Re: Cameron & Groves latest book positive about AAH

From: Philip Deitiker (Donevenask_at_worlnet.att.net)
Date: 10/20/04 

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:09:35 GMT

johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) says in
news:1glz94z.1usd13rlgr222N%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au:

> Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote:
>
>> A new book by Colin Groves and co-worker David Cameron
>> 'Bones, Stones and Molecules' has recently been published.
>> It's largely based upon a parsimonious reconstruction of
>> hominoidae phylogeny based on cranial bony features.
>>
>> Interestingly, it is rather openly supportive of a certain
>> controversial hypothesis.
>>
>> "... Nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH).
>> Elaine Morgan has long argued that many aspects of human
>> anatomy are best explained as a legacy of a semiaquatic
>> phase in the proto-human trajectory, and this includes
>> upright posture to cope with increased water depth as our
>> ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or
>> seashore. At first, this idea was simply ignored as
>> grotesque, and perhaps as unworthy of discussion because
>> proposed by an amateur. But Morgan's latest arguments have
>> reached a sophistication that simply demands to be taken
>> seriously (Morgan 1990, 1997). And although the authors
>> shy away from more speculative reconstructions in favour
>> of phylogenetic scenarios, we insist that the AAH take its
>> place in the battery of possible functional scenarios for
>> hominin divergence." Cameron and Groves (2004:68)
>>
>> Cameron, David W; Groves, Colin P (2004). Bones, Stones
>> and Molecules ("Out of Africa" and Human Origins).
>> Elsevier (Sydney)
>>
>> Any comments anyone?
>
> How many possible scenarios can we construct? Logically, I
> mean, consistent with the evidence?

Do a search on this group and ape theories, you can come up with
many, I even have them classified by type.

The major flaw it that a hypothesis should attempt to lead the
data, in any matter. Basically what the authors are saying if we
accept that 'savanah ape' and 'mosaic ape' are viable
'hypothesis' which have lead to certain types of analysis, then
of course we should throw AAH in so that it can also lead
analyses.
  Big problem is however what do you test.
Africanus - savanah, but who says it is ancestral to human
Afarensis - woodland, but who says it is ancestral to human
Human - MRCAs into the central forested regions of africa, but
who says that its ancestors in the pliocene/pleistocence
transition always lived there.
  Anyone can throw anything on the table, but without something
to test ones hypothesis with, it is really a moot point. Frankly
I thought McGinns capital ape theory has some merit before he
had not dragged into never-never land.
  Lets not forget my cannibalistic ape theory, :^).

Everyone has a different opinion about these things. I live
almost entirely on protein derived from fish and from oils
derived from fish, not out of desire but out of neccesity. If
anyone should support the AAH then I should. But I find it
highly problematic in a key respect.
  If it is true that every theory can provide some support, and
if it is also true that early on in human evolution, no matter
where they evolved they were moving into diametrically opposite
habitats, then the total selective attraction of any given
habitat must have been less than the generally selective
attraction of a habitat and other variations of the habitat.
Therefore it is very difficult to picture human evolution as
being a monotonous scheme of adaptation to one habitat.
  Secondarily, as far as I know, in discussions I personally had
with Morgan in 1997 she goes by the logic that 'Something
suddenly must have changed, look at the fossil record'. She
looks at the fossil record and she sees 'sudden changes' I look
at the fossil record and molecular information and I see gaps in
the fossil record that need to be filled. IOW, the AAH
hypothesis tries to lead the discussion of morphological
evolution with the concept that the record is complete enough to
reconstruct hominid evolution. I find that very faulty logic.

There is support for AHH (aquatic hominind hypothesis) is a
certain specific form of evidence.
1. The pMRCAs of human, chimps and gorilla are all to the same
proximal parts of africa considering the mid pliestocen
environment of africa it is likely these were more Jungled
habitats.

2. The molecular spread evidence is strongly suggestive of
ubiquitous of early 'dugout' technology, and the age of hand-
axes in the record suggest that dugout technology might predate
our species. However it is unlikely this technology predated 1
mya.

3. The oldest groups of exoafricans and the HG/tribes in africa
are dominated by pygmies and negritos, largely coastal or
lowland dwelling peoples. Again most of these coastal dwelling
short stature peoples are expert fashioners of boats, dugouts,
etc.

4. The health benefits of all fish diet suggest evolutionary
adaptation. Problem however is the healtiest fish are cold water
fishes, and shellfish consumption could potentially negate that
benefit. There is certain evidence now emmerging that in many
people essential fatty acids from fish suppress obesity, by
suppressing the apetite for fats. This coupled with the pygmy
stature may suggest a selection for smaller, ligher people who
needed smaller trees for dugouts to get around during the middle
stone age. IOW there could be feedback in the between the diet
and growth patterns, that if the individual is subjected to fish
oils at a young age there maybe triggered differences in growth
so that the individual is more adept for a
maritime/coastal/riparian lifestyle.

