SAT is sillier than AAT

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Reichert

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 3:22:46 PM12/30/02
to
I'm not a die hard supporter of the Aquatic Ape Theory, but I think it
is less silly than the Savannah Ape Theory. When we are talking about
primitive hominids that didn't have the brain power of their
descendants, they must have physical attributes that are inline with
their environments.

I can't really think of a sillier savannah animal than humans, and
presumably their ancestors. Yes, they have incredible long distance
stamina compared to many animals, but that's hardly a attribute tied
to the savannah. On the other hand, the incredibly water intensive
cooling system of humans would be counterproductive in a savannah
environment in the dry season. The only warm weather environment that
I can think of that would be worse is desert.

There are other attributes that have been discussed, but I'll just end
with another observation and a question. Recent research has cast
substantial doubt on the view of a savannah habitat for early
hominids, finding instead a much more tree rich, and presumably
wetter, environment instead.

The question is: is the Savannah Ape Theory held so rigidly here on
its merits or because it was the status quo for so long and nobody is
willing to give it up until they are forced to?

Bob Keeter

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 4:01:45 PM12/30/02
to
in article 99e65015.02123...@posting.google.com, Mark Reichert at
Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/30/02 8:22 PM:

> I'm not a die hard supporter of the Aquatic Ape Theory, but I think it
> is less silly than the Savannah Ape Theory. When we are talking about
> primitive hominids that didn't have the brain power of their
> descendants, they must have physical attributes that are inline with
> their environments.


I also believe "they must have physical attributes that are inline with
their environments". its the issue of what physical attributes you care to
look at, and which you try to consider "advantageous" in various


environments.

> I can't really think of a sillier savannah animal than humans, and
> presumably their ancestors.

If you presume a completely tool-less, quadrupedal ape, similar in size and
physiology to a modern chimp, you are absolutely 100% correct, IMHO anyway!
It would make absolutely no sense. Baboons manage, but they are a very
different kind of monkey (check out a big male mandril when he yawns, and
consider what it would feel like to have ten or twenty of these very toothy
fellows chewing on your ankle!)

Now, we KNOW that the early humans (by the time of the erectines certainly,
probably much earlier) did live outside of forests. We also know within any
kind of reasonable doubt that these early humans did not have baboon
incisors or the physical skeletal structure to run as fast as a baboon. . .
. . . SO. . . . we are left to come up with a logical and reasonable "path"
for this emergence from a forest/jungle existence. AND in the absence of
hard proof otherwise, Mr. Occam and the laws of logic demand that we build
up this puzzling path out of the fewest number of pieces (suppositions,
deductions, hypotheses, and conjectures) possible, and that they should all
interlock "seamlessly". Sometimes we are pretty good at this, sometimes
not.

> Yes, they have incredible long distance
> stamina compared to many animals, but that's hardly a attribute tied
> to the savannah.

Er. . . Is the distance between climbable trees shorter or longer in the
forest?

> On the other hand, the incredibly water intensive
> cooling system of humans would be counterproductive in a savannah
> environment in the dry season. The only warm weather environment that
> I can think of that would be worse is desert.

As is the water-intensive cooling system of all desert mammals. Horses
sweat ( As you would know quite well if you had ever ridden a horse long and
hard. And even though horses can sweat quite profusely, NOBODY tries to say
that a horse is not a 'savanna' creature! Camels sweat! Bovines sweat!
Humans sweat! Meaning. . . . .?)

> There are other attributes that have been discussed, but I'll just end
> with another observation and a question. Recent research has cast
> substantial doubt on the view of a savannah habitat for early
> hominids, finding instead a much more tree rich, and presumably
> wetter, environment instead.

Actually, I think that the latest theories look hard at the "edge of the
forest/start of the savanna". That would be just about the only place where
the right set of "selection factors" would be present to explain the changes
from a tree-dwelling, climbing physiology to the fully upright, obligatory
bipedal tool user that you find in the Apiths and likely other early
hominids. Pure forest lifestiles just dont work, and neither does the idea
that the limb-climber got tossed instantaneously out into the savanna!



> The question is: is the Savannah Ape Theory held so rigidly here on
> its merits or because it was the status quo for so long and nobody is
> willing to give it up until they are forced to?

I thin that the "savanna ape theory" has been drifting around a bit to keep
all of the facts covered (but you see that is the way it is with a theory,
it has to keep in tune with the evidence or be dropped!). Furthermore, the
"changes" are not so much the to the basic premise, i.e. that humans are the
only higher ape to exist on the savanna and that many human qualities are a
product of that environment, as much of the details about how that occured.

Regards
bk

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 5:22:33 PM12/30/02
to

"Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BA3620BD.232AF%rke...@earthlink.net...

> in article 99e65015.02123...@posting.google.com, Mark Reichert
at
> Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/30/02 8:22 PM:

> > On the other hand, the incredibly water intensive cooling system of
humans would be counterproductive in a savannah environment in the dry
season. The only warm weather environment that I can think of that would be
worse is desert.

> As is the water-intensive cooling system of all desert mammals.

?? As usual making up your own facts? Inform a bit, eg, African hunting dogs
don't sweat, don't salivate & don't even pant.

> Horses sweat ( As you would know quite well if you had ever ridden a horse
long and hard. And even though horses can sweat quite profusely, NOBODY
tries to say that a horse is not a 'savanna' creature! Camels sweat!
Bovines sweat! Humans sweat! Meaning. . . . .?)

This savanna believer apparently has a very simplistic view & doesn't
realise that there are different kinds of sweating (eccrine, apocrine), that
there are different kinds of lowering body temperature through evaporation
(sweating, panting, salivating), that sweating can have different functions
(eg, thermoregulation, communicative, antimicrobial, antislip), that the
amounts of sweating can vary enormously, etc.

Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions on
land.

firstjois

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 5:33:46 PM12/30/02
to

"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.02123...@posting.google.com...
: I'm not a die hard supporter of the Aquatic Ape Theory:

[snip]

Well, Thank goodness for that!

AFAIK there is no SAT.

Now you can spend all your time learning to play Snood. See

www.snood.com

Jois


Lorenzo L. Love

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 8:19:39 PM12/30/02
to
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[snip]

> Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions on
> land.

Is this from the paper reporting on the observation of a severed sealion
flipper? I've asked this several times before and you never answered. If
you aren't trying to hide something, you could be able to post the
relevant text of this paper.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"One must not assume that an understanding of science is present in
those who borrow its language"
Louis Pasteur

Jason Eshleman

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 8:28:48 PM12/30/02
to
In article <3E10F0C1...@thegrid.net>,

Lorenzo L. Love <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>[snip]
>> Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions on
>> land.

>Is this from the paper reporting on the observation of a severed sealion
>flipper? I've asked this several times before and you never answered. If
>you aren't trying to hide something, you could be able to post the
>relevant text of this paper.

Even if true, it's curious how sweating in a sea lion somehow makes humans
sweating more "aquatic" in that it's a trait shared with but one of the
many species of pinnepeds. There's several terrestrial mammals that sweat
as well.


Jim McGinn

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 10:23:47 PM12/30/02
to
Mark_R...@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) wrote

<snip>

I'll just end
> with another observation and a question. Recent research has cast
> substantial doubt on the view of a savannah habitat for early
> hominids, finding instead a much more tree rich, and presumably
> wetter, environment instead.

Yes, it was more of a "monsoon" habitat, as we see currently in India.

>
> The question is: is the Savannah Ape Theory held so rigidly here on
> its merits or because it was the status quo for so long and nobody is
> willing to give it up until they are forced to?

Pretty tough question to answer. I don't think anybody would argue
that any kind of consensus exists on just what is "the" savanna ape
hypothesis.


Moreover SAT has become especially vaporous as of late.

Jim

Michael Clark

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 11:23:11 PM12/30/02
to
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.02123...@posting.google.com...
> Mark_R...@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) wrote

[snip]

>
> Moreover SAT has become especially vaporous as of late.

Learn a new word, Jimmy? Admit it --someone's been
describing your posts, right?

> Jim


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 11:49:44 PM12/30/02
to

"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:3E10F0C1...@thegrid.net...

> > Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions
on land.

> Is this from the paper reporting on the observation of a severed sealion
flipper? I've asked this several times before and you never answered.

I've answered this several times, eg, A. R. Hoelzel ed.2002 "Marine mammal
biology" Blackwell Publishing Oxford.


> If you aren't trying to hide something, you could be able to post the
relevant text of this paper.

I did, man, I did. Look it up. Why would I answer an idiot whose only
arguments are insults?


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Dec 30, 2002, 11:56:57 PM12/30/02
to

"Jason Eshleman" <j...@vidi.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:auqrsg$t6u$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...

Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions on
land.

> Even if true, it's curious how sweating in a sea lion somehow makes humans


sweating more "aquatic" in that it's a trait shared with but one of the many
species of pinnepeds.

Eshleman again with his imbecilic comments:
1) One?? As far as is known, all sealions.
2) Why do you think somebody is arguing how sweating in sealions would make
humans sweating more "aquatic"??

> There's several terrestrial mammals that sweat as well.

Apparently you haven't followed the discussion. You savanna believers have
very simplistic views of mammal physiology & don't realise that there are


different kinds of sweating (eccrine, apocrine), that there are different
kinds of lowering body temperature through evaporation (sweating, panting,
salivating), that sweating can have different functions (eg,
thermoregulation, communicative, antimicrobial, antislip), that the amounts
of sweating can vary enormously, etc.

Again: abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans &
sealions on land.


Mark Reichert

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 1:36:10 AM12/31/02
to
jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<ac6a5059.02123...@posting.google.com>...

> Yes, it was more of a "monsoon" habitat, as we see currently in India.

Ah. That would make water more readibly available in the dry season
where there are cuts down into the water table. I've read that
inexpensive human driven but still efficient pumps are allowing more
agriculture in that region during the dry season because a lot of that
monsoon water gets stored not far below the surface.



> Pretty tough question to answer. I don't think anybody would argue
> that any kind of consensus exists on just what is "the" savanna ape
> hypothesis.

