The Aquatic Ape - news
Douglas Adams
impressed by the arguments, and then very surprised when trying to find any
reference to the theory in any of the other literature on origins that the
AAT was only ever dismissed, never actually answered. I spoke to Richard
Dawkins about it, whose initial reaction was that the theory was not really
regarded as a serious issue. I pleaded with him to read the book and
eventually he did. When next I spoke to him he said, rather thoughtfully,
that he would love to know what was wrong with the argument because he
couldn't see it. His view (and I'm paraphrasing him here) was that there was
a strong case to be answered, but that it would be a good idea to try and
come up with a serious method of testing it. His guess was that the reason
it was not taken seriously was that most of the people working in this field
were used to looking to the fossil record for evidence, and there simply
isn't any - but then it is fairly astonishing that we have any evidence for
anything in the fossil record. Absence of fossil evidence in this instance
doesn't in itself constitute evidence against the argument, it just means we
have to look to other types of test. He has roughed out a proposal for a
statistical method of comparing aquatic with non-aquatic mammals in
considerable detail and feels that this might give us some clear pointers.
The upshot of all this is that Elaine Morgan is giving a seminar at the
Zoological Department in Oxford next week, and Richard very much hopes that
her critics will turn up and engage in some serious argument. Sadly it
suddenly appears that he may not be able to attend himself. I'm going, and
will report here what happens.
Incidentally - what book was being reviewed which gave rise to all this
correspondence?
Here's an extract from a letter I sent to Richard Dawkins about all this.
I'd need to ask his permission to reproduce his replies in detail, but I've
given the gist.
>I've been reading Elaine Morgan's books again,
>starting with the last one, the Scars of Evolution (SOE), and I'm rather
>frustrated. As a layman, though I hope a reasonably well-informed one, I find
>her arguments extremely persuasive, and I want to know what the
>counter-arguments are. However, I can't find them. Whenever I pick up a book on
>evolution I look in the index, but never find any reference whatever. The only
>exception is a book I saw recently called 'Self-Made Man' by Jonathan Kingdon,
>which dismissed the theory as 'eccentric'. In a world which has given us the
>duck-billed platypus and quantum theory I'd like a slightly more compelling
>argument than that.
>Over the weekend I went to The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution
(CEHE)
>to try and find some answers to some of the points that EM raises. It makes no
>mention of the actual theory and perhaps its authors feel no obligation to
>record or answer every crackpot notion that emerges from outside the academic
>mainstream, but I was still surprised continually to hit brick walls over
>specifics.
>For instance: EM makes much of the fact that man, uniquely amongst terrestrial
>mammals, is bipedal. She argues that there is a very great difference between
an
>anatomical structure which is essentially quadrapedal but allows for bipedal
>locomotion on occasions, and an anatomical structure that is exclusively
>bipedal. She maintains that there is no argument in favour of an animal making
>the huge anatomical changes and sacrifices necessary that wouldn't apply
equally
>to many other animals, none of which have made that change. (The argument which
>says that man, uniquely, became bipedal in order to carry tools implies that
man
>intended to become toolmakers which is obviously ridiculous, but nevertheless
>seems to slip past people's defences with surprising ease.)
>I looked up bipedalism in the CEHE, but while it went into the mechanism of
>bipedalism in some detail, it passed over the question of how it could possibly
>have arisen rather briefly and vaguely (p79), which surprised me. Isn't the
>evolution of a completely unique and expensive feature like bipedalism rather
>significant?
>EM also makes much of our hairlessness, also an almost unique feature amongst
>terrestrial mammals. How did that arise? I looked in the CEHE but there was no
>entry for 'hair' in the index. I would have thought that the evolutionary
>signicance of hair in the only terrestrial mammal to have dispensed with it was
>worth a mention. So I tried to track the subject down by following various
other
>leads from EM's chapter on hair.
>For instance she talks at length about the relative functions of eccrine and
>apocrine glands in other animals and in ourselves. She says that whereas we
>might expected to have apocrine scent and sweat glands all over our bodies like
>our ancestors, ours have atrophied and are only found in limited areas of the
>body. Instead we now sweat dilute salt water from modified eccrine glands,
which
>other animals use to secret moisture on to their paws to get a good grip.
>Whatever the reason for this change, (and EM, of course, argues that it flows
>directly from our alleged aquatic period) something must have caused it. If not
>an aquatic period, then what? I looked up eccrine and apocrine glands in the
>CEHE and found almost nothing, certainly no sense that there was anything here
>that needed to be investigated or explained. Is EM right that our arrangement
is
>highly unusual? If it is highly unusual isn't that significant? If it is
>significant, then what is wrong with the consequent arguments made by EM? Maybe
>a lot - I just can't find out what.
>The CEHE mentions eccrine glands in the entry about sweat on page 48. It says
>that our sweating mechanism is particularly effective because it pours copious
>quantities of weakly saline water on to our skin to cool us down. This means of
>course that we have to pour copious quantities of water back into ourselves. It
>doesn't make clear why this profligate expenditure of moisture (which often
>drips off us before it has a chance to cool us by evaporation) is better for us
>than the more economical systems used by other terrestrial mammals. The entry
>states that 'our lack of body hair also ensures that sweat provides very
>efficient cooling as it evaporates from the heated skin.' If this is true, then
>why is it that every other terrestrial mammal uses fur as an insulator against
>both heat and cold, while humans have to wear clothes to cope with either? I
>wouldn't like to have to wander round the savannah during the day protected
only
>by my sweat glands. Or at night, for that matter. There is no entry in the
index
>for 'clothes'.
>EM also says that human skin is unusual in having an abundance of subcutaneous
>fat, which is characteristic of marine rather than terrestrial mammals. From
all
>this she draws a variety of conclusions which support her thesis in a pretty
>logical and straightforward way.
>P49 of the CEHE makes the only mention of subcutaneous fat, but doesn't say
>whether we have more or less of it than other mammals. It notes that 'Fat is
>particularly beneficial in cold water, because neither fur nor clothing
provides
>significant insulation in these conditions.' It doesn't follow this line of
>thought anywhere, though, other than to say that successful Channel swimmers
are
>usually the fatter ones.
>
>And so it goes on. As a result I'm rather stuck in knowing how to evaluate EM's
>arguments because I can't find anything to put up against them, except the
>notion that the whole idea is 'eccentric' Which bit is eccentric? The idea of
an
>animal being forced by geological upheaval to move into an aquatic environment
>and having to adapt to it? Hardly - we know of many such cases, the cetaceans,
>the sirenians, etc. Perhaps the idea of an aquatic animal being forced into a
>land environment and having to adapt to that? No - plenty of examples again. So
>is it the idea that an animal might have been forced into an aquatic
>environment, started to adapt, and was then forced back into a land
environment?
>Well, it's getting a bit happenstantial isn't it? *That's* what we can't stand.
>We like the idea of man emerging from the forests on to the savannah, standing
>up, shedding his hair, and gripping his spear because it allows us to feel that
>we were in charge of our own destiny, that our evolution came about as a result
>of the exercise of our own will and intelligence. I'm sure there are many
>dedicated Darwinians who remain unconsciously in the grip of that myth. That's
>why we don't really need to worry too much about things like bipedalism,
>hairlessness, distribution of sweat glands, subcutaneous fat etc., etc. They
are
>details that will fall into place in the grand upward march of human evolution.
>The underlying assumption is that the place at which we have arrived is the one
>towards which we have always been inexorably heading. To think anything else
>makes us feel insecure of our very existence.
>
>The Aquatic Ape Theory, by contrast, gives us picture of a world which happened
>to tip a few of us into the water and then happened to tip us back out again
>when we were half-done. Never mind that many animals have histories which are
at
>least as complicated as that, it's so horribly undignified, so horribly
>accidental, so horribly little to do with the exercise of our own will. It
can't
>be that!
>
>The AAT may of course be wildly wrong. But if it is, I'd like to know what the
>answers to its arguments are, and not just feel that it's floating about,
>ignored, unanswered and dismissed as being embarrassing. If it is wrong, then I
>strongly suspect that the real truth, when we know it, will turn out to be just
>as accidental, just as embarrassing, and just as quickly dismissed as being
>'eccentric'.
>
>Where can I find point by point counterarguments?
Douglas Adams
London, UK
William Calvin
I haven't seen any real refutation of it. There was a conference on the
theory several years ago that has appeared in book form:
THE AQUATIC APE: FACT OR FICTION?
edited by Machteld Roede, Jan Wind, John Patrick, Vernon Reynolds
Souvenir Press (1991)
I reviewed some of the arguments in my 1986 book THE RIVER THAT FLOWS
UPHILL, pretty much agreeing with Morgan. The physical anthropologists
are fundamentally anatomists: when they say "There's no evidence," what
they mean is that there is no anatomical evidence (except, of course,
those hips and knee rearrangements in place before 3 myr for which some
selective pressure is needed to explain). The archaeologists say there's
no evidence, but none of their evidence goes back before 2.5myr anyway
and the aquatic phase is probably back around 7-5 myr.
Fundamentally all of the problems posed by the aquatic ape theory
are physiological in nature, most of which doesn't fossilize very well.
(Alistar Hardy was the marine mammal physiologist who proposed the theory
in 1960). The anthro folks tend to avoid discussing physiology, not feeling
very much at home in the subject. So I don't take their dismissal of it
(seldom in print but frequently in conversation) very seriously.
William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
University of Washington NJ-15
Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences
Seattle, Washington 98195 FAX:1-206-720-1989
Marko Amnell
I read the Elaine Morgan book 'Scars of Evolution' a while ago,
I dunno, it all sounds pretty Fishy to me.
--
Marko Amnell
amn...@klaava.helsinki.fi
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
>I reviewed some of the arguments in my 1986 book THE RIVER THAT FLOWS
>UPHILL, pretty much agreeing with Morgan. The physical anthropologists
>are fundamentally anatomists: when they say "There's no evidence," what
>they mean is that there is no anatomical evidence (except, of course,
>those hips and knee rearrangements in place before 3 myr for which some
>selective pressure is needed to explain). The archaeologists say there's
>no evidence, but none of their evidence goes back before 2.5myr anyway
>and the aquatic phase is probably back around 7-5 myr.
> Fundamentally all of the problems posed by the aquatic ape theory
>are physiological in nature, most of which doesn't fossilize very well.
>(Alistar Hardy was the marine mammal physiologist who proposed the theory
>in 1960). The anthro folks tend to avoid discussing physiology, not feeling
>very much at home in the subject. So I don't take their dismissal of it
>(seldom in print but frequently in conversation) very seriously.
> William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
> University of Washington NJ-15
> Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences
> Seattle, Washington 98195 FAX:1-206-720-1989
>
The Aquatic Ape theory is discussed in print by Bradshaw and Rogers "The
Evolution of Lateral Asymmetries, Language, Tool Use and Intellect,",
Chapter 7. They claim that the paleoclimatic evidence (the move to the
seashore and aquatic/semi-aquatic life was the result of drought in the
late Miocene.) is weak and that the nearly unique use of sweating for
thermoregulation in humans would not have been of much help in the water.
There are a number of hypotheses proposed to explain to origin of
bipedalism. Some of the evidence cited by Morgan (face to face copulation,
subcutaneous fat) display an ethnocentric bias. Face to face copulation is
by no means universal and there is a great deal of cultural variability.
Also, the pygmie chimpanzees are known to engage in face-to-face copulation.
Patterns of subcutaneous fat distribution are highly variable in human
populations as well as between the sexes. Why would an aquatic lifestyle
produce different trends in males and females?
--
Philip Nicholls "To ask a question,
Department of Anthropology you must first know
SUNY Albany most of the answer."
pn8...@thor.albany.edu
William Calvin
>The Aquatic Ape theory is discussed in print by Bradshaw and Rogers "The
>Evolution of Lateral Asymmetries, Language, Tool Use and Intellect,",
>Chapter 7. They claim that the paleoclimatic evidence (the move to the
>seashore and aquatic/semi-aquatic life was the result of drought in the
>late Miocene.) is weak and that the nearly unique use of sweating for
>thermoregulation in humans would not have been of much help in the water.
>
Agree. But no one claims that the aquatic theory is a substitute for a
savannah phase (I suspect it's a predecessor phase).
>Patterns of subcutaneous fat distribution are highly variable in human
>populations as well as between the sexes. Why would an aquatic lifestyle
>produce different trends in males and females?
>
Good question. Perhaps an equal distribution from an aquatic phase was
skewed by males preferentially engaging in long chases in a later
savannah phase, and surviving better with less thermal insulation during
such heat stress. BTW, there's a chapter on adipose tissue distribution
by Caroline M. Pond in the Roede et al book 1991.
William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
>pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) writes:
>
>>The Aquatic Ape theory is discussed in print by Bradshaw and Rogers "The
>>Evolution of Lateral Asymmetries, Language, Tool Use and Intellect,",
>>Chapter 7. They claim that the paleoclimatic evidence (the move to the
>>seashore and aquatic/semi-aquatic life was the result of drought in the
>>late Miocene.) is weak and that the nearly unique use of sweating for
>>thermoregulation in humans would not have been of much help in the water.
>>
>Agree. But no one claims that the aquatic theory is a substitute for a
>savannah phase (I suspect it's a predecessor phase).
Ok. But I just don't see what an aquatic theory offers that does not
create more problems than it solves. For example, once we made the
transition to the aquatic life, why did we then go back to the
savannah? At some point evolutionary changes produce constraints
that make it unlikely that an organism will reverse the direction of
morphological change.
Another problem I have is that there seems to not have been enough
time to produce something like toe webbing yet enough time to alter
fat distribution patterns, cause hair to be lost and change the
shape of our nose cartalage.
>
>>Patterns of subcutaneous fat distribution are highly variable in human
>>populations as well as between the sexes. Why would an aquatic lifestyle
>>produce different trends in males and females?
>>
>Good question. Perhaps an equal distribution from an aquatic phase was
>skewed by males preferentially engaging in long chases in a later
>savannah phase, and surviving better with less thermal insulation during
>such heat stress. BTW, there's a chapter on adipose tissue distribution
>by Caroline M. Pond in the Roede et al book 1991.
This seems to suggest that heat stress was not a problem for females.
Assuming we accept transition models of the division of labor in
hunter-gather groups, extended gathering would subject females to as
much, perhaps more heat stress.
My over all impression is that does not offer enough extra explanatory
power to justify the violation of Occam's razor.
>
> William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
William Calvin
>>>Patterns of subcutaneous fat distribution are highly variable in human
>>>populations as well as between the sexes. Why would an aquatic lifestyle
>>>produce different trends in males and females?
>>>
>>Good question. Perhaps an equal distribution from an aquatic phase was
>>skewed by males preferentially engaging in long chases in a later
>>savannah phase, and surviving better with less thermal insulation during
>>such heat stress. BTW, there's a chapter on adipose tissue distribution
>>by Caroline M. Pond in the Roede et al book 1991.
>This seems to suggest that heat stress was not a problem for females.
>Assuming we accept transition models of the division of labor in
>hunter-gather groups, extended gathering would subject females to as
>much, perhaps more heat stress.
>My over all impression is that does not offer enough extra explanatory
>power to justify the violation of Occam's razor.
The major heat stressor is endurance running (chasing game animals until
they drop); males probably did a lot more of it, unencumbered by
infants. And if you play the Occam's Razor game (trying to explain
everything by one selective pressure) between savannah and aquatic, I
think you'll find that aquatic explains a lot more anatomical AND
physiological aspects than does savannah. I prefer to assume, since I'm
impressed by some of the heat stressor arguments ala Pete Wheeler, that
it was aquatic followed by savannah.
William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
Paul J Hollander
>
>>The Aquatic Ape theory is discussed in print by Bradshaw and Rogers "The
>>Evolution of Lateral Asymmetries, Language, Tool Use and Intellect,",
>>Chapter 7. They claim that the paleoclimatic evidence (the move to the
>>seashore and aquatic/semi-aquatic life was the result of drought in the
>>late Miocene.) is weak and that the nearly unique use of sweating for
>>thermoregulation in humans would not have been of much help in the water.
>>
>Agree. But no one claims that the aquatic theory is a substitute for a
>savannah phase (I suspect it's a predecessor phase).
I wonder if the human sweat glands could have started out for getting rid of
excess salt in the aquatic phase and then been coopted for thermoregulation in
the savannah phase.
Paul Hollander phol...@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.
Gavin Brebner
Like Douglas Adams, I am a layman who has read Elaine Morgan's book, and
been very impressed by the arguments. I have also been looking to find
out more about this theory - in particular what the counter-arguments are
(if any) to this rather elegant theory. So far all I have managed to hear
are vague "well I read something somewhere that claimed that there was a
problem with some of the things she said ... " but no more detail.
Is there any discussion of this material anywhere ? At the very least she
raises some pretty serious questions about the traditional theory that one
would hope had been addressed by someone, somewhere .... I am subscribed
to this newsgroup solely to try and hear a bit more about the AAT, but this
has been the first post on this I've seen.
---
Gavin Brebner,
Advanced Computer Research Institute,
69443 Lyon Cedex 03, France
Helgi Briem Magnusson
>In article <291oc3$6...@news.u.washington.edu> wca...@stein1.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>>pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) writes:
>transition to the aquatic life, why did we then go back to the
>savannah? At some point evolutionary changes produce constraints
>that make it unlikely that an organism will reverse the direction of
>morphological change.
