guy who is not carrying so much
> > > weight. It's always a trade-off.
> >
> > You still haven't shown a relationship between this current "high rate
> > of head bashing" and the lack of thickened skulls.
>
> I want to modify my statement about the current "high rate
> of head bashing" -- I was making that in the context of
> the idiotic PC/PA notion we are all normally peaceful,
> and that it's only modern capitalism (or something) that
> has distorted it. I maintain that in the 'natural' state (i.e.
WHAT? Where the heck do you come up with THAT?
> without police forces, etc.) levels of male-on-male
> aggression are high, and they have selected almost
> all of the distinctive aspects of male morphology. But
> for the last 100 Kyr or so (and especially for the last
> 15 Kyr or so) sharpened weapons have done most
> of the killing, so head-bashing (as such) has fallen to
> a _relatively_ minor role.
Hogwash. The use of bashing type weapons is well documented
in recorded history and in the present day. Why, here's a news
article showing they're still in favor:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020224/ap_on_re_us/hellraiser_shooting_9
PLAINVIEW, N.Y. (AP) - Rival motorcycle gangs armed with
daggers, baseball bats and a machine gun clashed at an indoor
motorcycle and tattoo expo called the Hellraiser Ball,
authorities said. One man was killed and at least 10
people were injured.
What do you suppose those bats were for???
> > If a thick
> > skull is expensive NOW, it was expensive long ago. Yet, where are the
> > thickened skulls?
>
> What are you on about? Most fossil skulls >20 kya are
> amazingly thick.
The trend in the human form has been towards less robustness; that
includes the skull.
> > > > > Chimps use heavy rocks against each other.
> > > >
> > > > Cite?
> > >
> > > Goodall, "Through a Window" , page 92 " . . old
> > > Rudolf, usually so benign, standing upright to
> > > hurl a four-pound rock at Godi's prostrate body"
> > >
> > > This is all I have to hand. There are numerous
> > > references in Goodall's major works.
> >
> > And not a good example either. Hurled at "Godi's prostrate
> > body" could mean anything. Does Goodal record all the head injuries
> > that your scenario requires? If head bashing is so prevalent among chimps,
> > then the literature would be filled with accounts of alllll those
> > fights.
>
> The literature is full of accounts of such fights.
> Another quote from 'Though a Window' (page 87)
> "The Kalende group was in a shallow, steep-sided
> ravine, calling loudly and charging about in the
> undergrowth. Sniff, uttering deep roar-like hoots,
> performed a spectacular display along a trail near
> the top of the ravine. As he charged he hurled at
> least thirteen huge rocks down onto the strangers.
> An occasional missile - a stone or a stick -- flew
> up from the undergrowth below, but the fell far
> short of Sniff . . ."
Let's see - no head bashing there...
> > > > The males have the extra duty of defense and agression.
> > >
> > > Those are the normal male roles in social mammals.
> > > So why rule them out for early hominids?
> >
> > Very good. So those big skulls anchor big muscles that are
> > not only for chewing, but for *biting* as well.
>
> Biting? What's all this about? Do big gorilla
> males do a lot of biting? They have massive
> sagittal crests to anchor huge muscles, to
> support enormous jaws. But what use would
> that biting power be to them? Maybe they do
WHAT USE WOULD IT BE????? Ai yai yai... So, you
think all those muscles are just to hold the jaw?
This is insane! What do you think they chew with? DO you
think they move their jaws around with their hands???
Those huge jaws and teeth make powerful weapons should
need arise.
> use it in some way, but IMO they have massive
> jaws, because if they were any smaller they'd
> be likely to get broken in their fights with other
> gorillas of about the same size. A broken jaw
> for a gorilla is a death sentence. The size of
> their jaw has absolutely nothing to do with
> their diet.
Like I said - for chewing AND biting...
> And -- probably -- exactly the same would have
> applied to the sagittal crests of early hominids.
Very good!
> > The thick
> > skull is a platform for massive jaw muscles, jaw muscles
> > that have considerable skrunk as our diet changed
>
> Where do you get this nonsense about 'change
> in diet'? I suppose it's the standard PA shite
> that fills your brain.
Our diet did change. Look at the progression from australopithecines
towards AMH. Smaller and fewer teeth, reduction in the size of
muscles needed for chewing coarser and less nutritious foodstuffs.
Not to mention a reduction in intestinal length because they were
eating better food. (See Shipman and Walker's "Wisdom of the bones"
for a discussion of that.)
> > > > Club, actually. Less chance of being grabbed. Knife is too short
> > > > range, defender can take a cut or two in the process of taking
> > > > on the attacker. Plus, you can use a LOT of things as a shield.
> > > >
> > > > > If you were afraid of being attacked and killed,
> > > > > which would you take out for protection?
> > > >
> > > > Club. Good distance weapon. Works great on dogs too (if you've
> > > > ever been jumped by one - or more).
> > >
> > > Then you would not have survived long in any
> > > society which had sharp weapons. It was
> >
> > Hogwash. Martial arts history has traditions stick weapon
> > practicioners doing quite well against edged weapons. Look
> > into escrima, jo, and bo weapons.
>
> I am more interested in the facts of history, rather
> than any crap theory. The words you use are not
> even in my dictionary.
Sigh. Jo and bo are japanese terms. Escrima is Philipino.
Brief but adequate online overview of some these:
http://md.essortment.com/japaneseweapon_raap.htm
See Ratti and Westbrook's most excellent "Secrets of the Samurai"
for a comprehensive treatment of weaponry in feudal Japan.
An adequate online overview of escrima
http://www.jadedragon.com/archives/martarts/arnis.html
Better still is Wiley's "Filipino Martial Culture".
I already gave you a link for quarterstaffs.
As you can see, hardly crap theories. More like "your ignorance".
> > > almost unknown for adult males to carry clubs
> > > in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Swords
> > > and knives were the universal weapons of
> > > choice -- until guns became good enough.
> >
> > More hogwash. Never heard of maces? Morning stars??? Staves???
>
> Take a look at some historical pictures from
> medieval or early modern Europe. How often
> are soldiers (or any adult males in peacetime)
> shown carrying maces or 'morning stars' or
> staves? Whereas nearly everyone will have a
> dagger, and often a sword. As one indication of
> their relative popularity, the word 'sword' comes
> up 454 times in Shakespeare's works; the word
> 'mace' comes up 8 times -- and most of those are
> ceremonial uses -- e.g. emblems of government.
> 'Stave' comes up 9 times, and most are in a non-
> martial context.
Shakespeare and paintings doubling as weapon surveys does not
work very well. You'd be better off looking here:
http://www.hema.freehomepage.com/Kampfringen.htm
> > > None of it changed? Skulls got very thick when
> > > weapons were primarily clubs. They stayed thick
> > > until there were good piercing and cutting weapons.
> > > Then they got thin -- rapidly. End of story
> >
> > Skulls didn't get thick because of weapons - they started
> > thick on hominids. They got thinner as a result of changes in
> > diet (the skull is the anchor for those massive chewing
> > muscles) and a neotenous like retention of early stages
> > of growth development that permitted prolonged learning
> > and brain growth.
>
> So you believe that male gorillas have a
> different diet from the females? And that
> male hominids had a different diet from
> their females?
>
> What an idiot! (If one of a solid mass of
> PA idiots.)
Where does it say "gorilla males only" up above?
As stated, gorilla males also have defensive duties.
> > > > MALE HEADS ARE 50% LARGER????? Now I know you're full of it.
> > >
> > > People wonder why I get so angry at the stupidity
> > > of PA people. Modern PA is not merely inane
> > > beyond belief about its own subject-matter, it
> > > even prevents those it's indoctrinated from using
> > > their eyes about things they see every minute of
> > > every day. Take the first ten males you see in a
> > > day; take the first ten females; compare their
> > > skulls. Tough, eh?
> > >
> > > The 50% is probably mass -- i.e. weight. IF the
> > > density was the same (in males and females)
> > > then we would be talking of a 14.5% difference
> > > in each dimension. Given that males have much
> > > more bone, then it's a bit less than that.
> > >
> > > Take a look -- if you're capable.
> >
> > I think that PA people know that if you give a figure of
> > 50% they know what units to attach to that figure...
> >
> > And they can give figure along with being sure of what it is
> > (not "probably mass").
>
> Given that they are incapable of seeing the
> plain facts that surround them every minute
> of every day, the units in which they fail to
> describe such matters are more than a bit
> academic.
No, it's *you* who failed to use units. "Male heads are about
50% larger" is a meaningless statement. The best you can do is say
it's "probably mass".
> > > > And I asked why they're less robust, not how.
> > >
> > > Males have the roles of defence and aggression.
> > > -- as in most (all?) other social mammals.
> > > Robustness is usually an advantage in fighting.
> >
> > And is exhibited in the rest of the male body as well.
>
> Err . . . your accept that the difference is
> there as a result of fighting . . . but that's as
> far as you go? The fighting had no _other_
> selective effects?
Ahem. Your answer is in the next line...
> > So the skull is not special.
>
> The skull (as you probably don't know) is
> the location of some fairly important organs:
> those of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and
> of the brain itself. It's also where the food
> goes in. So it has to be especially well
Very good!
> protected. That's why motor cyclists, for
The food gets digested in the stomach. Those sense
organs are worthless if the food isn't processed.
Where's the protection for the stomach?
> example, wear such large helmets; they
> don't seek to protect, say, their feet in the
> same way. And that's why males (whose
> ancestors often died as the result of fights)
> have such large skulls, in comparison to
> females.
Funny, there's STILL a lot of fighting going on
amonst males, and there's no thickened skulls...
> Males also have much larger hands than
> females -- much more than the standard
> 8% or so extra size for general body size.
> Figures on these things are hard to obtain.
> No one studies them. It is politically correct
> to ignore the ordinary facts of life. That's one
> reason why PA is such a great 'science'.
Sexual dimorphism has NEVER been studied???
> > > Who said anything about crime? Most deaths
> > > from violence occurred in war. Although, we
> > > might call a lot of if 'feuding'. The Chinese,
> > > etc., didn't use kung-fu much in war.
> >
> > Call it what you want. Got the stats??? And then explain why
> > every army (or nearly every) trains their troops in unarmed
> > combat...
>
> Well, soldiers need physical training, and
> they enjoy it. And armed combat, with live
> ammunition is risky and expensive. The
> training in unarmed combat only came in
> once it was realised that soldiers didn't
> need fighting skills with normal close-
> fighting weapons -- pikes, swords, etc.
> There was no time for training in unarmed
> combat in the Roman and Medieval eras.
Hogwash. Double hogwash.
http://www.hema.freehomepage.com/Kampfringen.htm
Kampfringen is the art of combat grappling as practiced in
Medieval Germany. It was a powerful and effective form of
unarmed combat, combining joint-locks, leverage throws, pain
compliance grips and striking techniques. It was useful in
self-defense situations, in formal duels, and even on the
battlefield should a weapon be lost or broken.
Take note of the pictures and refs for other medieval unarmed
fighting disciplines.
You know, you're not doing very well at this. You haven't shown
one conclusive bit of evidence to show a relationship that thick
skulls are from fighting and every time you make some claim about
weaponry or fighting you get shown otherwise.
Lorenzo L. Love
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
[snip]
> > I want to modify my statement about the current "high rate
> > of head bashing" -- I was making that in the context of
> > the idiotic PC/PA notion we are all normally peaceful,
> > and that it's only modern capitalism (or something) that
> > has distorted it. I maintain that in the 'natural' state (i.e.
>
> WHAT? Where the heck do you come up with THAT?