Well, the ferocity of some of the people here towards the aquatic ape
theory has led them to deny the gaping holes pointed out to them in
the view that hominids were adapted to the savannah. Or at least
that's what I've seen in a number of threads.

Michael Clark

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 1:53:24 AM12/31/02
to
"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.02123...@posting.google.com...

Earth to Mark, Earth to Mark, come in Mark.... Those passengers
sitting on the left side of the cabin will see the bright lights coming
from several straw men scattered in the fields below. It seems that
the local wet apes have set these flimsy facsimiles aflame and are
attracting quite a crowd.

Yawn. No, proto-humans were not Gnu's. More's the pity.
--------
Michael Clark
bit...@spammer.com
"You don't build hypotheses on the basis of unsupported conjecture."
--Jim McGinn


Mark Reichert

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 2:18:29 AM12/31/02
to
Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<BA3620BD.232AF%rke...@earthlink.net>...
> If you presume a completely tool-less, quadrupedal ape, similar in size and
> physiology to a modern chimp, you are absolutely 100% correct, IMHO anyway!
> It would make absolutely no sense. Baboons manage,

I agree on baboons, I just want to point out that baboons kept their
hair as protection against solar radiation. Humans, and in the SAT,
hominids are the *only* animal making any sort of living around the
savannah that completely exposed their skin to the sun.

> Er. . . Is the distance between climbable trees shorter or longer in the
> forest?

I was thinking of wetter grasslands, but it just occured to me that
long distance stamina might be a more recently acquired attribute
after bipedalism had reached something near its present stage. A
period in which being able to walk down your prey would have had more
survival advantages than it did to primitive foraging hominids.

There's also the variability of food ripening that one sees in the
forests of Africa where chimpanzees have to cover a fair distance to
get to trees with food at its best stage. Early hominids may have
similar treks, bypassing nearer trees and plants because the food
wasn't yet at the best time to collect it.



> As is the water-intensive cooling system of all desert mammals.

Does that include gerbils and kangaroo rats? Seriously, humans have
several attributes that are actually maladapted to living in any
prolonged hot and dry environment. There doesn't seem to have been
any adaptations to actually help humans live in such an environment,
therefore it is doubtful they ever spent any great amount of time in
such an environment.

Lorenzo L. Love

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 3:46:02 AM12/31/02
to

Still won't provide the relevant text. What are you hiding?

"A fool can no more see his own folly than he can see his ears."
William Makepeace Thackeray

Bob Keeter

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 10:41:51 AM12/31/02
to
in article 99e65015.02123...@posting.google.com, Mark Reichert at
Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/31/02 7:18 AM:

> Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<BA3620BD.232AF%rke...@earthlink.net>...
>> If you presume a completely tool-less, quadrupedal ape, similar in size and
>> physiology to a modern chimp, you are absolutely 100% correct, IMHO anyway!
>> It would make absolutely no sense. Baboons manage,
>
> I agree on baboons, I just want to point out that baboons kept their
> hair as protection against solar radiation. Humans, and in the SAT,
> hominids are the *only* animal making any sort of living around the
> savannah that completely exposed their skin to the sun.
>

Well, there is this thing about "body size" that starts entering into the
equation. Im going to invent a term and try to define it. Call it thermal
mass. Its a function of metabolic level and body size, roughly proportional
to exposed surface area and internal heat generation. Heat generation would
be closely related to the "volume" contained within the skin, and exposed
area is closely related to skin "area". At some point you have to start
looking at different cooling approaches as size or metabolic rate increase.
(Consider a nice definitive savanna animal, like the African elephant. Do
you think that those big ear flaps are for better hearing or to provide heat
"radiators"? In contrast, consider the Asian elephant that exists in a more
"treed" environment, with at least some shelter from the sun; smaller ears
right? and Wooly Mammoths (found preserved in permafrost) have almost
insignificant little external ears!

IF a human and a baboon had the same "metabolic rate" per unit volume, and
the human was larger, I would expect to see some differences in cooling
arrangements. Note the capitalized "IF"! Not an accident! I seem to
remember that the human brain produces something around 25% of the total
calories metabolized for a human, totally out of proportion to its
comparitive size with respect to the rest of the body. Humans, and
presumably proto-humans had bigger brains than a baboon and thus at least
logically a higher metabolic caloric production rate, even when "sitting
still". Again another "reason" for a different or more capable
thermo-regulation system.

>> Er. . . Is the distance between climbable trees shorter or longer in the
>> forest?
>
> I was thinking of wetter grasslands, but it just occured to me that
> long distance stamina might be a more recently acquired attribute
> after bipedalism had reached something near its present stage. A
> period in which being able to walk down your prey would have had more
> survival advantages than it did to primitive foraging hominids.

Aint hard to outrun a qumquat! 8-)



> There's also the variability of food ripening that one sees in the
> forests of Africa where chimpanzees have to cover a fair distance to
> get to trees with food at its best stage. Early hominids may have
> similar treks, bypassing nearer trees and plants because the food
> wasn't yet at the best time to collect it.
>

Actually, lets think of the seasonal fruit availability! In a true tropical
jungle there is probably some fruit, berrries, soft shoots, etc available
year round. Move out to a "forest" (not jungle) and the seasonal
variability might just be much more pronounced with MONTHS where there
simply is no ripened fruit! We know that chimps (and even some very early
chimps(proto-humans?) ate nuts; we have found their piles of nut crackers!
but even hard shelled nuts are not impervious to the elements for months on
end. What kind of FOOD is available in the forest, edge of the forest, and
savanna year round? Hmmmmmmm. . . . . bet its some kind of food animal that
eats the basic vegitation, i.e. grasses, shoots, brush, twigs, etc. 8-)


>> As is the water-intensive cooling system of all desert mammals.
>
> Does that include gerbils and kangaroo rats?

Strange that you might decide to discuss rodents! Nice spread of critters
across a lot of biomes. On one hand you have very desert oriented animals
(like the kangaroo rats!) and aquatic adapted versions in the beavers! 8-)
Perhaps it might just be instructive to look at these little furry fellows a
bit closely. 8-) (Yes, this is a trick question! ;-) )

First: What is the most nearly obligate bipedal rodent, and what
environment is it found in? Why do you suppose that might be? Being
nocturnal, does it need its fur to protected it from the sun?

Second: In what is probably the most aquatic adapted of the rodents, i.e.
the beaver, is it hairless? Does it have webbed feet? Does it dive under
water and have flaps that close its nostrils and ears to the water when
diving? Does it have hip structure that allows it to walk bipedally on
extended legs?

> Seriously, humans have
> several attributes that are actually maladapted to living in any
> prolonged hot and dry environment. There doesn't seem to have been
> any adaptations to actually help humans live in such an environment,
> therefore it is doubtful they ever spent any great amount of time in
> such an environment.

All mammals have attributes that are seriously "maladaptive" to a prolonged
hot and dry environment. Some have modified these attributes or compensated
when unavoidable to become less "maladaptive" but. . . . For example,
endothermia, one of the hallmarks of mammals, is maladaptive to a hot
environment! Reptiles are much more "at home" in the desert than in the
temporate forest or arctic tundra.

Still, go back to your examples above and the rodents. What are the
adaptations to an aquatic environment in the beaver? What are the
adaptations to a hotter and more arid environment in the kangaroo rat?
Which of these adaptations do you wish to consider in the human animal? 8-)

Regards
bk

Jason Eshleman

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 12:51:17 PM12/31/02
to
"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:<3E1158E0...@thegrid.net>...

> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >
> > "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E10F0C1...@thegrid.net...
> >
> > > > Abundant eccrine thermoactive sweating is only seen in humans & sealions
> > on land.
> >
> > > Is this from the paper reporting on the observation of a severed sealion
> > flipper? I've asked this several times before and you never answered.
> >
> > I've answered this several times, eg, A. R. Hoelzel ed.2002 "Marine mammal
> > biology" Blackwell Publishing Oxford.
> >
> > > If you aren't trying to hide something, you could be able to post the
> > relevant text of this paper.
> >
> > I did, man, I did. Look it up. Why would I answer an idiot whose only
> > arguments are insults?
>
> Still won't provide the relevant text. What are you hiding?


Marc's psychosis is strange indeed. He's more than willing to repost
the same macro passages over and over and over again, yet when someone
asks him a question which would require that he cite only a single
source, he steadfastly refuses, claiming he's already done so, doesn't
need to do it again, and has no reason to "answer an idiot." Curious,
very curious. Clearly repetition isn't his problem, else he wouldn't
repost the same things over and over again. Why is it that only the
posts that reveal his sources are taboo for multiple posts?

I've filtered Marc because he's shown himself to be even less of a
human being than a scientist, but if he actually does bother to come
up with a source about sweaty sea lions, could someone be sure to let
me know?

Richard Wagler

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 3:42:46 PM12/31/02
to

Jason Eshleman wrote:

Marc's ref is an artricle by Bartholomew and Wilke
entitled 'Body Temperature in Northern Fur Seals"
in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating
from their flippers but go out of their way to point
out how limited is the ability of these seals to handle
heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would
chivy the bachelor males away from the main rookery
with the females and pups before shooting them and
processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and
they're stickin' to it - it was not uncommon for these
seals to become overheated and even die during a
trip of a few hundred yards.They do not provide any
data re volume of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt
to cite this for his claim that humans and fur seals are the
'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept.

Dave Kreger of UPenn got into all this with Marc on the
Yahoo AAT board back in October. Give it a look see.

Rick Wagler

Jason Eshleman

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 10:12:01 PM12/31/02
to
In article <3E120145...@shaw.ca>,
Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Jason Eshleman wrote:

>> I've filtered Marc because he's shown himself to be even less of a
>> human being than a scientist, but if he actually does bother to come
>> up with a source about sweaty sea lions, could someone be sure to let
>> me know?
>
>Marc's ref is an artricle by Bartholomew and Wilke
>entitled 'Body Temperature in Northern Fur Seals"
>in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
>pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating
>from their flippers but go out of their way to point
>out how limited is the ability of these seals to handle
>heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would
>chivy the bachelor males away from the main rookery
>with the females and pups before shooting them and
>processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
>very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and
>they're stickin' to it - it was not uncommon for these
>seals to become overheated and even die during a
>trip of a few hundred yards.They do not provide any
>data re volume of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt
>to cite this for his claim that humans and fur seals are the
>'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept.

