Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 01/10/05 

Date: 10 Jan 2005 00:27:02 -0800

Rich Travsky wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > Rich Travsky wrote:
> > > Algis Kuliukas wrote:

> > But Rich, if the water wasn't replenished (easily or otherwise)
they'd
> > die.
> > In the days before human technology invented ways of carrying
water,
> > they couldn't have lived more than a few kms from a reliable source
of
> > fresh water.
>
> There are peoples who have and are doing just that without carrying
water
> around with them. Some good points from a post of Jim Moore's back in
1995:
>
>
http://www.google.ca/groups?selm=60.4336.7295.0N1FF1B7%40canrem.com&output=g
> ...
> You are also making an assumption which is unsupported by reality;
> that an environment which is quite dry has no drinking water
> available anywhere, when in fact we can see, from humans, and
> chimpanzees for that matter, that environments which are in fact
> dry and hot can have sufficient drinking water. This is true even
> when drinking water is not carried (for instance, !Kung and
> Australian aborigines often do not carry drinking water even in
> extremely hot and dry environments). However, sources of drinking
> water can be and are carried even by chimpanzees. Our ancestors
> could certainly have done the same.
>
> "The Tongo chimpanzees dig for large, water-filled roots
(*Clematis*),
> which they carry and share like a bottle (Lanjouw, pers. com.)
These
> inventive practices are clearly responses to the lack of permanent
> water" (Wrangham et al., 1994:9, *Chimpanzee Cultures* Edited by
> Richard W. Wrangham, W. C. McGrew, Frans B.M. de Waal, and Paul G.
> Heltne, with assistance from Linda A. Marquardt. Cambridge, Mass.
> and London, England: Harvard University Press).
> ...
>
> There are savanna chimps. Don't forget Pruetz' work.

I do not dispute that in extreme circumstances humans, indeed apes, can
come up with ingenius ways of finding water. It just seems to be a form
of special pleading that such a water-wasteful mechanism as
evapourative sweat cooling would have evolved based on such a doubtful
foundation.

> > > Sweat cools by movement of air over it. If we were going to cool
off
> > by
> > > going into water we wouldn't need such an evaporative effect,
would
> > we?
> >
> > Duh. You go for a dip to cool down and then when you get out of the
> > water, after your skin has dried you might sweat a bit. When you
get
> > thirsty you go for another dip and have drink. Easy. Why have you
got
> > to pretend it's so difficult?
>
> Why did you ignore what I asked? What do you think the swaet was in
> response to?
>
> Sweat cools by movement of air over it. If we were going to cool off
> by going into water we *wouldn't need* such an evaporative effect,
would
> we?

Of course we would, because I am assuming that our ancestors lived by
the water's edge, not *in* the water. Our views are not so far apart,
Rich. I expect humans often did wander away from water sources. I have
never claimed that they were not terrestrial, have I? I'm just arguing
that sweat cooling makes most sense when posited as a thermoregulatory
mechanism to supplant that gained from going for a dip.

> You're also ignoring that predators find water sources great palces
> to hunt and it's amusing to think they'll just go off for a dip at
the
> drop of a hat. Other animals recognise the threat

> http://www.comozooconservatory.org/zoo/zebra.html
> ...
> Mothers do not take their young with them to waterholes.
> ...
>
> so what makes you think these early hominids would also be stupid
about the
> dangers at water sources?

Exactly. That's one reason why sweat cooling would act as a great
adjunct to going for a dip. If the river's got crocs in there, we'll
sweat it out for an hour until we've thrown in some rocks to scare them
off, otherwise we're in for a dip.

Don't you see? You're arguing for an extreme position: The water was so
dangerous no one would ever go for a dip and humans would be so clever
they'd find water anywhere anyway, therfore sweat cooling must have
evolved *away* from water sources.

I'm arguing for a common sense position: The best way to get cool is to
go for a dip. If that's not possible because we've wandered away from
the river, or we think there might be a croc lurking there, we can
sweat to keep cool for a short time, but we'd better keep close to the
water's edge to get a drink or have a dip when we get the chance.

[..]

> > The whole paper was actually called 'Fat an Figures.' the bit you
> > snipped was just a side-topic box.
> > Here's a passage from it:
> > [...snip trivia ]
> > Note those figures on typical adipocity of primates (even living
fairly
> > sedentary lives) and humans.
>
> Which changes nothing. "not an aquatic ape". No "special evolutionary

> forces".

Pick the words out that support your pre-conceived notion if you like.
But Pond's clearly reporting that humans are fatter than apes. The
question is: Why? You don't even want to accept it's a valid question.

[snipped again - why keep doing this, Rich?]

