Re: Cameron & Groves latest book positive about AAH

From: richard01 (richardparker01_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/24/04 

Date: 23 Oct 2004 21:17:55 -0700

Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zRxdd.727384$Gx4.90097@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> 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

Thankyou Philip - I have to confess this is the first contribution to
SAP that I have ever copied to my Notebook for later re-consideration.

This doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it, but I do think it shows
up the quality of the average post to this forum (including mine).

Richarf

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cameron & Groves latest book positive about AAH
    ... accept that 'savanah ape' and 'mosaic ape' are viable ... derived from fish, not out of desire but out of neccesity. ... attraction of a habitat and other variations of the habitat. ... Therefore it is very difficult to picture human evolution as ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Terra Amata poo poo
    ... Absence of evidence then ... We know common chimps eat a small amount of monkey meat and ... which of course are savanna or open woodland type ... Don't forget that the C3C4 research did not include fish, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... "There's not the slightest evidence that our ancestors ever ran over ... including homo, regularly walked or ran over, across, or through ... treeless savanna habitat is not viable in that they were largely if not ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Fish dont have ethical feet it doesnt mean they cant move- was Re: Ethical feet
    ... But _conscious_ awareness of pain is a separate issue. ... So tell me if a fish has no conscious awareness of pain, ... That's the differnce between evidence and proof do you not understand ... > the complex bits of brain needed to grasp that, ...
    (uk.people.gothic)
  • Re: New Savanna Man from China 2 mya
    ... that is where the majority of evidence is at. ... was recovered from deposits of the Hadar ... Fish and gastropods, ... and divers as well as marine birds ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)