Hmmm. So what you're saying is the reference to sweaty sea lions is from
an observation in a single fur seal species (which are at least
monophyletic with the other sea lions) and that reference is 40something
years old and hasn't been followed up on?

>
>Dave Kreger of UPenn got into all this with Marc on the
>Yahoo AAT board back in October. Give it a look see.
>
>Rick Wagler

Thanks. I'll check it out. I think I need the entertainment.


Jim McGinn

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 1:13:17 AM1/1/03
to
Mark_R...@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) wrote

> > Yes, it was more of a "monsoon" habitat, as we see
> > currently in India.
>
> Ah. That would make water more readibly available in
> the dry season where there are cuts down into the

> water table. <snip>

I agree. And this set up a whole host of other factors
for these earliest of all hominids:
1) Patchiness of their remaining treed habitat. (And, as
is seen in extant seasonal environments, these remaining
patches of treed habitat would tend to be located near
sources of perrenial: water, rivers, lakes, ponds, streams,
etc.)
2) The dry season produced ecological stresses (lack of
water and food) and thereby became the most significant
selective factor in this new habitat. (Simply put, those
that has access to food and water through the dry season
survived, those that did not did not.)
3) The above mentioned ecological stresses would be
magnified by herds of inmigrating species that would, if
not stopped or dissuaded, completely overrun and deplete
the resources (food) in these patches of treed habitat.

It's pretty important to be aware of just how dramatic
was the shift in selective factors that took place with
the shift from a rainforest habitat to a monsoon habitat.
In the rainforest habitat their main concerns were sex
and avoiding the occasional predator. In this new
monsoon habitat they had to evolve strategies to prevent
the inmigration of herds of other species or else their
treed patch would become depleted and they'd be unable
to survive through the dry season. Not surprisingly
communalism, territorialism, and mob-oriented threat
displays (directed against the inmigrating species) were
the strategies that emerged to deal with these new
selective factors.

>
> > Pretty tough question to answer. I don't think
> > anybody would argue that any kind of consensus exists
> > on just what is "the" savanna ape hypothesis.
>
> Well, the ferocity of some of the people here towards
> the aquatic ape theory has led them to deny the gaping
> holes pointed out to them in the view that hominids were
> adapted to the savannah. Or at least that's what I've
> seen in a number of threads.

Oh yeah, it's pretty comical. Conventional theorist are
pretty stuck on this notion that early hominids were
hunting/scavenging, supposedly following herds of prey
around in a bipedal stance. The lifestyle they describe
is more like that of hyena rather than the slow moving,
slight of build A'piths that still maintained tree
climbing adaptations and can hardly be described as
optimized for treeless savanna habitat. From a biological
perspective this is pretty idiotic. But I guess it is not
altogether surprising in a discipline that so thoroughly
shuns biology.

Jim

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 6:01:28 AM1/1/03
to

"Jason Eshleman" <j...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:b7af43cb.0212...@posting.google.com...

> Marc's psychosis is strange indeed. He's more than willing to repost the
same macro passages over and over and over again, yet when someone

"someone"?? = people like you whose only arguments are insults, but who
can't give 1 valid argument in favor of the savanna nonsense, and can't give
1 argument against our scenario:

In 1960 Alister Hardy ("Was Man more aquatic in the past?" New Scientist)
described how a sea-side lifestyle - incl. wading, swimming, collecting
edible shells, turtles, crabs, coconuts, seaweeds etc. - could explain many
typically human features that are absent in our nearest relatives the
chimps, and that are unexplained by savanna scenarios: reduction of
climbing skills, very large brain, greater breathing control (=
preadaptation for speech), very dextrous hands (stone tool use to open
shells or nuts), reduction of fur, thicker fat tissues, longer legs, more
linear body build, high needs of iodine, sodium, poly-unsaturated fatty
acids etc.
IMO, Hardy was only wrong in thinking this seaside phase happened more than
10 Ma. Homo ergaster-erectus fossils or tools are found in Israel, Algeria,
E.Africa, Georgia, Java ca.1.8 Ma, IOW, they spread along the Mediterranean
& Indian Ocean coasts early Pleistocene or earlier. Although most
Pleistocene coasts are some 100 m below the present sea level and it's
mostly the inland Homo populations (entering the continents along the
rivers) that are represented in the fossil and archeological record, Homo
remains have frequently been found amid shells, corals, barnacles etc., from
1.8 Ma (Mojokerto) to 0.1 Ma (Eritrea), as well as on islands which could
only be reached oversea (Flores 0.8 Ma).

Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

> asks him a question which would require that he cite only a single source,
he steadfastly refuses, claiming he's already done so

I have.

>, doesn't need to do it again, and has no reason to "answer an idiot."

Yes.


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 6:31:45 AM1/1/03
to
"Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3E120145...@shaw.ca...

> Marc's ref is an article by Bartholomew and Wilke entitled 'Body


Temperature in Northern Fur Seals" in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating from their flippers
but go out of their way to point out how limited is the ability of these
seals to handle heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would chivy
the bachelor males away from the main rookery with the females and pups
before shooting them and processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and they're stickin' to
it - it was not uncommon for these seals to become overheated and even die

during a trip of a few hundred yards. They do not provide any data re volume


of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt to cite this for his claim that
humans and fur seals are the 'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept.

Rick Wagler

Thanks, Wagler, at least you've done your homework. Fair comment except for
the last sentence: not my fault that there are few data. The most recent
info I read is AR Hoezel ed.2002 "Marine mammal biology" Blackwell, p.87:
"sweat glands on the flippers of otariids aid in heat transfer. On hot days
sea lions & fur seals can often be seen fanning their flippers & increasing
evaporative heat loss at these sites" (Blix cs.1979 Am.J.Phys.236:R188). WN
Mcfarland cs.1979 "Vertebrate life" Collier p.773: "tps that rise to only
10°C during the day. ... Almost any activity on land causes the seals to
pant & raise their hind flippers (abundantly supplied with sweat glands) &
wave them about." When somebody can give me info on eccrine thermoregulatory
sweating in other mammals (or interesting info on sweating in general:
apocrine or eccrine, amounts, possible functions...), I'll be grateful, but
so far I haven't seen any. IOW, I don't have to change 1 letter of what I
said:

- AFAIK the most abundant thermoactive eccrine sweating is seen in human &
sealions.

- Suggesting that our sweating evolved to cope with hot savanna conditions
is ridiculous nonsense. Wishful thinking, typical of some (not you, Wagler)
people here: sacvanna believers who have not more arguments in favour of
their belief that creationists have in favor of theirs.

deowll

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 11:59:05 AM1/1/03
to

"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.02123...@posting.google.com...

One thing that the no trees in the savannah crowd keep missing is that some
land classed as savannah looks like thorn tree scrub forest to a boy from
Tennessee and not much of a grassland at all. The center of the field as I
understand it has bipids first show up in the forest which has smaller trees
than the jungle and enough of a dry season to cause problems like food
shortages or some such.

My personal guess is that once enough dust gets blown away for things to
clear up bipids will show up in the brush land PDQ after they show up as
fossils if they don't show up their first. Running around in a completely
treeless landscape had to wait a while.

Right now we are pretty much in the postion of saying that hominds lived in
or near the locations we have found the few remains known and trying to work
out what the local flora and climate were at the time the remains lived.
That is hardly a complete picture but at least it isn't total guess work.

Jim McGinn

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 12:50:31 PM1/1/03
to
j...@ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote

> > Still won't provide the relevant text. What are you hiding?
>
>
> Marc's psychosis is strange indeed.

What about your own psychosis?

He's more than willing to repost
> the same macro passages over and over and over again,

At least he posts something. Why don't you tell us your theory on the
origins of hominid bipedalism? Afterall, you think you got if figured
out, right? If not then why are you so sure Marc is wrong?

yet when someone
> asks him a question which would require that he cite only a single
> source, he steadfastly refuses,

And you steadfastly refuse to provide your own thinking on this
subject. I mean, what makes you think there's any difference at all
between Marc's tactics and your tactics?

claiming he's already done so, doesn't
> need to do it again, and has no reason to "answer an idiot."

Hey, if the shoe fits . . .

Curious,
> very curious. Clearly repetition isn't his problem, else he wouldn't
> repost the same things over and over again. Why is it that only the
> posts that reveal his sources are taboo for multiple posts?
>
> I've filtered Marc because he's shown himself to be even less of a
> human being than a scientist,

That you would even bother to throw invectives at Marc shows how
deluded you are about the fact that you yourself have nothing better
than what Marc has.

Also, people that are confident about their own thinking have no need
for filters.

but if he actually does bother to come
> up with a source about sweaty sea lions, could someone be sure to let
> me know?

If you ever come up with a hypothesis on the origins of hominid
bipedalism be sure to let us know. It ought to be good for a few
laughs.


Jim

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 2:02:25 PM1/1/03
to

"deowll" <deo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6UEQ9.9252$us1....@news.bellsouth.net...

> One thing that the no trees in the savannah crowd keep missing

Whether or not savannas have trees is not so relevant. The point is: the
savanna believers used to think (not any more I hope?) that human ancestors
once walked over the African plains & evolved there nakedness, better sweat
glands, larger brains etc. You keep missing that this view is nonsense.


Richard Wagler

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 3:38:18 PM1/1/03
to

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

The only thing that has been "overthrown" is the idea
that hominids evolved from day one in savannah
environments which is to say bipedalism since that
is pretty much the defining characteristic of hominids
though it is probably not exclusive to them - depending
on how bipedal Oreopithecus actually is. Big brains,
tool-making etc etc probably were evolved in savannah/
forest margin habitats. Since the environments of **all**
the hominid sites can be described thusly why is it such
a hair-raising leap of faith to say that early hominids
lived and evolved in these sorts of habitats? You have yet
to identify a limiting factor which keeps hominds out of
savannah/bushland/ forest margin habitats. The fact that
hominoid apes don't take the same approach to things as
gnus and gazelles does not indicate what this limiting
factor might be. What is it?