>
Note that after the period of flooding in Africa there was a period
of drought.
>Another problem I have is that there seems to not have been enough
>time to produce something like toe webbing yet enough time to alter
>fat distribution patterns, cause hair to be lost and change the
>shape of our nose cartalage.
It is very difficult to predict the time required for an evolutionary
change to occur. Also, toe webbing might have gone all the way and
then disappeared as humans came back on land.
Despite all my quibbling, I wish to point out that one cannot
prove or disprove any hypothesis by storytelling. Plausibility
is not proof and I have yet to see any testable, scientific
hypotheses coming out of the aquatic ape story. It remains
an attractive little tale, though, which would explain a lot
if it turned out to be true.
Helgi Briem
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
Our knowledge of hunter-gather behaviors are drawn entirely from
observed behaviors of modern hunter-gathers. This may or may not
be appropriate. If we assume they are for the moment we see that
!Kung hunters don't chase animals till they drop. The shoot them
with a poison and then follow them until the poison makes them too
sick to run away.
It has also been proposed that early hominids didn't hunt so much
as scavange. I am familar with Wheeler's work on heat stress but
I don't see how that helps an aquatic or semi-aquatic ape. Perhaps
I need to go back and read it again.
I don't think all of human anatomy / pongid anatomy divergences
are due to a single selection pressure. Presently there are no
living savanna apes and, as you have pointed out, the only
evidence we have to work with that can directly show us how
evolution operated in the remote past is that which can be
fossilized. While these include mostly hard tissues we can
also get a look at some of the gross morphology of the brain
and blood flow to the brain. An aquatic environment is an
unnecessary complication.
You have interested me enough to look at Morgan's work beyond
secondary sources and my main reason for posting was to point
out a place where her ideas were discussed in print.
Gavin Brebner
>
>The Aquatic Ape theory is discussed in print by Bradshaw and Rogers "The
>Evolution of Lateral Asymmetries, Language, Tool Use and Intellect,",
>Chapter 7. They claim that the paleoclimatic evidence (the move to the
>seashore and aquatic/semi-aquatic life was the result of drought in the
>late Miocene.) is weak and that the nearly unique use of sweating for
>thermoregulation in humans would not have been of much help in the water.
>
But, at least in EM's book, I am pretty sure there was no claim that the uniquely
bad method of sweating was developed for thermoregulation until after the
aquatic phase. If I remember rightly the hypothesis was that it was a
evolutionary rush job when aquatic life had changed to a more land-based
lifestyle. Nor was there any claim that the aquatic phase was forced
because of a drought - just that the seashore was a good place to be for food,
and hence it was quite possible for semi-aquatic ape to develop along the
lines of modern proboscis monkeys, and at least one other extinct species of
ape.
>There are a number of hypotheses proposed to explain to origin of
>bipedalism. Some of the evidence cited by Morgan (face to face copulation,
>subcutaneous fat) display an ethnocentric bias. Face to face copulation is
>by no means universal and there is a great deal of cultural variability.
EM does not claim that bipedalism is due to sex - it is one of the competing
theories that she mentions whilst doing a tour of alternatives to AAT.
>Also, the pygmie chimpanzees are known to engage in face-to-face copulation.
For that matter so are orangutans according to E.M.
>Patterns of subcutaneous fat distribution are highly variable in human
>populations as well as between the sexes. Why would an aquatic lifestyle
>produce different trends in males and females?
>
>
---
Gavin Brebner
Mark O. Wilson
|Douglas Adams doth write:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| I read the Elaine Morgan book 'Scars of Evolution' a while ago,
| and was very impressed by the arguments . . .
|I dunno, it all sounds pretty Fishy to me.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Paul Keck
>In article <291oc3$6...@news.u.washington.edu> wca...@stein1.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>
>Another problem I have is that there seems to not have been enough
>time to produce something like toe webbing yet enough time to alter
>fat distribution patterns, cause hair to be lost and change the
>shape of our nose cartalage.
Maybe toe webbing (more than we've got) is disadvantageous during short forays
on land. Maybe it was lost during the savannah stage.
>>>Patterns of subcutaneous fat distribution are highly variable in human
>>>populations as well as between the sexes. Why would an aquatic lifestyle
>>>produce different trends in males and females?
>>>
>>Good question. Perhaps an equal distribution from an aquatic phase was
>>skewed by males preferentially engaging in long chases in a later
>>savannah phase, and surviving better with less thermal insulation during
>>such heat stress.
>
>This seems to suggest that heat stress was not a problem for females.
I think the heat stress thing may be a red herring. Females are likely to
become pregnant at any time, and need to have some fat stored up. I think
this is the prime reason females have more fat- not any running/baby
carrying argument.
Also, someone mentioned that sweat wouldn't be any use under water. True, but
when one is immersed in water there is not a problem with heat dissipation- it
heat conservation you have to worry about. Why do we sweat instead of panting
or something else? Heck, I don't know, but that underwater/sweat argument is
irrelevant. Sweating isn't very effective under long hair, so maybe when we
became hairless it opened up the more effective sweating route as an option.
Paul Keck I'm not an aquatic ape, but I play one on TV.
>> William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
>pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) wrote:
>>Another problem I have is that there seems to not have been enough
>>time to produce something like toe webbing yet enough time to alter
>>fat distribution patterns, cause hair to be lost and change the
>>shape of our nose cartalage.
>Maybe toe webbing (more than we've got) is disadvantageous during short forays
>on land. Maybe it was lost during the savannah stage.
B
It doesn't seem to do ducks or beavers any harm. >
>>This seems to suggest that heat stress was not a problem for females.
>
>I think the heat stress thing may be a red herring. Females are likely to
>become pregnant at any time, and need to have some fat stored up. I think
>this is the prime reason females have more fat- not any running/baby
>carrying argument.
Heat stress is a very real problem, as anyone who has had to work on
the "low velt" in the hot african sun will tell you. This is, I think,
a major problem with an aquatic stage. We have definite evidence of
living on savannah at a time when things were hot and dry. Why move
from a nice seashore to which you are well adapted onto a nasty, hot,
dry savannah?
Bill Calvin is proposing that the differences in fat distribution have
something to do with differences in heat stress in males and females.
I don't think males experience more heat stress. If modern hunter-
gathers are a guide, women work as hard, perhaps harder, in the hot
sun..
>Also, someone mentioned that sweat wouldn't be any use under water. True, but
>when one is immersed in water there is not a problem with heat dissipation- it
>heat conservation you have to worry about. Why do we sweat instead of panting
>or something else? Heck, I don't know, but that underwater/sweat argument is
>irrelevant. Sweating isn't very effective under long hair, so maybe when we
>became hairless it opened up the more effective sweating route as an option.
>
As has been mentioned, the development of sweating as a thermoregulation
method would have occurred in the savannah.
A
--
William Calvin
>Heat stress is a very real problem, as anyone who has had to work on
>the "low velt" in the hot african sun will tell you. This is, I think,
>a major problem with an aquatic stage. We have definite evidence of
>living on savannah at a time when things were hot and dry. Why move
>from a nice seashore to which you are well adapted onto a nasty, hot,
>dry savannah?
Why? Red tides. Periodically, the edible shellfish supply has big
problems. Emigrating along the shore aways might help, but expanding
inland along a river might have also worked, just using a more typical
ape food supply.
William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
Hank Roberts
>sweating isn't very effective underwater
Hmmmm ... it happens anyhow, I recall from swimming in too-warm pools,
and it certainly flushes a lot of salt out of the body. Would that ge
be a useful operation for an aquatic ape in salt water?
William Calvin
>>sweating isn't very effective underwater....
>Hmmmm ... it happens anyhow, I recall from swimming in too-warm pools,
>and it certainly flushes a lot of salt out of the body. Would that ge
>be a useful operation for an aquatic ape in salt water?
It's a way to get rid of excess salt, but since sweat is usually
hypotonic it would work only if you were able to drink fresh water
regularly. It's one of the arguments for tearing, much more copious in
humans than in other primates, as being part of the aquatic ape
features: it's a way to get rid of excess salt in the diet.
I tend to believe it, as our kidneys don't conserve very much
water compared to other primates; they can go a lot longer than we can
between drinks.
William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
Paul Keck
>In article <294msm$2...@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> ke...@zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>>pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) wrote:
>
>>Maybe toe webbing (more than we've got) is disadvantageous during short forays
>>on land. Maybe it was lost during the savannah stage.
>
Yeah, but can they wear flip-flops?
Seriously, I was just trying to point out that the absence of webbing doesn't
invalidate the AAT. The webbing might interfere with climbing around the
intertidal zone, or it could have been there and lost later. Besides, if you
want to duel with animal examples, there are plenty of storks, egrets,
sandpipers, crabs, raccoons, etc. that feed in the intertidal and have no
webbing. (What an image- "I'll see you at dawn, sir! Piping plovers at 20
yards!") The theory should be called the SEMI aquatic ape theory.
>Heat stress is a very real problem, [...]
I don't disagree, but I also don't think we can say that heat stress is the
only possible explanation for different fat distribution patterns. In fact,
doing so violates Occam's Razor, since you then need to invoke a hypothetical
difference in activity levels between males and females. Males and females
already differ in their need for an energy reserve- females need to keep some
extra fat around. If it was all kept where males keep it, i.e. a spare tire,
it might well get in the way. Better to spread it around the body.
>Bill Calvin is proposing that the differences in fat distribution have
>something to do with differences in heat stress in males and females.
>I don't think males experience more heat stress. If modern hunter-
>gathers are a guide, women work as hard, perhaps harder, in the hot
>sun..
I agree, Philip. Bill, do you see my point here?
>As has been mentioned, the development of sweating as a thermoregulation
>method would have occurred in the savannah.
I agree again. Presence of sweat glands is not a strike against the AAT.
They don't even need to have been evolved during the savannah period- it's
plenty hot on the beach and dunes.
Other people have postulated in other posts of this thread that tears and
sweating were developed to excrete salt. I tend to doubt it, since tears and
sweat are hypo- to isotonic. This would mean that you'd have to drink a lot
of fresh water to get significant salt excretion. If you have to drink fresh
water anyway, your kidneys can do just fine at excreting excess salt.
Paul Keck I'm not a kidney, but I play one on TV.
>Philip Nicholls "To ask a question,
Chris Malcolm
>>In article <291oc3$6...@news.u.washington.edu> wca...@stein1.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>>Another problem I have is that there seems to not have been enough
>>time to produce something like toe webbing yet enough time to alter
>>fat distribution patterns, cause hair to be lost and change the
>>shape of our nose cartalage.
>Maybe toe webbing (more than we've got) is disadvantageous during short forays
>on land. Maybe it was lost during the savannah stage.
Toe and finger webbing is a rare but well-known human genetic "abnormality".
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Chris Malcolm
>Why move
>from a nice seashore to which you are well adapted onto a nasty, hot,
>dry savannah?
For the same reason they moved from forest foragers into the sea --
they had no choice. Geological and climatic changes forced them to
forage in the sea when their mountain forest became an island and lost
its trees. When the sea retreated they were forced back onto land. The
migration pathway of the early humanoid fossils along the Great Rift
Valley moves away from a place with exactly that geological history.
ansp...@news.delphi.com
>In article <1993Oct9.0...@sarah.albany.edu> pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) writes:
>>Why move
>>from a nice seashore to which you are well adapted onto a nasty, hot,
>>dry savannah?
>For the same reason they moved from forest foragers into the sea --
>they had no choice. Geological and climatic changes forced them to
>forage in the sea when their mountain forest became an island and lost
>its trees. When the sea retreated they were forced back onto land. The
>migration pathway of the early humanoid fossils along the Great Rift
>Valley moves away from a place with exactly that geological history.
I'm tuning in late to this thread, so I apologivze if this has already
been hashed over, but...
Is the human descended larynx an aid to aquatic activity, like
holding one's breath underwater, and if so, would that mean that
the descended larynx qualifies as a preadaptation for speech?
William Calvin
>I'm tuning in late to this thread, so I apologivze if this has already
>been hashed over, but...
>Is the human descended larynx an aid to aquatic activity, like
>holding one's breath underwater, and if so, would that mean that
>the descended larynx qualifies as a preadaptation for speech?
No, we hadn't gotten around to that yet! The larynx high in the throat
is the standand land mammal pattern; it helps keep air and drink
separated at the back of the throat (complicated anatomy, see Jeff
Laitman's articles). Sea lions and maybe other aquatic mammals have the
larynx lower low, just as humans do by the second year of life (infants
are born with the high larynx). It *could* be related to gulping air via
the mouth in diving animals (that's faster than nose breathing) and yes,
it could serve as a preadaptation to the more-versatile-than-the-apes
vocalizations that humans enjoy. But that's a pretty sketchy part of the
AAT.
William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
j...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
> In article <294msm$2...@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> ke...@zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>>pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) wrote:
>>>In article <291oc3$6...@news.u.washington.edu> wca...@stein1.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>
>>>Another problem I have is that there seems to not have been enough
>>>time to produce something like toe webbing yet enough time to alter
>>>fat distribution patterns, cause hair to be lost and change the
>>>shape of our nose cartalage.
>
>>Maybe toe webbing (more than we've got) is disadvantageous during short forays
>>on land. Maybe it was lost during the savannah stage.
>
> Toe and finger webbing is a rare but well-known human genetic "abnormality".
Excuse me, but why is this discussion being carried on
talk.politics.misc ? It there some unspoken political
relevance to whether proto-humans spent a lot of time
at the seashore or not ?
Humans are 'weird' because we are a mutation. The same
changes which propelled our mental advantages surely
affected many other physical attributes as well. As the
mental advancements confered survival advantage, the
other irrelevant phenotypical characteristics were
simply 'carried along'. Whether we are hairy, or
sweat or have webbed toes is trivial compared to our
mental powers relative to other species. The mental
aspect more than compensates for any disadvantage caused
by the aforementioned traits. The NET GAIN for the
mutation(s) is positive.
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
>
>Why? Red tides. Periodically, the edible shellfish supply has big
>problems. Emigrating along the shore aways might help, but expanding
>inland along a river might have also worked, just using a more typical
>ape food supply.
> William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
lot of assumptions. We must assume that the an increasingly
arid environment in Africa drove proto-hominids to the seas
when in fact the paleoclimatological evidence suggest that the
change was from lush forest to lush savanna and not aridity.
We must assume that some other change, like a red tide,
brought them back to the terrestial life. In fact, the red
tides are a recurring event. Certainly the aquatic stage
lasted more than 100 years. How many mammals have returned to
terrestrial life once they have adapted to an aquatic or
semi-aquatic environment? We must assume that many of the
physiological states obtained during the aquatic phase were
somehow maintained during savanna life. Many assumptions,
almost no evidence to support them beyond the observed
difference between MODERN great apes and MODERN hominids.
Great ape and hominid physiologies are each the product of
some 5-7 million years of independent evolution. They are
probably not the result of a single difference in adaptation.
The first hominids were bipedal. There is some evidence that
they also still semi-arboreal. I am inclined to base
hypotheses of hominid evolution on the available evidence and
minimize the number of jumps in environments proto-hominids
adapted themselves to.
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
The radiation of miocene apes produced three distinct kinds of apes.
Small forest dwelling apes (Pliopithecus, Limnopithecus), large
miocene forest apes (Oreopithecus, Dryopithecus, Proconsul) and
large miocene savannah apes (Sivapithecus, Gigantopithecus). There
is not paleoclimatic evidence to support aridity and there is
every indication that adaptation to savanna life was already
established in the miocene.
There is no evidence that mountains became islands and lost their
trees. There is no evidence the proto-hominids evolved from a
primarily forest dwelling ape. As a matter of fact, it is more
likely that the thick enameled miocene apes like Gigantopithecus
provided the proto-hominid stock.
There is no reason why aquatic-ly adapted apes would not have
followed the sea as it retreated, assuming that it did and again
there is no evidence that the African Rift valley was ever
ocean-front property.
Too many assumptions.
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
>The radiation of miocene apes produced three distinct kinds of apes.
>Small forest dwelling apes (Pliopithecus, Limnopithecus), large
>miocene forest apes (Oreopithecus, Dryopithecus, Proconsul) and
>large miocene savannah apes (Sivapithecus, Gigantopithecus). There
>is not paleoclimatic evidence to support aridity and there is
>every indication that adaptation to savanna life was already
>established in the miocene.
vs savannah inferences are based on the thickness of the enamel on
the molar teeth. Chimpanzees and gorillas have very thin emamel,
as do most of the known miocene apes. Only Sivapithecus and
Gigantopithecus have thicker enamel. Limb proportions of Giganto
pithecus indicate it was most likely a terrestrial ape.
>There is no evidence that mountains became islands and lost their
>trees. There is no evidence the proto-hominids evolved from a
>primarily forest dwelling ape. As a matter of fact, it is more
>likely that the thick enameled miocene apes like Gigantopithecus
>provided the proto-hominid stock.
Here I want to make it clear that I am not claiming that Gigantopithecus
OR Sivapithecus were ancestral to hominids. I think it is very likely
that Sivapithecus and Gigantopithecus were part of a larger radiation of
thick enameled, terrestrial miocene apes -- one of which was the
ancestor of hominids.