>
> > without police forces, etc.) levels of male-on-male
> > aggression are high, and they have selected almost
> > all of the distinctive aspects of male morphology. But
> > for the last 100 Kyr or so (and especially for the last
> > 15 Kyr or so) sharpened weapons have done most
> > of the killing, so head-bashing (as such) has fallen to
> > a _relatively_ minor role.
>
> Hogwash. The use of bashing type weapons is well documented
> in recorded history and in the present day. Why, here's a news
> article showing they're still in favor:
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020224/ap_on_re_us/hellraiser_shooting_9
>
> PLAINVIEW, N.Y. (AP) - Rival motorcycle gangs armed with
> daggers, baseball bats and a machine gun clashed at an indoor
> motorcycle and tattoo expo called the Hellraiser Ball,
> authorities said. One man was killed and at least 10
> people were injured.
>
> What do you suppose those bats were for???
>
Although most modern combat soldiers carry a nice pointy bayonet, many
have found that the best weapon for up close and personal combat is not
the bayonet but something else they all carry, the intrenching tool.
Basically a small shovel. Great for head bashing.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets
the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it."
Benito Mussolini
Rich Travsky
Throats are where predators go for choking their prey. Yet, no protection
is there.
> > Time spent *is* a critical factor. You have to show that wading time
> > is somehow necessary in the lifestyle of the creature (and not just an
> > extra). Sex is, regardless of the time spent, because sez is how the
> > species gets propagated.
>
> If the creature lived in a waterside habitat then wading would
> inevitably and often be necessary. If the water is waist deep then
> bipedality is a life saver in apes.
Why inevitably? Many present apes live near water and their time
in water is rare, as you admit.
> > > > The fact that chimps, gorillas, and orangs are all facultative bipeds
> > > > indicates a genetic predisposition to bipedalism, possibly linked to
> > > > brachiation. You have demonstrated that bonobos can wade bipedally,
> > > > fine. You're insistence that this is a matter of life and death has not
> > > > been demonstrated however. Or that wading carries more selective
> > > > advantage then tool carrying, reconnoitering, or even sexual attraction.
> > >
> > > Well this is quite a simple matter to demonstrate.
> > >
> > > An ape is in waist deep water will survive if it moves bipedally but
> > > it will drown in about a few minutes if it attempts to do so
> > > quadrupedally.
> >
> > Problem: They don't have to go into the water.
>
> If they lived in a waterside habitat I expect they often wouldn't have
> the choice.
Define waterside habitat. Is it someplace where they can't simply go
about on land and avoid the water as aquaphobes are prone to do?
> > > Tool carrying may be done more efficiently bipedally but it *can* be
> > > done on three limbs or (if brachiating) using feet or quadrupedally
> > > using the teeth. Either way, it's hard to argue that being bipedal is
> > > a life saver.
> >
> > Life saving is not the only issue. Competitive advantage should be kept
> > in mind. Those tools allow the animal to do things it couldn't before,
> > in fact, in the case of sapiens, it's one of our determining advantages.
>
> Fine. Wading from one clump of trees to another may give you access to
> extra food - competitive advantage 1.
If you're an aquaphobe as apes can be, just look somewhere else on land.
How many apes today have been observed doing this???
> Wading from one clump of trees
> to a another may give you access to a new group of males/females -
> competitive advantage 2.
Or just look somewhere else on land. How many apes today have been
observed doing this???
> Wading from away from a land predator to a
> another clump of trees may save your life - competitive advantage 3.
AN ape trying to escape this way would be lunch...
> Wading out into a river may allow you to see further (for food) than
> staying in the woods - competitive advantage 4.
Hogwash. How the heck can you see farther by wading out into a river???
Just climb a tree! Height, you know.
> Wading out into the
> water may give you access to food (on branches) inaccessible from land
> - competitive advantage 5.
These are arboreal creatures; are you saying branches are inaccessible to
them?
>Wading out into waist deep water would help
> you to keep cool - competitive advantage 6.
You're kidding, right?
> > > Reconnoitering may save your life if you do it bipedally but do you
> > > have to *move* whilst reconnoitering? And it is not so clear-cut as
> >
> > Huh? You can do it standing still or moving.
>
> My point is that some of the models for bipedal origins do not require
> *motion* - Merecat peering is one and bush foraging are two. Wading
> does.
Uh, So?
> > > wading. You might still get eaten, even if you spot the predator
> > > bipeally and you may have spoted the predator if you were on all
> > > fours.
> >
> > Crocs catch animals in the water. They even catch animals on the shore
> > at the water's edge. And standing up doesn't seem to help in spotting
> > them.
>
> True. Croc predation is clearly a big factor. I'm not ducking that
> issue. But the early bipeds would be able to escape crocs easily by
> climbing trees... If they lived out on the grasslands how would they
> escape leopards? Living in a gallery forest gives them protection from
> both.
Uh, escape easily??? Animals get snagged by crocs on the shore! As in
LAND. And you want an early biped to lug itself out of the water and make
it to a tree??? Bigger four footed animals with more stability can't
even make it to shore.
You're *really* grasping.
> > > I have never heard sexual attraction used as an argument for bipedal
> > > origins. Please could you run that one past me.
> >
> > Check out De Waal and Lanting's "Bonobos The Fogotten Ape". Numerous (!)
> > instances of bipedal behavior. In particular, see the section "Intimate
> > Relations" following chapter 4. I quote the caption accompanying a picture
> > of a bipedal male: "The male carries sugarcane while exhibiting an erection,
> > inviting a female for sex in typical bonobo fashion: food triggers sexual
> > excitement, and sex, in turn, paves the way for sharing."
>
> So, do *you* think that's what motivated the first bipeds? Why aren't
> bonobos and chimps bipedal then?
It's one of many bipedal behaviors. You make the mistake of pretty much
all aat types - you only look at ONE behavior.
> > > > Don't forget, fitness is about passing on genes and chordate males are
> > > > for the most part, expendable.
> > >
> > > But females are not expendable and the wading model very much includes
> > > them. If they are able to move bipedally through waist-deep water they
> > > (and their offspring) survive, if not they drown. It's obvious,
> > > really.
> >
> > They spend most of their time on land.
>
> Do they? What are 'they'? Are you talking about chimps/bonobos? We
> didn't evolve from chimps or bonobos but some lca that may well have
> spent more time in the water.
We are highly related to chimps and bonobos. All three species spend most
of their time on land...
> > If there's no water body around to
> > go in, then all of their bipdeal behavior will be on land. There is no need
> > for wading.
>
> I can't argue with that. Indeed if the fossil evidence of the earliest
> bipeds indicated that wading was less likely than in the extant apes
> then I'd have to seriously reconsider the wading origins model.
> Unfortunately for you there is no such evidence. The big difference
> between the paleohabitat of the earliest bipeds and the current
> habitat of extant apes is, generally speaking, that they were wetter.
Not shown. See Wagler's response in the "Re: Lucy walking .. or standing ?"
thread.
> And of course there is absolutely no fossil evidence as yet of any
> chimp/gorilla ancestor at all - Not even one chip off a single tooth.
> If we have to ignore taphonomic bias, how do you explain that whereas
> there are thousands of hominid fossils found in deposital substrates -
> not a single chimp/gorilla ancestor has yet to be found? Isn't this...
> a bit of a clue?
No. Why would it?
> > They wouldn't be able to wade bipedally if they hadn't been
> > exhibiting bipedal behavior on land in the first place. And that includes
> > bipedal behavior in trees. Broaden your scope and look at even monkeys.
> > All can exhibit bipedal behavior. *no* water needed.
>
> Why's that? Why must terrestrial bipedalism have come first? I agree
> that bipedal posture (more accurately an upright trunk through
> swinging/climbing) is likely to encourage bipedal behaiour. But that's
> no contradiction against the wading model.
Wading is merely going bipedal in water. No big deal. Since apes are
arboreal and terrestrial creatures, where do you think the trait would've
developed, someplace they spend 99% of their time, or someplace they
rarely go???
> > You really really really want to push this wading thing, you're going
> > to have to go back, way back in time, and include ALL primates. Even
> > prosimians.
>
> Rubbish.
Nope. Bipedal behavior is a trait of primates. Never seen monkeys going
bipedal? (To be fair, we might have some exceptions, like tree shrews...)
> > Unless you want to claim sifaka bipedal behavior is due to wading?
>
> 'Sifaka'? Excuse me.
What, you don't know about sifakas?
http://www.msu.edu/~heckaaro/sifaka.jpg
Rich Travsky
Not to mention police nightsticks and the good ol P-24 (modeled
on tonfa no doubt).
ejudy
> Although most modern combat soldiers carry a nice pointy bayonet, many
> have found that the best weapon for up close and personal combat is not
> the bayonet but something else they all carry, the intrenching tool.
> Basically a small shovel. Great for head bashing.
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> "War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets
> the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it."
> Benito Mussolini
You've quoted Mussolini before, LLL,
and each time i get heartburn
for some inexplicable reason.
ejudy
Lorenzo L. Love
Just an ego figureheaded sort of dominant creature who made the trains
run on time. Compare him to another leader of his time, Neville
Chamberlain, your classic pussyfooted mushmouth character who caged his
strength, clipping nails and filing off canines. All part of the great
balance of human society.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in
tolerance and free speech,"
David Brin
Algis Kuliukas
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> >
[..]
> > Yes but the brain is particularly sensitive and needs the most
> > protection.
>
> Throats are where predators go for choking their prey. Yet, no protection
> is there.
For heaven's sake. Are you denying that part of the function of the
skull is to protect the brain? Without protection one blow to the
brain would kill. One blow to the throat wouldn't.
> > > Time spent *is* a critical factor. You have to show that wading time
> > > is somehow necessary in the lifestyle of the creature (and not just an
> > > extra). Sex is, regardless of the time spent, because sez is how the
> > > species gets propagated.
> >
> > If the creature lived in a waterside habitat then wading would
> > inevitably and often be necessary. If the water is waist deep then
> > bipedality is a life saver in apes.
>
> Why inevitably? Many present apes live near water and their time
> in water is rare, as you admit.
Because they'd occasionally have to cross stretches of water. It would
save their lives if they did so bipedally.
[..]
> > If they lived in a waterside habitat I expect they often wouldn't have
> > the choice.
>
> Define waterside habitat. Is it someplace where they can't simply go
> about on land and avoid the water as aquaphobes are prone to do?
Swamps, marshes, gallery forests etc. Of course some would have more
aquatic pressure than others. But *all* would have more aquatic
pressure than those experienced by extant apes and humans.
> > > > Tool carrying may be done more efficiently bipedally but it *can* be
> > > > done on three limbs or (if brachiating) using feet or quadrupedally
> > > > using the teeth. Either way, it's hard to argue that being bipedal is
> > > > a life saver.
> > >
> > > Life saving is not the only issue. Competitive advantage should be kept
> > > in mind. Those tools allow the animal to do things it couldn't before,
> > > in fact, in the case of sapiens, it's one of our determining advantages.
> >
> > Fine. Wading from one clump of trees to another may give you access to
> > extra food - competitive advantage 1.
>
> If you're an aquaphobe as apes can be, just look somewhere else on land.
> How many apes today have been observed doing this???
What if they've exausted the food closest to them? What if they have
no choice but to cross the water? The chimps at Conkuoati do this
every day AFAIK.
> > Wading from one clump of trees
> > to a another may give you access to a new group of males/females -
> > competitive advantage 2.
> Or just look somewhere else on land. How many apes today have been
> observed doing this???
Ditto above. No extant apes have been observed doing this AFAIK.
