Re: poor runners (Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?
From: Marc Verhaegen (fa204466_at_skynet.be)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Marc Verhaegen: "at least 1 dry aper converted to AAT (Re: More On Meat Eating - Growing Children Need It"
- Previous message: Daryl Krupa: "Re: Paleo Fraud"
- In reply to: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: poor runners (Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?"
- Next in thread: Michael Clark: "Re: poor runners (Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:57:29 +0100
"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:1109478324.800699.77650@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Look at chimps and bonobos. One lives in wetter habitats than the
>> >> > other, as a consequence probably wades more than the other, That
>> >> > species has longer hind legs, is more prone to bipedalism and
>> >> > associated behaviours like ventro-ventro copulation. And this is
>> >> > after 3My of living in only a slightly different habitat. Imagine
>> >> > the difference if a third chimpanzee had lived in gallery forests
>> >> > prone to flood/desiccation cycles for the same amount of time.
>> >> Orangs are the most v-v.mating of all apes. Do they wade a lot?? The
>> >> comparative data, Algis! That is all that counts.
>> > Yes they wade.
>> Rarely. Not more than colobus.
> I'm interested as to how you can be so definite about this.
Sorry, I'm not, I should have written "AFAIK". I've seen illustrations of
wading orangs & films of wading colobus. Both spp are +-fully arboreal &
rarely wade.
> Can you quote me some study into the wading behaviour of orangutans, or
> colubus monkeys? Really, I'd like to know about it. Rijksen & Meijaard
> provide a fair amount of anecdotal info about orangs but I don't know of
> any colubus wading data. e.g. "Orang-utans can and do wade in gently
> flowing chest-deep water (e.g. swamps), but they do not enter fast-flowing
> rivers to attempt fording, except where they are able to make their way
> across by securing a foothold on exposed boulders. Their method of
> traversing rivers is commonly along the crowns of trees which are growing
> on opposite banks and whose branches almost touch above the water, or
> along large trunks that have fallen across the river." Rijksen, H D;
> Meijaard, E (1999:42). Our vanishing relative. Kluwer Academic Publishers
> (Wageningen)
Thanks for the quote.
>> Orans mate v-v. Colobus don't. IOW, wading has nothing to do with it.
> Orangs mate v-v, I suppose, because they are fairly upright in their
> posture. They are possibly the most bipedal of the great apes. They are
> large, arboreal and live in very swampy conditions - all the ingredients
> the wading model would predict.
1) V-v.mating & uprightness?? Sloths mate v-v, pottos do. Orangs are the
most suspensory of the apes. Sloths & pottos also are suspensory.
2) Probably bonobos are the most bipedal of the gr.apes.
>> > The comparative data, though, is *completely* 100% against you when it
>> > comes to the argument that *swimming* (of all things) acted as a
>> > precursor to human bipedalism. Just remind me Marc, what comparative
>> > evidence is there for that? Which, of all the aquatic mammals are well
>> > known bipeds?
>> What is against what I said?? Don't misrepresent what I said!
> I can see how people have had so much difficulty in debating things with
> you over the years, Marc. You seem to be deliberately antagonistic at
> every opportunity. You make an argument and then in the very next posting
> you pretend you have not made that argument and accuse the other person of
> misrepresenting you.
I'm trying to be correct, that's all (& often I'm too lazy to explain
everything for the Xth time for people who I guess will not or cannot
understand it).
> Let me try again... One key objection you (now) seem to have with the
> wading hypothesis for bipedal origins is that you claim the comparative
> evidence does not support it. Your words "all other wading mammals do this
> on 4 legs", however, are simply false - apes *do* wade bipedally.
Again: for the Xth time: with the exception of the western lowland gorilla
perhaps, you can't call therm waders. Waders are, eg, pygmy hippos, tapirs,
babirusa, capibara perhaps...
> And yet you appear to argue that human-like bipedalism resulted in Homo
> predominantly from diving and swimming behaviour, where there is no such
> comparative evidence of swimming/diving mammals moving bipedally at all.
> So where am I misrepresenting you?
OK. Again. The problem with this bipedality discussion is that human
locomotion is unique. It's less so, when we cut it into its elements:
long-legged, striding, not-BKBH, broad-bodied, plantigrade,
+-straight-bodied, with +-erect trunks. You don't have to confine
comparisons to mammals. To the contrary. If we see resemblances in spite of
being not closely related, it's a strong agument for convergence (eg, bird &
bat wings). AFAIK, apart from humans, straight-bodied vertical bipedalism is
only seen in penguins on land, not unlikely due to their diving habits. If
you think human ancestors were an exception, you at least have to give some
arguments. OTOH, the lowland gorilla example shows that wading+climbing
isn't enough: these animals are mostly quadrupedal on land. So again: IMO:
- in gorillas wading + climbing => KWing,
- in humans + diving => straight-bodied bipedalism.