Bruce Scott
Someone commented on the descended larynx of the human and cited it
as a possible adaptation to an aquatic or semi-aquatic existence.
What is the status of the hypothesis that it is an effect and not a
cause of the evolution of language?
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent
b...@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct) -- W Gibson
michael brian scher
>In article <CEnrx...@festival.ed.ac.uk>, c...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>> In article <294msm$2...@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> ke...@zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>>>pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) wrote:
>>>>In article <291oc3$6...@news.u.washington.edu> wca...@stein1.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>>
>>>>Another problem I have is that there seems to not have been enough
>>>>time to produce something like toe webbing yet enough time to alter
>>>>fat distribution patterns, cause hair to be lost and change the
>>>>shape of our nose cartalage.
>>Maybe toe webbing (more than we've got) is disadvantageous during short forays
>>on land. Maybe it was lost during the savannah stage.
"sport" characteristic?
Sexual reproduction produces variant examples of the species known as
"sports." A "Sport" is a member who possesses a strongly variant trait.
These are not "mutations" per se, but an aspect of gene shuffling that occurs
in sexual reprodution. These sports survive if their variation is not
deadly, and may reproduce, too. The of course die or don't reproduce if it
is greatly disadvantageous. These variant characteristic may survive and
become a majority trait if during some crisis it enables the sports'
decendants to survive (witness the English industrial towns' moths, one
species of which changed from white to black in the late 1800's). Thus,
sometimes a variant trait pops up among various & sundry others, and so long
as not detrimental in a deadly way, is passed on. Thus, it is not really
useful to speculate purposes for every trait. Many are merely the baggage of
non-Darwinian evolution (a la Gould), and persist because non-detrimental.
>>
>
> Humans are 'weird' because we are a mutation. The same
> changes which propelled our mental advantages surely
> affected many other physical attributes as well. As the
> mental advancements confered survival advantage, the
> other irrelevant phenotypical characteristics were
> simply 'carried along'. Whether we are hairy, or
> sweat or have webbed toes is trivial compared to our
> mental powers relative to other species. The mental
> aspect more than compensates for any disadvantage caused
> by the aforementioned traits. The NET GAIN for the
> mutation(s) is positive.
Well, also we may be the result of varied sporting over time (love the
pun aspects of that word in this context), in which case not only were some
features carried along because non-detrimental, but also some others showed
up that also were not detrimental and now persist. Trying to make all
human characteristics seem "functional" is kind of rididulous as an exercise.
Best to ask what makes them non-detrimental and thus allows their persistence.
-Mike
---------------
Mike Scher, student at small
Dept. of Anthropology
Anthropology, Law, and Semiotics
Douglas Adams
not always clear who has actually read them and who hasn't. This means
that when someone rejects the Aquatic Ape Theory for a specific reason,
and that reason is something that Elaine Morgan has actually dealt with,
(often fairly thoroughly) it's not clear whether the writer has some
means of refuting EM's argument or is simply unaware of it. I have the
feeling, possibly unjust, that there's quite a lot which falls into the
second category. For instance 'Why would the apes return to dry land?'
and 'There's nowhere this could have happened' etc.
To set the record straight: I have read _The Scars of Evolution_ (the
most recent, thorough and up-to-date account of the theory) and also
_The Aquatic Ape_. I have not read the original work, _The Descent of
Woman_ because I believe (on the basis of a brief glance through it)
that the later books effectively supercede it in detail and in quality
of argument.
I've come across a book which addresses the AAT in some detail. It is
_Human Evolution_ by Graham Richards (Routledge & Kegan Paul 1987). He
makes the point that he is risking his professional reputation by even
talking about it but argues that it is time to take it seriously. He
takes some of its critics to task for having clearly not read it. He
adds the following footnote to the debate: "A curious piece of evidence,
not mentioned by Morgan, and little known in the literature, concerns
the now extinct 'duck-footed' Agaiumba of New Guinea described by C.A.W
Monckton (1920). These people lived in a lagoon on the north-east coast
which linked the River Musa to the sea. They were extremely timid and
nearly helpless on dry land, living in a village half a mile from the
shore, built on poles. From our present point of view, the interesting
fact about them is that they have presumably only been driven into their
aquatic environment within the last few thousand years at the most, and
still sometimes purchased brides from land-dwelling tribes nearby, they
had already acquired some physiological adaptations to aquatic life.
Monckton decribes them in comparison to their neighbours, the Baruga:
Placing an Agaiumba man alongside a Baruga native of the same
height, one found that his hip joints were three or four
inches lower than those of the Baruga; one laos found that his
chest measurement was at least on average three inches
greater, while his chest expansion ran to as much again. The
nostrils of the Agaiumba were tice the size of any native I
have ever seen; they appeared to dilate and contract like
those of a racehorse. Above the knee on the inside of the leg
was a large mass of muscle; on the leg below the knee there
was no calf whatoever, but on the shin bone in front there was
a protuberance of a sinewy nature. The knee joints were very
wrinkly, with a scale-like appearance; the feet were as flat
as pancales, with practically no instep, and the toes long,
flaccid and straggling. Walking on hard ground or dry reeds,
the Agaiumba moved with the hoppity gait of a cockatoo. Across
the loins, instead of curving in fine lines as most natives
do, there was a mass of corrugated skin and muscle. The skin
of the feet was as tender as wet-paper, and they bled freely
as they crawled about upon the reeds and marshy ground of our
camp. They had a slight epidermal growth between the toes, but
nothing resembling webbing, as alleged by the Baruga; the
'duck-footed' therefore had only meant tender-fotted... or
more literally, 'water-bird footed.' (1936 ed., p .185)
They were of course extraordinarily adept swimmer. Monckton's account was
confirmed by his companion Sir Francis Winter in a letter to the
Australian Governor-General. The encounter, in 1902, was followed within
a few years by a massacre of the Agaiumba by a neighbouring tribe. They
were even then but a remnant of their original numbers, having suffered
an epidemic before Monckton met them. It is impossible to disentangle at
this remove how far their physiological peculiarities were genetic or
resulted from the peculiar ontogenetic cirmcumstances of Agaiumba
maturation. The aquatic ape envisaged by Morgan was of course a much
smaller animal than modern humans, while the Agaiumba were having to
adapt to the water from current human size. The Agaiumba evidence is
relevant, I think, because it does suggest how rapidly some sort of
aquatic adaptation can be made, physiologically, even by modern
H.s.sapiens. Whatever the eventual fate of Morgan's theory, the aquatic
factor as such must surely be incorporated in future models of hominid
evolution.
Douglas Adams
London, UK
William Calvin
>There is no evidence that mountains became islands and lost their
>trees. There is no evidence the proto-hominids evolved from a
>primarily forest dwelling ape. As a matter of fact, it is more
>likely that the thick enameled miocene apes like Gigantopithecus
>provided the proto-hominid stock.
>There is no reason why aquatic-ly adapted apes would not have
>followed the sea as it retreated, assuming that it did and again
>there is no evidence that the African Rift valley was ever
>ocean-front property.
>
>Too many assumptions.
Phil, those are fair criticisms of the AAT -- but similar ones can be made
of the savannah-only theory. Since we're talking about a span of perhaps
five million years (7 to 2mya), a number of phases could be involved.
One reason to assume isolating events, with reconnection to the
main population, is because that's how evolution is thought to be most
rapid. And fast tracks tend to dominate slow tracks.
1. Isolated populations are on the margins of the species habitat,
so natural selection is greatest there.
2. Small subpopulations (as on islands) are thought to evolve
most rapidly, as they're not buffered by a big continental population.
Furthermore, because these peripheral subpopulations may go totally
extinct because of chance events when of a marginal population size, any
surviving peripheral subpopulation may discover an empty niche next
door when the climate improves.
3. Empty niches are very important because they allow a period,
before they fill up, when there is enough food for all variants. So
variants that ordinarily wouldn't stand a chance (say, nearsighted
individuals!) may survive to breed. This amplification of intraspecies
diversity is, again, associated with isolating events in evolutionary
history.
Now all that needs to happen, after an isolated population is
reconnected somehow to the continental population, is for a drought to
shrink the population. But for the formerly isolated type to have some
additional way of making a living on the savannah that the standard
version does not: say, fishing or waterhole predation using behavioral
characters that were shaped in an aquatic phase.
By the time that the drought is over, the peripheral type may have
gone from 5% of the savannah population to 40% and, as they interbreed
with the others, the population's average characters shift toward the
peripheral type. [I'm summarizing arguments here that I spend several
chapters on in THE ASCENT OF MIND (Bantam 1990); the mid-80s
version of the AAT was summarized in my THE RIVER THAT FLOWS
UPHILL (Sierra Club Books 1987)].
On a time scale that doesn't see the century-to-century climate
fluctuations, this may look like gradual change in the main population in
the savannah. But the selective pressures that drove it would, in this
island biogeography scenario, be mostly located in the *periphery*, in
small isolated populations that somehow survived and then had a boom
time sometime later after rejoining the main population. Appearances
could be deceiving, especially if you have a crude time scale, only bones
and hard artifacts surviving, and only finds from the savannah (because
flooding waterholes are the best setup for preserving bones, because
ancient savannah is what the Rift exposed so conveniently).
William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
University of Washington NJ-15
Seattle, Washington 98195 FAX:1-206-720-1989
Henry Harpending
writes:
.....
>adds the following footnote to the debate: "A curious piece of evidence,
>not mentioned by Morgan, and little known in the literature, concerns
>the now extinct 'duck-footed' Agaiumba of New Guinea described by C.A.W
>Monckton (1920). These people lived in a lagoon on the north-east coast
>which linked the River Musa to the sea. They were extremely timid and
>nearly helpless on dry land, living in a village half a mile from the
>shore, built on poles. From our present point of view, the interesting
Eyewitness accounts such as this deserve a lot of caution. I used to
work in the Kalahari, where I knew a Bushman fellow who was severely
dwarfed. He get around with the band because his brother in law carried
him on his shoulders.
Everyone local--whites, blacks, bushmen--knew this guy and his family
very well. But newcomers routinely "discovered" him. On several occasions
I had South African Police, "eyewitnesses", tell me about a race of
"true bushmen" deep in the Kalahari who were only 3 feet tall and
often doubled up, one on the others' shoulders, to see over the grass.
I don't doubt the possibility of human developmental adaptations-we know
of plenty of them-but caution is certainly in order when evaluating tales
of phenotypically extreme groups that happen to have been all wiped out.
Henry Harpending
Penn State University
Paul Keck
>May I make a suggestion? In this debate about Elaine Morgan's books it's
>not always clear who has actually read them and who hasn't. This means
True. I have not read them. I have found that they are in my library here,
so I'll go across campus soon and get them.
About the Agaiumba- very interesting. However, I think most of the physical
characteristics described, particularly the flat feet, could easily be
environmentally induced deformities that happened during the lifetimes of the
people. I remember a National Geographic from the 70's that showed a grizzled
old man leaning on a stick. He was described as being a mud-mixer or
grape-stomper or something of the sort (this was 15-20 years ago!). His feet
were flat and misshapen. It was from the mud-walking he'd been doing all his
life. If the Agaiumba spent all their time slogging around in mud, their feet
could easily be misshapen. If you doubt it, think about a geisha's feet.
I think the same argument applies to the rest of the "abnormalities".
In particular, regarding
> ...on the shin bone in front there was
> a protuberance of a sinewy nature.
And the mention of "no calf", I can offer an explanation. The muscles of the
calf are used in extension of the foot, i.e. "pointing the toe" or standing on
tiptoe. The muscles on the front, the shin, are used to flex the foot, or
pull it up toward the shin. It's easy to see why these would get well
developed and create a "protruberance of a sinewy nature". Having their feet
constantly stuck in mud, they'd have to pull up on their feet all the time,
thus building up that muscle. As for the calf, I'm less sure, but if they
walked all the time on deep mud, they wouldn't need to do the "pushing off"
motion that we use to walk. This would lead to less buldup of the calf
muscle. Maybe I'll look for that paper- it sounds very interesting.
Paul Keck I'm not an Agaiumba, but I play one on TV.
>Douglas Adams
>London, UK
Paul Keck
questions around- why, if we evolved on the savannah, have traits which seem
aquatic adaptations?
The downward-pointing nose, for example. The only other
primate I know of with such a nose is the proboscis monkey, which (surprise!)
is semi-aquatic. I reject any claims that African humans have "monkeylike"
noses. True, they are less monumental than my own Germanically influenced
honker, but a side-by-side comparison of _any_ human nose with apes or monkeys
shows that this claim is silly.
How about hairlessness? Sure, it might be cooler, but look at all the
babboons, wildebeest, etc. that do fine with hair on. Hair probably also wards
off insects, and so lack of it puts us at a disadvantage.
Any other ideas? I'm off to find the estimable Dr. Morgan's books.
Paul Keck I'm not an estimable doctor, but I play one on TV.
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
I have not read any of Morgan's books and am responding to the arguments
presented by folks who have read her book and are impressed by her
arguments. My training is in physical anthropology, so I am very
familar with the fossil record as well as comparative hominoid
anatomy.
While Morgan's physiological arguments may sound convincing, what I am
trying to point out is that evolutionary hypothesis based only on
a comparison between modern apes and modern humans can never be anything
more than a "just so" story.
The fossil record and paleoclimatic evidence have to be taken into
account. Presently there is no fossil evidence to support an aquatic
ape theory.
Henry Harpending
>How about hairlessness? Sure, it might be cooler, but look at all the
>babboons, wildebeest, etc. that do fine with hair on. Hair probably also
>wards
>off insects, and so lack of it puts us at a disadvantage.
>Any other ideas? I'm off to find the estimable Dr. Morgan's books.
Hair is also a fire hazard. The evidence, such as it is, suggests that
hairlessness is pretty new in human evolution. The neandertals in Europe,
for example, leave no evidence of any kind of clothing yet they were living
in arctic conditions. Modern humans show up with buttons and pins and
fasteners.
Eric Trinkaus has pointed out that modern human infant digit bones are
smooth and without features while those of the great apes are rugose from
use--they cling to the hair of their mothers. The digits of neandertal
infants were rugose like those of the apes.
If hairlessness is a trait of modern humans but not archaics, it is only 50,
000 or so years old and we don't need an aquatic theory to explain it.
Douglas Adams
I'm sure you're right about the Agaiumba and I don't think anybody would try
and argue anything from this account - it can't be verified or tested in any
way. It's just an interesting footnote.
Douglas Adams
London, UK
Peter Nelson
>questions around- why, if we evolved on the savannah, have traits which seem
>aquatic adaptations?
Would any of you esteemed scholars care to comment on what
ANY of this has to do with talk.politics.misc?
---peter
Chris Malcolm
>Presently there is no fossil evidence to support an aquatic
>ape theory.
Absolutely correct. The Aquatic Ape theory is an attempt to explain an
odd collection of major physiological differences between Man and
other Apes. Now name a theory which explains these features which _is_
supported by fossil evidence. If there is such a theory, then it is
clearly superior to the AAT. If, on the other hand, there are no
theories which are supported by fossil evidence then there are no
grounds for criticising the AAT other than explanatory power. Since
the AAT explains a whole collection of features otherwise explained by
a collection of ad hoc suppositions, it is the clear winner in this
case -- the case where there is no theory with fossil support.
So, what theory is supported by fossil evidence? I do not mean "is not
incompatible with" since that is also true of the AAT. I mean
_supported_ by fossil evidence.
Douglas Adams
(NICHOLLS PHILIP A) wrote:
>Doug,
>
>I have not read any of Morgan's books and am responding to the arguments
>presented by folks who have read her book and are impressed by her
>arguments.
Since you are clearly interested in the subject - or you wouldn't be
arguing! - may I strongly recommend them to you? They are brief, concise and
well written. (I'm speaking here of the 2nd and 3rd book - haven't read the
first, which I suspect is not of the same standard. Just the third is
sufficient in fact.) Many of the points you have raised are dealt with
thoroughly, and are in fact central to the argument.
>My training is in physical anthropology, so I am very
>familar with the fossil record as well as comparative hominoid
>anatomy.
>
>While Morgan's physiological arguments may sound convincing, what I am
>trying to point out is that evolutionary hypothesis based only on
>a comparison between modern apes and modern humans can never be anything
>more than a "just so" story.
>
>The fossil record and paleoclimatic evidence have to be taken into
>account. Presently there is no fossil evidence to support an aquatic
>ape theory.