> > Wading from away from a land predator to a
> > another clump of trees may save your life - competitive advantage 3.
>
> AN ape trying to escape this way would be lunch...
Would it? Do leopards chase their prey into water?
> > Wading out into a river may allow you to see further (for food) than
> > staying in the woods - competitive advantage 4.
>
> Hogwash. How the heck can you see farther by wading out into a river???
> Just climb a tree! Height, you know.
If you're a heavy ape I doubt you could make it to the very top of a
tree but you'd be able to see quite a way from a river-side or by
wading a little way out into it.
> > Wading out into the
> > water may give you access to food (on branches) inaccessible from land
> > - competitive advantage 5.
>
> These are arboreal creatures; are you saying branches are inaccessible to
> them?
Yes, if the branches are thin and can't bear their weight.
> >Wading out into waist deep water would help
> > you to keep cool - competitive advantage 6.
>
> You're kidding, right?
No. There's a whole hypothesis that argues that bipedalism began
specifically to keep the body cool whilst walking around on the
savannah grasslands in the mid day sun. Why is it so ridiculous that
they'd go for a dip to keep cool? Have you never gone for a dip to
keep cool?
> > > > Reconnoitering may save your life if you do it bipedally but do you
> > > > have to *move* whilst reconnoitering? And it is not so clear-cut as
> > >
> > > Huh? You can do it standing still or moving.
> >
> > My point is that some of the models for bipedal origins do not require
> > *motion* - Merecat peering is one and bush foraging are two. Wading
> > does.
>
> Uh, So?
Bipedalism is moving on two feet not just standing. Therefore an
explanation that involves movement IMHO is stronger than one that just
involves standing still.
> > > > wading. You might still get eaten, even if you spot the predator
> > > > bipeally and you may have spoted the predator if you were on all
> > > > fours.
> > >
> > > Crocs catch animals in the water. They even catch animals on the shore
> > > at the water's edge. And standing up doesn't seem to help in spotting
> > > them.
> >
> > True. Croc predation is clearly a big factor. I'm not ducking that
> > issue. But the early bipeds would be able to escape crocs easily by
> > climbing trees... If they lived out on the grasslands how would they
> > escape leopards? Living in a gallery forest gives them protection from
> > both.
>
> Uh, escape easily??? Animals get snagged by crocs on the shore! As in
> LAND. And you want an early biped to lug itself out of the water and make
> it to a tree??? Bigger four footed animals with more stability can't
> even make it to shore.
Yes but they can't climb trees. The earliest bipeds clearly could.
> You're *really* grasping.
I think it makes perfect sense. I've still not heard a decent argument
against it.
> > > > I have never heard sexual attraction used as an argument for bipedal
> > > > origins. Please could you run that one past me.
> > >
> > > Check out De Waal and Lanting's "Bonobos The Fogotten Ape". Numerous (!)
> > > instances of bipedal behavior. In particular, see the section "Intimate
> > > Relations" following chapter 4. I quote the caption accompanying a picture
> > > of a bipedal male: "The male carries sugarcane while exhibiting an erection,
> > > inviting a female for sex in typical bonobo fashion: food triggers sexual
> > > excitement, and sex, in turn, paves the way for sharing."
> >
> > So, do *you* think that's what motivated the first bipeds? Why aren't
> > bonobos and chimps bipedal then?
>
> It's one of many bipedal behaviors. You make the mistake of pretty much
> all aat types - you only look at ONE behavior.
The fact is that PAs have not yet managed to explain bipedalism. Over
a dozen different ideas are commonly published and discussed but
wading is not one of them. I am not arguing that wading was the
exclusive reason - just that it is the most plausible one and
probably the most significant factor.
> > > > > Don't forget, fitness is about passing on genes and chordate males are
> > > > > for the most part, expendable.
> > > >
> > > > But females are not expendable and the wading model very much includes
> > > > them. If they are able to move bipedally through waist-deep water they
> > > > (and their offspring) survive, if not they drown. It's obvious,
> > > > really.
> > >
> > > They spend most of their time on land.
> >
> > Do they? What are 'they'? Are you talking about chimps/bonobos? We
> > didn't evolve from chimps or bonobos but some lca that may well have
> > spent more time in the water.
>
> We are highly related to chimps and bonobos. All three species spend most
> of their time on land...
The earliest bipeds lived in wetter habitats than chimps, bonobos,
gorillas or humans.
> > > If there's no water body around to
> > > go in, then all of their bipdeal behavior will be on land. There is no need
> > > for wading.
> >
> > I can't argue with that. Indeed if the fossil evidence of the earliest
> > bipeds indicated that wading was less likely than in the extant apes
> > then I'd have to seriously reconsider the wading origins model.
> > Unfortunately for you there is no such evidence. The big difference
> > between the paleohabitat of the earliest bipeds and the current
> > habitat of extant apes is, generally speaking, that they were wetter.
>
> Not shown. See Wagler's response in the "Re: Lucy walking .. or standing ?"
> thread.
And see my response to him.
> > And of course there is absolutely no fossil evidence as yet of any
> > chimp/gorilla ancestor at all - Not even one chip off a single tooth.
> > If we have to ignore taphonomic bias, how do you explain that whereas
> > there are thousands of hominid fossils found in deposital substrates -
> > not a single chimp/gorilla ancestor has yet to be found? Isn't this...
> > a bit of a clue?
>
> No. Why would it?
The orthodox view is that the earliest bipeds evolved in mosaic/wooded
habitats, agreed? But that's where chimps, bonobos and gorillas live
today and probably have for several million years, agreed? So why have
we found thousands of hominid fossils in deposital sites but nieko,
none, nil, zippo extant ape fossils? 2,000 - 0 is quite a significant
score line. How do you explain that? Isn't it most likely that our
ancestors and the earliest bipeds just lived in the same waterside
habitats that they died in?
> > > They wouldn't be able to wade bipedally if they hadn't been
> > > exhibiting bipedal behavior on land in the first place. And that includes
> > > bipedal behavior in trees. Broaden your scope and look at even monkeys.
> > > All can exhibit bipedal behavior. *no* water needed.
> >
> > Why's that? Why must terrestrial bipedalism have come first? I agree
> > that bipedal posture (more accurately an upright trunk through
> > swinging/climbing) is likely to encourage bipedal behaiour. But that's
> > no contradiction against the wading model.
>
> Wading is merely going bipedal in water. No big deal. Since apes are
> arboreal and terrestrial creatures, where do you think the trait would've
> developed, someplace they spend 99% of their time, or someplace they
> rarely go???
Duh. Extant apes are bipedal when they are in water even though they
are rarely in water today. But in the past their ancestors (and ours)
lived in far wetter habitats where they would be forced to wade *much*
more often.
> > > You really really really want to push this wading thing, you're going
> > > to have to go back, way back in time, and include ALL primates. Even
> > > prosimians.
> >
> > Rubbish.
>
> Nope. Bipedal behavior is a trait of primates.
Bipedality is a hominid trait.
> Never seen monkeys going
> bipedal? (To be fair, we might have some exceptions, like tree shrews...)
> > > Unless you want to claim sifaka bipedal behavior is due to wading?
> >
> > 'Sifaka'? Excuse me.
>
> What, you don't know about sifakas?
>
> http://www.msu.edu/~heckaaro/sifaka.jpg
Not specifically. But I do now, thanks.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> Time can be a determinant of selective pressure though
> importance to the animal's individual or species survival
> is critical. If wading is a very minor part of an animal's
> activities then selective pressure is low. Mating and the
> associated behaviors are critical of course so time spent
> is not really important.
We're going round in circles here. I say that wading would be critical
and life saving, you say they wouldn't go in the water if it were
critical. I say that if they lived in a wetter habitat they'd have
been exposed to such pressures more, you say they didn't live in
wetter habitats.
[..]
e.g....
> > It's pretty clear, Rick. In waist deep water being bipedal is a life
> > saver because if you're quadrupedal your face is below the surface.
> > They have no choice but to move (not just posture) bipedally.
>
> The choce that *all* mammals and reptiles make
> when in a situation where water is coming up over
> their heads is to start swimming. The only animals
> that do what you suggest are bipeds.
You simply ignore this point every time. Let me try once more... If
the water is shallow they need not swim. At the shallowest depths they
could go quadrupedally. I say again I studied this specifically in my
thesis exactly because of this objection. Even humans (who can swim)
wade at depths up to hip height faster than swimming. If the earliest
bipeds could not swim (the most parsimonious assumption as chimps,
bonobos and orang-utans cannot) then the threshold where they'd switch
to swimming would be likely to be even deeper.
The water need not be "over their heads" if they orientate their
bodies upright (which all extant apes do).
> > I accept
> > the reasons you gave are also survival benefits - although they would
> > probably be seen even less frequently in extant apes than wading on
> > those living near to water - but they are not as clear cut survival
> > benefits.
>
> Any proposed scenario for the origin of bipedalism
> can be massaged to demonstrate a 'clear cut survival
> benefit'. The problem with your scenario is not that
> it does not represent a clear cut survival benefit to
> your particular non-swimming ape but rather that it
> proposes the development of bipedalism as a means
> to gain this benefit and this is where our fundamental
> disagreement is. And putting a non-swimming ape into
> deep water is still a silly idea that needs some sound
> evidence that such a thing actually occurred before it
> can be taken seriously.
What is so silly about the idea of an ape (that is most likely to be
unable to swim) to have become isolated somewhere by water? This is
hardly a fantastic or unprecedented scenario.
> > In waist deep water if you don't go bipedal you drown in about two
> > minutes - and with absolute certainty if you can't swim.
>
> The nub of the problem. Non-swimming chimps are
> dedicated aquaphobes. Since you like to analogize the
> behaviours of modern people - love to go to the beach etc -
> with the behaviours of our distant ancestors how many
> non-swimmers do you know who would get into deep
> water willingly?
If the water is not deep - everyone. As usual you are too black &
white. You may not have noticed but water-side habitats are usually
not so clear cut. i.e. Here's the land and then right next to it....
ooops... there's the water which is twenty metres deep. You know...
you have gently sloping banks, shores, tides, swamps. At the waterside
there is a large littoral habitat that is neither terrestrial nor
aquatic. It is such places that wading would be selected for.
[..]
> > > > Thick skulls help to make it unlikely that a bump on the head will
> > > > kill you. I accept that skulls fulfil other roles too but you can't
> > > > deny mine. Wading ability - if it helps an individual survive will,
> > > > similarly, get selected for even if it doesn't happen very often. I
> > > > assume that the earliest bipeds did wade fairly regularly, however
> > > > (aay several times a day) and ceratinly far more than extant apes do
> > > > today.
> > >
> > > What do you base this assumption on. "Wetter" is pretty vague.
> >
> > The earliest bipeds - Oreopithecus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus,
> > Kenyanthropus and earliest Australopithecus - lived in *wetter*
> > habitats than extant apes.
>
> Where do you get this? The habitat of Orrorin is
> described as woodland. Ditto Ardipithicus. Kenyanthropus
> is 3.5MMya so we have a pretty fair idea of what
> was going on. Modern apes live in tropical rain
> forests.
See (e.g.)
Orrorin tugenensis
"Denser strands of trees in the vicinity, possibly fringing the lake
margin and streams that drained into the lake" Pickford & Senut (2001:
p 149)
Pickford, Martin & Brigitte Senut (2001) The geological and faunal
context of Late Miocene hominid remains from Lukeino, Kenya. C.R.
Acad., Sci. Paris Sciences de la Terre et des plančtes 332:145-152.