> This shows that getting fat is dependent upon the same factors that
> other creatures get fat from: availability, activity levels, and for
humans
> there's the added cultural factor (which actually ties into
availability).

Humans have a propensity for greater adipocity than almost all other
mammals (aquatics excepted.)

What about human infants? They're not fat because of exposure to
over-eating. They're *born* fat. Why should that be?

> > > It's extremely doubtful one can appeal to an aquatic to explain
away
> > > these social and cultural factors.
> >
> > All human groups, even those not exposed to a phase of agriculture,
> > have a tendancy to put on weight very rapidly. At the ASHB
conference I
> > attended a talk by one of the world's leading experts on this, Prof
S
> > Ulijaszek, who was arguing for the same thing, but of course his
> > explanation for it was very different. He said it was our evolution
in
> > very harsh habitats (code for savannah, I think) that led us to
have a
> > specific predisposition for getting fat quickly for energy storage.
> >
> > Now, do you think he's wrong about that? Or, if the explanation is
the
>
> No.
>
> > savannah as opposed to anything mentioning the dreaded 'a'
factor,is it
> > somehow suddenly ok?
>
> Hominids *walked* across the Africa (australopiths are found from
> southern Africa to Chad) unless you think they swam or waded. There
would've
> been areas of little to no food so fat deposits would've been an
aid...

So you accept that humans *are* fatter than other primates after all!
Funny. I thought a moment ago you were arguing against the idea. Funny
how the explanation of the trait has such a profound affect on your
willingness to accept that the trait even exists. If I argue for an
aquatic explanation, you try to deny that there even *is* a difference
to explain. Once the savannah explanation is invoked - all's fine and
dandy, 'we're fat, of course we are!'

> > > There is some flesh between the thumb and first finger. This is
not
> > webbing.
> >
> > So, it's flesh, is it? Funny, on me it's just skin. But flesh
sounds
> > less like webbing so let's use that word instead, right? Whatever
it
> > is, we have more of it there than chimps do.
>
> You need to look at the hand and its muscles:

>
http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/atlasofanatomy/plate13/06palmarlh.html
>
> That ain't skin. It's for our grip.

Nice image, thanks. Look, when I pinch the flap of skin between my
thumb and index finger of my left hand with my right, I can feel about
5mm of skin. I'm sure some people have more and some people have less.
Similarly there's a small flap of skin between each individual finger.
I note that chimps tend not to have anything like as much. Clearly, we
couldn't have much more skin there or our grip would be impeded and we
are largely terrestrial mammals with complex use of our hands. But....
we can also swim, so there's some kind of evolutionary compromise
that's obviously been going on there.

> > > That's a desperate stretch of the imagination especially when one
> > considers
> > > a chimp's palm is relatively bigger and would consequently make a
> > better
> > > paddle.
> >
> > A chimp is arboreal so one would expect it to have big, strong
hands.
> > They're not as flexible ar ours, though. They can't rotate their
> > metacarpals to make their hands into a cup shape.
>
> They can't?
>
>
http://ipsapp008.kluweronline.com/IPS/content/ext/x/J/6671/I/26/A/3/abstract.htm#
> ETHOLOGICAL STUDY OF MANUAL LATERALITY IN THE CHIMPANZEES OF THE
MAHALE MOUNTAINS,
> TANZANIA
> Behaviour
> 138 (3): 329-358, March 1 2001
>
> From the pdf
>
>
http://ipsapp008.kluweronline.com/IPS/content/ext/x/J/6671/I/26/A/3/type/PDF/article.htm
> ...
> 8 of 9 individuals were statistically signicantly Right-preferent in
drinking water from
> a moat using the cupped hand
> ...
>
>
> The article referenced at
>
>
>
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=hb5lqpmyxl2t2qmlhg71&referrer=parent&backto=issue,18,18;journal,1,37;linkingpublicationresults,1:101905,1
>
> (which I don't have access to) is also supposed to have mention of
cupped hands usage.
>
>
> http://library.primate.wisc.edu/collections/avkidvid.html
> ...
> VT0479 Animals and Me: Eating
> ...
> Children's video exams the eating habits of elephants, bears and
chimpanzees. The 8
> minute segment on chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) shows tree climbing,
drinking water
> with cupped hand, parenting, play, grooming, aggression and
reconciliation.
> ...
>
>
> And monkeys can do it too:
>
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/primates/4n3kelly.htm
> ...
> When we injected the gum into a wide, circular depression on one of
the feeders,
> both species of tamarins were observed using their cupped hand to
scoop up the gum
> and eat it. This is the same method used in the wild to obtain
rainwater from the
> cups of bromelids.
> ...
>
> And you can find references to gorillas using cupped hands (as in
chest beating).
>
> Or perhaps you're using a different definition of cupped hands from
the rest of
> the world...