Rick Wagler

Lorenzo L. Love

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 4:47:35 PM1/1/03
to

I sent Dr Hoelzel an email asking "Can you please clear up question?
Marc Verhaegen, an infamous advocate of the Aquatic Ape Theory of human
evolution is citing your work in ed.2002 "Marine Mammal Biology"
Blackwell Publishing Oxford as being in support the Aquatic Ape Theory.
Do you in any way support the Aquatic Ape Theory?". Today he answered:

"Hi, Our book doesn't deal with this question at all, much less offer
any
support for the theory. Best, Rus Hoelzel"

A bit of advice for Verhaegen, if you are going to misrepresent other
peoples work, do it with dead people who can't refute your distortions.

Lorenzo L. Love

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 5:03:11 PM1/1/03
to

If they didn't deliberately misrepresent the savanna as a treeless,
waterless desert, they wouldn't have an argument. So we can expect the
"no trees in the savannah crowd" to just keep on lying so as to bolster
an otherwise thin argument. That's the modus operandi of
pseudoscientists, if the facts don't support you, make stuff up.

firstjois

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 6:10:41 PM1/1/03
to

"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:3E1361CA...@thegrid.net...

Another great sig line:

I sent Dr Hoelzel an email asking "Can you please clear up question?
Marc Verhaegen, an infamous advocate of the Aquatic Ape Theory of human
evolution is citing your work in ed.2002 "Marine Mammal Biology"
Blackwell Publishing Oxford as being in support the Aquatic Ape Theory.
Do you in any way support the Aquatic Ape Theory?". Today he answered:

"Hi, Our book doesn't deal with this question at all, much less offer
any
support for the theory. Best, Rus Hoelzel"

A bit of advice for Verhaegen, if you are going to misrepresent other
peoples work, do it with dead people who can't refute your distortions.

Lorenzo L. Love
--------------------------------

Lorenzo, haven't you found a way to wake the dead, yet? Just getting them
a message that Marco is using their work in support of his own personal
religion should do the trick!

Jois


Jason Eshleman

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 6:15:04 PM1/1/03
to
In article <ac6a5059.03010...@posting.google.com>,

Jim McGinn <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>j...@ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote
>
>> > Still won't provide the relevant text. What are you hiding?
>>
>>
>> Marc's psychosis is strange indeed.
>
>What about your own psychosis?

You mean the one that makes me respond to something like this?

>
>He's more than willing to repost
>> the same macro passages over and over and over again,
>
>At least he posts something. Why don't you tell us your theory on the
>origins of hominid bipedalism? Afterall, you think you got if figured
>out, right? If not then why are you so sure Marc is wrong?

This is curious. Your criticism is on false grounds in at least two
aspects. A) Nowhere have I ever claimed that I've got the origins of
hominid bipedalism figured out. I'm perplexed as to what gave you that
idea. B) Having no alternative that I pimp here doesn't in any way make a
what a whacko like Marc posts.

[snip]


>Also, people that are confident about their own thinking have no need
>for filters.

I filter pea-brains like Verhaegen because he wastes band width while
going out of his way to attack me personally. I'm confident that I've
seen nothing in his posts to indicate that I'm missing anything
scientifically substantive. Curious why you've decided to take up baiting
me as well. Not curious enough to keep reading however. "Marc, meet Jim.
Jim, Marc. Filter file's getting a bit crowded, but y'all should be right
at home here."

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 6:16:26 PM1/1/03
to

"Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3E1351BA...@shaw.ca...

> > > One thing that the no trees in the savannah crowd keep missing

> > Whether or not savannas have trees is not so relevant. The point is: the
savanna believers used to think (not any more I hope?) that human ancestors
once walked over the African plains & evolved there nakedness, better sweat
glands, larger brains etc. You keep missing that this view is nonsense.

> The only thing that has been "overthrown" is the idea that hominids
evolved from day one in savannah environments which is to say bipedalism
since that is pretty much the defining characteristic of hominids though it
is probably not exclusive to them - depending on how bipedal Oreopithecus
actually is.

You still believe in fairy tales, Wagler. I thought you were smarter. Great
disappointment.
- Bipedalism: The early hominids (=Pan+Homo+Gorilla vs pongids=Pongo) were
already (short-legged) bipedals(+climbers). Both Sahelanthr.& Orrorin are
claimed to have been bipedal, 7-6 Ma, ie, at the time of the Homo-Pan split.
But this we had already predicted several years ago, based on comparative
data.
- Nakedness: not seen in medium-sized savanna dwellers.
- Sweat glands: humans & sealions: not savanna.
- Larger brains: not in savanna.
- Etc.

> Big brains, tool-making etc etc probably were evolved in savannah/forest
margin habitats.

:-D Man, go home. Ridiculous: there are no tool-using savanna mammals. No
big-brained ones. Please no just-so stories. Facts!

> Since the environments of **all** the hominid sites can be described
thusly

No, no. First, try to make the difference between apiths & Homo: apiths had
no big brains, were no (good) tool-users. Are you talking about hominids or
about Homo?? Don't mix up things.

1) apiths, eg, KE Reed 1997 JHE 32:289-322: "Reconstructed habitats show
that Australopithecus species existed in fairly wooded, well-watered
regions. Paranthropus species lived in similar environs and also in more
open regions, but always in habitats that include wetlands."

2) Homo ca.1.8 Ma: from Algeria to Java - no specific relation to savanna.

> why is it such a hair-raising leap of faith to say that early hominids
lived and evolved in these sorts of habitats?

Because it's nonsense. Based on a misinterpretation of Dart.

> You have yet to identify a limiting factor which keeps hominds out of
savannah/bushland/ forest margin habitats.

The comparative data, man. Which you neglect.

> The fact that hominoid apes don't take the same approach to things as gnus
and gazelles does not indicate what this limiting factor might be. What is
it? Rick Wagler

Lots of limiting factors: skin, fat, kidneys, locomotion, sweat glands...
About everything shows that hominids & Homo are/were no savanna dwellers.
Nature 325:305-306, 1987: "... it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors
ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant.
Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have thermo-insulative subcutaneous
fat layers, which are never seen in savanna mammals. We have a water- and
sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a
dry environment (5). Our maximal urine concentration is much too low for a
savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need much more water than other primates,
and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink
large quantities at a time (7-8)."

Bob Keeter

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 8:14:42 PM1/1/03
to
in article 3E1361CA...@thegrid.net, Lorenzo L. Love at
lll...@thegrid.net wrote on 1/1/03 9:47 PM:

> Marc Verhaegen wrote:

Snippage. . . . .



>> I did, man, I did. Look it up. Why would I answer an idiot whose only
>> arguments are insults?
>
> I sent Dr Hoelzel an email asking "Can you please clear up question?
> Marc Verhaegen, an infamous advocate of the Aquatic Ape Theory of human
> evolution is citing your work in ed.2002 "Marine Mammal Biology"
> Blackwell Publishing Oxford as being in support the Aquatic Ape Theory.
> Do you in any way support the Aquatic Ape Theory?". Today he answered:
>
> "Hi, Our book doesn't deal with this question at all, much less offer
> any
> support for the theory. Best, Rus Hoelzel"
>
> A bit of advice for Verhaegen, if you are going to misrepresent other
> peoples work, do it with dead people who can't refute your distortions.
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

Looks like the facts, the great and uncompromising enemies of
unsubstanciated conjectures, strike again! Must be that great conspiracy
out there discovering all of these truths that for some unknown reason
deliberately portray the AAH and the credibility of its shrillest proponents
in the wrong light again!

Good job, Lorenzo! Marc, more mail to answer? 8-)

Still dont buy in to the fanciful feline farce! ;-)

Regards
bk

Jim McGinn

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 9:59:39 PM1/1/03
to
Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote

> The only thing that has been "overthrown" is the idea
> that hominids evolved from day one in savannah
> environments which is to say bipedalism since that
> is pretty much the defining characteristic of hominids

There is no such thing as "a defining characteristic of hominids."
Bipedalism is one of many traits associated with hominids.

Jim

Jim McGinn

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 10:24:00 PM1/1/03
to
j...@veni.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote

> >At least he posts something. Why don't you tell us your theory on the
> >origins of hominid bipedalism? Afterall, you think you got if figured
> >out, right? If not then why are you so sure Marc is wrong?
>
> This is curious. Your criticism is on false grounds in at least two
> aspects. A) Nowhere have I ever claimed that I've got the origins of
> hominid bipedalism figured out.

Well, at least your honest, which is more than we can say for most of
the conventional proponents in this NG.

I'm perplexed as to what gave you that
> idea. B) Having no alternative that I pimp here doesn't in any way make a
> what a whacko like Marc posts.

If you have no alternative then shouldn't you be looking for one? If
you are so sure AAT is whacko then why do you keep the issue alive?

>
> [snip]
> >Also, people that are confident about their own thinking have no need
> >for filters.
>
> I filter pea-brains like Verhaegen because he wastes band width while
> going out of his way to attack me personally.

Well that's great. But keep it to yourself. We have about as much
need to know that you filter Marc, or anybody, as we do to know that
you wipe yourself after you take a crap.

I'm confident that I've
> seen nothing in his posts to indicate that I'm missing anything
> scientifically substantive.

How long did it take you to figure that out?

Curious why you've decided to take up baiting
> me as well. Not curious enough to keep reading however. "Marc, meet Jim.
> Jim, Marc. Filter file's getting a bit crowded, but y'all should be right
> at home here."


Jim

Mark Reichert

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 2:38:08 AM1/2/03
to
Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<BA372703.23340%rke...@earthlink.net>...

> First: What is the most nearly obligate bipedal rodent, and what
> environment is it found in? Why do you suppose that might be? Being
> nocturnal, does it need its fur to protected it from the sun?

No, it needs it's fur because the desert gets cold at night due to the
heat radiating out to space through the clear dry air.



> Second: In what is probably the most aquatic adapted of the rodents, i.e.
> the beaver, is it hairless?

Why are we talking about the beaver? Never have the proponents of the
AAT ever said that man's ancestors were a truly aquatic animal. The
polar bear spends a good deal of time in the sea and makes its living
off animals who are at home in the sea but no one would ever call it
aquatic.