Ardipithicus ramidus
Haile-Selassie, Yohannes (2001). Late Miocene hominids from the Middle
Awash, Ethiopia. Nature. 412, 178-181. lived in "relatively wet and
wooded environments."
> You're not, I hope, buying into MV's total
> unwillingness / inability to deal with the issue of the
> depositional environments of fossils. It would seem
> you are.
What do you mean by this? The fact that not a single gorilla, chimp or
bonobo fossil has ever been found - because fossils are not thought to
form in wooded environments where they live today and have probably
been living for the past six million years, but then, hold on, isn't
that exactly the same habitat you claim is where the early bipeds
lived - *just* wooded?
2,000 - 0 is quite a scoreline to explain. Two thousand hominid
fossils and zero chimp/gorilla/bonobos. Most of those two thousand
hominids died in semi-aquatic places, why is it so controversial to
claim that they might have actually lived there too? And if they
didn't, how come no other African ape fossils have been found then?
> > If extant apes wade in water they are more
> > likely to have done so. This seems to me to be a very plausible model
> > for the origins of bipedlaism. Stop pretending you don't understand my
> > point. You have read the papers on those early habitats, haven't you?
>
> Yup. Woodland. In Orrorins case the major fossils found
> with it were impalas. What papers are you referring to?
> I understand your point. But even if you could establish
> that these early habitats were wetter - and you can't - you can't
> infer more wading. Why? Especially if the animals are non-swimmers.
You stress the woodland and the antelopes, I stress the water and the
crocs. No surprise there. But can you explain where the chimp/gorilla
fossils are in this picture?
> > > > If a putative aquatic ape lived near water, wading traits are likely
> > > > to have kept them alive frequently.
> > >
> > > Why? No animal will willingly drown itself. Wading is walking
> > > in water. If that already includes facultative bipedalism then
> > > that will be used from time to time just as we see today.
> >
> > Yes, walking. Here's a factor that encourages walking - one that kills
> > the ones that don't walk or can't walk and one that doesn't affect
> > those that don't go in water at all.
>
> Actually it encourages swimming. If the animal can't
> swim it encourages staying the hell out of the water.
> Just like chimps.
Ditto the point above. If the water is very shallow they can go
quadrupedally. If it gets a bit deeper they go bipedally and if it
gets too deep for that they swim. In waterside habitats you get a full
range but it is natural that bipedal wading would come before
swimming.
[..]
> Oreopithecus remains have been found in swamps.
> No surprise there. But I find it difficult to believe
> that a low swampy island was a geographically
> stable entity in a geologically active area like the
> Mediterranean. Italy is quite hilly and mountainous
> and I would suspect that Oeopithecus' basic
> habitat was upland forest. Were there some swamps
> on this isalnd. Sure. Why not? Would O have ventured
> into them. Again, Why not? But Marcel Williams has
> perfected the fine art of making mountains out of
> mole hills. In any case just what this island looks like and
> the palaeoenvironments are probably known. In any
> case I have absolutely no problem with O being a swamp
> ape. Or there being other swamp apes. That's not the
> point.
The point is that if it happenned once it could have happenned again.
If Oreopithecus was a bipedal wading swamp ape, others might have been
ancestral to the hominid line. You need to explain to me why not?
> > > > It's not a whole new form - apes were already predisposed to wade.
> > > > They wade bipedally even today. All I'm saying is that several million
> > > > years of living in that kind of habitat would gradually improve those
> > > > traits.
> > >
> > > How? What would this improvement consist of? What
> > > the heck is a 'wading trait' anyway?
> >
> > Upright posture, reorganization of the limbs for powerful upright
> > movement.
>
> This is an arboreal, below branch slow vertical climber -
> not a wader.
If you are determined to eliminate water from the model I can see how
you might come to this conclusion but what if water was part of the
model?
> > As you say - a wading trait is really a walking trait - just
> > an easy one to get because the habitat in which it is likely to
> > develop provides a constant and gentle pressure at every stage.
>
> The pressure to swim is much more powerful as is
> the basic instinct to stay out of situations you can't
> effectively deal with.
If the water is very shallow there's no reason to even go bipedal, let
alone swim. I think they could easily have dealt with that. What you
seem incapable of dealing with is the idea that waterside niches have
gradients of depths some dry, some wet, some very shallow, some not so
shallow and some deep. This environment would undoubtedly encourage
and give advantages to those apes that could venture into slightly
deeper water than ones that couldn't. So bipedal wading would come
first, then swimming and diving later. Exactly as we see with Homo
according to the AAH model.
[..]
> > Modern apes don't wade very frequently, remember? (that was your
> > original objection) So, as they are not exposed to much aquatic
> > pressure it is no wonder they have not become more bipedal. What is
> > specific to apes? Easy. They have a predisposition to upright
> > 'truncal' posture anyway. Even extant apes wade.
>
> All this does is confirm my basic point. Modern apes
> are facultative bipeds and provide *no* evidence that
> wading enhances bipedalism. They argue against your
> wading > bipedalism theory. How could you possibly
> think they argue for it?
Are you being deliberately stupid now? In water even extant apes
(which are not bipedal) are bipedal almost exclusively. We all know
that they do not live in habitats that are particularly wet. So if
apes lived in wetter habitats the likelihood of bipedal wading would
undoubtedly increase. This is the only plausible model which describes
how the early bipeds might have gained easy but definite benefits from
adopting this mode of locomotion.
It's blindingly obvious.
> > > > I'll give up when I hear a single convincing argument as to why
> > > > bipedalism could not have evolved in water - but I know that there
> > > > aren't any.
> > >
> > > Nor does there need to be. You are proposing that
> > > water had this extraordianry effect. Using as evidence
> > > modern apes where water has*not* had this extraordinary
> > > effect. What, as a skeptic, am I required to demonstrate?
> > > Just ask. I'll do my best.
> >
> > That the earliest bipeds were less likely to be exposed to wading
> > pressure than extant apes. That would be a difficult piece of evidence
> > to argue against.
>
> What would provide more opportunites to involve
> yourself with water? A tropical rainforest or woodland
> savannahs, grassy woodlands etc and all the other
> habitats that have characterized early hominid fossil
> localities? Gee, that was easy....
But unfortunately you simply ignore the fact that the earliest bipeds
lived in wetter habitats than extant apes. Yes, it is very easy if you
choose to ignore the facts that contradict your argument.
> > > > Compared to a seal we are piss-poor but compared to chimps, bonobos,
> > > > gorillas and orang-utans we are actually pretty good. That is the only
> > > > comparison that matters, Rick. Remember cladistics?
> > >
> > > Cladistics?? As for comparisons to chimps etc why
> > > restrict it to swimming? For example how do we compare
> > > as distance travellers? Pretty favourably I should think.
> > > As tool makers? Bicycle riders? Space cadets? I could
> > > go on....
> >
> > Been there, done that. Take away technology. Strip us naked. What can
> > we do that they can't then?
>
> Recreate and replace all the stuff you've taken away.
Huh?
> And teach ourselves to swim if needs be. Swimming
> is *not* the central, defining difference between man
> and the apes.
Not the only one, clearly, but a pretty big one and one aquasceptics
completely, conveniently and desperately have to ignore.
> > Things that are part of the natural world.
> > Common forms of locomotion in the animal world? Which ones? Swim,
> > dive.
>
> Huh? Explain chimp non-swimming not human
> swimming.
Why only chimp non-swimming? Why not both together? It's the
*differnce* in these abilities that is interesting. So, by definition,
something must have happenned to our ancestors that didn't happen to
theirs *that was to do with water*. You can pretend otherwise as much
as you like but if you do you are ignoring one of the most powerful
pieces of evidence in evolution. (How convenient for you!)
> > > > How do you - or anyone - know how well people swam 100,000 years ago?
> > >
> > > Well you do, for one. Your whole argument is predicated
> > > on this very assumption. If it is nothing but a wag how can you
> > > think you can base a theory of hominid evolution on it?
> >
> > Well today, rounded to the nearest integer, humans are 100%
> > terrestrial. No-one could dispute that. We are 0% bipedal and 0%
> > arboreal. However I'd say the average person spent more time in water
> > than they did up trees, and yet no-one questions that we had a more
> > arboreal past? What is so fantastic that we also had a more aquatic
> > one? The fact we can swim and dive far, far better than our nearest
> > relatives in the animal kingdom is a bit of a clue that it probably
> > was that way.
>
> Except that the evidence is is that Hom sapiens is today
> as aquatic as it has ever been. We have been developing
> these capacities for the last 100ky. Not standing around
> and letting them atrophy.
What evidence would you expect to find? Snorkels? The fossil record is
far from complete. Has anyone bothered to go to the Danakil alps to
search for hominid fossils as suggested by LaLumiere?
> > > > Where's the earliest evidence for modern human culture - e.g. use of
> > > > red ochre? Klasies river mouth cave, South Africa. - 130,000 bp.
> > >
> > > ?? Your point?
> >
> > They inhabitated a seaside habitat, of course.
>
> So? Anatomical moderns start being behavioral
> moderns. Your point?
If they lived by the coast they probably relied on seafood to some
degree. That implies swimming and diving.
[..]
> > Fair point. But we need to have a model for how it might have begun.
> > All I'm saying is that wading has not been considered because it's
> > part of the heretical AAH. It should have been considered long before
> > now and it should still be seriously considered in the future.
>
> Wading has not been considered because no one
> can explain what it would contribute.
It clearly has at least as powerful survival benefits as any of the
other thoeries (some of which are plain stupid, and yet got published
and are promoted to this day) so it is not on that basis that it has
been ignored. You know the truth of this. It's because to admit it has
any plausibility at all opens the door wide to the AAH, and we can't
have that.
> All proposed
> reasons for why bipedalism might have arisen or
> enhanced bipedalism selected for can demonstrate
> clear survival advantages.
Most of them can, agreed. But not as clear cut as wading. Remember, in
waist deep water an ape drowns is quadrupedal and lives if bipedal.
You can't get more clear cut than that!
> Avoiding drowning as a
> reason to wade is a distant third to either swimming
> or staying out of deep water.
I've handled this objection easily and repeatedly. If the water is
shallow they needn't swim. Wading would come first. And.. they might
have had no choice but to get into the water ocassionally.
> > > But we *can* look at modern
> > > human bipedalism and see how that works and what
> > > advantages it conferred on an animal that possessed it.
> > > And, IMHO, ability to operate in aquatic environments
> > > is such a minor part of this that I see no reason to consider
> > > it much if at al. You take a diametrically opposed view.
> > > Why? What does obligate bipedalism give to humans by
> > > way of aquatic adaptations?
> >
> > Agreed. Modern human bipedalism probably has nothing to do with
> > wading. It's bipedal origins that the model works for.
>
> And bipedal origins you situate where?
Why do I have to keep repeating myself. Red/Med Tethys coast. E
African coast.
> If modern
> human bipedalism has nothing to do with wading what
> are you on about?
Ditto. I've made it clear many times that the model proposes wading
first as the early bipeds, then swimming diving later for Homo. I can
think of no better place to go long-distance walking than on a beach.
There's therefore absolutely no contradiction at all between modern
Homo sapiens' fully terrestrial bipedalism and the AAH.
[..]
> Which established PAs are in the AAT closet?
Chris Stringer is open to the wading origins model. Phillip Tobias has
said that the field owes Elaine Morgan an apology. I have strong
suspicions that others are sympathetic but, fearing the kind of
reception that Tobias received, have chickened out from going public.
In other fields the theory is not so controversial. Simon Bearder, a
primatologist at Oxford Brookes University, is openly supportive and
Chris Knight, cultural anthropologist and one of the main voices in
language origins is very positive about the AAH.
