Re: Bipedalism in different substrates

From: Bob Keeter (rkeeter_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 06/08/04 

Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 02:37:56 GMT

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0406070139.4ea8c13b@posting.google.com...
> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<RICwc.283$Y3.87@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > news:77a70442.0406051834.5d3ea0af@posting.google.com...
> > > "Michael Clark" <biteme@spammer.com> wrote in message
> > news:<10c3hf2k4lve421@corp.supernews.com>...
Snip. . . .

> > While looking at a given physical manifestation in modern hominids
> > might give one some very questionable conclusions (like hairlessness
> > or SC fat for example!), when a given characteristic is noted and
> > a specific "reason" is seen in the preponderance of all primates (i.e.
> > arboreality) its not that much of a logical jump, is it? I dont think
that
> > any serious scientist considers the gibbon to be closer "related" than
> > the chimp, but then I think that you perhaps have other issues with
> > "serious scientists"! 8-)
>
> I'm sorry, I thought the prevailing view (and is only a view as there
> is no consensus candidate close to what might be the LCA of Pan-Homo
> in the fossil record) was that the LCA was a chimp-like
> knuckle-walker. I know if you go further back in time than that there
> was almost certainly greater arboreality and possible a brachiator -
> but that wouldn't affect the wading hypothesis one jot.
>

"Possibly" a brachiator? Surely you jest! 8-)

Snippage. . . . .

> > > Chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. Not just that, but that in
> > > waist deep water they have pretty much no option but to move
> > > bipedally. That's the key point, w hcih you (understandably, so as to
> > > keep your counter argument alive) keep forgetting.
> >
> > Algis, if chimps, bonobos gorillas and orangutans took up wing-flapping
> > flight, they would have pretty much no option but to move bipedally.
That's
> > the key point which you (understandably, so as to keep your counter
> > arguement alive) keep forgetting. Of course the key point that Im
> > advancing is not that chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans OR ancient
> > hominids flapped their arms to fly! 8-)
>
> Yes, very clever, Bob. Apes *do* wade. I know you find it hard to
> imagine but sometimes they actually do go in water.

Do they wade "enough" though? Is it a life-or-death, daily feat or is
it something that they do once in a blue moon, and if so is it anything
that has even the vaguest possibility of influencing the natural selection
process?

Touching that you should find a parroting back of the "logical arguement"
with a different premise "clever". I thought it was just an obvious parody.

8-)

Snippage. . .

> > OK, lets see if we can find a logical contradiction. How many ape
species
> > are there today that "make a living" that involves a heavy use of
> > brachiation (that shows that its at least a reasonable conclusion and
> > inference), maybe unsupported as well as you would like, but . . . .
> > REASONABLE!
> >
> > Now, how many extant and OBSERVABLE, not conjectural, ape species
> > "make a living" that requires heavy use of wading, swimming, or as in my
> > little parody, flying? 8-) Are any of those hypotheses similarly . . .
. .
> > REASONABLE?
>
> So what?

Not sure I know how to quantify, "so what". I would appreciate a direct,
honest, and scientifically defensable NUMBER there, Algis. Is there a
problem with stating that number?

"So what" is usually a phrase bantered about when the logical arguement
touches that "3 = 2" oxymoron and one side chooses to simply "disbelieve"
in spite of everything. Is that where you are coming from?

I suspect that Pauline dropped off the scene when she found the honest
answers that she felt compelled to provide to be very difficult.

(Maybe she was moving and such, but. . . . not answering
back very much these days and I fear that she may be struggling
a bit with the answers that she knows must be provided.)

> I'm not denying that, if you go back far enough, our ancestors were
> very arboreal and perhaps brachiators. Just because there are no
> wetland apes today it doesn't mean that there wasn't 5Mya and that we
> did not evolve from them.

And there are no flying apes today either (in spite of the Wizard of Oz)!
but that small and insignificant technicality does not absolutely and
positively preclude the possibility that we evolved from flying apes! So
long as its not absolutely and unequivocably disproved, by your paradigm
I should require that the body of scientific literature address it or be
condemned as biased and unfair. Because you cant DISPROVE
beyond any shadow of doubt that the aviating ape hypothesis is so
much male bovine fertilizer, the world should accept and support that
concept! If not, I obviously have the right to condemn everyone and
all competing ideas as blatantly false and the product of a reactionary
conspiracy all set upon keeping my enlightened analysis, the AAH no
less, out of the mainstream! 8-)

How did I do this time! 8-)))) ROTFL

> > Snippage. . . . . . .
> > > > the backing of 99.9% of the published literature, ...
> > >
> > > I don't dispute that the vast majority of the literature does not even
> > > consider the wading hypothesis, but I think that it is just a mistake.
> >
> > Given your answer to the above question on the at least reasonable
> > nature of the hypotheses, is it any surprise that there is no serious
> > consideration of the wading hypothesis in technical scientific
> > literature? Should I feel wronged and offended because there is
> > not a tall stack of dissertations on the aviating ape hypothesis?
> >
> > 8-)
>
> Yes, Bob. The idea of an ape stepping in water is completely crazy.
> How mad would anyone have to be to imagine that they might do that?