Besides, I stated that I wasn't supporting the argument that the AAT
was true, just that the SAT was sillier. You are giving me the same
response you have for any proponent of the AAT. It makes it clear to
me that your support of the SAT isn't based on any merits, just a
reactionary clinging to an outmoded view.

> All mammals have attributes that are seriously "maladaptive" to a prolonged
> hot and dry environment.

Bullshit. You obviously don't understand the term maladaptive.

> when unavoidable to become less "maladaptive" but. . . . For example,
> endothermia, one of the hallmarks of mammals, is maladaptive to a hot
> environment!

Which is why, unlike mad dogs and Englishmen, they don't stand outside
in the noon sun if they can avoid it. The endothermia actually
becomes useful at night.

Humans have a problem here because they don't have the fur that would
keep heat in during the night and they don't have the senses needed to
be finding food at night, and presumably none of their ancestors had
any of that either.

> Still, go back to your examples above and the rodents. What are the
> adaptations to an aquatic environment in the beaver? What are the
> adaptations to a hotter and more arid environment in the kangaroo rat?
> Which of these adaptations do you wish to consider in the human animal?

Why are you asking me questions? Oh yeah, that's a classic technique
to cover the weaknesses of your arguments by not actually saying
anything.

As for the kangaroo rat: They drink very little or no water, deriving
free water as a by-product of carbohydrate metabolism and from any
water present in their food. Their efficient kidneys (four times as
efficient as those of humans) enable them to produce a very
concentrated urine. They do not perspire or pant and convoluted nasal
passages condense most of the moisture from their exhaled breath.

I'd think at the very least humans would have more efficient kidneys
that would allow them to concentrate their urine better. An awful lot
of water leaves the human body when voiding the bladder, and that's
not the sign of an animal that had to make living in hot, dry
environment without the help of a big brain.

Here's some adaptations some fairly large animals have made to living
in a hot, dry environment: http://enhg.4t.com/b/b11/11_24.htm

I have to point out that the animals that have a fatty layer to
prevent heat gain also have fur that makes sure the skin is not
directly exposed to the sun. If hominids were using that device, they
must not have lost their fur yet, which still points out a weakness in
the SAT which claims that the fur was lost to promote temperature
control through evaporation, which leads us right back to the enormous
amounts of water humans require for this.

All these animals have adaptations to the environment of which there
are no signs of having been in early hominids. Granted that is desert
and we've been talking about the savannah, but the savannah in the dry
season gets as dry as a desert, particularly in drought years. I'd
show the adaptation savannah animals have made for surviving the dry
season but I can't find a single web page that discusses the subject,
beyond the fact that large savannah animals move around a lot in
search of watering holes. Problem is that predators like to lay in
wait around those holes to grab a meal.

Fortunately, recent discoveries make the matter moot by showing that
the early hominids were not living in a savannah environment, even if
reactionaries here keep wanting to cling to the idea.

Once again, I am not saying that the AAT is true, in any of its forms,
just that the hominids look less silly as foragers of aquatic food
from shallow waters than foragers of scarce food and water in a
savannah dry season.

Mark Reichert

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 2:40:34 AM1/2/03
to
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message news:<v12fn4q...@corp.supernews.com>...

> Earth to Mark, Earth to Mark, come in Mark.... Those passengers
> sitting on the left side of the cabin will see the bright lights coming
> from several straw men scattered in the fields below.

I don't speak gibberish. Could you provide a translation?

Mark Reichert

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 3:05:22 AM1/2/03
to
jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<ac6a5059.02123...@posting.google.com>...
> It's pretty important to be aware of just how dramatic
> was the shift in selective factors that took place with
> the shift from a rainforest habitat to a monsoon habitat.
> In the rainforest habitat their main concerns were sex
> and avoiding the occasional predator. In this new
> monsoon habitat they had to evolve strategies to prevent
> the inmigration of herds of other species or else their
> treed patch would become depleted and they'd be unable
> to survive through the dry season. Not surprisingly
> communalism, territorialism, and mob-oriented threat
> displays (directed against the inmigrating species) were
> the strategies that emerged to deal with these new
> selective factors.

I've never run across this argument in the documentaries I've seen or
the books or web pages I've read. Do you have any suggested books or
web pages I should check out?

It just occured to me that a monsoon habitat might also explain why
humans are such strong swimmers for an animal that spends most of its
time out of water. These patches would likely flood during the wet
season and strong swimming skills would be necessary to get around
safely. That and any other thought I have on the subject is sheer
speculation, but I have a problem believing that the swimming skills
of humans arose from dumb luck, without ever having been even the
slightest bit useful for survival.

Richard Wagler

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 3:56:44 AM1/2/03
to

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> "Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:3E120145...@shaw.ca...
>
> > Marc's ref is an article by Bartholomew and Wilke entitled 'Body
> Temperature in Northern Fur Seals" in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
> pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating from their flippers
> but go out of their way to point out how limited is the ability of these
> seals to handle heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would chivy
> the bachelor males away from the main rookery with the females and pups
> before shooting them and processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
> very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and they're stickin' to
> it - it was not uncommon for these seals to become overheated and even die
> during a trip of a few hundred yards. They do not provide any data re volume
> of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt to cite this for his claim that
> humans and fur seals are the 'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept.
> Rick Wagler
>
> Thanks, Wagler, at least you've done your homework. Fair comment except for
> the last sentence: not my fault that there are few data.

No but you are responsible for backing up your claims. You
should have accumulated your data before you made the claim
that humans and furseals are the 'sweatiest of mammals'. Having
discerned a paucity of data you should realize that you are in
no position to make that claim. Belatedly throwing in the
qualifier 'eccrine' really doesn't solve the problem. You are
now in the position of having to explain why eccrine sweating
for thermoregulation is importantly different from apocrine
sweating for thermoregulation. I don't know how much work
has gone into measuring the sweating of prairie dogs and
mountain goats and how effective it is but then I don't really
care. How does it work for humans? Quite well. In fact
handling heat stress is something humans do remarkably
well. Furseals, as we both agree, don't do it very well at
all. This orders of magnitude difference is noteworthy is
it not?

> The most recent
> info I read is AR Hoezel ed.2002 "Marine mammal biology" Blackwell, p.87:
> "sweat glands on the flippers of otariids aid in heat transfer. On hot days
> sea lions & fur seals can often be seen fanning their flippers & increasing
> evaporative heat loss at these sites" (Blix cs.1979 Am.J.Phys.236:R188). WN
> Mcfarland cs.1979 "Vertebrate life" Collier p.773: "tps that rise to only
> 10°C during the day. ... Almost any activity on land causes the seals to
> pant & raise their hind flippers (abundantly supplied with sweat glands) &
> wave them about." When somebody can give me info on eccrine thermoregulatory
> sweating in other mammals (or interesting info on sweating in general:
> apocrine or eccrine, amounts, possible functions...), I'll be grateful, but
> so far I haven't seen any. IOW, I don't have to change 1 letter of what I
> said:
>
> - AFAIK the most abundant thermoactive eccrine sweating is seen in human &
> sealions.

Except that this statement is supported by nothing but
anecdotal evidence. The authors of works on sea mammal
physiology did not, it seems, think it worth the effort to
compile comparative data from other terrestrial orders.
They simply content themselves with noting that however
much sweating sealions do it is rather ineffective. Your
AFAIK hides the ugly fact that you have squat for data
and your assertion is baseless. Leaving aside the question
of whether there is any significant functional difference
between apocrine and eccrine sweating as it pertains to
thermoregulation. I hope you agree that a horse that is
all lathered up after a hard ride is engaged in themo-
regulatory sweating.

>
>
> - Suggesting that our sweating evolved to cope with hot savanna conditions
> is ridiculous nonsense. Wishful thinking, typical of some (not you, Wagler)
> people here: sacvanna believers who have not more arguments in favour of
> their belief that creationists have in favor of theirs.

Why is it ridiculous nonsense? As I said humans handle
heat stress rather well. What selective pressure does
a swamp provide to help evolve that? Especially since
human esc is most effective at humidity of 50% or less.

And why bring seals into it at all? What do they
contribute? You stoutly deny that hominds ever
lived in habitats or engaged in a lifeway remotely
resembling that of a furseal so what the hell does
it matter what they do? Eccrine sweating in sealions
and humans is obviously not a case of similar selective
pressures producing similar adaptive responses so
what's the point?

Here's something to take a look at

Hanna, Joel M; Brown, Danial A. Human Heat Tolerance:
Biological and Cultural Adaptations
Yrbk Phys Anthropol 1979 22 163-186

Rick Wagler

Richard Wagler

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 4:27:41 AM1/2/03
to

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

"Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3E1351BA...@shaw.ca...

> > > One thing that the no trees in the savannah crowd keep missing

> > Whether or not savannas have trees is not so relevant. The point is: the
savanna believers used to think (not any more I hope?) that human ancestors
once walked over the African plains & evolved there nakedness, better sweat
glands, larger brains etc. You keep missing that this view is nonsense.

> The only thing that has been "overthrown" is the idea that hominids
evolved from day one in savannah environments which is to say bipedalism
since that is pretty much the defining characteristic of hominids though it
is probably not exclusive to them - depending on how bipedal Oreopithecus
actually is.

You still believe in fairy tales, Wagler. I thought you were smarter. Great
disappointment.
- Bipedalism: The early hominids (=Pan+Homo+Gorilla vs pongids=Pongo) were
already (short-legged) bipedals(+climbers). Both Sahelanthr.& Orrorin are
claimed to have been bipedal, 7-6 Ma, ie, at the time of the Homo-Pan split.
But this we had already predicted several years ago, based on comparative
data.

Sahelanthropus and Orrorin are very new. Who these guys
were and what they were up to is still up in the air.

 
- Nakedness: not seen in medium-sized savanna dwellers.

It's not seen in anything else either....except small whales.
And whales say what about human evolution?

 
- Sweat glands: humans & sealions: not savanna.

All mammals sweat. How much and how big a role
it plays in any species particular heat management
strategy is the question. The comparison of humans
and sealions only emphasizes the orders of magnitude
difference between them.