Science is not a democracy. The truth will come out eventually. All we
need is for scientists to start behaving like scientists and that
means having an open mind to ideas, even if they argue that you have
been wrong for the past forty two years.
> And
> anything Hardy said would have been seriously considered.
> But no one would relish making a fool of a well respected
> scientist who has wandered way off his turf so little or
> nothing would make it to print.
Oh Yeah, sure. So seriously considered that *nothing* serious was
published about it for thirty years - and only then because a brave
and brilliant woman from South Wales had the audacity to take on the
ex cathedra orthodoxy.
So you think that nothing was published about the AAH because they
were being *kind* to the man? That's astonishing.
> > That, Rick, is not fair mindedness and has *nothing* to do with
> > scientific progress.
>
> It is absolutely 'fair minded' to basically ignore fringe
> theories that are as poorly mounted as the AAT.. And
> scientific progress is not aided by chasing down runaway
> hobbyhorses.
'Poorly mounted' is easy for you to say and easily explained. The fact
none of the PAs of the 1960s tackled the AAH simply meant none of
their students took it up. It's called academic inculturation.
> > > The role of water in human evolution? Okay.
> > > You and others have made the argument. We have
> > > looked at them here on sap and elsewhere.
> >
> > On the sap, yes. But elsewhere? Where? The Roede et al work and
> > Langdon - that's it. In 42 years. It's a poor show.
>
> It has gotten the attention it deserves. The anatomical
> analogies are bogus and easily demonstrated to be so.
> How much time and energy is required to show that
> a seal's flipper and the human foot are not at all like
> each other and the fuctional analogy the AAT seeks to
> demonstrate is completely non-existent. Thirty seconds
> with a pinniped skeleton does the job. The whole AAT
> is like this.
You, they, miss the point completely. Comparing our aquatic
adaptations to seals is facile so that is what you do. Comparing our
aquatic adaptations to chimps is awkward and problematic so you ignore
it and pretend there is nothing to explain.
> > > And
> > > we find the proposition wanting - to put it mildly.
> > > What's so unfair about that? If you can't mount
> > > a proper hypothetical argument to which the
> > > standards of scientific analysis can be applied
> > > what are we supposed to do??
> >
> > 'We' (the scientists) are supposed to be scientific about it and not
> > act like a bunch of clerics from the middle-ages. It hasn't been
> > studied so how can it be dismissed?
>
> The AAT works are not of sufficient quality to justify
> the effort. Nor has PA taken on Conrad's Carboniferous
> man or Howard's testosterone theories. Should they?
> Why?
Elaine's last two books are of exceptional quality actually.
Any theory that claims to explain something better than orthodox dogma
should be considered, of course it should. How else can science
progress? If such theories are so weak they should be able to be
dismissed easily by the 'establishment.' If the AAH was so weak it
should be easy for some established PA to destroy it but the truth is
they cannot.
> > > > > Miocene hominoid apes lived in all types of habitats.
> > > > > 'Wet and wooded' means what? A permanently
> > > > > flooded swamp forest? More than 30 inches of
> > > > > rain in a year?
> > > >
> > > > An environment where wading could have been regularly needed to get
> > > > from one clump of trees to another, of course.
> > >
> > > Think real estate, Location, location, location....
> > > WHERE IS THIS SWAMP??
> >
> > Med/Red (ex Tethys) Sea on Arabian/African/island coastline.
> > Flood/dessication cycles.
>
> Okay. Found any hominids?
Not yet but if it happenned to Oreopthiecus it could have happenned
again. There is simply no candidate for the lca for Pan/Gorilla/Homo
anyway.
> > > > > What facts? Provide some references. Did not Hunt
> > > > > tell you that he did not observe bipedal wading?
> > > >
> > > > Groan. I did in my thesis. There was no water there - so it would have
> > > > been remarkable if he had.
> > >
> > > You did not provide much of a quote. I read the statement
> > > to mean that the wading in chimps he observed was not bipedal.
> > > Are you saying this was just a jocular aside? Can't wade on
> > > dry land, ho-ho.....
> >
> > He told me that he didn't observe them wading becuase they never went
> > near water. Fair enough. But if he'd have studied the ones at Conkuati
> > he'd have produced *very* different data.
>
> I'm confused. Your quote from Hunt's private
> correspondence was a jocular aside?
I'm confused too - about your confusion! :-)
I corresponded with him about the wading model. I grumbled that wading
had not been seriously considered as a model for bipedal origins. He
replied that he'd studied the chimps a lot and yet they'd never gone
in water. He wrote words to the effect 'If they don't go in water, we
can't study them wading.' Clear now?
My point is that if Hunt had studied the chimps and Conkuati, where
chimps *do* go in water, wading would have been the most frequently
observed incidence of bipedalism.
> > > > > Besides
> > > > > no one denies that bonobos may wade bipeally. Kano
> > > > > infers it though he did not observe it.
> > > >
> > > > Infers it is better than nothing. Put with the other evidence it
> > > > simply shows what we already know - apes wade when they have to and
> > > > when they do it's almost always bipedally.
> > >
> > > And what effect does it have on the development
> > > of bipedalism in bonobos? Why would more produce
> > > an obligate biped? That is the essence of your argument
> > > is it not?
> >
> > No. They are not exposed to wading frequently. Don't you get it?
>
> Yes, Algis, I do. Chimp aquaphobia is evidence for AAT.
> Swimming gorillas is evidence for AAT. Everything's coming
> up roses. What ape behavior would count as evidence against
> the AAT?
Ok. I see you point now.
Before I adopted Marc's aquarboreal model for bipedal origins I would
have considered that a swimming gorilla was evidence against the AAH
because it blurred what I had considered the distinct aquaticness of
Homo among the apes. But if one considers that the lca of all the
Hominoidae might have been a bipedal wader then swimming gorillas is
more easily accounted for and aquaphobic chimps becomes more difficult
to explain.
[..]
> > The move to obligate bipedalism is more difficult, granted. I suspect
> > it was because a) the wading traits (upright posture, power bipedal
> > movement) developed to a point of no return that Homo (but not
> > Pan/Gorilla) crossed
>
> These are *not* wading traits. They are traits that let
> an animal wade bipedally if it is of a mind to. See the
> difference?
Yes I see the difference but do you not accept that natural selection
would act to *improve* these traits - more uprightness, longer legs,
more powerful bipedal movement - until a kind of point of no return
would have been reached where, even on land, it would have been easier
to move bipedally. - Thus obligate bipedalism is achieved.
> > and b) Some isolated population became marooned
> > on an island where predators died out removing the need to climb trees
> > (as Paul Crowley argues) took away the climbing element and led to a
> > new phase of fully terrestrial bipedalism and then (other) selection
> > pressures.
>
> What island? What hominid?
Danakil and the other Afar islands that would have existed between 4
mya and 200 kya is a very plausible location. What hominid? The as yet
undiscovered (and un-looked for) Homo maritimus, of course!
> > > > 90% of 10 life saving events is more significant than 2% of 100,000
> > > > trivial ones.
> > >
> > > See above. What's trivial about detecting predators
> > > soon enough to get yourself and your troopmates
> > > safely up a tree? What's trivial about adopting feeding
> > > and foraging strategies that are greatly enhanced by
> > > bipedalism. What's trivial about being the dominant male??
> >
> > See above. Not trivial, but not so clear cut and not so immediate.
>
> An inept response - can't swim - to drowning
> is not likely to be selected for. The selectees will
> be experiencing an attrition rate that normal
> reproduction can't compensate for.
Water----------------------------------------------
side niches ---------------------------------------
contain areas where the ---------------------------
water is shallow enough to wade quadrupedally------
as well as bipedally, Rick. They do not often force
the animal -----------------------------
to make a ------------------------------
choice to ------------------------------
walk or --------------------------------
swim!-----------------------------------
[..]
> > > Marc has the same problem you do.
> > > He just dumps his apes into the water for no discernible
> > > reason. He can't, and nor can you, demonstrate why
> > > an aquatic, acquaboreal, streamside wader etc etc
> > > phase in human evolution provides a solution to the
> > > many mysteries yet to be solved.
> >
> > That is just your opinion. If you won't open your mind to the notion
> > there's not much we can do for you.
>
> For which I am grateful :-)
Being stuck in you ways is a sign of old age, Rick. :-)
> > > It all derives from
> > > a wacky misinterpretation of human anatomy and
> > > physiology and a ludicrously inept attempt at
> > > comparative anatomy. Having swallowed this guff
> > > wholehog you are now floundering around trying
> > > to come up with some reason to get your apes
> > > into the water and have seized on wading as your
> > > magic bullet. Give it up! Life is too short.
> >
> > So explain, please, why the paleohabitats of the ealier bipeds are
> > wetter than the later ones. Why would bipedalism start if it was just
> > woodland? Why are no other forest primates bipedal?
>
> Obligate bipedalism is not an option for most primates
> because they ar built all wrong. As for palaeohabitats
> says who?
See above.
[..]
> > > It's called cultural development, niche expansion, the
> > > development of the intellectual capacity to discern
> > > promise and advantge in doing new things. It's a
> > > wonderful story and has not much to do with what
> > > was going on 6 or 7 million years ago in some
> > > phantom swamp forest.
> >
> > So strip away the culture - look at infant chimps and infant humans -
> > how come we are so much better in water than them? Your answer -
> > serendipity?
>
> Because Mommy's in the pool with them. For all that
> water to a newborn can be toxic. Does not take much
> to screw up salt concentrations in bodily fluid. It is
> why any responsible pediatrician would strongly advise
> against infant swimming lessons.
15% fat helps the baby float. Ok Mum comes in to rescue but a chimp
mum would a) be too late and b) drown herself. That's a bit of a
difference.
[..]
> > > > > This is bunk. What you need is
> > > > > a testable hypothesis and a clear set of statements
> > > > > about your assunptions.
> > > >
> > > > My thesis made four testable predictions and every one was met easily.
> > >
> > > Says who?
> >
> > Me, of course! but I did get a distinction so Leslie Aiello, Volker
> > Sommer and a.n. other must have thought my reasoning was not *so*
> > wacky.
>
> Indulgence is a wonderful thing. Do you plan to carry on?
Well, as my Dad would have said, "I got to boost myself!" I am
planning to do a PhD actually. If the established PAs are not
interested enough in the AAH to study it then someone else will have
to come in to do some of that work.
> > > > > For example is it your position
> > > > > that the LCA or the lineage leading up to it was wholly
> > > > > quadrupedal and in no way, whatsoever, was a facultative
> > > > > biped?
> > > >
> > > > That's just an irrelevant diversion. What difference does that make?
> > > > The AAH suggests that the lca was a wading ape - a bipedal wading ape.
> > > > It was probably facultative to start with but after several million
> > > > years it became more obligatory untill a point of no return was
> > > > reached for some of them (Homo ancestors) but not others
> > > > (Pan/Gorilla).
> > >
> > > Fossil evidence for this wading ape? No.
> >
> > I think so.
>
> Which one?
Haven't we been here before too? I think A. afarensis femuro-pelvic
traits (platypelloid shape, extended iliac arches, long femoral neck -
suggesting strong adduction/abduction) are indicative of a wading mode
of locomotion. They have not been adequately explained otherwise.
The k-w traits of a. afarensis (Richmond & Strait) contrdict the
purely terrestrial model of Lucy's bipedalism. I think this shows she
climbed trees, k-w on land and waded in water.
> > > Any sound anatomical hypothesis for what
> > > wading bipedally is supposed to accomplish? No.
> >
> > I think so.
>
> See Above
Yes, see above.