That's very good Rich. Thanks for you efforts in correcting me. Until I
can read all these papers in detail, I stand corrected on the ability
for chimps to cup their hands.
I was going on a tutorial we had on Marke's (2000) paper about the
evolution of hominid hands. I was sure Leslie Aiello had said that the
ability to rotate the metacarpals was a distinctly human trait, but
clearly I was wrong.

Marzke, Mary W; Marzke, R F (2000). Evolution of the human hand:
approaches to acquiring, analysing and interpreting the anatomical
evidence. Journal of Anatomy Vol:197 Pages:121-140

... but they still can't swim as will as we do!

> > > > > > [...]
> > > Considering what poor swimmers we are...
> >
> > Compared to a chimp, we're rather good.
>
> We're better at dancing and gymnastics too. What's special about
swimming?

Swimming is one of the standard modes of animal locomotion through one
of the basic substrates on the planet.
Dancing and gymnastics, and riding bicycles and playing musical
instruments are cultural phenomenon.

[.. snipped (conceded lost) argument about chimp hands being unable to
be cupped like human hands are ]

> > > > > >[...]
> > > Happens to be a very good argument. Sexual selection can be a
very
> > > powerful factor. But you might wish to couple that with this
> >
> > Yes, when you have some sexual dimorphism, like with pea*** tails.
> > Not, though, with noses.
>
> Why not?

Because human males don't have huge noses like proboscis monkeys. When
there's little sexual dimorphism it's hard to justify it's anything to
do with sexual selection. It's just special pleading.

> > >
> >
http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/Chimpanzee_Tree_Comparative.htm
> > >
> > > Chimp embryos. Check out the noses...almost human like, eh?
> >
> > Nice images thanks, but what's this got to do with this debate?
>
> Preference for neotenous features. Notice also the lack of
supraoribitals and the
> rounder head and the less prognathic face.

Fine, but adult chimps don't look like that. I don't see the point of
your argument here.

[..]
> > > It doesn't matter because whatever miniscule effect that MIGHT
> > provide
> > > is more than negated by the broad none streamlines head...
> >
> > Then why do boats, even those that are very broad, have pointed
bows?
>
> Uh, we're talking about heads here. Why aren't our heads shaped with
pointed
> bows? They're not. They're broad and flattish.

The 'sagittal keel' is a characteristic of some He heads, I believe.
But if you're swimming with your face pointing forwards, somwhat, it's
predominently the nose that acts like a bow.

[..]

> > > I save this part: what about the BEARD on males? Ooops.
> >
> > Beards *are obviously* to do with sexual selection. Suddenly, I
> > suspect, you don't like the idea of sexual selection any more,
right?
>
> Nope.
>
> > Odd that. When we have a trait where men and women have similar
> > anatomies (the nose) - then it's explained by sexual selection,
because
> > we can't think of anything better and it sure as hell can't be
anything
> > to do with swimming. When it comes to beards, it suddenly can't be
> > sexual selction even though there's clearly an absolute male-female
> > difference. No, because if we predent it's not sexual selection, we
can
> > use this as even more evidence against the idea that we might have
> > swam. Your arguments are so pathetic and transparently biased.
>
> You're missing the point. You want the hair line to be the result of
us
> looking down in the water (lord knows how many hours a day THAT would
> require for some evolutionary effect), but the beard doesn't follow
> that principle.

It does if you invoke the concept of costly signalling and sexual
selection.

> > I think beards are some kind of sexual selection based on the
principle
> > of costly signalling: 'Look at me, girls, I've got this bloody
great
> > beard slowing me down in water, but I'm so big and muscular, I
still
> > can outswim anyone in my group.'
>
> Beards signify sexual maturity (along with pubic and other hair)
along
> with such things as breasts in females. They also have a social
function
> and they have a visual effect in aggression/defense.

> The hairline allows social expression too. Which is more likely, an
effect
> that is with us all day (and night) long, or some small unknown
> amount of time under water?

First we need to explain the generality of human nakedness. I think
dip-sweat cooling and drag reduction whilst swimming are the best
explanations we have. In all humans, apart from mature males, the
hairline of the scalp appears to follow the water-line whilst swimming.
The presence of a beard may be explained in terms of sexual selection
anyway, with or without aquatic factors. But as I invoke aquatic
factors I have to try to explain it in that context. I do so by
invoking the principle of costly signalling.