>
>
Please correct me if my understanding of the fosil record is wrong. My
understanding is that it is very, very, very sparse indeed. So the existence
of a particular fossil is positive evidence that something happened, while
the absence of a particular fossil is not evidence that it didn't. A few
scattered pages recovered from a history of the twentieth century may make
no mention of the Second World War. Other evidence for the occurence of the
Second World War may be hazy, circumstantial and hard to assess, but if the
hypothesis that a major war occured in the middle of the century happened to
make sense of an awful lot of otherwise troublesome and inexplicable data,
then perhaps we ought to be looking for methods of sifting hard information
out of soft data. In other words to say that 'the fossil record has nothing
to say about the matter, therefore there is nothing to be said about it'
seems to me to be not only disappointingly uncurious but also illogical. I
don't see how a body of evidence that consists almost entirely of gaps can
be a final court of appeal. The fossil record - as the madbat creationists
are fond of pointing out - gives scant evidence of the process of evolution
carried out by means of natural selection. Most of the evidence for
Darwinian natural selection seems to come from comparative physiology,
genetics, ethology, logic, narrative arguments and Occam's razor and the
case is generally accepted to be overwhelming. It would be very hard to make
an irrefutable case for it on the basis of the bones alone. I'm not sure how
much readable evidence the fossil record had produced before 1859. Certainly
the fossil record, as we have now developed it, strongly supports Darwinian
natural selection (as do statistical analysis, computer modelling and other
modern tools that enable us to maximise the information we derive from the
data) but it doesn't prove it because there isn't enough of it. How much
does it tell us about the transition from one species to another? Very
little I think. The evidence we need to test such hypotheses as punctuated
equilibrium, saltationism, gradualism, and so on will almost certainly have
to come from other sources. If punctuated equilibrium is correct then it is
highly _likely_ that the fossil record will have nothing to say about it.
The theory that a small group of man's ancestors became isolated in an
aquatic/semi- aquatic environment, underwent some adaptive changes, were
then subsequently released back into a terrestrial environment and underwent
further adaptive changes is at least plausible. Early reactions to the story
were that it was completely and wildly absurd, but it clearly isn't. There
is nothing inherently unlikely about it all. Trace any modern animal all the
way back to its Cambrian ancestors and it will have adapted and readapted to
changing environments many times over. The question is simply whether this
particular sequence of events occured or not. If it wasn't this then it was
something else, but we don't really know what and we have terribly little
evidence in any case.
If it _is_ true then the following pieces of troublesome or
not-really-properly-explained data suddenly fit very easily: bipedalism,
hairlessness, subcutaneous fat, lack of apocrine glands/preponderance of
eccrine glands/wastefully prolific salty sweat/tears, plump babies, babies
able to swim, the diving reflex, the dropping of the larynx, deliberate
control of breathing, (which together provide the mechanism of speech and
also cause cot death), the web-toed birth abnormality, ventro-ventral
copulation, and swimming pools.
Furthermore, one plausible site for this semi-aquatic isolation has been
identified - the Danakil Alps on the Red Sea coast of Ethiopia.
So far that makes it only plausible, though Occam's Razor makes it very
tempting. It's possible that it could be true yet never be supported by the
fossil record, patchy and random as it is. (Though the areas predicted by
the Danakil hypothesis have not been dug). If we wait for fossil
confirmation we could wait for ever. Is that good reason to dismiss it?
Shouldn't we, instead, be seeing if the other tools of evolutionary research
can be brought to bear on it? If you are denying that anything other than
hard fossil evidence is sufficient then Darwin himself is suddenly in trouble!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Adams "If you think you already know most
London, UK of the answer, you may may not get
around to asking the right question..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
asia z lerner
>old man leaning on a stick. He was described as being a mud-mixer or
>grape-stomper or something of the sort (this was 15-20 years ago!). His feet
>were flat and misshapen. It was from the mud-walking he'd been doing all his
>life. If the Agaiumba spent all their time slogging around in mud, their feet
>could easily be misshapen. If you doubt it, think about a geisha's feet.
Perhaps you mean the Chinese custom of feet-binding?
There was nothing very extraordinary about geisha's
(Japan) feet.
Asia
asia z lerner
>I'm not sure how
>much readable evidence the fossil record had produced before 1859.
I guess this is a pretty minor point in the discussion, but still -
the problem with the fossil record in 1859 was the lack of good
dating techniques. That is, in order to constract a Darwinian
narrative out of that bunch of bones, you have to know which
one of them is older than the other. In fact, some opponents
of Darwin claimed that they could not see a progression from
simple to complex in the fossil record, because according to
their dating assumptions the more complex organisms preceeded
the simple ones.
Asia
Richard Harter
>In article <299s9a$g...@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> ke...@zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>Hair is also a fire hazard. The evidence, such as it is, suggests that
>hairlessness is pretty new in human evolution. The neandertals in Europe,
>for example, leave no evidence of any kind of clothing yet they were living
>in arctic conditions. Modern humans show up with buttons and pins and
>fasteners.
Are you sure about Neanderthals? Despite ice ages, I don't think that
conditions were what we would now describe as arctic. Also it is my
understanding that there is some evidence that Neanderthal's did have
clothing. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the use of fire is
rather ancient. I welcome correction on all these points.
As an addendum, I would like to point out that subcutaneous fat does
serve as insulation.
--
In my lifetime we've had a Polish Pope. | Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
In my lifetime Communism has collapsed. | Phone: 508-369-7398
In my lifetime Men have walked on the Moon. | SMDS Inc. PO Box 555
But will the Red Sox ever win a world series? | Concord MA 01742
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
>Absolutely correct. The Aquatic Ape theory is an attempt to explain an
>odd collection of major physiological differences between Man and
>other Apes. Now name a theory which explains these features which _is_
>supported by fossil evidence. If there is such a theory, then it is
>clearly superior to the AAT. If, on the other hand, there are no
>theories which are supported by fossil evidence then there are no
>grounds for criticising the AAT other than explanatory power. Since
>the AAT explains a whole collection of features otherwise explained by
>a collection of ad hoc suppositions, it is the clear winner in this
>case -- the case where there is no theory with fossil support.
>
>So, what theory is supported by fossil evidence? I do not mean "is not
>incompatible with" since that is also true of the AAT. I mean
>_supported_ by fossil evidence.
>--
>Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
>Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
>5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Chris,
Physiological differences between modern apes and modern humans
more than likely arose one by one during the 5 to 7 million
year interval during which our lines have been undergoing
separate evolution. The question that needs to be asked and
answered is -- are those differences somehow out of wack for
a relatively recent divergence? The second question we need
to ask is that given the assumptions of the AAT can we
expect to see any pattern in the fossil record that might
support AAT?
My answer is that there should be and we don't find it. We
don't. The earliest hominids were small brained bipeds
with a postcranial skeleton than indicates at least a partially
arboreal niche and with teeth that are remarkably unspecialized,
something that is uncharacteristic of marine mammals.
We know Miocene apes lived in the forest and the savannah.
We know that early hominids lived in the savannah. I just
don't see a need to invoke an aquatic habitat. Let me take
one example -- the nose.
The nose of modern apes is indeed very different, but if we look
at modern old world monkeys, especially baboons, we find that
the nostrils are directed downward, or would be if they didn't
have that enormous snout. The problem is that there seems to
be an assumption in this theory that modern ape morphology and
physiology is somehow primitive. If you take a baboon and
reduce the size of the face you begin to get a rather human
looking nose.
So you see, its a matter of deciding if making that jump to
an aquatic lifestyle answers more questions than it generates.
I just do not see the need, yet, and will continue to play
the devil's advocate.
Pat Dooley
>In article <2901ku$n...@news.u.washington.edu> wca...@stein1.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>>I reviewed some of the arguments in my 1986 book THE RIVER THAT FLOWS
>>UPHILL, pretty much agreeing with Morgan. The physical anthropologists
>>are fundamentally anatomists: when they say "There's no evidence," what
>>they mean is that there is no anatomical evidence (except, of course,
>>those hips and knee rearrangements in place before 3 myr for which some
>>selective pressure is needed to explain). The archaeologists say there's
>>no evidence, but none of their evidence goes back before 2.5myr anyway
>>and the aquatic phase is probably back around 7-5 myr.
>> Fundamentally all of the problems posed by the aquatic ape theory
>>are physiological in nature, most of which doesn't fossilize very well.
>>(Alistar Hardy was the marine mammal physiologist who proposed the theory
>>in 1960). The anthro folks tend to avoid discussing physiology, not feeling
>>very much at home in the subject. So I don't take their dismissal of it
>>(seldom in print but frequently in conversation) very seriously.>> Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences>The Aquatic Ape theory is discussed in print by Bradshaw and Rogers "The
>Evolution of Lateral Asymmetries, Language, Tool Use and Intellect,",
>Chapter 7. They claim that the paleoclimatic evidence (the move to the
>seashore and aquatic/semi-aquatic life was the result of drought in the
>late Miocene.) is weak and that the nearly unique use of sweating for
>thermoregulation in humans would not have been of much help in the water.
>
The climatic evidence is not crucial to the aquatic theory. As the
dating of the fossil evidence has changed over the last few decades,
and the knowledge of the geography and climate of NE Africa over
the past few million years has improved, alternative hyotheses have become
tenable. Specifically, if the ape didn't go to the water, then the
water may have come to the ape. The Sea of Afar may well have created
islands that separated some ape populations from the African mainland
and marooned them on islands. There is strong evidence for such separation
in the Baboon Marker evidence that I previously posted in SCI.BIO.
Sweating is not much use on the arid savannah. It loses moisture too fast
and it depletes salt reserves. You make the mistake of assuming the
aquatic ape theory postulates a 100% aquatic existence. The theory suggests
a semi-aquatic environment with the aquatc apes living on the sea shore
and foraging for food on land and in the water. Over time, they evolved
an upright stance to facilitate walking, swimming and diving. Most
mammals can swim, basically by walking in water with the head held well
out of the water. Humans are not averse to putting their heads under
water. Sweating may have evolved as a mechanism to assist in getting rid
of excess salt - eating all those shell fish straight from the water
would result in excess salt ingestion, for example. Once the aquatic phase
was over, it got roped in as a cooling mechanism. It still hasn't been
perfected.
>There are a number of hypotheses proposed to explain to origin of
>bipedalism. Some of the evidence cited by Morgan (face to face copulation,
>subcutaneous fat) display an ethnocentric bias. Face to face copulation is
>by no means universal and there is a great deal of cultural variability.
>Also, the pygmie chimpanzees are known to engage in face-to-face copulation.
>Patterns of subcutaneous fat distribution are highly variable in human
>populations as well as between the sexes. Why would an aquatic lifestyle
>produce different trends in males and females?
>
Lucy shows bipedalism had evolved before the increase in brain capacity
that distinguishes some humans, at least, from the other apes (I'm just
recalling a quote from somebody's .sig to the effect that it was difficult
to design a bear-proof trash container because the overlap in
intelligience between the smartest bears and stupidest tourists was quite
large). The spear throwing hypothesis goes out the window on those
grounds. The fast running hypothesis has already been demolished. What
other bipedalism hypotheses are there?
Morgan doesn't claim face-to-face copulation caused bipedalism.
Get the order straight. Face to face copulation was a consequence of the
rearrangement of anatomy forced by the evolution of bipedalism. People
are still able to do it the old-fashioned way; one of the
features that distinguishes human males from ape males makes that feat
possible.
The aquatic phase was over by the time of Lucy (3.5-3mya). There has been
further evolution, particularly in the area of brain capacity. Some of
the aquatic adaptations would have faded. The distribution of subcutaeous
fat could be in that category, which is why it is variable now. The
fact still remains that such fat is restricted to aquatic or wallowing
animals and humans. No wonder some of my ancestors talked about "long pig".
Morgan devotes considerable space to sexual dichotomies. Hairlessness, fat,
baldness, etc. They can be explained by assuming the female spent more
time in the water than the male.
>
>--
>Philip Nicholls "To ask a question,
>Department of Anthropology you must first know
>SUNY Albany most of the answer."
>pn8...@thor.albany.edu
Your .sig is relevant to the debate. The paleontologists don't have much
of an answer to explain those human features that distinguish us from
other apes - hairlessness, sweating, salt tears, bipedalism, diving reflex,
frowning, subcutaneous fat, descended larynx, streamlined shape et cetera.
So, they don't ask the questions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Dooley speaking for himself
Paul Keck
[Keck's rantings about feet deleted]
>Perhaps you mean the Chinese custom of feet-binding?
>There was nothing very extraordinary about geisha's
>(Japan) feet.
>
>Asia
Whoops! I guess I do. That'll teach me to blow more smoke next time.
Paul Keck
Cameron Laird
>In article <1993Oct7.1...@sarah.albany.edu> pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) writes:
.
.
>>bipedalism. Some of the evidence cited by Morgan (face to face copulation,
>>subcutaneous fat) display an ethnocentric bias. Face to face copulation is
>>by no means universal and there is a great deal of cultural variability.
>>Also, the pygmie chimpanzees are known to engage in face-to-face copulation.
.
.
Someone else mentioned orangutans. I'll offer
pottos (*Perodicticus potto*), another arboreal
species observed to do the same.
Regarding the larger theme of the AAT:
1. I've been enjoying this thread MUCH. Thanks
to all the participants for carefully and
politely crafting their contributions.
2. I echo the recommendations to read some of
the relevant literature, including the books
by Morgan, Calvin, and Bradshaw and Rogers.
3. I appreciate that this discussion has general-
ly avoided *scala naturae* sorts of fallacies,
and, in particular, we've been free of argu-
ments that rely on the "primitiveness" of
contemporary chimpanzees and gorillas.
4. My prediction: heat dissipation theories
will continue to floresce. Thermoregulation
truly is a big issue for savannah dwellers
and/or long-distance coursers.
As appears to be the case with many, I've re-directed follow-ups.
--
Cameron Laird
cla...@Neosoft.com (claird%Neoso...@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
cla...@litwin.com (claird%litwi...@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546
Paul Keck
>Hair is also a fire hazard. The evidence, such as it is, suggests that
>hairlessness is pretty new in human evolution. The neandertals in Europe,
>for example, leave no evidence of any kind of clothing yet they were living
>in arctic conditions. Modern humans show up with buttons and pins and
>fasteners.
Ah, but they could have worn skins, which either wouln't fossilize or
researchers might think they were just discarded after buchering. For all we
know, Neanderthals kept the skins from the dead folks. After all, they don't
need them any more. It's what I'd do. (Keck == neanderthaler)
>Eric Trinkaus has pointed out that modern human infant digit bones are
>smooth and without features while those of the great apes are rugose from
>use--they cling to the hair of their mothers. The digits of neandertal
>infants were rugose like those of the apes.
This is interesting, and actually supports the AAT. Morgan claims that babies
cling to the head hair. This is actually observed in a semi-aquatic people
from Tierra del Fuego (she cites Nat'l Geographic March 1975). It also may
explain why women's hair grows thicker during pregnancy, and gibes with the
fact that males are more likely to lose their hair. If a female lost her
hair, she would run a greater risk of losing her baby into the water.
My experiences around babies (don't have any yet) also gibes- they often grab
hair and won't let go.
>If hairlessness is a trait of modern humans but not archaics, it is only 50,
>000 or so years old and we don't need an aquatic theory to explain it.
We don't need hairy Neanderthals to explain the rugose phalanges, so
hairlessness can be older than 50K.
I got _The_Aquatic_Ape_ last night, and I'm about 2/3 through. It's only
160-odd pages, including appendices, and it's not dense. Makes a good evening
or two read. I heartily suggest it, and as soon as I can track down her next
one (we don't have it here), I'll do that one too. She also makes a good
outline of a case that the elephant was actually aquatic previously, and has
returned to the land.
One problem I have with her is a cavalier attitude toward citations. Kind of
reminds me of ICR publications (well, not quite that bad). She doesn't use
the author-date citation method that is standard in bio literature these
days, but rather just has a bibliography in the back, and cites people. E.g.,
she quotes S.J. Gould, but you don't know which of the two books of his she
lists contains the quote. And, I found one quote that she fails to put in the
bib at all! Maybe someone can help with this- I probably wouldn't have
noticed except that the paragraph she wrote confuses me. Here it is, p. 85:
There may also have been an adaptive advantage in the "breath holding"
of babies- a phenomenon that occurs only up to the age of 2 years.
Young children quite often react this way to fear or resentment or an
imagined danger of being deserted. Harrison (1960) contends that
human infants are specially adapted for breath holding by a
proportional enlargement of the vertebral foramina.
She doesn't list Harrison in the bib for any date. That last sentence baffles
me. There only so many foramina in a vertebra, the main one being the spinal
foramen where the spinal cord goes through. I don't see what this has to do
with breath holding. The nerves innervating the diaphragm are cranial nerves,
and aren't part of the SC. The only other foramina in the vertebrae are
transverse foramina in the 7 cervicals; those hold blood vessels, and maybe
nerves (have to check). But even so, what's it got to do with breath holding?
This is why I'm annoyed she didn't include the citation. Anybody have her
second book handy? Maybe she cites Harrison in it.
I also checked out Bill Calvin's "Shaman" book. I'm the first so far.
But, before you feel bad, Bill, 4 of your others are charged out and I
couldn't get them. :-)
Paul "aquatic ape" Keck
Chris Colby
maybe these questions are premature -- but, I'll ask anyway:
The AA theory seems to explain a lot of evidence after the fact --
what has it _predicted_?
What evidence, if looked for and found, would constitute evidence
_against_ the AAT (in the minds of an AAT advocate)?
Chris Colby
email: co...@biology.bu.edu
Paul Keck
>presented by folks who have read her book and are impressed by her
>arguments. My training is in physical anthropology, so I am very
>familar with the fossil record as well as comparative hominoid
>anatomy.
I'm not flaming you or anything, Philip, but maybe in the spirit of "know
thine enemy" you could read one of her books. It's hard to compress 160 pp
down to a few posts.