Its NOT mad to suggest that apes might from time to time step in
water. Matter of fact, if anyone ever says NEVER (or for that matter
ALWAYS), he is almost certainly setting himself up for a fool in
any of the biological fields. Now to say that the event was so infrequent
or so low of an impact, or simply not generally done, thats hardly
mad. In fact, your own research reveals that in only a very insignificant
portion of their daily lives were the bonobos even in the water (regardless
of their posture!). That, i.e. YOUR OWN RESEARCH, should be
more than sufficient to demonstrate that the premise of water association
(specifically wading or swimming) is simply not a major, natural part of the
ape repetroire! To base the total "theory" of the rise of man on a very
insignificant fragment of the existence is ludricous!

> [Note to future newsgroup researchers: See this here? This man thinks
> that wading is such a crazy idea, he compares it with the idea that
> apes might fly. He actually thinks the two are on a par with each
> other! Amazing to think that in 2004 some people thought the idea that
> water might have actually (shock-horror) infuenced our evolution was
> so bizarre.]

Note to future newsgroup researchers (if such a creature eventually
evolves!):
Algis is here trying to ridicule me because he sees the parallels and
similarities between the AAH (Aquatic Ape Hypothesis) and the AAH
(Aviating Ape Hypothesis). AT LEAST one of these is a scientific farce!
8-)

> > > > and this big stick that says I'm right.
> > >
> > > Well that's the only thing that really counts as far as you're
> > > concerned.
> > >
> > > > You have...well, you have your wet ape.
> > >
> > > Apes not 'ape'. I have anecdotal evidence that all four great ape
> > > species wade bipedally in shallow water and good evidence that in
> > > bonobos they are bipedal pretty much all the time that they're in
> > > water. This evidence back up the common sense logic that says in waist
> > > deep water an ape has pretty much no choice but to move bipedally.
> >
> > AND, even if your anecdotal evidence is accepted you have hard
> > and fast evidence that NONE of these species were pushed to
> > obligate bipedalism by the occasional bipedalism in the water!
> >
> > Remember, "3 = 2" is usually a sign to abandon ship. 8-)
>
> Dear-oh-dear. Even lowland gorillas are not, by anyone's standards,
> wetland apes. You just don't get it, do you? I'm proposing that the
> *ancestors* of humans went through water *more* than did the ancestors
> of the chimps. I mean I must have written it out a hundred times.
>

Your arguement seems to go like this:

1. Ancient hominids obviously had to live beside water sources (To
an extent, I agree, ancient hominds could not have lived if there was
not at LEAST enough open water to drink.)
2. Because they were "tied" to open water sources, they MUST have
gone into the water beyond the degree which would have allowed them
to get a drink. ("Must" is perhaps a bit strong of a word here, and
certainly when you get down to the "degree" vs. gorillas or wetland
chimps, starts becoming conjectural instead of a statement of fact!)
3. Since their speed through the water, when they were in the water,
was a life or death enabler, slower waders/swimmers were killed off
forcing the species in the direction of the adaptations that enabled
quicker wading or swimming. (an underlying premise apparently also
being that these creatures were "more dependent" on such aquatic
optimzations that modern gorillas or chimps (or their ancestors)!
4. We see these adaptations today in modern hominids in the form
of:
  a. Hairlessness
  b. Upright posture
  c. SC fat

Does that about cover it? 8-)

> > > The paleohabitats are consistent with it, the anatomy of early bipeds
> > > is consistent with it.
> > >
> > > It should be discussed in university level textbooks as a distinct
> > > possible solution to the problem of hominid bipedalism, but it isn't.
> > > You haven't given one good reason why it should not be there.
> >
> > There are brachiators and knuckle walkers to demonstrate the
> > feasibility of that as origins, there simply are no examples to
> > demonstrate that the wading hypothesis is even reasonable!
>
> So, in order for an hypothesis to be reasonable you have to see
> analogues in the real world, is that it?
>

An analogue in the real world is a GREAT confidence builder.

> So with Wheeler's thermoreg hypothesis - how many examples of apes
> wandering around in the savannah grasslands in the mid-day sun have
> ever been seen? Zero? Never mind that, it's in all the textbooks.

My personal belief is that any "thermoregulation" advantage of the
bipedal posture is totally coincidental. There are "advantages" there
to be had, its simple thermodynamics and heat transfer equations, but
to hypothesize that this was a "cornerstone" of bipedal evolution is
reaching just as far (if not further) than your "moderated" AAH.