> > If you went for a swim and you didn't have eyebrows it would be a
pain
> > stopping the water dripping in your eyes whenever you looked up. Of
> > course they have secondary (or even primary) effects on top of
that.
>
> If I ever run across anyone with shaved eyebrows and eyelashes I'll
ask
> them. Since all you can offer in this respect is an unsubstantiated
claim
> we'll have to drop it.

One of my fellow students at UCL (an aquasceptic, of course, I might
add!) told me the story. Her 'mates' shaved her eyebrows off once for a
stunt and it affected her swimming and her experiences of taking a
shower.

[..]
> > The discussion is about speech. To make a bark vocalisation a dog
can
> > stretch its larynx down and, presumably, to make screech, so can a
> > chimp. But it's not lower normally. Dogs (and I presume chimps) are
not
> > mouth breathers, humans, at least whilst swimming, are.
>
> You wanted a descended larynx for big gulps of air. I showed non
> swimming chimps can do that too, thus indicating it's not much of an
issue.

You showed that they might descend their larynx whilst screeching, not
that they might do it to mouth breath during locomotion.

> > Maybe they're subjective but the fact that we can speak shows we
have
> > finer control over our breathing than they do. The question is did
the
> > evolution of speech cause that fine breathing control or was there
some
> > other reason for its evolution before speech, which acted as a
> > precursor to it. Swimming fits that role perfectly.
>
> Hmmm. It does? Can you show this "finer control over our breathing"
in
> proboscis and swamp monkeys????

Well, it would be a prediction of the 'speech though swimming-induced
fine breathing-control' hypothesis that any regularly swimming primte
should exhibit finer breathing control than sister taxa that had no
such aquatic exposure. I'm not sure how one might test it though.

[..]
> > > Very good. You're learning that your attempt to do a one size
fits
> > all
> > > doesn't work.
> >
> > No, I'm showing how absurdly unparsimonious your 'explanations' are
to
> > the very same difficulties that the AAH answers with consumate ease
on
> > one fell swoop.
>
> The lack of parsimony is more in your strained fitting of square pegs
> in round holes. The plethora of counter examples and explanations
that I
> and others have shown illustrate that.

I accept that we of the 'more aquatic' persuasion have a tendency to
expect examples of aquaticism where sometimes they are perhaps not
there. (Witness Elaine Morgan's 'salt tears', my 'rotating metacarpals'
and Marc's 'bottom diving homos'...:-D) BUT, it's only because it's
reasonable to expect that greater swimming ability should be reflected
in such traits. Ok, we might get a few wrong (3 is hardly a plethora)
but it's undeniable that humans move through water better than chimps
and there must be solid reasons for that, based on our phenotype.

The big three: bipedalism, nakedness and adipocity are clearly
perfectly fitting round pegs in perfectly round holes in my humble
opinon. I think it's you who have the square pegs for those.

[..]
> > But humans can rotate their metacarpals whilst chimps cannot.
Leslie
> > Aiello gave us a whole seminar on the subject. Presumably you
wouldn't
> > disagree with her, as long as you knew that her favoured
explanation
> > (for making stone tools) was the only thing being considered. As
soon
> > as I come a long and suggest (outrageous, I know) that swimming
might
> > have caused it, then the very idea of that humans', but not
chimps',
> > hands can be cupped has to be thrown out as a 'contortion'.
Pathetic.
>
> See above about the now non issue of cupped hands...and since we and
> our ancestors DID make modified tools, well...

I concede the point that chimps can cup their hands. At least until I
read those references you kindly gave in full, I'll assume I was wrong.

> > Wading, swimming, diving. This is no secret. I've been arguing for
them
> > now for at least six years on this newsgroup. It's really not
> > encouraging that, almost 1,300 posts later, you still don't get
even
> > that much. Marc's written over 3,000 - didn't you get the message
there
> > either? Morgan wrote five books on the subject, didn't you read
them?
> > What on earth are you doing wasting our time, if you haven't even
got
> > past the first line of text?
>
> My dog can swim and wade. My dog is aquatic! Two out of three!

If most breeds of dog were poor in water whilst yours was a good
swimmer wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that the difference was
due to some kind of selective breeding? Or would you just argue - hey,
my dog can do lots of things, it can't be due to selective breeding,
it's just a smart dog.

> And proboscis and swamp monkeys do all three!

Then, compared to most primates, perhaps we need an aquatic monkey
hypothesis too.

What's your problem with the idea that there are some differences
between humans and the rest of the ape clade and most of the primate
clade, in our abilities in water and that they might, shock horror, be
due to some mild selection? Why is this prospect so appauling?

> It would appear that those movements aren't
> compeling...

Not at all.
[.. snipped repeated argument, answered above]

Algis Kuliukas