>While Morgan's physiological arguments may sound convincing, what I am
>trying to point out is that evolutionary hypothesis based only on
>a comparison between modern apes and modern humans can never be anything
>more than a "just so" story.
She works in some stuff about *pithecus fossils. But, since most of these are
from a period after her date for "hominidization", it's pretty irrelevant.
Her point is that hominid fossils just appear, with no fossil evidence for how
they got to be hominids. The AAT explains a lot of that.
>The fossil record and paleoclimatic evidence have to be taken into
>account. Presently there is no fossil evidence to support an aquatic
>ape theory.
Unfortunately, there's no fossil evidence to support the standard savannah
theory, either. How did our skeleton change to make us bipedal? The SST
(standard savannah theory) makes some noises about tool use or seeing farther.
These arguments fail, though. If it's such a great idea, why don't all
savannah primates walk upright? How can you explain away the fact that chimps
use tools plenty, but aren't bipedal?
The way Morgan brings it home to me is: we are either a typical terrestrial
mammal with a host of bizarre, unique attributes (bipedalism, sub-q fat layer,
hairlessness, webbing, bad sense of smell, etc.), or a typical semi-aquatic
mammal that happens to have left the water. I think some people's irrational
refusal to consider the AAT is perhaps a knee-jerk fear reaction. If we
accept the AAT, humans aren't really special any more, just aquatic "alumni",
no big deal.
Read the book.
Paul "proud to be an aquatic alumnus" Keck
>Philip Nicholls "To ask a question,
Andrew W. Robinson
on the subject, _The Descent of Woman_ as a teenager. I was fascinated
by the arguments then, and I am quite interested and entertained to see
the subject discussed by the professionals now.
As I understand it, the theory attracts because it offers explanations
for a suite of anatomical traits that have no other explanations as
yet. However, the theory is considered weak because no hard evidence
exists to support it. Fossil evidence constitutes hard evidence, and no
fossil record has been found in the paleoenvironment proposed by the
theory.
My question is, has anyone looked in the proposed paleoenvironment for
the fossil evidence? I have a limited training in geology, and my
impression from that training is that shoreline environments are
actually favorable for preserving fossils. At least, they appear more
favorable than terrestrial (savanna) environments. Also, I've seen
contradictory information stated on the paleoclimate of Miocene Africa.
Will some kind soul please post the lastest and greatest
interpretations in that regard.
Thanks!
Andrew Robinson
awrob...@amoco.com
PS: I'm impressed by the lack of flames for a topic that has
generated so much discussion. Keep up the good work!
William Calvin
>My question is, has anyone looked in the proposed paleoenvironment for
>the fossil evidence? I have a limited training in geology, and my
>impression from that training is that shoreline environments are
>actually favorable for preserving fossils. At least, they appear more
>favorable than terrestrial (savanna) environments. Also, I've seen
>contradictory information stated on the paleoclimate of Miocene Africa.
>Will some kind soul please post the lastest and greatest
>interpretations in that regard.
Ok but it is five screenfulls long. There is a more extensive chapter
in that Roede et al THE AQUATIC APE book (Souvenir, 1991, 20 pounds).
Here are some excerpts from the aquatic ape section in:
The River that Flows Uphill: A Journey from the Big Bang to the
Big Brain (Macmillan 1986, Sierra Club Books 1987 softcover) by
William H. Calvin
An ideal spot [for aquatic apes] on the Red Sea coastline has been
identified by Leon LaLumiere, Jr.: It is just north
of the Hadar region where Lucy and family were found, in the tip of
the Afar triangle. Just north of Djibouti, just south of the present
Dahlak Archipelago, this coastline is part of the Eritrea provence of
Ethiopia, a region of chronic political unrest often unsafe for, and
forbidden to, travelers. Alas. The geologists call it the Danakil
Alps; about 75 kilometers wide, it forms 540 kilometers of the
African coast approaching the Straits of Bab al Mandab, just before
the Red Sea opens out into the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.
Back about the beginning of the Miocene, say 20 million
years ago, Africa and Arabia were one tectonic plate. This tectonic
plate collided with the Eurasian plate, buckling up the area around
the present Red Sea, which then downfaulted. Together with a little
sea-floor spreading that got started, this formed the proto-Red Sea,
and it connected with the proto-Mediterranean, not the Indian Ocean....
A rift started to form the Gulf of Aden... but it didn't
connect with the Red Sea for a long time. Instead there remained a
forested land bridge between forested Africa and forested Arabia (in
those Miocene days, the moist tropics extended into southern
Eurasia), and starting about 17 million years ago it was used as a
migration route by numerous species of African land animals who
expanded into Asia during the Miocene. This probably includes
Ramapithecus, whose remains have been found from Hungary to China,
as well as in Kenya. No one has yet explored the
Arabian peninsula for hominoid fossils on the Asian side of the land
bridge, though the anthropologists are working their way north along
the African rift valley toward the ex-land-bridge, in between civil
wars in Ethiopia....
While the sea-level fluctuations were still going on about
7 million years ago, the African plate moved away from the Arabian
plate and the Danakil Alps microplate was no longer squeezed
between the giants. Like the crustal blocks in Nevada that one can
see driving north from Las Vegas in the Basin and Range country,
where spreading is also occurring, the Danakil Alps have tilted
vertiginously so that their sediment layers are now at a dramatic
angle; they also swiveled counterclockwise into their present
position....
When the Danakil microplate finally detached from both the
African and Arabian plates, the sea flowed in and that was the end of
the great Miocene land bridge between Africa and Eurasia. Not only
did the Red Sea come down into the northern part of the Afar
triangle about 6.7 million years ago, but the Gulf of Aden came up
from the south and joined it, opening up the Red Sea (which had
now lost its connection to the Med as the Isthmus of Suez arose).
The Red Sea opened into the Indian Ocean via both the present Strait
of Bab al Mandab and the "Danakil Straits" to the west. The
Danakil Alps became an island.
DANAKIL WAS A LARGE ISLAND, potentially twice the size of
such familiar islands as Sardinia, Corsica, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico.
.... The apes trapped on the islands would have
had problems, and not just from all of the exciting volcanos and
earthquakes. The late Miocene was a worldwide time of drying up,
when the forests changed to grassy plains, even desert. While
there was likely a savannah period on Danakil, the major food
resources might not have been in the center of the islands but
along their shores. For those who have not stuck a face-mask
underwater in the Red Sea, it may be hard to appreciate just
how luxurious sea life can become. While
there are nice examples of coral-reef life to be seen in Hawaii and
the Caribbean, the protected Red Sea is an order of magnitude more
dense in its underwater life, comparable only to Australia's Great
Barrier Reef.... Just wading in the shallows of the Red Sea can be like
walking through a supermarket for fish and shellfish. There is
seemingly limitless food for the taking. It's not just clams and
scallops and mussels and oysters, with the sorts of hard shells that
might accumulate for the archaeologists to find as middens (but,
unless carried back to a central site before consumption, were more
likely to be thrown back into the water, and swept away by the
tides). Apes there might also have dined royally on fresh lobsters
and crabs, could cooperatively have herded whole schools of reef
fish into the shallows where they could be grabbed....[That's in]
the good times. All of the geological rearrangements of
the Miocene-Pliocene boundary probably produced disruptions;
furthermore, shellfish populations seem to be periodically decimated
by diseases. Life on Danakil might have gotten harsh, periodically
selecting for apes able to swim offshore, and dive deeper and deeper
to find increasingly scarce food.
About 5.4 million years ago, lava flows along the southwest
coast probably closed the Danakil Strait and reconnected Danakil
Island to the African mainland. The extensive basalts would have
made this base of the Danakil peninsula a biological desert for some
time, still providing something of a barrier to the migration of land
animals who had to eat their way along the surface....
So from 6.7 to 5.4 million years ago, the Danakil region
would have been particularly isolated. Did some ape evolution occur
there, which split the hominid line off from the apes? The chimps'
DNA differences from humans suggest that the split occurred 7.7 to
6.3 million years ago, nicely overlapping the Danakil isolation
period....
If they were going to venture forth from Danakil, these aquatic
apes might well have brought along some disadvantages from their
aquatic interlude, such as the naked skin and the salt- and
water-wasting sweat glands, such as the need to keep an arm
occupied by holding an infant who could no longer hang on, such as
an inability to run as fast as its quadrupedal ancestors. The logical
emigration routes would have been along the Red Sea shoreline.
But, particularly if it were a bad year for shellfish, the apes could
also have gone inland, up the Afar triangle following the Awash
River valley upstream past such places as Lucy's home of Hadar.
Then perhaps south down the Omo valley to Lake Turkana, further
along the rift to Olduvai and Laetolil, even all the way down the
Great Rift Valley to South Africa and the Transvaal caves....
-------------
asia z lerner
It's 'cause you're not a real geisha - you just play one on tv :-))
Asia
Richard Ottolini
>Please pardon this intrusion by a layman. I read Morgan's original book
>on the subject, _The Descent of Woman_ as a teenager. I was fascinated
>by the arguments then, and I am quite interested and entertained to see
>the subject discussed by the professionals now.
>
>As I understand it, the theory attracts because it offers explanations
>for a suite of anatomical traits that have no other explanations as
>yet. However, the theory is considered weak because no hard evidence
>exists to support it. Fossil evidence constitutes hard evidence, and no
>fossil record has been found in the paleoenvironment proposed by the
>theory.
>
>My question is, has anyone looked in the proposed paleoenvironment for
>the fossil evidence? I have a limited training in geology, and my
>impression from that training is that shoreline environments are
>actually favorable for preserving fossils. At least, they appear more
>favorable than terrestrial (savanna) environments. Also, I've seen
>contradictory information stated on the paleoclimate of Miocene Africa.
>Will some kind soul please post the lastest and greatest
>interpretations in that regard.
The majority of hominoid existence has been during ice age when sea level
is much lower. I think it goes like 80K years glaciation and 20K years interglacial
(now) on average. If it was oceanic-aquatic, then a lot of that evidence would
be under water.
William Calvin
>The majority of hominoid existence has been during ice age when sea level
>is much lower. I think it goes like 80K years glaciation and 20K years interglacial
>(now) on average. If it was oceanic-aquatic, then a lot of that evidence would
>be under water.
Hominid = species since the split with the chimps (last 6 myr).
Hominoid = apes and us (last 30 million years).
Homo sapiens = species of the last 100,000 years (probably 125,000)
The most recent ice age started 118,000 years ago at the end of an
interglaciation that began 128,000 years ago.
The aquatic ape period is thought to be back close to 6 million years ago.
Upright posture was in place by 3-4 million years ago. Brain size
increase didn't start until 2.5 million years ago (which is also when the
first ice age began in a series of several dozen).
William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
University of Washington NJ-15
Pat Dooley
>
...[deleted previous contributions]...
>Ok. But I just don't see what an aquatic theory offers that does not
>create more problems than it solves. For example, once we made the
>transition to the aquatic life, why did we then go back to the
>savannah? At some point evolutionary changes produce constraints
>that make it unlikely that an organism will reverse the direction of
>morphological change.
>
The transition was partial. Think of European otters rather than
porpoises for an analogy. As Morgan suggests, the transition to
a semi-aquatic life-style was possibly forced by the species being
trapped on off shore isalands, specifically what are now known as
the Danakil ranges in NE Africa. Once the islands were reconnected
to the mainland, the semi-aquatic apes spread along the shore lines
and followed rivers back into the African hinterland. The early homind
fossils have usually been found in the vicinity of pre-historic
rivers and lakes.
The key point of the AAT is that the direction of morphological
change has not been reversed - we are still naked, sweating, slightly
webbed, bipedal apes with remarkable (for primates) swimming and
diving abilities.
>Another problem I have is that there seems to not have been enough
>time to produce something like toe webbing yet enough time to alter
>fat distribution patterns, cause hair to be lost and change the
>shape of our nose cartalage.
>
Those are pretty minor issues compared to the evolution of bipedalism.
The fossil record shows that around 7-9 mya, the ancestral ape was
not adapted for bipedalism. The pelvis was at completely the wrong
angle, the joints were wrong and so on. The ape ancestor we share
with chimpanzees got around pretty much like a modern chimpanzee.
Lucy turns up around 3.5 mya, and guess what? Fully bipedal. Quite
similar to a small human being from the neck down. Very like a
chimpanzee in the skull department although the dentition was
closer to the modern human model. The time scales give us about
5.5 - 3.5 million years for the aquatic features to evolve. In a small,
isolated population, evolution would proceed fast enough.
...[more deletions]...
>Assuming we accept transition models of the division of labor in
>hunter-gather groups, extended gathering would subject females to as
>much, perhaps more heat stress.
>
>My over all impression is that does not offer enough extra explanatory
>power to justify the violation of Occam's razor.
>
Try this. Read the Scars of Evolution. List out all the aquatic adaptations
that humans have evolved and chimpanzees haven't. List all the aquatic,
semi-aquatic, wallowing, forest and savannah species that share those
adaptations. If you apply Occam's razor, then the simplest explanation
of these adaptations is a period of relatively recent aquatic or
semi-aquatic evolution. It was likely followed by the evolution of a tool
using hunter gatherer.
>--
>Philip Nicholls "To ask a question,
>Department of Anthropology you must first know
>SUNY Albany most of the answer."
>pn8...@thor.albany.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Dooley
Hollander)
writes:
>
>I wonder if the human sweat glands could have started out for getting rid of
>excess salt in the aquatic phase and then been coopted for thermoregulation in
>the savannah phase.
Speculation mode on.
What is the evidence for a savannah phase? I presume it is based on the
fact that some hominid and homo fossils have been found in currently arid
regions (but they may have been much wetter when the fossils were
deposited), and that the life-style of the Bushman people (!Kung?)
is savannah based. However, the only other hunter/gatherer culture that
survived into the 20th century, the Australian aborigines, seem to
have preferred warm coastal regions, although they also know how to
survive in savannah and desert environments.
Most hominid fossils have been found in the Rift valley near lakes and
rivers. Early hominids could survive quite well living close to water
and occasionally scavenging a few miles or so from the home base.
Their stone tools were initially used to crush bones for marrow,
a technique that had worked well with shell fish. c.f. Californian
sea otter.
Gradually, they were able to drive off other scavangers to get access
to carrion. Their stone tools were adapted for butchery by sharpening
an edge.
Within a comparatively recent time, the tools had evolved to the
point where they could be used for hunting. Note though, that once
that point had been reached, humans had such an advantage over other
animals that they could live wherever they wandered.
Perhaps there was a big enough pay-off from killing a large animal
that early man concentrated on big game and followed them across
the savannah. If my speculation is even close to accurate, then the
time spent on the savannah was relatively short in evolutionary terms.
Speculation mode off
If the Baboon marker DNA analysis is correct, there cannot have
been an African savannah period prior to Lucy (3.5 mya).
-------------------------------------
Pat Dooley speculating wildly
Fiona Webster
Recommended book: _Geek_Love_, by Katherine Dunn.
--Fiona
Richard Ottolini
>stg...@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>>The majority of hominoid existence has been during ice age when sea level
>>is much lower. I think it goes like 80K years glaciation and 20K years interglacial
>>(now) on average. If it was oceanic-aquatic, then a lot of that evidence would
>>be under water.
>
>Hominid = species since the split with the chimps (last 6 myr).
>Hominoid = apes and us (last 30 million years).
>Homo sapiens = species of the last 100,000 years (probably 125,000)
>
>The most recent ice age started 118,000 years ago at the end of an
>interglaciation that began 128,000 years ago.
>
>The aquatic ape period is thought to be back close to 6 million years ago.
>Upright posture was in place by 3-4 million years ago. Brain size
>increase didn't start until 2.5 million years ago (which is also when the
>first ice age began in a series of several dozen).
Six millions years is too early then for the ice age that began 1-2 million years
ago. The worldwide radiation of homo sapiens sapiens occurred about 50K ago
during the height of the last glacial advance. Lots of those sites are possibly
under water now.
Dale Schouten
>>Homo sapiens = species of the last 100,000 years (probably 125,000)
JOOC, where do cro-magnon, neanderthal and us fit in?
Are they all Homo Sapiens?
Dale Schouten
scho...@uiuc.edu
Andrew W. Robinson
>zaw...@hou.amoco.com (Andrew W. Robinson) writes:
>>Will some kind soul please post the lastest and greatest
>>interpretations in that regard.
>
>Ok but it is five screenfulls long.
>
I asked for, I got it. Thanks!
Andrew Robinson
William Calvin
>>>Homo sapiens = species of the last 100,000 years (probably 125,000)
>JOOC, where do cro-magnon, neanderthal and us fit in?
>Are they all Homo Sapiens?
Basically, yes. Cro-Magnon is a name for Homo sapiens back about 40,000
years ago. Neanderthal is a very robustly-built version seen in Europe
and the Levant from about 100,000 years to 33,000 years in parallel
with more gracile types like us; whether you call them
*Homo neanderthalensis* or simply a subspecies
of Homo sapiens is a matter of religion.
William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
Richard Ottolini
>>In article <29cv56$p...@news.u.washington.edu> wca...@stein1.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>>>Homo sapiens = species of the last 100,000 years (probably 125,000)
>
>JOOC, where do cro-magnon, neanderthal and us fit in?
>Are they all Homo Sapiens?