5. Of course the alternative is if those signals are missed then
this individual would grow in accord with a non-'aquatic'
bordered habitat. Potential inherited flexibility in the growth
response.

6. I don't see any hominids found along the great rift valley,
that from a strict evolutionary perspective would shuttle into
homo. What I do see is a potential separate line of hominid
evolution in east and west africa.

7. Thermodynamics of selection for exploitation of the
rainforest with unlimited water and sunlight, plus the stability
of the central/west african rainforest over geological periods
might be an impetus for generally adaptive evolution. The
exploitation would of course involve sampling from many
resources like rivers, lakes and streams as well as honey
collection, fruit collection, hunting etc. But catching fish,
for example as teh biaka do is far easier compared to
blowdarting monkeys from the canopy. Therefore it is possible
that the early protein supply in the rainforest was largely fish
until more superb hunting evolutionary traits appeared.
Exemplary of this is on these survivor shows, most of the wild
caught protein sources are, in fact, fish. Fish and shellfish
are relatively easy to catch without specialized tools.

I can go on.

The point I would make is that arguing with AAH versus other ape
theories is akin to arguing from extremes, and even now the
proponents are still arguing about wading as a preselection for
bipedality, etc. Whereas the evidence I see is that after
hominids _Already_ existed, and after there was extensive
diversifcation to many habitats some hominids remained in the
jungled environment and adapted to various resourced so that
they could compete well with canopy and ground dwelling sister
species (chimpazees and gorilla) after breaktrhoughs in tool use
and general adaptations were made, protohumans probably
successively exploited the aquatic environment. However a
critical breakthrough were transport technologies that created
safe aquatic mobility that really thrust selection of humans
toward aquatic resources.
  I don't like creating extreme arguments and then debating from
extremes as science sometimes does between various competing
camps. I see the 'truth' of these issues at the intersection of
perspectives. Nowhere does the apply more than with humans who
are generally adaptive, and suggested the need to adapt to many
habitats was more 'selective' over the long period than the need
to adapt very well to a specific habitat. As you imply once one
begins from the extreme perspective on can gather many together
with similar validity. The basic problem is one comes to the
conclusion that since each theory contradicts the others, only
one _could_ be true, or more likely none could be true.

  Marc argued for many years claiming the fallacy of Savannah
hypothesis, the fallacy of the SAT may be true for the
pliocene/pliestocene transition, but it does not logically mean
that AAT should garner more support, the only thing it really
tells one is that idealized theories are frequently false.
He never got this point.
  The other issue is that incoming data should lead our
formulation of theories, and even if I support a mosaic ape
theory with increasingly aquatic/maritime abilities I still see
the present state of homo origin from a strictly physical point
of view to be dismally lacking of evidence. From my point of
veiw erectus could have evolved 2 mya or 4.5 mya as a species
and there are no clear indicators which is likely more correct.
Until this essential deficiency is resolved, speculating about
ape theories and leading bad data with speculative hypotheses is
rather useless.

As you can see Algis continues to _force_ his opinion here
despite numerous times people here claim they are tired of these
various 'shell games' of information. He kind of defeats the
cause of his argument by making rigid claims about aquaticisms
requirement of being the bipedal selector, and he would get far
more support if he broadened his perspective and looked for
other possible scenarios. 

-- 
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Mol. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.    
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux      
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cameron & Groves latest book positive about AAH
    ... > I thought McGinns capital ape theory has some merit before he ... > derived from fish, not out of desire but out of neccesity. ... > attraction of a habitat and other variations of the habitat. ... > certain specific form of evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: More on Kitz/Dover
    ... > "transitions from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal" (p. ... > Is it a fact that evolution teaches that there is NOT a ... > the common ancestor is 13, and the molecular difference in cyt-c ... > horse and the fish diverged from the same common ancestor at the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... according to that definition, breathing is evolution. ... But of course that fish didn't just evolve into a man. ... eventually and over time generate a completely new species that is nothing like the original species? ... But some of the time it does because man has a fish for an ancestor? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ANOTHER SCENARIO FOR THE MYTH OF FISH EVOLUTION; THE BBCS "MISSING LINK FOUND" ERROR
    ... > findings dating back to 450 million years ago. ... > to present the fossil findings in question as evidence for the scenario ... > of fish evolution, using Aldridge's claims as its starting point. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • ANOTHER SCENARIO FOR THE MYTH OF FISH EVOLUTION; THE BBCS "MISSING LINK FOUND" ERROR
    ... ANOTHER SCENARIO FOR THE MYTH OF FISH EVOLUTION; ... The 3 May, 2005, edition of the BBC web site reported on fossil ... findings dating back to 450 million years ago. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)