> I am always open to the possibility that I might
> be wrong. It's just not possible for something
> as poorly argued as the AAT of whatever stripe
> to demonstrate it.
>
> Rick Wagler
Well that's good (the first bit) to hear, Rick. I really enjoy
discussing these matters with you as you do seem to be a bit more
open-minded and a lot more logical about these matters than others on
this ng.
I think if you could let yourself become a little less black and white
on the "waterside animals must swim first" view and a little more
objective about the paleohabitats of the earliest bipeds you might
even start to see the strength of the wading origins model.
I live in hope! :-)
Algis Kuliukas
Bob Keeter
lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 2/27/02 12:34 AM:
Snippage. . . . . . . .
>>
> [snip]
>
> Although most modern combat soldiers carry a nice pointy bayonet, many
> have found that the best weapon for up close and personal combat is not
> the bayonet but something else they all carry, the intrenching tool.
> Basically a small shovel. Great for head bashing.
>
Ever since the invention of the "assault rifle" the bayonette has been
somewhat of a quaint anachronism. If you get to "bayonette fighting" with
your average M-16 you will find yourself holding a loose collection of spare
parts immediately after the first enthusiastic butt stroke!
And WHAT pray-tell is the rest of this blasphemy about entrenching tools!
No microprocessors, thermal sights OR software???? How in the world could
such a sorry excuse for a DECENT weapon as a puny little backpacking shovel
be lethal! 8-))))))
Actually, if you frenquent the wrong kinds of stores you can find the
Speznatz Special ("entrenching tool") on the shelf as very inexpensive
military surplus! Put one in the trunk of your car and you can move around
some snow or if able to lay hands on it, seriously demotivate the occasional
carjacker!
Afraid that the razor like edge that each recruit was supposed to put on the
side of the shouvel was NOT for head "bashing", although it could be used to
split kindling! Honestly, never heard of a single one of those
former-Soviet special forces types EVER using it for digging a hole! ;=)
Do svidanya, tovarisch!
bk
ejudy
> > >
> > > "War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets
> > > the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it."
> > > Benito Mussolini
> >
> > You've quoted Mussolini before, LLL,
> > and each time i get heartburn
> > for some inexplicable reason.
> >
> > ejudy
>
> Just an ego figureheaded sort of dominant creature who made the trains
> run on time. Compare him to another leader of his time, Neville
> Chamberlain, your classic pussyfooted mushmouth character who caged his
> strength, clipping nails and filing off canines. All part of the great
> balance of human society.
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in
> tolerance and free speech,"
> David Brin
Ok then..ROFL ;-)
ejudy
"kill all war mongers" (?)
Lorenzo L. Love
Death to fanatics!
Algis Kuliukas
> In article <77a70442.0202...@posting.google.com>,
> al...@RiverApes.com says...
>
> > > The fact that chimps, gorillas, and orangs are all facultative bipeds
> > > indicates a genetic predisposition to bipedalism, possibly linked to
> > > brachiation. You have demonstrated that bonobos can wade bipedally,
> > > fine. You're insistence that this is a matter of life and death has not
> > > been demonstrated however. Or that wading carries more selective
> > > advantage then tool carrying, reconnoitering, or even sexual attraction.
> >
> > Well this is quite a simple matter to demonstrate.
> >
> > An ape is in waist deep water will survive if it moves bipedally but
> > it will drown in about a few minutes if it attempts to do so
> > quadrupedally.
> >
> > Tool carrying may be done more efficiently bipedally but it *can* be
> > done on three limbs or (if brachiating) using feet or quadrupedally
> > using the teeth. Either way, it's hard to argue that being bipedal is
> > a life saver.
> >
> > Reconnoitering may save your life if you do it bipedally but do you
> > have to *move* whilst reconnoitering? And it is not so clear-cut as
> > wading. You might still get eaten, even if you spot the predator
> > bipeally and you may have spoted the predator if you were on all
> > fours.
>
> Except that one known wading ape need not wade in deep water and is
> perfectly capable of _swimming_, right?
Yes but even humans (that can swim) wade faster than swimming in water
up to hip height.
> > I have never heard sexual attraction used as an argument for bipedal
> > origins. Please could you run that one past me.
>
> I've never bought into the tall dark and handsome thing myself, but I do
> wonder about it's ubiquity.
>
> Apropos to nothing whatever, I have heard that the one statistic that
> shows the best correlation for human success is their standing height,
> curious no?
>
> I've also run across some undocumented references from the military. One
> such concerned the style of the head gear that exaggerated the height.
> This seems to indicate that humans place an inordinate importance upon
> the _appearance_ of standing height on and off the battle field.
>
> I have come across various studies on male territorial/sexual display
> indicating that such things as raised hackles and the raised fur along
> the spine was thought to increase the height and intimidation factor of
> the disputants.
>
> I only offer sexual attraction as one more factor favoring obligate
> bipedalism among several extinct and one surviving form of primate.
> You have offered no more for wading.
In waist deep water an ape lives if it moves bipedally. It dies if it
tries to go quadrupedally. I can see (now) how some sexual selection
might play a part too but it is nowhere near as clear cut as the
wading model.
> > > Don't forget, fitness is about passing on genes and chordate males are
> > > for the most part, expendable.
> >
> > But females are not expendable and the wading model very much includes
> > them. If they are able to move bipedally through waist-deep water they
> > (and their offspring) survive, if not they drown. It's obvious,
> > really.
> >
> Yes and if they are already facultative, and nearly obligate bipeds, they
> _will_ wade anyway, agreed.
Yes. But what would happen if you could isolate such apes in a habitat
where wading was a regular activity for five million years? Don't you
think those bipedal wading traits would get emphasised and that
eventually some threshold would be reached where bipedalism would be
used on land too?
> BTW, I just saw an episode of _Animal Planet_ that did show wading apes.
> The film crew and narrator were wading in water to film gibbons walking
> bipedally on the beach. They were filming from the water apparently to
> protect themselves from the gibbons.
Nice one. Of course there is no question in my mind about which of
these two species is the more aquatic ape. So, no surprise there! :-)
Algis Kuliukas
Robt Gotschall
al...@RiverApes.com says...
> Rich Travsky <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C79B7B5...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > >
> > > Robt Gotschall <Surp...@sea.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.16e032508...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > > In article <77a70442.02022...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > al...@RiverApes.com says...
> >
> > > But females are not expendable and the wading model very much includes
> > > them. If they are able to move bipedally through waist-deep water they
> > > (and their offspring) survive, if not they drown. It's obvious,
> > > really.
> >
> > They spend most of their time on land.
>
> Do they? What are 'they'? Are you talking about chimps/bonobos? We
> didn't evolve from chimps or bonobos but some lca that may well have
> spent more time in the water.
And lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence.
>
> > If there's no water body around to
> > go in, then all of their bipdeal behavior will be on land. There is no need
> > for wading.
>
> I can't argue with that. Indeed if the fossil evidence of the earliest
> bipeds indicated that wading was less likely than in the extant apes
> then I'd have to seriously reconsider the wading origins model.
> Unfortunately for you there is no such evidence. The big difference
> between the paleohabitat of the earliest bipeds and the current
> habitat of extant apes is, generally speaking, that they were wetter.
> And of course there is absolutely no fossil evidence as yet of any
> chimp/gorilla ancestor at all - Not even one chip off a single tooth.
> If we have to ignore taphonomic bias, how do you explain that whereas
> there are thousands of hominid fossils found in deposital substrates -
> not a single chimp/gorilla ancestor has yet to be found? Isn't this...
> a bit of a clue?
It's a bit of a clue that chimp and gorilla ancestors may have lived in a
more heavily forested environment then ours did. Forests are generally
very bad at preserving fossil material.
>
> > They wouldn't be able to wade bipedally if they hadn't been
> > exhibiting bipedal behavior on land in the first place. And that includes
> > bipedal behavior in trees. Broaden your scope and look at even monkeys.
> > All can exhibit bipedal behavior. *no* water needed.
>
> Why's that? Why must terrestrial bipedalism have come first? I agree
> that bipedal posture (more accurately an upright trunk through
> swinging/climbing) is likely to encourage bipedal behaiour. But that's
> no contradiction against the wading model.
> Algis Kuliukas
Gibbons are nearly obligate brachiators, yet they can walk bipedally,
albeit poorly.
Older orangs may be the most bipedal of the great apes other then humans.
A bit of a coincidence that all five groups of great apes should happen
to independently have a wading episode then drift off to some other
completely different lifestyle isn't it? And why are no other wading
mammals closer to being bipedal?
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > for the last 100 Kyr or so (and especially for the last
> > 15 Kyr or so) sharpened weapons have done most
> > of the killing, so head-bashing (as such) has fallen to
> > a _relatively_ minor role.
>
> Hogwash. The use of bashing type weapons is well documented
> in recorded history and in the present day. Why, here's a news
> article showing they're still in favor:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020224/ap_on_re_us/hellraiser_shooting_9
News articles like that give you a distorted view
of what goes on. We are talking about _selective_
_effects_ i.e. numbers. The numbers that die as
the result of combat is vastly higher in war-time
than it is in peacetime. Few of the millions that
died in war in the 20th century did so as the result
of head-bashing. It was almost entirely from
injuries caused by the current technology --
artillery shells, bombs or machine guns. The
same has applied throughout recorded history
-- and, undoubtedly, in pre-history -- in that head-
bashing has not been a major cause of death in
armed combat since sharp weapons came in.
A thick skull might have occasionally been of
some use in the 20th century, but its cost would
normally have outweighed its advantages,
especially since helmets were available as a
substitute during times of risk.
> > What are you on about? Most fossil skulls >20 kya are
> > amazingly thick.
>
> The trend in the human form has been towards less robustness; that
> includes the skull.
That is a grossly misleading thing to say. The change
in the skull was dramatic and far outstripped that in
the rest of the skeleton.
> > The literature is full of accounts of such fights.
> > Another quote from 'Though a Window' (page 87)
> > "The Kalende group was in a shallow, steep-sided
> > ravine, calling loudly and charging about in the
> > undergrowth. Sniff, uttering deep roar-like hoots,
> > performed a spectacular display along a trail near
> > the top of the ravine. As he charged he hurled at
> > least thirteen huge rocks down onto the strangers.
> > An occasional missile - a stone or a stick -- flew
> > up from the undergrowth below, but the fell far
> > short of Sniff . . ."
>
> Let's see - no head bashing there...
I don't know exactly why chimps have such
thick skulls -- nor does anyone else. But they do
indulge in extensive violence. And a rock landing
on your head or face is likely to do a lot more
harm than one hitting, say, your back.
> This is insane! What do you think they chew with? DO you
> think they move their jaws around with their hands???
>
> Those huge jaws and teeth make powerful weapons should
> need arise.
>
> > use it in some way, but IMO they have massive
> > jaws, because if they were any smaller they'd
> > be likely to get broken in their fights with other
> > gorillas of about the same size. A broken jaw
> > for a gorilla is a death sentence. The size of
> > their jaw has absolutely nothing to do with
> > their diet.
>
> Like I said - for chewing AND biting...
Chewing? What do male gorrillas chew that
female gorillas don't?
> Our diet did change. Look at the progression from australopithecines
> towards AMH. Smaller and fewer teeth, reduction in the size of
> muscles needed for chewing coarser and less nutritious foodstuffs.
Tell us also about the "change in diet between
male and female gorillas". And about "the
progression from males to females" there.
> Not to mention a reduction in intestinal length because they were
> eating better food.
We have no idea of the intestinal length of the
australopiths.