 
- Larger brains: not in savanna.

Sea mammals, right? Baboons are very
bright. Whales devote an awful lot of their
brain to echolocation a entire sensory
system which humans do not possess
in the slightest degree. Humans live in
savannahs so some savannah dwellers have
rather large brains.

 
- Etc.

> Big brains, tool-making etc etc probably were evolved in savannah/forest
margin habitats.

:-D    Man, go home. Ridiculous: there are no tool-using savanna mammals. No
big-brained ones. Please no just-so stories. Facts!

Define savannah. "Plains, whatever' was an instant
Verhaegen classic. Prepared to ride with that??

 

> Since the environments of **all** the hominid sites can be described
thusly

No, no. First, try to make the difference between apiths & Homo: apiths had
no big brains, were no (good) tool-users. Are you talking about hominids or
about Homo?? Don't mix up things.

I'm saying that a'piths were not ancestral chimps and it
is very likely that one of them gave rise to Homo.
Whic means that a whole lot of modern human
characters were started in a'piths. Too difficult to
understand?

 

1) apiths, eg, KE Reed 1997 JHE 32:289-322: "Reconstructed habitats show
that Australopithecus species existed in fairly wooded, well-watered
regions. Paranthropus species lived in similar environs and also in more
open regions, but always in habitats that include wetlands."

This same article makes the claim that Homo was more
adapted to drier, more open environments. If you're
going to take the one you should take the other...

 

2) Homo ca.1.8 Ma: from Algeria to Java - no specific relation to savanna.

And what was the Sahara in its good times if not a
savannah?

 

> why is it such a hair-raising leap of faith to say that early hominids
lived and evolved in these sorts of habitats?

Because it's nonsense. Based on a misinterpretation of Dart.

> You have yet to identify a limiting factor which keeps hominds out of
savannah/bushland/ forest margin habitats.

The comparative data, man. Which you neglect.

> The fact that hominoid apes don't take the same approach to things as gnus
and gazelles does not indicate what this limiting factor might be. What is
it?     Rick Wagler

Lots of limiting factors: skin, fat, kidneys, locomotion, sweat glands...
About everything shows that hominids & Homo are/were no savanna dwellers.
Nature 325:305-306, 1987: "... it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors
ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant.
Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have thermo-insulative subcutaneous
fat layers, which are never seen in savanna mammals. We have a water- and
sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a
dry environment (5). Our maximal urine concentration is much too low for a
savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need much more water than other primates,
and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink
large quantities at a time (7-8)."
 
 

All this proves is that you haven't a clue what ecologists
and biogeographers mean when they refer to a 'limiting
factor' which determines the extent of an organism's
range and habitat. Look it up. I might suggest that you
ask the world class evolutinary theorist who has again
graced this ng with his presence but that would be mean.

All the best in the new year

Rick Wagler
 

firstjois

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 10:51:49 AM1/2/03
to

"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.03010...@posting.google.com...
:

: Once again, I am not saying that the AAT is true, in any of its forms,


: just that the hominids look less silly as foragers of aquatic food
: from shallow waters than foragers of scarce food and water in a
: savannah dry season.

In the most recent issue of Discover (Page 11) there is a little section
titled "The Ancient Atkins Diet" which says that because European
settlements from around 10,000 B.C. are primarily found along coasts and
rivers, archaeologists assumed their inhabitants survived mostly on fish
and plants. Eh, eh, eh, chemical analysis of an unearthed bone showed
that the previous owner ate an almost exclusively carnivorous diet.
Remains of animals nearby...no fish or plant remains.

Silly must be a relative thing.

Jois


Bob Keeter

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 12:49:31 PM1/2/03
to
in article 3E14060D...@shaw.ca, Richard Wagler at taxi...@shaw.ca
wrote on 1/2/03 9:27 AM:

> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>

Snippage. . . . .

> I might suggest that you ask the world class evolutinary theorist who has


> again graced this ng with his presence but that would be mean.
>

Afraid that Marc probably doesnt care too much about the credentials for
anyone who does not instantly agree with his AAH concepts. Too bad. Its
entirely possible that some of the features he champions might actually be
worthy of consideration (not so much for the AAH as for the real reasons the
characteristics developed). With the "stigma" attached, I suppose it would
take a "world class" scientist to even raise the issues without seeming to
support AAH (and even sometimes the reputation is not sufficient shield!).
8-(

Still, its nice to know that at least some "important people" are listening
in. Just wish that they would comment more. 8-)

> All the best in the new year
>
> Rick Wagler
>

And a truely grand new year to you, Rick!

From the iced in confines of Northern Massachusetts. . . . . . .

Regards
bk


Bob Keeter

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 1:10:04 PM1/2/03
to
in article gySdnVRGWLw...@comcast.com, firstjois at
firstjo...@hotmail.com wrote on 1/2/03 3:51 PM:

Oh, "silly" might just be a REALLY bad choice of words! 8-)

Seriously, had not read the article; will fix that with todays mail I hope!
;-)

There is another "factor" perhaps. The area along a coastline or
river/lake/pond is often a biome very dense in animal protein. If you
happen to be a carnivore, your hunting is best where there are more things
to hunt! Well, DUH! Where do you find the most predators? Perhaps where
there is the most prey! 8-)

Frankly, I am surprised that the research, particularly when looking at the
sea coast sites, did not find at least SOME trace of sea food in the bones
or in the middens. Humans are notorious for exploiting just about every
food source in arms reach! Even if fish were not consistently on the menu
(often quite hard to catch, as many of us prove), oysters, crabs, clams,
scallops, and even sea birds have found themselves on the menu just about
every time they have come in contact with good ole HSS!

Regards
bk


Michael Clark

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 1:42:33 PM1/2/03
to
"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.0301...@posting.google.com...

Trouble with the English language, Mark? I see you have
no trouble parroting the language of the wet apes --right down
to a sequential listing of their talking points.

Never mind, everyone ~else~ got it (and I think you did, too).


deowll

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 1:58:55 PM1/2/03
to

"Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3e133d73$0$29632$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
I don't know when they lost the hair. It may not have been within millions
of years of when they became bipids. HH or HE may well have wandered around
in the open enough for this to kick in. The ideas suggested were tested and
the numbers are based on real studies. Hominids may have been in the open
enough that it occured sooner. I don't know.

Sweat glands are absolutely vital to people in warm weather. We have a kid
at school who doesn't have them and it is a life threating condition. If he
was in water at less than 90 degrees he wouldn't have the problem. You keep
missing that I switch my views based on the evidence.

The evidence is that exploiting food resources in and near water of no great
depth would have been part of a general foraging pattern that led to few if
any changes in modern humans. I've never seen any evidence of even one
adaption for life in water that couldn't be explained just as easily as an
adaption to life on land.

Considering the amount of chronic ear infection in human kids swimming
around in dirty water is the last thing they need to be doing. Swimmers ear
is pretty much a given.

deowll

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 2:08:29 PM1/2/03
to

"Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3e1376d6$0$39019$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Anybody is free to believe what they want. They are free to share those
beliefs.
Some people have found a few things that they think might indicate a more
bipidel stage in Pan Gorilla but it is a light year from being proof.
Any body who says they have proof that the ancestors of Pan and Gorilla were
bipids is pretty much by defination a lier or in urgent need of theropy.

> > Big brains, tool-making etc etc probably were evolved in savannah/forest
> margin habitats.
>
> :-D Man, go home. Ridiculous: there are no tool-using savanna mammals.
No
> big-brained ones. Please no just-so stories. Facts!
>

Total insanity.

> > Since the environments of **all** the hominid sites can be described
> thusly
>

Including HH and HE? NOT!

No point in even reading the rest.

deowll

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 2:25:52 PM1/2/03
to

"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.03010...@posting.google.com...

He pushed his pet theory a little hard and he's mad when lack of evidence
was noted. It isn't a new idea and may well have some grains of truth but th
e limits on how for to take it seemed to have hurt his feelings.

Tool and weapon use most likely increased slowly over a time span of at
least three or four million years after true bipids showed up. Correction at
least five or six million years and starting before true bipids showed up.
Will maybe it was seven or eight million years. I don't know when bipids
showed up for sure and I've never been sure all the differnt kids were
desecend from the same grandma and became a bipids at the same time.

deowll

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 2:28:11 PM1/2/03
to

"Mark Reichert" <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.03010...@posting.google.com...

> Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<BA372703.23340%rke...@earthlink.net>...
> > First: What is the most nearly obligate bipedal rodent, and what
> > environment is it found in? Why do you suppose that might be? Being
> > nocturnal, does it need its fur to protected it from the sun?
>
> No, it needs it's fur because the desert gets cold at night due to the
> heat radiating out to space through the clear dry air.
>
> > Second: In what is probably the most aquatic adapted of the rodents,
i.e.
> > the beaver, is it hairless?
>
> Why are we talking about the beaver? Never have the proponents of the
> AAT ever said that man's ancestors were a truly aquatic animal.

I've got a book some where unless the mice ate it that says you sir are out
to lunch. That was the origninal claim.

Bob Keeter

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 3:11:04 PM1/2/03
to
in article 6k0R9.51103$nc7....@news.bellsouth.net, deowll at
deo...@bellsouth.net wrote on 1/2/03 7:28 PM:

>>
>>> Second: In what is probably the most aquatic adapted of the rodents, i.e.
>>> the beaver, is it hairless?
>>>
>> Why are we talking about the beaver? Never have the proponents of the AAT
>> ever said that man's ancestors were a truly aquatic animal.
>>
> I've got a book some where unless the mice ate it that says you sir are out to
> lunch. That was the origninal claim.
>


Let me take a first shot at this one! 8-)

http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm

Even uses the beaver as an example of an "aquatic animal" for which humans
show similarities to! 8-)

http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/FoF/17Wind.htm

(One of Algis's pages, but I suspect that he might be dropping it soon!)

http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/aquatic.html

And here is a whole compendium of AAH pages.