> How many male apes have you seen provisioning bananas to their
> partners sitting back at base looking after the infants? Zero? Never
> mind that, Lovejoy's provisioning model is in all the textbooks.

Not so fast there big guy. this particular model can be observed in as
diverse species as penguins, hawks, jackals, hyenas and a host of others.
Sometimes one species presents the behavior and very closely related
subspecies do not. . . . its a BEHAVIOR. Now if a chimp WERE to
adopt that behavior, would it not foster bipedal posture?

> How many apes have you seen walking for even a few metres with an
> efficient inverted pendulum gait to save energy? Zero? Never mind
> that... etc etc

Total byproduct of the bipedal gait. the "graduation" from quadrupedal
to bipedal is simply too much of a "single step" to have been fostered
by something as abstract as "energy savings". There had to be a concrete
hard and fast, constant "payback" kind of tie in while the efficiency
improvements would have been an aftereffect.

> I have several pages of wading evidence from extant apes in water.
> They're bipedal pretty much 100% of the time if the water's deep
> enough and... guess what?... it gets no mention in the textbooks.

ANd how much of the total observing time did the apes spend in
the water? How much time did the apes spend mimicing flight
by jumping off of bolders, ladders, etc? 8-)

> Now, on what basis of scientitifc objectivity do you justify the
> inclusion of the hypothetical models I've listed above (and others) in
> university texts, when there is absolutely zero evidence for it in the
> extant apes (your chosen criterion, remember) - but not for the wading
> hypothesis, which has a stack of evidence in extant apes?

ANd that stack of evidence equates to what percentage of the waking
time of the bonobos?

> I wonder what Bob's going to say here? An admission that maybe there's
> a slight discrepancy? Not on your life. He'll defend the status quo -
> no matter how stupid - to the last breath. Yes Sir!!

ROTFL! If there is anyone who is looking for a "last stand" I think
its you, Algis. Not being a trained psychologist I cant quite put a
name on it, but Im sure that there is some named psychosis that
demands "a brave stand against impossible odds", and Im sorry to
say that it appears that you have caught it. Wish you had not shared
your water bottle with Marc. Its most embarassing.

> > Notably, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans are all
> > "brachiators" to one degree or another. Admittedly, with
> > gorillas its more or less limited to young, "light weights", but
> > its there, an established behavior, easily observable, and
> > quite common.
> >
> > Snippage. . . .
> >
> > > > So you say. Without the tiniest shred of evidence.
> > >
> > > True. I thought about getting ethics approval for an experiment to put
> > > a chimp in a waist deep tank of water but you know...
> > >
> > And that would prove exactly what? We already KNOW that
> > chimps are capable of bipedal posture. If dumped into waist
> > deep water, it would be a very stupid ape indeed that did not
> > just stand up, just like he would on land if carrying a limb or
> > a piece of food. Much easier just to toss him a couple of
> > apples and see what posture he assumes, dont you think?
>
> Again you completely miss the point. If dumped in waist deep water the
> chimp can either move bipedally or drown. On land it can move
> bipedally or it can... move quadrupedally. Now if that same test was
> carried out ocassionally in each life time of the ancestors of
> hominids don't you just think that maybe, surprise-surprise the genes
> that favour bipedal locomotion just might get selected for?
>
> Algis Kuliukaas

Having tried from time to time to drop a cat into water, I have learned
that our feline friends, inspite of generally being quite good swimmers,
just dont like to go there!

Furthermore, if a tree dwelling creature simply falls off of a limb enough
it will obviously be forced to develop flight or die. 8-)

Where ARE the flying hordes of the Witch of the West when you need
them!

Regards
bk

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... Wetland habitats are here and they always have been. ... the facts that Miocene apes of Europe & SE Asia must have lived around ... wading is the most likely to induce bipedalism, ... around 11% drag reduction in water. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... quadrupedalism because if it did it would immerse it's face in water. ... If the Pan-Homo LCA was not a gibbon-like brachiator why on earth do ... > some form of bipedalism on the ground and in the trees. ... See where the Miocene apes were found. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... sustained terrestrial bipedalism. ... There is no evidence for it in extant apes in their natural habitat. ... >> prevented other mammals from prospering in niches involving water, ... <snip repetitive and still unconfirmed claims about chimps drowning in ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... >> observed examples of extant apes using a bipedal stance in a feeding ... > Hunt's ass to thank him for solving the riddle of bipedalism. ... > accept that the ridiculously stupid apes who toddled into the water ... > than any ape we see but offers no reason why. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Chimps Walking Bipedally For A Kilometer Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... I saw the 'chimps walked bipedally for 1km' claim. ... > are far more efficient than anything that chimps or non-swimming humans ... is still more adept in water than a chimp. ... bipedalism in extant apes might give a clue as to what led to hominid ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)