They are all the same species, but considered different sub-species.
cro-magnon = homo sapiens sapiens
neanderthal = homo sapiens neanderthalus
One technical definition of a species is interfertility.
It is thought that all homo sapien cross-breedings could produce fertile offspring.
In fact, there are fertile cross-breedings with greater genetic difference than
the 1.5% between human and chimps. (It is considered politically incorrect to
attempt breeding experiments in this case, but may be technically possible. Two
of the chimp 48 chromosomes have combined in the 46 human.)
More definitive answers may be forthcoming when they sequence protein or nucleic acid
from early human ancestors. I have not heard of anything viable older than 8000 year
Florida karst man. But they have found some material in other species millions of
years ago, so it may be only a matter of time for humans.
Furthermore, there is usually new popular science book written on the subject
of human ancestry almost every year by Leaky, or Johanssen, or Sagan, etc.
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
>The latest issue of Discover has an article discussing bipedalism as a reponse
>to savannna heat. A few of the main points made are:
>1. Bipedalism predates tool use by 2 million years.
I'll bet that its closer to 3 million years if the really old East
African stuff checks out.
>2. Walking upright dramatically reduces area exposed to the sun.
>3. '' '' increased exposure to cooling breezes.
>4. Hairlessness only became an advantage after bipedalism occured because it
> is more efficient in that posture.
A point I had raised a couple of times: hairless Australopithecines
probably didn't exist. A major assumption of the AAT is that the loss of
body hair occurred during the "aquatic" phase.
>5. Increased cooling and decreased heat gain reduced water needs by one half.
>6. '' '' '' '' '' '' allowed the development of a
> larger brain (it is a large producer of heat and very sensitive to over-
> heating)
All excellent points!
B
.
>7. One primate remains an inhabitant of the savanna: man.
Hmmm. I think that should have been One APE, not one primate. Baboons
occupy the savanna quite nicely.
>
>That is as close as I can get from a quick reading of an article that I don't
>have before me now. I offer this only as an invitation to read the article
>yourself.
>
>Charlie
>
Thanks for the info. Who was the author, by the way?
lmerkel on BIX
>In article <294msm$2...@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> ke...@zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>>pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) wrote:
>>>Another problem I have is that there seems to not have been enough
>>>time to produce something like toe webbing yet enough time to alter
>>>fat distribution patterns, cause hair to be lost and change the
>>>shape of our nose cartalage.
>>Maybe toe webbing (more than we've got) is disadvantageous during short forays
>>on land. Maybe it was lost during the savannah stage.
>B
>It doesn't seem to do ducks or beavers any harm. >
>
Maybe not -- but you don't see many ducks or beavers
climbing or sitting in trees. People seem to be
pretty good at that -- maybe they had to be to stay
alive or to gather food (eggs & fruit).
I would guess webbed human feet might not be as
efficient when it comes to running, especially
on uneven, rocky, broken ground. Ducks and beavers
aren't about to win any races on the ground.
-- Lee Merkel
lmerkel on BIX
> Now all that needs to happen, after an isolated population is
>reconnected somehow to the continental population, is for a drought to
>shrink the population. But for the formerly isolated type to have some
>additional way of making a living on the savannah that the standard
>version does not: say, fishing or waterhole predation using behavioral
>characters that were shaped in an aquatic phase.
Most of the messages on the AAT deal with the
possibility of a long phase of wetness, then a long
dry phase. What if there were a region and time (in Africa
probably) where the apes/hominids had to deal with
months of heavy flooding every year, and then months of
relatively dry land?
This sort of thing occurs in the Amazon River
regions, and probably to lesser extent in many other
river systems. Instead of having to move dozens or
more miles from home one or more times every year,
wouldn't it make sense for an animal to evolve a way
to live in both wet & dry situations?
There are other animals and many trees and plants
that thrive in the Amazon basin despite having to
deal with square miles of flooding every year.
-- Lee Merkel
John Edstrom
>Eric Trinkaus has pointed out that modern human infant digit bones are
>smooth and without features while those of the great apes are rugose from
>use--they cling to the hair of their mothers. The digits of neandertal
>infants were rugose like those of the apes.
This is interesting, and actually supports the AAT.
I don't see how this follows. If great apes are not aquatic and did
not descend from aquatic ancestors and their infants have rugose
digits. How does the fact that Neanderthal infants have rugose digits
inply aquatic ancestry? I don't seem them being related.
fact that males are more likely to lose their hair. If a female lost her
hair, she would run a greater risk of losing her baby into the water.
Or anywhere else.
Paul "aquatic ape" Keck
--
John Edstrom | edstrom @ elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca
Division of Neuroscience
University Calgary Facutly of Medicine
3330 Hospital Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta T2N 3Y4
(403) 220 4493 voice
(403) 283 2700 FAX
John Edstrom
c...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
Chris,
I don't see the importance of the recentness of the divergence. The
recent, divergent population may have been semi aquatic.
The second question we need
to ask is that given the assumptions of the AAT can we
expect to see any pattern in the fossil record that might
support AAT?
My answer is that there should be and we don't find it. We
don't. The earliest hominids were small brained bipeds
with a postcranial skeleton than indicates at least a partially
arboreal niche and with teeth that are remarkably unspecialized,
something that is uncharacteristic of marine mammals.
But the record is sparse. Not many sites have yielded hominid remains
near the right age. I'm no expert but my impression is that these
sites are inland, not near ancient sea coasts. Perhaps a prediction
of AAT would be that earlier proto homo remains should be found closer
to the sea but practical considerations may render this untestable.
--
Philip Nicholls "To ask a question,
Department of Anthropology you must first know
SUNY Albany most of the answer."
pn8...@thor.albany.edu
William Calvin
>wca...@stein1.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>-- Lee Merkel
Good point. Indeed, the bonobo (the misnamed "pygmy" chimpanzee) lives
in an often wet forest back up the Congo River basin; it's
the ape which, in behavioral terms, seems closest to humans.
It's also the most endangered ape with no national preserve with guards
and an encroaching human population. In the US, the best place to see
a colony of bonobos is at the San Diego Zoo; it's the closest you can
come to seeing what our common ancestor looked like and acted like. Best
place to read up on them is in Frans de Waal's PEACEMAKING AMONG PRIMATES
(Harvard U Press 1989).
Rebecca Radnor
I probably shouldn't do this but.....
To be blunt I haven't seen such an animated discussion on this board in a
while and I have to wonder if the the esteemed name of the original poster
may not have more to do with it than the topic at hand (this is of course
based on the assumption that most of anthropologists who would be internet
literate are also likely to be VERY familiar with the works of an author by
the same name -- and who else could afford and be interested in posesing
their own server?). I seriously wonder how much discussion this topic
would have received otherwise?
To the esteemed original poster, please continue using this area as
a sounding board. There are two good reasons for this, a) I like the amount
of traffic it stirs up (even if people are showing off), and b) if you are
who most of us think you are, better that what you write should be well
informed, so that the general public doesn't get mis-information which only
ends up annoying those of us who specialize in the area.
Just my $ 0.02 worth.
--
Rebecca Anne Radnor // I know everything,
Dept. of Anthropology, NU // I know nothing,
Japlady= Jewish American Princess // I used to put sticks under the back porch
and Japan-ophile // and wait for them to petrify.
Warren Vonroeschlaub
Radnor) writes:
>To be blunt I haven't seen such an animated discussion on this board in a
>while and I have to wonder if the the esteemed name of the original poster
>may not have more to do with it than the topic at hand (this is of course
>based on the assumption that most of anthropologists who would be internet
>literate are also likely to be VERY familiar with the works of an author by
>the same name -- and who else could afford and be interested in posesing
>their own server?). I seriously wonder how much discussion this topic
>would have received otherwise?
The AAT has shown up on talk.origins before and it always gets plenty of
discussion. That it is both controversial and has devout supporters in both
camps seems to be the main cause, and this time is no exception. Indeed, alot
of what is being posted is rehash from previous cycles.
| __L__
-|- ___ Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
| | o | kv...@iastate.edu
|/ `---' Iowa State University
/| ___ Math Department
| |___| 400 Carver Hall
| |___| Ames, IA 50011
J _____
Eric J. Forbis
>In Article <1993Oct10....@sarah.albany.edu>, pn8...@thor.albany.edu
>(NICHOLLS PHILIP A) wrote:
>>Doug,
>>
>>I have not read any of Morgan's books and am responding to the arguments
>>presented by folks who have read her book and are impressed by her
>>arguments.
>Since you are clearly interested in the subject - or you wouldn't be
>arguing! - may I strongly recommend them to you? They are brief, concise and
>well written. (I'm speaking here of the 2nd and 3rd book - haven't read the
>first, which I suspect is not of the same standard. Just the third is
>sufficient in fact.) Many of the points you have raised are dealt with
>thoroughly, and are in fact central to the argument.
I suggest that readers here check out one of Morgan's earlier books, _The
Descent of Woman_, where she she engages in an orgy of men-bashing and taking
shots at "experts" who in fact wrote popular books. There's an error nearly
every page! "Brief, concise, and well- written"? Gimme a break.
Morgan didn't raise Hardy's theory from the dead for the sheer hell of it;
she's an academic feminist with an axe to grind. She cleaned up the
anti-male rhetoric in her later books to get others to help her push her
bandwagon-- but the fact remains that she has a very ulterior motive for
pushing this theory, and this motive is fair game for discussion.
>If it _is_ true then the following pieces of troublesome or
>not-really-properly-explained data suddenly fit very easily: bipedalism,
>hairlessness, subcutaneous fat, lack of apocrine glands/preponderance of
>eccrine glands/wastefully prolific salty sweat/tears, plump babies, babies
>able to swim, the diving reflex, the dropping of the larynx, deliberate
>control of breathing, (which together provide the mechanism of speech and
>also cause cot death), the web-toed birth abnormality, ventro-ventral
>copulation, and swimming pools.
_None_ of the above is better explained by the AAT than standard theory.
I must have deleted the quote- somewhere you state that everyone has supported
Morgan's theory. Read _Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction_ for a mixed review.
Morgan's hypothesis has major holes in it.
>Furthermore, one plausible site for this semi-aquatic isolation has been
>identified - the Danakil Alps on the Red Sea coast of Ethiopia.
>So far that makes it only plausible, though Occam's Razor makes it very
>tempting.
Occams razor states that the more simple hypothesis that fits the facts is
more likely; there aren't any facts here, and the hypothesis itself has
problems.
It's possible that it could be true yet never be supported by the
>fossil record, patchy and random as it is. (Though the areas predicted by
>the Danakil hypothesis have not been dug). If we wait for fossil
>confirmation we could wait for ever. Is that good reason to dismiss it?
Fossil confirmation will _not_ take forever-- not if there's anything to the
theory. I've heard this argument almost chanted like a mantra at times, and
strongly suspect that Morgan isn't really interested in confirmation, hence
the reliance on non-fossilizing features such as sweat glands and tear ducts.
Morgan's apes were supposed to have been around for at least 2 million years,
possibly as much as 6 million years. To say they were confined to the Danakil
depression is absurd, given such spans of time and even a mild curiousity in
your surroundings. _Many_ digs have been conducted by ancient lake beds and
riversides, but not a shred of evidence has appeared. If occam's razor applies
here, it isn't in Morgan's favor.
>Shouldn't we, instead, be seeing if the other tools of evolutionary research
>can be brought to bear on it? If you are denying that anything other than
>hard fossil evidence is sufficient then Darwin himself is suddenly in trouble!
Darwin also _deplored_ (in DoS?) being forced to use biological analogies to
the degree he did, and sought out/used the fossil record as much as possible.
j...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
> pn8...@thor.albany.edu (NICHOLLS PHILIP A) writes:
>
>>>Maybe toe webbing (more than we've got) is disadvantageous during short forays
>>>on land. Maybe it was lost during the savannah stage.
>
>>B
>>It doesn't seem to do ducks or beavers any harm. >
>>
> Maybe not -- but you don't see many ducks or beavers
> climbing or sitting in trees. People seem to be
> pretty good at that -- maybe they had to be to stay
> alive or to gather food (eggs & fruit).
>
> I would guess webbed human feet might not be as
> efficient when it comes to running, especially
> on uneven, rocky, broken ground. Ducks and beavers
> aren't about to win any races on the ground.
Everyone in this discussion seems to have a completely
WRONG idea about evolution and phenotype.
You seem to assume that every trivial physical characteristic
has been subjected to its own special trial-by-selection and
is thus retained or deleted depending on the results. This
is not so. Mutations often create a spectrum of phenotypical
differences. It's a "package deal". The selection process
often cannot test each of the new traits in an independent
manner. The viability of the WHOLE PACKAGE relative to
survival/procreational advangage is normally what selection
operates on. A highly advantageous trait nested within a
group of largely irrelevant ones winds up perpetuating
those irrelevant traits along with the highly advantageous
one.
Good examples would be ; the human appendix, nipples on males,
nails on the small toes, the retention of *some* body hair
on humans etc.. None of these traits are especially relevant
to our survival. Although all of them may sometimes have
a slight negative value, they do not disappear. The reason
is that the "package" of phenotypical changes of which these
particular traits were a part was, in the balance, of positive
value in the selection process. Our genes are not edited
like a computer program or a mechanical design - on a fragment
by fragment basis - all the time (although some single-point
mutations are). If you go for 'punctuated equilibrium' or
some near-relation to that theory then you will realize that
human evolution was not crept-up upon one gene at a time, but
was instead the result of 'bursts' of mutation - the relative
advantages and disadvantages being 'field tested' the hard
way on the changes as a whole.
Now, please remove 'talk.politics.misc' from this threads
distribution list at your earliest convenience - unless
you can demonstrate some relevant political angle to
this discussion.
-- Jim Mason
Chris Malcolm
>In article <dna.110...@158.152.1.69> d...@dadams.demon.co.uk (Douglas Adams) writes:
>I suggest that readers here check out one of Morgan's earlier books, _The
>Descent of Woman_, where she she engages in an orgy of men-bashing and taking
>shots at "experts" who in fact wrote popular books. There's an error nearly
>every page! "Brief, concise, and well- written"? Gimme a break.
A common view of that book, which surprised me when I read it, since I
found it well written, thought provoking, and entertaining. I can well
understand, however, that it would be found offensively silly by two
kinds of people: those who want anthrop theories to be dressed in the
proper standard language of anthrop scientific papers; and those who
are paranoidly sensitive of a feminist agenda. Experiments have shown
how profoundly academics are influenced by style: rephrase an
excellent paper in, say, a literary style, and it will be seen as very
questionable; rephrase a silly paper in the best style, and many will
be impressed.
In her first book Morgan, wishing to write for a wide readership,
adopted a literary ironic style seriously out of court for academic
writing, and got pasted for it by many academics. She also explicitly
made clear her "feminist agenda", in the sense that she alleged that
many of the orthodox theories were the sort of nonsense that only
blinkered chauvinist men would have been able to find plausible. Since
I (a man) has already detected that flavour in the anthropological
just-so stories of Tiger, Fox et al, I found nothing contentious in
that.
>Morgan didn't raise Hardy's theory from the dead for the sheer hell of it;
>she's an academic feminist with an axe to grind. She cleaned up the
>anti-male rhetoric in her later books to get others to help her push her
>bandwagon-- but the fact remains that she has a very ulterior motive for
>pushing this theory, and this motive is fair game for discussion.
What on earth does her motive have to do with the theory? Copernicus,
Kepler, and Newton had motives for their work which would get them
laughed out of any modern scientific forum; the point is that their
insights were _good_. Suppose we were to discover that Kekule's famous
dream of the benzene ring was induced by smoking opium; should we
therefore instantly revise our opinion of the chemistry of aromatic
hydrocarbons? I'm really puzzled why you think this sort of ad feminam
point is relevant to the AAT.
>>If it _is_ true then the following pieces of troublesome or
>>not-really-properly-explained data suddenly fit very easily: bipedalism,
>>hairlessness, subcutaneous fat, lack of apocrine glands/preponderance of
>>eccrine glands/wastefully prolific salty sweat/tears, plump babies, babies
>>able to swim, the diving reflex, the dropping of the larynx, deliberate
>>control of breathing, (which together provide the mechanism of speech and
>>also cause cot death), the web-toed birth abnormality, ventro-ventral
>>copulation, and swimming pools.
>_None_ of the above is better explained by the AAT than standard theory.
Excellent! I've been longing for someone as knowledgeable as you to
enter this argument! Can you please post the standard theory which
explains the above? I've already asked other apparently well qualified
posters the same question, but must presume they were too busy to
reply. So far this discussion has been far too one-sided, with
Morgan's crowd posting discussion and argument, and the orthodox crowd
posting unsubstantiated sneers.
>Occams razor states that the more simple hypothesis that fits the facts is
>more likely; there aren't any facts here, and the hypothesis itself has
>problems.
You have already quoted the facts, Eric. The facts are simply the
above list of physiological differences between ourselves and other
apes which you have already pointed out are better explained by the
standard theory. You really must be more careful with your arguments
-- if you swipe so wildly you run the risk of demolishing your own.
>Fossil confirmation will _not_ take forever-- not if there's anything to the
>theory. I've heard this argument almost chanted like a mantra at times, and
>strongly suspect that Morgan isn't really interested in confirmation, hence
>the reliance on non-fossilizing features such as sweat glands and tear ducts.