One other thing to possibly consider. Of the various "adaptations" claimed,
I would propose that some are "advanced" adaptations and some are
"preliminary" adaptations. SC fat (for the purposes of insulation) is an
advanced adaptation in truely aquatic animals. You find significant layers
SC fat (blubber), adequate for some significant insulation effects in
pinepeds, cetaceans and such, not in river or sea otters. Loss of hair is
another "advanced" adaptation found only the species with major adaptation
to an aquatic existence. Certainly even the pinepeds still have fur (that
was one of the major reasons that they were almost hunted into extinction,
as were otters, beavers, etc).

Now for the "preliminary" adaptations. These would be adaptations that
could be effected by those animals with only a slight aquatic connection, or
adaptations that are more or less "across the board" for all aquatic
species. For example, name ONE truely aquatic, or even part time aquatic
species that does not have webbed feet to one degree or another? In the
case of some (cetaceans, pinnepeds, icthiosaurs, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs,
turtles, etc) the feet have morphed all the way back to almost fishlike
fins, in others (hippo, polar bear, beaver, platypus, crocs, ducks, frogs,
salamanders, etc. <Get the idea? Did I cover enough Classes, orders, and
species? 8-) > ), there is simple soft-tissue webbing.

IOW, name a demonstrably aquatic species that does not have at least some
significant degree of webbing? OR Name a species with webbing (less the bats
of course!) that is not aquatic? 8-)

Now, of all of the supposed "indicators" how many of those are only found on
the extreme cases of aquatic adaptation (i.e. pinepeds, cetaceans and such)?
If you want to claim these ARE hominid adaptations to an aquatic
environment, you are left presuming a degree of reliance on aquatic
environments equal to at least these species!

If you would like to claim a more casual connection to an aquatic existence,
where are the adaptations that would be common to all of the
"non-obligatory" aquatic species?

How can you have a "terminal stage adaptation" like "Blubber layers" without
having any of the most preliminary adaptations (like webbing)?

Anyway, the basic discussion was do any of the AAH advocates talk about a
true "aquatic ape" or just a coastal/riverbank ape?

Answer: Yep!

Regards
bk

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 5:25:20 PM1/2/03
to

"Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3E13FECB...@shaw.ca...

> > > Marc's ref is an article by Bartholomew and Wilke entitled 'Body
Temperature in Northern Fur Seals" in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating from their flippers
but go out of their way to point out how limited is the ability of these
seals to handle heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would chivy
the bachelor males away from the main rookery with the females and pups
before shooting them and processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and they're stickin' to
it - it was not uncommon for these seals to become overheated and even die
during a trip of a few hundred yards. They do not provide any data re volume
of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt to cite this for his claim that
humans and fur seals are the 'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept. Rick
Wagler

> > Thanks, Wagler, at least you've done your homework. Fair comment except
for the last sentence: not my fault that there are few data.

> No but you are responsible for backing up your claims. You should have
accumulated your data before you made the claim that humans and furseals are
the 'sweatiest of mammals'.

From everything we know, they are.

> Having discerned a paucity of data you should realize that you are in no
position to make that claim. Belatedly throwing in the qualifier 'eccrine'
really doesn't solve the problem.

Not belatedly:
- In 1985, I wrote: "The completely aquatic mammals lack sweat glands, but
at least one pinniped has the naked surface of its hindlimbs abundantly
supplied with thermoactive sweat glands; almost any activity on land, at air
temperatures that rarely exceed 10°C, causes Callorhinus to wave its
hindflippers about (15)."
- In 1991: "Of all the available strategies, human eccrine sweating combined
with low body temperature is the least well adapted to savannah conditions
and the least likely to have evolved in that type of habitat. As far as is
known, fur seals are the only non-human mammals which sweat thermoactively
through abundant eccrine glands (on their naked hind flippers) when they are
overheated on land (G. A. Bartholomew, in McFarland et al., 1979, p. 773)."

> You are now in the position of having to explain why eccrine sweating for
thermoregulation is importantly different from apocrine sweating for
thermoregulation.

I don't have to explain it. Why should I? I only noticed a remarkable
resemblance between otariids & humans.

Note also the word "abundant", eg, nonhuman terrestrials sweat far less
abundantly (Schmidt-Nielsen).

Wagler, try to discern comparative & functional arguments. Although almost
everything in biology is extremely functional, it's often impossible to know
the exact function: most structures have different functions (eg, sweat:
feromones, excretory, antimicrobial...), functions change of course (that's
evolution), and the same "goals" (eg, thermoregulation) can be achieved
through different means. But even if we don't know the function,
resemblances between different mammals are important data. The best
arguments are of course both functional & comparative.

> I don't know how much work has gone into measuring the sweating of prairie
dogs and mountain goats and how effective it is but then I don't really
care. How does it work for humans? Quite well. In fact handling heat stress
is something humans do remarkably well.

No, they do remarkably poor for land mammals. That's your problem to
explain.

> Furseals, as we both agree, don't do it very well at all. This orders of
magnitude difference is noteworthy is it not?

Humans are no furseals. Humans are terrestrial mammals with unusual features
that suggest human ancestors once spent a lot of time in water.


> > The most recent info I read is AR Hoezel ed.2002 "Marine mammal biology"
Blackwell, p.87: "sweat glands on the flippers of otariids aid in heat
transfer. On hot days sea lions & fur seals can often be seen fanning their
flippers & increasing evaporative heat loss at these sites" (Blix cs.1979
Am.J.Phys.236:R188). WN Mcfarland cs.1979 "Vertebrate life" Collier p.773:
"tps that rise to only 10°C during the day. ... Almost any activity on land
causes the seals to pant & raise their hind flippers (abundantly supplied
with sweat glands) & wave them about." When somebody can give me info on
eccrine thermoregulatory sweating in other mammals (or interesting info on
sweating in general: apocrine or eccrine, amounts, possible functions...),
I'll be grateful, but so far I haven't seen any. IOW, I don't have to change
1 letter of what I said: - AFAIK the most abundant thermoactive eccrine
sweating is seen in human & sealions.

> Except that this statement is supported by nothing but anecdotal evidence.

I'm glad you agree. Of course anecdotal. Not my fault. Darwin's whole theory
was based on anecdotal evidence...

> The authors of works on sea mammal physiology did not, it seems, think it
worth the effort to compile comparative data from other terrestrial orders.
They simply content themselves with noting that however much sweating
sealions do it is rather ineffective. Your AFAIK hides the ugly fact that
you have squat for data and your assertion is baseless. Leaving aside the
question of whether there is any significant functional difference between
apocrine and eccrine sweating as it pertains to thermoregulation. I hope you
agree that a horse that is all lathered up after a hard ride is engaged in
themo-regulatory sweating.

I guess so, but am not sure. What about feromones? fear? And horses sweat
much less than humans (Schmidt-Nielsen).

> > - Suggesting that our sweating evolved to cope with hot savanna
conditions is ridiculous nonsense. Wishful thinking, typical of some (not
you, Wagler) people here: sacvanna believers who have not more arguments in
favour of their belief that creationists have in favor of theirs.

> Why is it ridiculous nonsense?

Wasting sodium & water in the savanna.

> As I said humans handle heat stress rather well.

No, they don't: remarkably poor for terrestrial mammals.

> What selective pressure does a swamp provide to help evolve that?

Swamp?? Who's talking here about swamps?? Don't misrepresent my ideas,
Wagler! Very unfair.

> Especially since human esc is most effective at humidity of 50% or less.

esc?

What is the humidity at, eg, the Red Sea?

> And why bring seals into it at all?

1) Don't confuse seals with sealions! Inform, Wagler.
2) Only comparing: it's not my fault that AFAWK humans & sealions have the
most thermoactive eccrines. A possible explanation is not difficult in our
scenario of early Homo beach-combing. What is your explanation?

> What do they contribute? You stoutly deny that hominds ever lived in
habitats or engaged in a lifeway remotely resembling that of a furseal so
what the hell does it matter what they do? Eccrine sweating in sealions and
humans is obviously not a case of similar selective pressures producing
similar adaptive responses

What argument do you have to believe that??

> so what's the point? Here's something to take a look at Hanna, Joel M;
Brown, Danial A. Human Heat Tolerance: Biological and Cultural Adaptations
Yrbk Phys Anthropol 1979 22 163-186 Rick Wagler

What in this paper contradict my view?? What, Wagler?

Try to have a broader view, inform a bit about other mammals, read, eg,
Schmidt-Nielsen.

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 6:02:37 PM1/2/03
to

"Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3E14060D...@shaw.ca...

>>>> Whether or not savannas have trees is not so relevant. The point is:
the savanna believers used to think (not any more I hope?) that human
ancestors once walked over the African plains & evolved there nakedness,
better sweat glands, larger brains etc. You keep missing that this view is
nonsense.

>>> The only thing that has been "overthrown" is the idea that hominids
evolved from day one in savannah environments which is to say bipedalism
since that is pretty much the defining characteristic of hominids though it
is probably not exclusive to them - depending on how bipedal Oreopithecus
actually is.

>> You still believe in fairy tales, Wagler. I thought you were smarter.
Great disappointment. - Bipedalism: The early hominids (=Pan+Homo+Gorilla vs
pongids=Pongo) were already (short-legged) bipedals(+climbers). Both
Sahelanthr.& Orrorin are claimed to have been bipedal, 7-6 Ma, ie, at the
time of the Homo-Pan split. But this we had already predicted several years
ago, based on comparative data.

> Sahelanthropus and Orrorin are very new. Who these guys were and what they
were up to is still up in the air.

We predicted on comparative arguments that the early hominids (incl. the
ancestors of chimps & gorillas) were bipedal & climbing. Everything that has
been discovered afterwards confirms this.

>> - Nakedness: not seen in medium-sized savanna dwellers.

> It's not seen in anything else either....except small whales. And whales
say what about human evolution?

Being diurnal & becoming naked is not the smartest thing you can do in the
savanna.

>> - Sweat glands: humans & sealions: not savanna.

> All mammals sweat.

No. Inform a bit. Seacows & cetaceans don't sweat. Rodents, carnivores,
ruminants etc. have no body eccrines.

> How much and how big a role it plays in any species particular heat
management strategy is the question. The comparison of humans and sealions
only emphasizes the orders of magnitude difference between them.