> (See Shipman and Walker's "Wisdom of the bones"
> for a discussion of that.)
Where in that book?
> > > Hogwash. Martial arts history has traditions stick weapon
> > > practicioners doing quite well against edged weapons. Look
> > > into escrima, jo, and bo weapons.
> >
> > I am more interested in the facts of history, rather
> > than any crap theory. The words you use are not
> > even in my dictionary.
>
> Sigh. Jo and bo are japanese terms. Escrima is Philipino.
So, some eclectic collection of 'martial arts
weapons' from around the world shows that
knives are not effective in killing!
> > Take a look at some historical pictures from
> > medieval or early modern Europe. How often
> > are soldiers (or any adult males in peacetime)
> > shown carrying maces or 'morning stars' or
> > staves? Whereas nearly everyone will have a
> > dagger, and often a sword. As one indication of
> > their relative popularity, the word 'sword' comes
> > up 454 times in Shakespeare's works; the word
> > 'mace' comes up 8 times -- and most of those are
> > ceremonial uses -- e.g. emblems of government.
> > 'Stave' comes up 9 times, and most are in a non-
> > martial context.
>
> Shakespeare and paintings doubling as weapon surveys does not
> work very well.
Why not? How else do we do a survey of
the prevalence of such weapons 400-600
years ago?
> > > > None of it changed? Skulls got very thick when
> > > > weapons were primarily clubs. They stayed thick
> > > > until there were good piercing and cutting weapons.
> > > > Then they got thin -- rapidly. End of story
> > >
> > > Skulls didn't get thick because of weapons - they started
> > > thick on hominids. They got thinner as a result of changes in
> > > diet (the skull is the anchor for those massive chewing
> > > muscles) and a neotenous like retention of early stages
> > > of growth development that permitted prolonged learning
> > > and brain growth.
> >
> > So you believe that male gorillas have a
> > different diet from the females? And that
> > male hominids had a different diet from
> > their females?
> Where does it say "gorilla males only" up above?
We were talking about them earlier. In any case,
I thought you would be able to make the link.
> As stated, gorilla males also have defensive duties.
So do all the males of social mammals.
> > > > > MALE HEADS ARE 50% LARGER????? Now I know you're full of it.
> > Given that they are incapable of seeing the
> > plain facts that surround them every minute
> > of every day, the units in which they fail to
> > describe such matters are more than a bit
> > academic.
>
> No, it's *you* who failed to use units. "Male heads are about
> 50% larger" is a meaningless statement.
It's perfectly meaningful. You didn't have a problem
with its meaning before. Neither did that other
PA dope -- Michael Clarke.
> The best you can do is say it's "probably mass".
It is only a rough measure that I've heard somewhere.
Hey, I'm not a specialist. I can only eyeball these
things -- from the hundreds of adult males and
adult females that I see every day. But at least I am
able to do that. PA people can't; they are obliged to
go around with their eyes shut. Mass or volume --
who cares? It would not make a lot of difference.
> > Err . . . your accept that the difference is
> > there as a result of fighting . . . but that's as
> > far as you go? The fighting had no _other_
> > selective effects?
>
> Ahem. Your answer is in the next line...
>
> > > So the skull is not special.
> >
> > The skull (as you probably don't know) is
> > the location of some fairly important organs:
> > those of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and
> > of the brain itself. It's also where the food
> > goes in. So it has to be especially well
>
> Very good!
>
> > protected. That's why motor cyclists, for
>
> The food gets digested in the stomach. Those sense
> organs are worthless if the food isn't processed.
> Where's the protection for the stomach?
If you're fighting with fists or clubs, against
someone similarly equipped, it's easier and
more productive to aim for the head rather
than the stomach. (That seems to be pretty
much the standard pattern of fighting for most
animals.) If you aim for the stomach, and are
successful, your opponent may not be able
to eat for a day or two, but he'll probably have
blinded you, and finished you off before he
gets excessively hungry.
> Funny, there's STILL a lot of fighting going on
> amonst males, and there's no thickened skulls...
It's _death_rates_ that cause selection. The
death rate in the US Civil War was high and
was the last time Americans had any large
number of deaths from violence. How many
of those were from head-bashing?
> > Males also have much larger hands than
> > females -- much more than the standard
> > 8% or so extra size for general body size.
> > Figures on these things are hard to obtain.
> > No one studies them. It is politically correct
> > to ignore the ordinary facts of life. That's one
> > reason why PA is such a great 'science'.
>
> Sexual dimorphism has NEVER been studied???
Do you know of any studies of male/female
skull size? (Silly question.) Have they all
been carefully removed from the libraries
since political correctness came in?
> Take note of the pictures and refs for other medieval unarmed
> fighting disciplines.
Sure, wrestling is an ancient sport -- back to
the Greeks, and before. Ever hear of anyone
dying from it?
> You know, you're not doing very well at this. You haven't shown
> one conclusive bit of evidence to show a relationship that thick
> skulls are from fighting and every time you make some claim about
> weaponry or fighting you get shown otherwise.
Are you aware of the evidence of injury in
fossil hominids? Oh, I forgot, they were not
caused by male-on-male violence. (PC
doctrine -- males were not nasty and didn't
fight until capitalism was invented.) They
were caused by grappling with aurochs,
rodeo-rider style. Silly me.
Robt Gotschall
says...
> Biting? What's all this about? Do big gorilla
> males do a lot of biting? They have massive
> sagittal crests to anchor huge muscles, to
> support enormous jaws. But what use would
> that biting power be to them? Maybe they do
> use it in some way, but IMO they have massive
> jaws, because if they were any smaller they'd
> be likely to get broken in their fights with other
> gorillas of about the same size. A broken jaw
> for a gorilla is a death sentence. The size of
> their jaw has absolutely nothing to do with
> their diet.
Gorillas are primarily herbivores, like cattle. I believe they spend a
greater part of the day just chewing plant material, like cattle do.
They would need large heavy jaws for this, like cattle have.
> There was no time for training in unarmed
> combat in the Roman and Medieval eras.
>
> Paul.
The indigenous wrestling of Englands West Country and of the
Cornish people themselves has a history that extends before
Medieval times and possibly back into ancient times as well.
http://ejmas.com/jwma/jwmaart_pfrenger_0300.htm
Wrestling to the Greeks was not only part of a soldier's training
regimen, but also a part of everyday life.
http://www.historyforkids.org/greekciv/sport/danie/grecoroman.htm
ejudy
Yeah, and scold the presidents, the kings and the whores!
And tear down the infrastructure!
Rich Travsky
>
> Rich Travsky <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message news:<3C7C66F0...@hotMOVEmail.com>...
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > >
> [..]
>
> > > Yes but the brain is particularly sensitive and needs the most
> > > protection.
> >
> > Throats are where predators go for choking their prey. Yet, no protection
> > is there.
>
> For heaven's sake. Are you denying that part of the function of the
> skull is to protect the brain? Without protection one blow to the
It is wrong to make such a big deal over the notion when there
are equally critical parts of the body with little or no protection.
If thickened skulls are so important, why have ours gotten thinner
at a time when the brain has gotten bigger and therefore more in need
or protection?
> brain would kill. One blow to the throat wouldn't.
One blow to the throat CAN kill. Crushes things. Can't breath. (I have over
20 years in martial arts.)
As far as that goes, single blows to the chest cavity can kill too.
> > > > Time spent *is* a critical factor. You have to show that wading time
> > > > is somehow necessary in the lifestyle of the creature (and not just an
> > > > extra). Sex is, regardless of the time spent, because sez is how the
> > > > species gets propagated.
> > >
> > > If the creature lived in a waterside habitat then wading would
> > > inevitably and often be necessary. If the water is waist deep then
> > > bipedality is a life saver in apes.
> >
> > Why inevitably? Many present apes live near water and their time
> > in water is rare, as you admit.
>
> Because they'd occasionally have to cross stretches of water. It would
> save their lives if they did so bipedally.
"Occasional" doesn't cut it. It's not compelling.
> [..]
> > > If they lived in a waterside habitat I expect they often wouldn't have
> > > the choice.
> >
> > Define waterside habitat. Is it someplace where they can't simply go
> > about on land and avoid the water as aquaphobes are prone to do?
>
> Swamps, marshes, gallery forests etc. Of course some would have more
> aquatic pressure than others. But *all* would have more aquatic
> pressure than those experienced by extant apes and humans.
Easily avoided by staying on land and in the trees, as aquaphobes would
prefer.
> > > > > Tool carrying may be done more efficiently bipedally but it *can* be
> > > > > done on three limbs or (if brachiating) using feet or quadrupedally
> > > > > using the teeth. Either way, it's hard to argue that being bipedal is
> > > > > a life saver.
> > > >
> > > > Life saving is not the only issue. Competitive advantage should be kept
> > > > in mind. Those tools allow the animal to do things it couldn't before,
> > > > in fact, in the case of sapiens, it's one of our determining advantages.
> > >
> > > Fine. Wading from one clump of trees to another may give you access to
> > > extra food - competitive advantage 1.
> >
> > If you're an aquaphobe as apes can be, just look somewhere else on land.
> > How many apes today have been observed doing this???
>
> What if they've exausted the food closest to them? What if they have
> no choice but to cross the water? The chimps at Conkuoati do this
> every day AFAIK.
Then they move somewhere else on the land they're on. Or must your
scenario require a dinky little island?
> > > Wading from one clump of trees
> > > to a another may give you access to a new group of males/females -
> > > competitive advantage 2.
>
> > Or just look somewhere else on land. How many apes today have been
> > observed doing this???
>
> Ditto above. No extant apes have been observed doing this AFAIK.
Bingo.
> > > Wading from away from a land predator to a
> > > another clump of trees may save your life - competitive advantage 3.
> >
> > AN ape trying to escape this way would be lunch...
>
> Would it? Do leopards chase their prey into water?
Why not? They can swim.
> > > Wading out into a river may allow you to see further (for food) than
> > > staying in the woods - competitive advantage 4.
> >
> > Hogwash. How the heck can you see farther by wading out into a river???
> > Just climb a tree! Height, you know.
>
> If you're a heavy ape I doubt you could make it to the very top of a
> tree but you'd be able to see quite a way from a river-side or by
> wading a little way out into it.
Let's see: a river requires higher banks of land to contain it. And by
going into the river puts you even *lower*. Croc bait too.
Seems like standing up on the *bank* would eliminate any need for such a
silly alternative. How thoroughly do you think these things through???
> > > Wading out into the
> > > water may give you access to food (on branches) inaccessible from land
> > > - competitive advantage 5.
> >
> > These are arboreal creatures; are you saying branches are inaccessible to
> > them?
>
> Yes, if the branches are thin and can't bear their weight.
Then look somewhere else. The younger and smaller would get to it
anyway. Your scenario increasingly requires extreme conditions to work.
> > >Wading out into waist deep water would help
> > > you to keep cool - competitive advantage 6.
> >
> > You're kidding, right?
>
> No. There's a whole hypothesis that argues that bipedalism began
> specifically to keep the body cool whilst walking around on the
> savannah grasslands in the mid day sun. Why is it so ridiculous that
> they'd go for a dip to keep cool? Have you never gone for a dip to
> keep cool?
No. I don't swim. The only river in my area can be waded. There's only
a couple pools in town and contention for them is heavy.
Now, how many apes have been observed "going for a dip" in
croc infested waters???
> > > > > Reconnoitering may save your life if you do it bipedally but do you
> > > > > have to *move* whilst reconnoitering? And it is not so clear-cut as
> > > >
> > > > Huh? You can do it standing still or moving.