Wait a minute. Didn't Morgan put a lot of effort into supporting a
recently funded expedition to the Danakil Highlands?
>Morgan's apes were supposed to have been around for at least 2 million years,
>possibly as much as 6 million years. To say they were confined to the Danakil
>depression is absurd, given such spans of time and even a mild curiousity in
>your surroundings.
You mean you think they would have built boats? Morgan certainly
does not credit them with anything like that kind of sophistication,
but I presume you are relying on some anthroplogical evidence unknown
to her?
>_Many_ digs have been conducted by ancient lake beds and
>riversides, but not a shred of evidence has appeared.
This is absolutely true. In fact, I myself dug extensively on the
banks of the river Tay in Scotland, and could find absolutely no
evidence whatsoever of these Aquatic Apes of the Danakil Island. But I
can't understand why you suppose this counts as evidence against their
existence.
However, as you clearly recognise, the really important point is that
the standard theory explains all these allegedly aquatic features much
better. So for those of us who have had difficulty finding this
standard theory, could you please summarise it?
Cameron Laird
>
>I probably shouldn't do this but.....
>
>To be blunt I haven't seen such an animated discussion on this board in a
>while and I have to wonder if the the esteemed name of the original poster
>may not have more to do with it than the topic at hand (this is of course
>based on the assumption that most of anthropologists who would be internet
>literate are also likely to be VERY familiar with the works of an author by
>the same name -- and who else could afford and be interested in posesing
>their own server?). I seriously wonder how much discussion this topic
.
.
I'm perhaps too unsubtle to help here, but it appears
to be time for testimony on the question, "who else
could afford and be interested in posesing their own
(several thousand in the U.S., I estimate) of people
who have registered "personal" domains, which can act
as NetNews posting servers.
I'm not sure what that has to do with your point.
I've tried to steer follow-ups a bit more accurately.
--
Cameron Laird
cla...@Neosoft.com (claird%Neoso...@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
cla...@litwin.com (claird%litwi...@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546
Aaron Clausen
>Toe and finger webbing is a rare but well-known human genetic "abnormality".
Is the directly related to the aquatic apes?
--
"Amnesia's fine, but everybody else still knows who you are."
Aaron Clausen of the Tao of Cow, Port Alberni, BC
Chopped Liver
Sorry it took so long to respond. The article is in the November of Discover
magazine on page 34. The author is Tim Folger and he is discussing the work
of Pete Wheeler, a physiologist at Liverpool John Moores University in England.
>
>
>--
>Philip Nicholls "To ask a question,
>Department of Anthropology you must first know
>SUNY Albany most of the answer."
>pn8...@thor.albany.edu
Charlie Watkins
University of Montana
Computing and Information Services
J. Moore
F> it;
F> she's an academic feminist with an axe to grind. She cleaned up the
Morgan is not an "academic feminist". She has no formal anthropological
training (and no informal training judging from her writings). She is
often presented as an academic by male academics in a rather pathetic
attempt to discredit the legitimate (and very good) work done by many
real academic feminists in anthropology re human evolution.
* Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
Busybody
Aaron Clausen <aar...@taocow.hakatac.almanac.bc.ca> wrote:
>In <CEnrx...@festival.ed.ac.uk> c...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>Toe and finger webbing is a rare but well-known human genetic "abnormality".
>Is the directly related to the aquatic apes?
Well, someone argued that the webbing would have disappeared as
detrimental to running.
When I was a kid I knew a guy with *serious* webbing on his
toes (and exaggerated finger webbing--but that looked mostly
normal). No other birth defects or anything--a normal (otherwise)
guy.
He had no trouble running at all, and he hated to swim.
--
The big mistake that men make is that when they turn thirteen or fourteen and
all of a sudden they've reached puberty, they believe that they like women.
Actually, you're just horny. It doesn't mean you like women any more at
twenty-one than you did at ten. --Jules Feiffer (cartoonist)
Marvin Minsky
>In <CEnrx...@festival.ed.ac.uk> c...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>Toe and finger webbing is a rare but well-known human genetic "abnormality".
>Is the directly related to the aquatic apes?
Surely the relation is obvious. If this can occur as an uncommon
genetic abnormality, that suggests that there are "still" some nearly
functional genetic systems for webbing in our gene pool. I presume
that Malcolm was hinting that these could have been much more common,
and more functional, at an earlier time, but have now virtually
vanished because of selective neglect.
Further research on this abnormality might identify the gene(s) for
this and might even show that the unexpressed variety is actually still
widely distributed. There's lots of "fossil" information still inside
us.
Busybody
Marvin Minsky <min...@media.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <tHBvsAB...@taocow.hakatac.almanac.bc.ca> aar...@taocow.hakatac.almanac.bc.ca (Aaron Clausen) writes:
>>In <CEnrx...@festival.ed.ac.uk> c...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>>Toe and finger webbing is a rare but well-known human genetic "abnormality".
>
>>Is the directly related to the aquatic apes?
>
>Surely the relation is obvious. If this can occur as an uncommon
>genetic abnormality, that suggests that there are "still" some nearly
>functional genetic systems for webbing in our gene pool.
Are you suggesting that a mutation which produced two penises,
and extra toe, or blindness might show that there are "still
some nearly !functional! genetic systems for extra penises/toes/
blindness in our gene pool"?
*[using "functional" in a discussion of the bizarre physical
effects that genetic mutations can cause seems a little too
much for me.]
Herb Huston
William Calvin <wca...@stein1.u.washington.edu> wrote:
} Indeed, the bonobo (the misnamed "pygmy" chimpanzee) lives
}in an often wet forest back up the Congo River basin; it's
}the ape which, in behavioral terms, seems closest to humans.
}
}It's also the most endangered ape with no national preserve with guards
}and an encroaching human population.
It could be worse. At least in one of the study areas the local people
revere bonobos as ancestral spirits. In other parts of Zaire bonobos are
ingredients for stew.
} In the US, the best place to see
}a colony of bonobos is at the San Diego Zoo; it's the closest you can
}come to seeing what our common ancestor looked like and acted like. Best
}place to read up on them is in Frans de Waal's PEACEMAKING AMONG PRIMATES
}(Harvard U Press 1989).
For anyone living east of the Mississippi, there are bonobos at both the
Cincinnati and Columbus Zoos (and, I think, at the Milwaukee Zoo). In fact,
Kevin and Lenore, both of whom are mentioned in _Peacemaking Among Primates_
were at the Cincinnati Zoo as of two years ago. Kevin is quite personable;
he'll wave back to visitors that wave to him.
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
Herb Huston
Sir Alister Hardy himself cites a study by Basler in 1926 of 1000 school-
children. Nine percent of the boys and 6.6 percent of the girls were
found to have webbing between the second and third toes. This appears in
Appendix 2, Statement 2, of Elaine Morgan's _The Aquatic Ape_, and there's
no bibliographic reference to Basler's study. This incidence is higher than
that for the simian crease across the palm of the hand (4 percent).
Jie Liang
>Further research on this abnormality might identify the gene(s) for
>this and might even show that the unexpressed variety is actually still
>widely distributed. There's lots of "fossil" information still inside
>us.
Fortunately, with Minsky and other's work in perceptrons and neural
networks later on, there are people down at Oakridge National Lab who
acclaim that they can detect exons (genes actually coding protein) from
the vast wasteland of intron (genes not coding proteins) with about 95%
accuracy by using a hybrid neural network. I wonder, can they
detect any of these fossil genes?
--
Jie Liang ("Kommissar") Internet:j...@tgevax.life.uiuc.edu
156 Davenport Hall li...@cs.uiuc.edu
607 S.Matthews Ave "Working Hard Advancing Science to
Urbana, IL 61801 Corrupt the Mind." -- Black Uhuru
roger m squires
>
>. . . the legitimate (and very good) work done by many
>real academic feminists in anthropology re human evolution.
>
Dean Falk in _Braindance_ mentions many female workers
in the field. Also, this book discusses her "radiator"
theory of brain cooling, which is apropos to this thread.
> * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
rms
ron house
>I suggest that readers here check out one of Morgan's earlier books, _The
>Descent of Woman_, where she she engages in an orgy of men-bashing and taking
>shots at "experts" who in fact wrote popular books. There's an error nearly
>every page! "Brief, concise, and well- written"? Gimme a break.
That's something I didn't know.
>Morgan didn't raise Hardy's theory from the dead for the sheer hell of it;
>she's an academic feminist with an axe to grind. She cleaned up the
>anti-male rhetoric in her later books to get others to help her push her
>bandwagon-- but the fact remains that she has a very ulterior motive for
>pushing this theory, and this motive is fair game for discussion.
Well I would be interested to know what it is. I for one can't see how
an aquatic stage in human evolution adds any arguments to feminism.
--
Ron House. USQ
(ho...@usq.edu.au) Toowoomba, Australia.
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
>> forb...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Eric J. Forbis) writes
>> I suggest that readers here check out one of Morgan's earlier
>> books, _The Descent of Woman_, where she she engages in an orgy of
>> men-bashing and taking shots at "experts" who in fact wrote popular
>> books. There's an error nearly every page! "Brief, concise, and
>> well- written"? Gimme a break.
> A common view of that book, which surprised me when I read it, since
> I found it well written, thought provoking, and entertaining.
I just read it, quickly (thank you, Evelyn Wood!). I found it
entertaining and in terms of style, well written. I did not find it
thought provoking.
> I can well understand, however, that it would be found offensively
> silly by two kinds of people: those who want anthrop theories to be
> dressed in the proper standard language of anthrop scientific
> papers; and those who are paranoidly sensitive of a feminist agenda.
As someone who spends a good deal of time reading anthropological
papers, I can appreciate a well written popular treatment. I would
have no reservation about assigning popularly works in classes I might
teach in (hopefully) the near future. Popular scientific works, in my
opinion at least, DO have an obligation to provide the reader with
some sort of documentation of claims made or ideas used. It is in
this department that Morgan, at least in the two books I have read
now, has failed. For good examples of popular works in the same vein
as Morgan, I can recommend Roger Lewin's _Bones of Contention_ and
Sarah B. Hrdy's _The Woman Who Never Evolved_.
Of course, I should mention Dean Falk's _Braindance_ or Bill Calvin
might get on my case. :-)
> Experiments have shown how profoundly academics are influenced by
> style: rephrase an excellent paper in, say, a literary style, and it
> will be seen as very questionable; rephrase a silly paper in the
> best style, and many will be impressed.
This is a good example of the Elaine Morgan style of presenting an
argument. Experiments are cited, but we are not told who performed or
where the original results might have been published. We are given a
very superficial description of the results. Since we can't verify
the claim ourselves, we must reject it out of hand OR accept it
uncritically. On the nets, however, we have a third option. We can
say "source please."
Source please.
> In her first book Morgan, wishing to write for a wide readership,
> adopted a literary ironic style seriously out of court for academic
> writing, and got pasted for it by many academics.
It was my impression that Morgan's work was largely ignored. My
academics, do you mean anyone or anthropologists in particular?
>> Morgan didn't raise Hardy's theory from the dead for the sheer hell
>> of it; she's an academic feminist with an axe to grind. She cleaned
>> up the anti-male rhetoric in her later books to get others to help
>> her push her bandwagon-- but the fact remains that she has a very
>> ulterior motive for pushing this theory, and this motive is fair
>> game for discussion.
> What on earth does her motive have to do with the theory?
> Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton had motives for their work which
> would get them laughed out of any modern scientific forum; the point
> is that their insights were _good_. Suppose we were to discover that
> Kekule's famous dream of the benzene ring was induced by smoking
> opium; should we therefore instantly revise our opinion of the
> chemistry of aromatic hydrocarbons? I'm really puzzled why you think
> this sort of ad feminam point is relevant to the AAT.
You (Chris) are correct. Morgan's reasons for seeking an alternative
hypothesis are not important. Her agenda might make us look more
closely at the work for flaws, but ultimately the work must stand on
it's own merits and be judged by the content of the argument.
Likewise, those who critique the theory (such as myself) and find it
seriously flawed should not be judged as academic curmudgeons or male
chauvinist.
>> Re: bipedalism, hairlessness, subcutaneous fat, lack of apocrine
>> glands/preponderance of eccrine glands/wastefully prolific salty
>> sweat/tears, plump babies, babies able to swim, the diving reflex,
>> the dropping of the larynx, deliberate control of breathing, (which
>> together provide the mechanism of speech and also cause cot death),
>> the web-toed birth abnormality, ventro-ventral copulation, and
>>swimming pools.
>_None_ of the above is better explained by the AAT than standard
> theory.
> Excellent! I've been longing for someone as knowledgeable as you to
> enter this argument! Can you please post the standard theory which
> explains the above? I've already asked other apparently well
> qualified posters the same question, but must presume they were too
> busy to reply. So far this discussion has been far too one-sided,
> with Morgan's crowd posting discussion and argument, and the
> orthodox crowd posting unsubstantiated sneers.
I have not sneered. I have now read two of Morgan's books in the
midst of my other pressing academic chores and post a point by point
critique of each of these points. I have not received a reply to my
most recent and most detailed critique. I suspect it may be lost in
the Usenet ether. Let me post some of those again:
[1] bipedalism Bipedalism is not unique in primates or in mammals.
There are several theories that explain the origins
of bipedalism in hominids that account for the distribution of fossil
evidence, biomechanics and response to heat stress. I have listed
them in previous posts and will list them again if requested to do so.
[2] hairlessness There is no evidence to suggest nor reason to
believe that the earliest hominids showed any
significant reduction in body hair. They were, after all, not much
more than bipedal apes.
[3] subcutaneous fat All mammals store fat in subcutaneous tissue.
Excess fat deposits occur at obesity centers
which vary in different species of mammals. Contrary to Morgan's
claims, obesity centers in great apes observed in zoos mirrors the
pattern found in humans. Human fat layering is consistant with other
mammals with reduced body hair, which include aquatic mammals, some
suids and elephants. Now unless you want to tell me that pigs and
elephants also went through an aquatic phase it is a more reasonable
explanation to assume that these similarities are the result of an
evolutionary convergence.
[4] lack of apocrine glands/preponderance of eccrine Humans do have
apocrine glands. The reduction in apocrine glands and increase in
eccrine glands is an ANTHROPOID primate trend which is most pronounced
in the great apes and humans. There is no evidence to suggest nor is
there reason to believe that there earliest hominids had fewer
apocrine glands than modern great apes.
[5] prolific salty sweat/tears salt is necessary in any
osmoregulatory process and is found in sweat and tears for the same
reason that is found in urine. Sweating is a thermoregulator
mechanisms in modern humans. There is no evidence to suggest nor is
there reason to believe that early hominids were more incline to sweat
than modern apes.
[6] plump babies European babies are plumb. !Kung bablies are
not plump. Gorilla or Chimpanzee babies born
in zoos are also more "plumb" than those bone in the wild. Plumpness
is associated with fat in the prenatal diet and babies with high birth
weight are less likely to become infant mortality statistics.
[7] dropping of the larynx The larynx in modern humans is positioned
lower than the great apes. The position of the larynx in great apes
is, in general, positioned lower than that of Old World Monkeys. The
position of the larynx is more than likely a bi-product of bipedalism
and the re-organization of the head/neck anatomy necessitated by
bipedalism.
[8] ventro-ventral copulation also occurs in the bonobo (pygmie
chimpanzee). It is also not the
preferred position of every human culture.
[9] babies that can swim The evidence that human babies can
"swim" at birth comes from anecdotal
descriptions of underwater birthing. In fact, babies born in water
will drown in not removed from the water after birth. They can make
dog-paddle like motions with their arms and legs, a response that will
occur if any quadrupedal mammal is thrown into the water.
[9] swimming pools There is no evidence that the earliest
hominds had swimming pools.
I'm goint to stop here, but you get the idea. It is erroneous to
assume that all ape/human differences were present in the earliest
hominids. This is a fundemental assumption of her argument. There
are other human/ape differences that don't fit her theory. For
example:
[1] Humans retain hair on their head. Aquatic mammals who have lost
their hair or reduced the amount of hair do not retain hair on their
head.
[2] Humans have a foramen magnum positioned under the base of the
skull. It is located in a more posterior/caudal position in apes AND
in aquatic mammals. The position of the foramen magnum (the whole in
the skull through which the spinal cord passes) is critical to
bipedalism.
[3] Large brains the brains of early hominids are about the size of
those found in gorilla and chimpanzee, adjusted for body size.
Aquatic mammals have very large brains.
[4] Brain structure aquatic mammals have an expanded auditory cortex
and reduced visual cortex. In humans, as in modern apes, this is
reversed. The reason is that sound travels better in water than
light.
>> Morgan's apes were supposed to have been around for at least 2
>> million years, possibly as much as 6 million years. To say they
>> were confined to the Danakil depression is absurd, given such spans
>> of time and even a mild curiousity in your surroundings.
> You mean you think they would have built boats? Morgan certainly
> does not credit them with anything like that kind of sophistication,
> but I presume you are relying on some anthroplogical evidence
> unknown to her?
No, I think in this point he is relying on Morgan. Why would they
need to build boats if they could swim and why would a body of water
confine them if they were aquatic?
>_Many_ digs have been conducted by ancient lake beds and
>riversides, but not a shred of evidence has appeared.