??

>>- Larger brains: not in savanna.

> Sea mammals, right?

??

> Baboons are very bright.

Are they?? That's not the question: they have rel.small brains.

> Whales devote an awful lot of their brain to echolocation a entire sensory
system which humans do not possess in the slightest degree.

What have whales to do with savanna?

> Humans live in savannahs so some savannah dwellers have rather large
brains.

Ridiculous argument. Dogs live in space. Humans live at the north pole.

Everything we know suggest human invasion of savanna is rare & recent. See
H.Deacon on H.helmei.

>>- Etc.

>>> Big brains, tool-making etc etc probably were evolved in savannah/forest
margin habitats.

>> :-D Man, go home. Ridiculous: there are no tool-using savanna mammals.
No big-brained ones. Please no just-so stories. Facts!

>Define savannah. "Plains, whatever' was an instant Verhaegen classic.
Prepared to ride with that??

There are no big-brained mammals in whatever savanna. No tool-using ones.

>>> Since the environments of **all** the hominid sites can be described
thusly

>>No, no. First, try to make the difference between apiths & Homo: apiths
had no big brains, were no (good) tool-users. Are you talking about hominids
or about Homo?? Don't mix up things.

>I'm saying that a'piths were not ancestral chimps and it is very likely
that one of them gave rise to Homo.

Very likely? Possible.

>Whic means that a whole lot of modern human characters were started in
a'piths. Too difficult to understand?

Not 1 typically human feature is seen in apiths. No very long legs, no big
brain, no external nose. The humanlike features in apiths are most likely
primitive of hominids.

>>1) apiths, eg, KE Reed 1997 JHE 32:289-322: "Reconstructed habitats show
that Australopithecus species existed in fairly wooded, well-watered
regions. Paranthropus species lived in similar environs and also in more
open regions, but always in habitats that include wetlands."

> This same article makes the claim that Homo was more adapted to drier,
more open environments. If you're going to take the one you should take the
other...

You still don't understand our scenario, do you? Don't you think sea coasts
are more open? What is the humidity at the red Sea?

>>2) Homo ca.1.8 Ma: from Algeria to Java - no specific relation to
savanna.

>And what was the Sahara in its good times if not a savannah?

Sahara?? You mean Algeria? Do you have evidence Ain-Hanech was savanna??

Again: early Homo disprsal between Algeria & Java occurred along the sea
coasts. Where else??

This comment doesn't solve your problem that about everything shows that


hominids & Homo are/were no savanna dwellers. Nature 325:305-306, 1987: "...
it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas. Man
is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4)
but have thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in
savanna mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of
abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal
urine concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We
need much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than
savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8)."

Marc Verhaegen

http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 6:05:50 PM1/2/03
to

"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:v1920rg...@corp.supernews.com...

> Trouble with the English language, Mark? I see you have no trouble
parroting the language of the wet apes --right down to a sequential listing
of their talking points. Never mind, everyone ~else~ got it (and I think you
did, too).

Typical "arguments" of savanna believers... No content. Only blabla.


Jim McGinn

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 6:25:03 PM1/2/03
to
Mark_R...@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) wrote

> > It's pretty important to be aware of just how dramatic
> > was the shift in selective factors that took place with
> > the shift from a rainforest habitat to a monsoon habitat.
> > In the rainforest habitat their main concerns were sex
> > and avoiding the occasional predator. In this new
> > monsoon habitat they had to evolve strategies to prevent
> > the inmigration of herds of other species or else their
> > treed patch would become depleted and they'd be unable
> > to survive through the dry season. Not surprisingly
> > communalism, territorialism, and mob-oriented threat
> > displays (directed against the inmigrating species) were
> > the strategies that emerged to deal with these new
> > selective factors.
>
> I've never run across this argument in the documentaries I've seen or
> the books or web pages I've read. Do you have any suggested books or
> web pages I should check out?

No, you're not going to find anything that remotely
resembles this anywhere but in my writings on
sci.anthropology.paleo and sci.bio.evolution.

This is part of a larger hypothesis which I've been
developing independently for a number of years now.
The biggest and most recent breakthrough took place
about eight months ago. I documented this
breakthrough in a post entitled ECOLOGICAL GATEKEEPER
HYPOTHESIS. You should have no trouble finding it
in the achives on Google Groups.

>
> It just occured to me that a monsoon habitat might also explain why
> humans are such strong swimmers for an animal that spends most of its
> time out of water. These patches would likely flood during the wet
> season and strong swimming skills would be necessary to get around
> safely. That and any other thought I have on the subject is sheer
> speculation, but I have a problem believing that the swimming skills
> of humans arose from dumb luck, without ever having been even the
> slightest bit useful for survival.

I'd thought about this before and I think what you
are saying isn't off target. Humans do seem slightly
more adapted to water than apes (but I wouldn't
describe human swimming skills as strong). And I do
think my hypothesis lends itself to explaining this
because it indicates a high degree of proximity to
water. But keep in mind that all animals are to
some degree aquatic. And, IMO, the claims made by
AAT theorists are, if anything, even more
preposterous than those made by SAT theorists.

Regards,

Jim

Michael Clark

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 8:03:08 PM1/2/03
to
"Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3e14c5e4$0$39023$ba62...@news.skynet.be...

I believe this post was directed at "Mark", Marco. Why is it that you
have not responded to the post where I argue with you....hmmm?
Surely you didn't miss it --you responded to a fragment of it.


Mark Reichert

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 1:46:39 AM1/3/03
to
jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message news:<ac6a5059.03010...@posting.google.com>...

> This is part of a larger hypothesis which I've been
> developing independently for a number of years now.
> The biggest and most recent breakthrough took place
> about eight months ago. I documented this
> breakthrough in a post entitled ECOLOGICAL GATEKEEPER
> HYPOTHESIS. You should have no trouble finding it
> in the achives on Google Groups.

I'll check it out.



> I'd thought about this before and I think what you
> are saying isn't off target. Humans do seem slightly
> more adapted to water than apes (but I wouldn't
> describe human swimming skills as strong).

Not at all strong compared to animals who actually make their living
in any way related to the water, but stronger than animals that have
no use for water other than drinking it.

> And I do think my hypothesis lends itself to explaining this
> because it indicates a high degree of proximity to water.

Well, that was why I thought of it.

> But keep in mind that all animals are to
> some degree aquatic.

In that many, perhaps most, can 'dog paddle', yes, but I think any fit
human who knows how to swim would out distance most if not all of them
and be able to dive deeper.

> And, IMO, the claims made by
> AAT theorists are, if anything, even more
> preposterous than those made by SAT theorists.

I think that's unfortunate. Of course, the real question is when the
ability to swim fairly well arrived. For all we know it didn't arrive
until modern humans, though I find it easier to believe that breath
control came independantly and for other reasons before speech
developed from it.

Mark Reichert

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 3:01:47 AM1/3/03
to
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message news:<v1920rg...@corp.supernews.com>...

> Trouble with the English language, Mark?

No, just people trying to be cute with their putdowns rather than
speaking plain.

> I see you have
> no trouble parroting the language of the wet apes --right down
> to a sequential listing of their talking points.

Where have I stated support of the AAT other than that all modern
humans have the physical tools to swim better than one would think
given that there ancestors supposedly never needed to do so? Poking
holes in the notion that human ancestors made their living on the
savanna is not supporting the notion that they made their living in
the water most of the time.



> Never mind, everyone ~else~ got it (and I think you did, too).

I got it that you are another of the reactionary assholes who are so
threatened by anything resembiling an orginal thought that you post
putdowns rather than rational arguments.

You guys are proving McGinns point that humans are incredibly
territorial because you are acting like this newsgroup is your own
private preserve and you must do your utmost to kick everybody who
doesn't think like you out by whatever method that works.

Mark Reichert

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 3:05:37 AM1/3/03
to
"deowll" <deo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<6k0R9.51103$nc7....@news.bellsouth.net>...

> I've got a book some where unless the mice ate it that says you sir are out
> to lunch. That was the origninal claim.

If so, it was a silly claim, even if had great value in poking holes
in a theory that had entirely too little debate devoted to it.

By the way, was it necessary for you to quote my entire post to add
your two lines to it?

Mark Reichert

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 3:11:09 AM1/3/03
to
Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<BA3A0921.23494%rke...@earthlink.net>...

> Anyway, the basic discussion was do any of the AAH advocates talk about a
> true "aquatic ape" or just a coastal/riverbank ape?
>
> Answer: Yep!

See my answer elsewhere.

I still find it interesting that you people still act like anybody
poking holes in the savanna theory is 1) a closet Aquatic Ape
proponent and 2) a threat to this newsgroup that must be beaten out.
Might it be a bit of irrational and unwarranted territoriality?

Mark Reichert

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 3:20:43 AM1/3/03
to
Bob Keeter <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<BA39ECC5.2346C%rke...@earthlink.net>...

> Oh, "silly" might just be a REALLY bad choice of words! 8-)

What's not silly is that you and the others jumped on my ignorance of
the more extreme claims by the AAT proponents and completely ignored
my points on how badly adapted humans are for hot and dry environments
for a species whose ancestors supposedly spent a great deal of time in
such environments.

Some of the AAT people may be wackos but at least they are trying to
forge new ground rather than reactionarily clinging to an outmoded
idea belonging to an ignorant past.

Pauline M Ross

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 8:32:42 AM1/3/03
to
On 3 Jan 2003 00:01:47 -0800, Mark_R...@hotmail.com (Mark
Reichert) wrote:

>You guys are proving McGinns point that humans are incredibly
>territorial because you are acting like this newsgroup is your own
>private preserve and you must do your utmost to kick everybody who
>doesn't think like you out by whatever method that works.

This place is not good for sensible discussion. If you want to talk
about the AAT (or any other area of paleoanthropology) without all the
aggravation, you're welcome to join the AAT group on Yahoo (an email
or web-based list). There are also Yahoo groups which prefer not to
talk about AAT, namely [Palanthsci], [PaleoAnthro] and
[Paleoanthropology]. All are vastly more sensible than sap.

--
Pauline Ross

firstjois

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 9:48:46 AM1/3/03