> > >
> > > My point is that some of the models for bipedal origins do not require
> > > *motion* - Merecat peering is one and bush foraging are two. Wading
> > > does.
> >
> > Uh, So?
>
> Bipedalism is moving on two feet not just standing. Therefore an
> explanation that involves movement IMHO is stronger than one that just
> involves standing still.
Uh, SO? Why would wading require motion???? You can't stand still in
water???
> > > > > wading. You might still get eaten, even if you spot the predator
> > > > > bipeally and you may have spoted the predator if you were on all
> > > > > fours.
> > > >
> > > > Crocs catch animals in the water. They even catch animals on the shore
> > > > at the water's edge. And standing up doesn't seem to help in spotting
> > > > them.
> > >
> > > True. Croc predation is clearly a big factor. I'm not ducking that
> > > issue. But the early bipeds would be able to escape crocs easily by
> > > climbing trees... If they lived out on the grasslands how would they
> > > escape leopards? Living in a gallery forest gives them protection from
> > > both.
> >
> > Uh, escape easily??? Animals get snagged by crocs on the shore! As in
> > LAND. And you want an early biped to lug itself out of the water and make
> > it to a tree??? Bigger four footed animals with more stability can't
> > even make it to shore.
>
> Yes but they can't climb trees. The earliest bipeds clearly could.
You've got these early bipeds in the water. You want a slow wading biped to
beat a croc to shore????
> > You're *really* grasping.
>
> I think it makes perfect sense. I've still not heard a decent argument
> against it.
Here it is again:
You've got these early bipeds in the water. You want a slow wading biped to
beat a croc to shore????
You should try it yourself. Let us know who your next of kin are.
> > > > > I have never heard sexual attraction used as an argument for bipedal
> > > > > origins. Please could you run that one past me.
> > > >
> > > > Check out De Waal and Lanting's "Bonobos The Fogotten Ape". Numerous (!)
> > > > instances of bipedal behavior. In particular, see the section "Intimate
> > > > Relations" following chapter 4. I quote the caption accompanying a picture
> > > > of a bipedal male: "The male carries sugarcane while exhibiting an erection,
> > > > inviting a female for sex in typical bonobo fashion: food triggers sexual
> > > > excitement, and sex, in turn, paves the way for sharing."
> > >
> > > So, do *you* think that's what motivated the first bipeds? Why aren't
> > > bonobos and chimps bipedal then?
> >
> > It's one of many bipedal behaviors. You make the mistake of pretty much
> > all aat types - you only look at ONE behavior.
>
> The fact is that PAs have not yet managed to explain bipedalism. Over
> a dozen different ideas are commonly published and discussed but
> wading is not one of them. I am not arguing that wading was the
> exclusive reason - just that it is the most plausible one and
> probably the most significant factor.
Because wading is only walking in water. Nothing special. It's not
compelling because it requires practically living in the water.
> > > > > > Don't forget, fitness is about passing on genes and chordate males are
> > > > > > for the most part, expendable.
> > > > >
> > > > > But females are not expendable and the wading model very much includes
> > > > > them. If they are able to move bipedally through waist-deep water they
> > > > > (and their offspring) survive, if not they drown. It's obvious,
> > > > > really.
> > > >
> > > > They spend most of their time on land.
> > >
> > > Do they? What are 'they'? Are you talking about chimps/bonobos? We
> > > didn't evolve from chimps or bonobos but some lca that may well have
> > > spent more time in the water.
> >
> > We are highly related to chimps and bonobos. All three species spend most
> > of their time on land...
>
> The earliest bipeds lived in wetter habitats than chimps, bonobos,
> gorillas or humans.
See below.
> > > > If there's no water body around to
> > > > go in, then all of their bipdeal behavior will be on land. There is no need
> > > > for wading.
> > >
> > > I can't argue with that. Indeed if the fossil evidence of the earliest
> > > bipeds indicated that wading was less likely than in the extant apes
> > > then I'd have to seriously reconsider the wading origins model.
> > > Unfortunately for you there is no such evidence. The big difference
> > > between the paleohabitat of the earliest bipeds and the current
> > > habitat of extant apes is, generally speaking, that they were wetter.
> >
> > Not shown. See Wagler's response in the "Re: Lucy walking .. or standing ?"
> > thread.
>
> And see my response to him.
It didn't work.
> > > And of course there is absolutely no fossil evidence as yet of any
> > > chimp/gorilla ancestor at all - Not even one chip off a single tooth.
> > > If we have to ignore taphonomic bias, how do you explain that whereas
> > > there are thousands of hominid fossils found in deposital substrates -
> > > not a single chimp/gorilla ancestor has yet to be found? Isn't this...
> > > a bit of a clue?
> >
> > No. Why would it?
>
> The orthodox view is that the earliest bipeds evolved in mosaic/wooded
> habitats, agreed? But that's where chimps, bonobos and gorillas live
> today and probably have for several million years, agreed? So why have
> we found thousands of hominid fossils in deposital sites but nieko,
> none, nil, zippo extant ape fossils? 2,000 - 0 is quite a significant
> score line. How do you explain that? Isn't it most likely that our
> ancestors and the earliest bipeds just lived in the same waterside
> habitats that they died in?
Because forests have poor preservational qualities?
> > > > They wouldn't be able to wade bipedally if they hadn't been
> > > > exhibiting bipedal behavior on land in the first place. And that includes
> > > > bipedal behavior in trees. Broaden your scope and look at even monkeys.
> > > > All can exhibit bipedal behavior. *no* water needed.
> > >
> > > Why's that? Why must terrestrial bipedalism have come first? I agree
> > > that bipedal posture (more accurately an upright trunk through
> > > swinging/climbing) is likely to encourage bipedal behaiour. But that's
> > > no contradiction against the wading model.
> >
> > Wading is merely going bipedal in water. No big deal. Since apes are
> > arboreal and terrestrial creatures, where do you think the trait would've
> > developed, someplace they spend 99% of their time, or someplace they
> > rarely go???
>
> Duh. Extant apes are bipedal when they are in water even though they
> are rarely in water today. But in the past their ancestors (and ours)
> lived in far wetter habitats where they would be forced to wade *much*
> more often.
Please. DO keep in mind (as you have admitted) it's *rare* behavior.
> > > > You really really really want to push this wading thing, you're going
> > > > to have to go back, way back in time, and include ALL primates. Even
> > > > prosimians.
> > >
> > > Rubbish.
> >
> > Nope. Bipedal behavior is a trait of primates.
>
> Bipedality is a hominid trait.
*Obligate* bipedality is a sapiens trait. Bipedality, whether obligate
or occasional, is a primate trait.
> > Never seen monkeys going
> > bipedal? (To be fair, we might have some exceptions, like tree shrews...)
Well?
> > > > Unless you want to claim sifaka bipedal behavior is due to wading?
> > >
> > > 'Sifaka'? Excuse me.
> >
> > What, you don't know about sifakas?
> >
> > http://www.msu.edu/~heckaaro/sifaka.jpg
>
> Not specifically. But I do now, thanks.
So. Where does you wading theory fit now?
Is all primate bipedal behavior the result of wading?????
Michael Clark
news:O1wf8.4329$W8.3...@news.indigo.ie...
> "Rich Travsky" <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C7C5DD9...@hotMOVEmail.com...
[snip typical Crowley nonsense]
> > > > > > MALE HEADS ARE 50% LARGER????? Now I know you're full of it.
>
> > > Given that they are incapable of seeing the
> > > plain facts that surround them every minute
> > > of every day, the units in which they fail to
> > > describe such matters are more than a bit
> > > academic.
> >
> > No, it's *you* who failed to use units. "Male heads are about
> > 50% larger" is a meaningless statement.
>
> It's perfectly meaningful. You didn't have a problem
> with its meaning before. Neither did that other
> PA dope -- Michael Clarke.
I guess this is my cue, isn't it?
> > The best you can do is say it's "probably mass".
>
> It is only a rough measure that I've heard somewhere.
> Hey, I'm not a specialist. I can only eyeball these
> things -- from the hundreds of adult males and
> adult females that I see every day. But at least I am
> able to do that. PA people can't; they are obliged to
> go around with their eyes shut. Mass or volume --
> who cares? It would not make a lot of difference.
OK, this should be pretty easy. If we take an
average volume of say 1450 cc for females, then males, using
your numbers, should average around 1450 + (1450 * .50)
or 2175cc. Is that right? Case Western Reserve has a pretty
hefty data set --thousands of remains. Check it out. You don't have to
"eyeball" the bones, you can actually look at the data --even sort
by sex (which should make it easier).
"PA people" ~a r e~ "specialists". In this arguement, they
pass you like you were going backwards. Which, of course,
is your modus operandi.
[snip the rest of it]
Algis Kuliukas
> > I can't argue with that. Indeed if the fossil evidence of the earliest
> > bipeds indicated that wading was less likely than in the extant apes
> > then I'd have to seriously reconsider the wading origins model.
> > Unfortunately for you there is no such evidence. The big difference
> > between the paleohabitat of the earliest bipeds and the current
> > habitat of extant apes is, generally speaking, that they were wetter.
> > And of course there is absolutely no fossil evidence as yet of any
> > chimp/gorilla ancestor at all - Not even one chip off a single tooth.
> > If we have to ignore taphonomic bias, how do you explain that whereas
> > there are thousands of hominid fossils found in deposital substrates -
> > not a single chimp/gorilla ancestor has yet to be found? Isn't this...
> > a bit of a clue?
>
> It's a bit of a clue that chimp and gorilla ancestors may have lived in a
> more heavily forested environment then ours did. Forests are generally
> very bad at preserving fossil material.
But isn't that where our ancestors are supposed to have lived too? We
used to think they evolved on the savannah but since Lucy the fossil
evidence has linked the earlier bipeds (Oreopithecus, Orrorin,
Ardipithecus, Kenyanthropus and Australopithecus afarensis) with
increasingly wet and wooded habitats.
I stress the 'wet' part of that description but if aquasceptics are
going to counter that they were just 'wooded' then they have to
simulatnaeously explain why no chimp/gorilla fossils have been found
in such habitats. Of course they can't do that. Instead they continue
to cling to their facade that the fossil evidence contradicts the AAH
when, actually, it is strongly supportive of it.
> > > They wouldn't be able to wade bipedally if they hadn't been
> > > exhibiting bipedal behavior on land in the first place. And that includes
> > > bipedal behavior in trees. Broaden your scope and look at even monkeys.
> > > All can exhibit bipedal behavior. *no* water needed.
> >
> > Why's that? Why must terrestrial bipedalism have come first? I agree
> > that bipedal posture (more accurately an upright trunk through
> > swinging/climbing) is likely to encourage bipedal behaiour. But that's
> > no contradiction against the wading model.
>
> > Algis Kuliukas
>
> Gibbons are nearly obligate brachiators, yet they can walk bipedally,
> albeit poorly.
>
> Older orangs may be the most bipedal of the great apes other then humans.
> A bit of a coincidence that all five groups of great apes should happen
> to independently have a wading episode then drift off to some other
> completely different lifestyle isn't it?
Not really. If the wading behaviour originated in one isolated place
and a radiation took place from there followed by that original
habitat disappearing completely, then this is exactly what one would
predict.
> And why are no other wading
> mammals closer to being bipedal?
I could ask the same question about brachiators - and there are many
more of those than there (probably) were waders. To attempt an answer
- I suggest that only a small group of wading apes stayed in such a
habitat for long enough to have reached a threshold - a kind of point
of no return - where wading bipedalism had been favoured so much that
it became the easiest mode of locomotion on land too. Thus facultative
bipeds became obligate.
Algis Kuliukas