--
William Calvin
explanations, even reasonable explanations, for all the traits listed.
The attraction of the AAT is that it can explain so many of them by a
single postulate, a period of shoreline foraging and occasional diving.
Even if the AAT is true at some point in time, all the other
selective pressures might have also happened in other periods, before and
after an aquatic phase. This isn't an either-or situation.
Gil Hardwick
Let anthropology blossom, and by these standards of debate let some
of the gaps be filled.
Gil Hardwick, Independent Anthropologist Derby/West Kimberley W.A.
e-mail: g...@tillage.DIALix.oz.au phone: (+6191) 91 1260
* Permaculture Design - Community Development - Land Management *
* Social and Cultural Research - Remote Area Communications *
Bob Simmonds
you figure this happened? EXcept during tsunamis, marine life forms have
*no* trouble simply migrating to keep up, an humans are a lot more mobile
than most of them. One of the most rapid seashore retreats recorded is now
taking place in Hudson's Bay, and one does *not* find stranded seals.
--
Bob Simmonds - Dr. R.T. Simmonds
190 East Beach Rd. Nordland, WA 98358-9622
206-385-2110
NICHOLLS PHILIP A
The problem is that the traits that Morgan feels are somehow anomalous
really are not. About 90% of her case is based on anecdotal evidence.
Human/Ape differences are the product of at least 5 million years of
independent evolution. Characteristics of living apes cannot be
assumed to be characteristics of extinct apes unless you have some
fossil evidence OR, as in the case of the apocrine eccrine gland
example, you have a documented trend in living primates.
The real question is, why do some people accept statments about
human/ape physiology uncritically from someone who does not have
the expertise to do so?
Robert Scott
>In article <tHBvsAB...@taocow.hakatac.almanac.bc.ca>,
>Aaron Clausen <aar...@taocow.hakatac.almanac.bc.ca> wrote:
>
> Well, someone argued that the webbing would have disappeared as
> detrimental to running.
>
> When I was a kid I knew a guy with *serious* webbing on his
> toes (and exaggerated finger webbing--but that looked mostly
> normal). No other birth defects or anything--a normal (otherwise)
> guy.
>
Well, I justed wanted to mention something funny about webbed feet. I know
from experience because ... I have them. At least in my case, I can't
understand how it would be a drawback in any sense of the word. But
then, I only have webbing between 2 of my toes.
The funniest thing about webbing is when people ask me if I swim better
becuase of it. They just don't thing that I would have no basis for
comparison! And of course, this is nothing like your scuba-fins
webbing which extends 6 inches or so. So any increase in swimming
ability is easily lost in the noise.
---ralph
Gil Hardwick
In article <29cv56$p...@news.u.washington.edu> wca...@stein1.u.washington.edu writes:
> The aquatic ape period is thought to be back close to 6 million years ago.
> Upright posture was in place by 3-4 million years ago. Brain size
> increase didn't start until 2.5 million years ago (which is also when the
> first ice age began in a series of several dozen).
> William H. Calvin WCa...@U.Washington.edu
> University of Washington NJ-15
> Seattle, Washington 98195 FAX:1-206-720-1989
I don't really understand this argument, and now that I am feeling
much better with those silly writs thoroughly out of the way I think
perhaps it might be stupid question time. Will someone please offer
the rest of us some basic assumptions leading to this point in the
debate.
This multimillion year linear time-frame mapping prehistorical events
is somewhat outside my field. But what is it precisely the prehistorians
are looking for here; aquatic apes which might ultimately be shown to
precede what we know already are aquatic humans, or aquatic proto-humans
which later again became human?
That is, are scholars searching for an ape (in which case I would ask
what it has to do with human development, supposing that all the apes
finally went off in their own direction), or are they searching for a
creature which can be shown to be not yet human yet aquatic and thus
significantly different from apes?
Indeed, to make it even more interesting, what assumptions are being
made about contemporary humans, from which arguments may be being built
I can only suppose from reading them to be implying a non-aquatic
contemporary human, with gaps to be filled between an "aquatic ape"
evolutionary phase and the present circumstances of human social and
economic life?
If humans have been aquatic all the way through, why would anyone
bother searching back 6 million years through the fossil record for
evidence of a aquatic ape phase? Wouldn't we simply be looking for
the beginnings of a continuous process of adaptation rather than a
discrete being which finally went the way of the Neanderthals, it
presumably being no longer with us supposing that we can't find it
today either?
It seems very highly probably to me that humans have been swimming
and fishing, and collecting turtles, mussels, crayfish, lotus roots
and so on all the way through. That being the case, what does it
matter whether it was 6 million years ago, or 3-4 million years, or
merely 20 years ago?
I understand too "aquatic" to mean "semi-aquatic", where the society
exploits both riverine and coastal environments as the foundation of
its economy?
Aaron Clausen
>Unfortunately, there's no fossil evidence to support the standard savannah
>theory, either. How did our skeleton change to make us bipedal? The SST
>(standard savannah theory) makes some noises about tool use or seeing farther.
>These arguments fail, though. If it's such a great idea, why don't all
>savannah primates walk upright? How can you explain away the fact that chimps
>use tools plenty, but aren't bipedal?
This sounds suspiciously like the way creationists argue. "There's not enough
evidence for that theory, so my theory (which has no more evidence than that one)
must be right."
Richard Harter
>[1] bipedalism Bipedalism is not unique in primates or in mammals.
> There are several theories that explain the origins
>of bipedalism in hominids that account for the distribution of fossil
>evidence, biomechanics and response to heat stress. I have listed
>them in previous posts and will list them again if requested to do so.
This is a bit misleading. As far as I know hominid bipedalism is unique
to the hominids; no other line has the anatomical adaptations required
for full upright posture -- at least to my knowledge.
I am cheerfully willing to admit that my ignorance, but I have not seen
*any* proposed scenario (including the aquatic ape) that adequately
accounts for hominid bipedalism.
--
In my lifetime we've had a Polish Pope. | Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
In my lifetime Communism has collapsed. | Phone: 508-369-7398
In my lifetime Men have walked on the Moon. | SMDS Inc. PO Box 555
But will the Red Sox ever win a world series? | Concord MA 01742
Eric J. Forbis
>forb...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Eric J. Forbis) writes:
>>Morgan didn't raise Hardy's theory from the dead for the sheer hell of it;
>>she's an academic feminist with an axe to grind. She cleaned up the
>>anti-male rhetoric in her later books to get others to help her push her
>>bandwagon-- but the fact remains that she has a very ulterior motive for
>>pushing this theory, and this motive is fair game for discussion.
>Well I would be interested to know what it is. I for one can't see how
>an aquatic stage in human evolution adds any arguments to feminism.
Morgan excludes males from the process. Women evolved, men didn't. Not much to
it, I'm afraid.
I also doubt whether the AAT could help any modern group in the long run,
but for our modern sexists who enjoy amassing evidence of the superiority of
women over men this will be another phrase to tuck into the litany.
Eric J. Forbis
>> forb...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Eric J. Forbis) writes
>>> Morgan didn't raise Hardy's theory from the dead for the sheer hell
>>> of it; she's an academic feminist with an axe to grind. She cleaned
>>> up the anti-male rhetoric in her later books to get others to help
>>> her push her bandwagon-- but the fact remains that she has a very
>>> ulterior motive for pushing this theory, and this motive is fair
>>> game for discussion.
>> What on earth does her motive have to do with the theory?
>> Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton had motives for their work which
>> would get them laughed out of any modern scientific forum; the point
>> is that their insights were _good_. Suppose we were to discover that
>> Kekule's famous dream of the benzene ring was induced by smoking
>> opium; should we therefore instantly revise our opinion of the
>> chemistry of aromatic hydrocarbons? I'm really puzzled why you think
>> this sort of ad feminam point is relevant to the AAT.
>You (Chris) are correct. Morgan's reasons for seeking an alternative
>hypothesis are not important. Her agenda might make us look more
>closely at the work for flaws, but ultimately the work must stand on
>it's own merits and be judged by the content of the argument.
>Likewise, those who critique the theory (such as myself) and find it
>seriously flawed should not be judged as academic curmudgeons or male
>chauvinist.
Consider the ethical problems medical researchers must face when
considering using data gathered from dubious sources (torture);
agenda's _do_ matter. No science exists independently of human beings,
as far as I know, and humans must make value choices. When a theory
appears with an "agenda" (not my term) attatched, it may be possible
to evaluate the theory without reference to the agenda, yet scientists
are not mere robots- they cannot ignore all aspects of the theory
without diminishing themselves. Morgan has ulterior motives for her
research, and while it is possible to evaluate the AAT without reference
to her motives, the scientific evaluation does not exclude
criticism on other fronts.
Like a team of women trekking to the North Pole to prove that
"female" cooperation is morally superior to "male" competition
and disregard for nature (kick that dog, mate!), Morgan's trek
to the Danakil plate is loaded with relevent implications.
(Chris) A scientist experiencing inspiration while high is merely
pursuing an inefficient research strategy, and cannot be said to
be pushing any agenda. If that scientist mixed the notion that people
should take drugs, drop out of society, and tune into his message
with his papers on benzene, the agenda would be clear, and relevent
to discussion. Deliberate genderism in science has resulted in
(must result in) some incredibly poor science, and should be despised
rather than caved into.
>>>_None_ of the above is better explained by the AAT than standard
>> >theory.
>> Excellent! I've been longing for someone as knowledgeable as you to
>> enter this argument! Can you please post the standard theory which
>> explains the above? I've already asked other apparently well
>> qualified posters the same question, but must presume they were too
>> busy to reply. So far this discussion has been far too one-sided,
>> with Morgan's crowd posting discussion and argument, and the
>> orthodox crowd posting unsubstantiated sneers.
Could you possibly turn your nose up any higher? So, one who disagrees with
you or Morgan is one of the "orthodox crowd posting unsubstantiated sneers"?
I've seen a number of specific objections to AAT here. I'm curious: since, by
your own admission, most of Morgan's theory is based on analogy, where are
your substantiated facts? And the "standard theory" is how Morgan herself
referred to as the savannah theory in either _Descent_ or _AA:Fact or
Fiction?_.
[Nichols]
>I have not sneered. I have now read two of Morgan's books in the
>midst of my other pressing academic chores and post a point by point
>critique of each of these points. I have not received a reply to my
>most recent and most detailed critique. I suspect it may be lost in
>the Usenet ether. Let me post some of those again:
Is there any chance that you could repost your critique? I don't think it made
it out of cyberspace at our site. My reading has been erratic these past few
weeks due to illness- if you've seen it materialize from the inet ether,
please ignore this. Thanks for reposting your interesting summary.
Gil Hardwick
> As someone who spends a good deal of time reading anthropological
> papers, I can appreciate a well written popular treatment. I would
> have no reservation about assigning popularly works in classes I might
> teach in (hopefully) the near future. Popular scientific works, in my
> opinion at least, DO have an obligation to provide the reader with
> some sort of documentation of claims made or ideas used. It is in
> this department that Morgan, at least in the two books I have read
> now, has failed. For good examples of popular works in the same vein
> as Morgan, I can recommend Roger Lewin's _Bones of Contention_ and
> Sarah B. Hrdy's _The Woman Who Never Evolved_.
Agreed in principle, but your reply begs the question not of which
further books to read, but where in the real world out there the facts
claimed in any of them might be assessed independently.
> This is a good example of the Elaine Morgan style of presenting an
> argument. Experiments are cited, but we are not told who performed or
> where the original results might have been published. We are given a
> very superficial description of the results. Since we can't verify
> the claim ourselves, we must reject it out of hand OR accept it
> uncritically. On the nets, however, we have a third option. We can
> say "source please."
This argument brings pause for thought, where the idea of verifying
a claim is contingent upon references to *other papers* the academic
might want to pick up and read. This whole exercise constitutes little
more than a paper chase, where otherwise a work which does make some
sort of claim pointing to further field work needing to be done (cf
work which may have been done but inadequately checked by others) ought
really to be accepted.
The pursuit of knowledge is *not* a function of a process overseen by
a headmasterly authority concerned with a pedagogy yet directed at
students obviously well past puberty. Indeed, well into their adult
lives and plainly capable of thinking for themselves.
It is not enough by any stretch of the imagination to state that there
is no evidence to support a claim as a basis for rejecting it, in a
situation where a new proposal has been put forward which makes a
great deal of sense in addressing a large number of outstanding and
important issues. Rather, a school of thought might be encouraged to
explore it further, and funds made available to support any field
research needing to be done in pursuit of its resolution.
A literature search, aided or not by adequate references contained in
a work stimulating the research project itself, surely only assists in
the framing of that project so that time and money are not wasted in
going over old ground. Except of course where there is a good reason
for repeating the research, where for example a female anthropologist
enters a field only covered previously by males.
Beyond that the classroom and lecture theatre become irrelevant as
scholars take their turn at growing up and finally entering adulthood,
and the reality of the larger world *out there* is allowed freedom to
speak for itself. That freedom obviously finds outright rejection of
a work by academics who think that research is sitting in a library
reading books for ever and a day, a most appalling circumstance.
> It was my impression that Morgan's work was largely ignored. My
> academics, do you mean anyone or anthropologists in particular?
Why would it be ignored?
Perhaps because like a great deal of feminist research it produces
results which disturb the entrenched academe? Or maybe because of the
disputes which subsequently arise between field researchers who find
it extremely useful in explaining events in the real world, and the
cloisters claiming their ancestry in the ordered and silent life of
a monastry which fear a robust and stimulating argument among vital
human beings?
> You (Chris) are correct. Morgan's reasons for seeking an alternative
> hypothesis are not important. Her agenda might make us look more
> closely at the work for flaws, but ultimately the work must stand on
> it's own merits and be judged by the content of the argument.
> Likewise, those who critique the theory (such as myself) and find it
> seriously flawed should not be judged as academic curmudgeons or male
> chauvinist.
My view is that students might be better exposed to the reality,
learning to monitor and assess it reliably as research scholars,
instead of being force fed literature like so many sausages being
forced in long stings of identical product through a machine.
Certainly, given the reality that the Universities do govern the
educative process, their producing capable field staff able to think
clearly and accept the unexpected (dare I say too the unaccepted in
the ongoing process of keeping our body of knowledge alive and our
intellects sharply honed) would be most desirable.
Perhaps some middle ground might be explored, dear teacher, instead of
merely sitting their stating that a work is seriously flawed and must
be rejected, and just expecting us to accept it because you say so.
Let some field research be done, and facts established instead.
> I have not sneered. I have now read two of Morgan's books in the
> midst of my other pressing academic chores and post a point by point
> critique of each of these points. I have not received a reply to my
> most recent and most detailed critique. I suspect it may be lost in
> the Usenet ether. Let me post some of those again:
You are missing a vital point once more, it seems to me. The matter at
hand, the underlying agenda if you will, concerns neither an absolute
and universal set of truths to which you and/or others may claim as
academics some sort of a stewardship (and which you may well be able
to list in detail on stone tablets if necessary), nor even feminist, or
"gay" or any other cause. It is vitally concerned rather with freedom
to think, and to join others in free association to explore issues.
The matter concerns the right to engage in a scholarly discourse. It
is not harmful to students that they be led "astray" by any work at
all; rather that they develop a critical intellect *of their own* that
ultimately as many individual members of our respective societies as
possible are able to exercise their full faculties.
By that process, surely, we are able to discriminate between Morgan's
work, for example, and something churned out by a von Daniken, or some
of the casual posters to sci.anthropology, or other such over-stressed
imaginations incapable of relating the real world to the world of ideas.
And by that process the many are able to speak with an expectation of
being heard and understood as a fundamental liberty. Whether they are
also finding universal agreement is not relevant; it only matters that
*some* others are interested in pursuing the issues, and that others
again DO NOT seek to interfere or stop them.
ROBERT BOOT, HERSTON MEDICAL LIBRARY
<much else deleted>
>This is a bit misleading. As far as I know hominid bipedalism is unique
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to the hominids; no other line has the anatomical adaptations required
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>for full upright posture -- at least to my knowledge.
Is this not a tiny bit tautologous? Even if you mean that hominid bipedalism is
unique to homo, it seems to add little to the debate. Maybe I misunderstood?
___________________________________________________________________________
ROBERT BOOT R.B...@cc.uq.edu.au
HERSTON MEDICAL LIBRARY
The University of Queensland Telephone +61 7 365 5354
Brisbane Qld 4072 AUSTRALIA Facsimile +61 7 365 5243
asia z lerner
>In article <house.750654907@helios> ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:
>>forb...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Eric J. Forbis) writes:
>
>>>Morgan didn't raise Hardy's theory from the dead for the sheer hell of it;
>>>she's an academic feminist with an axe to grind. She cleaned up the
>>>anti-male rhetoric in her later books to get others to help her push her
>>>bandwagon-- but the fact remains that she has a very ulterior motive for
>>>pushing this theory, and this motive is fair game for discussion.
>
>>Well I would be interested to know what it is. I for one can't see how
>>an aquatic stage in human evolution adds any arguments to feminism.
>
>Morgan excludes males from the process. Women evolved, men didn't. Not much to
>it, I'm afraid.
Could you explain a bit - what is it that men are excluded from?
After all, the human male is also less hairy, bipedal, etc...
Asia