>> Our locomotion did not evolve at once. The available data suggest early
>> hominids were predom.vertical climbing + wading. When such animals become
>> land-living, they apparently become stronlgy quadrupedal, as we see in
>> lowland gorillas.
> I'm not arguing our locomotion evolved at once. I agree with all of that.
>> Early Homo OTOH was littoral & not climbing. When they became
>> land-living, they apparently got humanlike bipedalism. There's nothing
>> mysterious in this: just see penguins on land.
> When you say 'early Homo was littoral' - which paleospecies are you
> referring to? Which dated? Which location?
?? Do you ever read what I write, Algis?? I'm speaking about our ancestors,
not about some specific fossil (fossils are extinct sidebranches, +-never
ancestors). How do you think H.erectus got at Java 1.8 Ma? If you believe
they didn't follow the coasts, just give me your argument. You do know that
during the Pleistocene the sea levels were often +-100 m lower than today,
and that littoral places of those times rarely show up? In spite of this
enormous handicap, we do find a number of littoral H.ergaster-erectus
fossils & tools, beginning with the +-earliest one (Mojokerto 1.8 Ma) &
going to +-the latest one (Eritrea 0.1 Ma). Of course some populations
followed the rivers inland, but there's no reason to suppose early Homo did
not live at the coasts which are now under water. Why do you think we did
not have littoral ancestors??
I propose: the thickness in fossil adult H.erectus skulls, femora etc.
strongly correlated to the distance to the then nearest saltwater sea/lake.
> Penguins? So evidence from penguins is more important than evidence from
> apes?
1) Humans have straight bodies. Is it my fault that we see this in penguins,
but not in gorillas?? Please, Algis, a bit serious.
2) Have you read Darwin & Hardy well? Again: how further related, how
stronger the convergence. Think of marsupial "wolves", of birds & bats, of
fish & whale streamline.
>> >> > "My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced
>> >> > by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and
>> >> > to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow
>> >> > waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water
>> >> > just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial
>> >> > animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the
>> >> > world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water
>> >> > for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch."
>> >> > Hardy (1960:642). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? New Scientist
>> >> > 7:642-645
>> >> Hardy was talking about "Man" = Homo. Very correct. Unfortunately his
>> >> time-scale was completely wrong: he believed the PAs at the time about
>> >> the H/P split 15-10 Ma... Never believe PA interpretations without
>> >> good arguments! :-D
>> > Then why does he first refer to 'a branch of this primitive ape-stock'?
>> 1) What's wrong with that? Why would Homo not be a branch of early apes??
>> 2) He followed the PA ideas at the time that H & P split 15-10 Ma, so he
>> situated the littoral phase 10 mill.yrs earlier than we do now.
>> > He's clearly talking about how man evolved *from* apes
>> No, he was talking about "Man".
> His theory, Marc, was that this happenned in the gap between proconsul and
> australopithecines - this is clearly not Homo. You are just choosing to
> interpret his words in a way that you find comfortable today.
If Hardy wrote ridiculous things, I should repeat him?? Algis, Algis... For
the Xth time:
- Hardy was completely correct in his littoral hypothesis.
- He was completely wrong in following the PAs at the time that it happened
15-10 Ma.
> "It is interesting to note that the Miocene fossil Proconsul, which may
> perhaps represent approximately the kind of ape giving rise to the human
> stock, has an arm and a hand of very unspecialised form: much more human
> than that of the modern ape. It is in the gap of some ten million years or
> more, between Proconsul and Australopithecus that I suppose Man to have
> been cradled by the sea. [5-9]" Hardy (1960:645) "Cradled", Marc. as
> in 'origins', not later evolution.
Of course, Man is cradled by the sea. What is wrong with that?? I'd say:
Homo was cradled by he coasts.
> If the AAH offers anything, it is a better explanation of how some apes
> became human,
No, no: when H & P split, they were exactly the same H=P.
The differences (AAT or not) happened afterwards, from 5 or so to 0 Ma.
> not how some (already human) became fully modern.
?? If you want to say something, try to be clear: did I say something like
that or what?
>> >, not how man evolved *after* the Homo sapiens speciation event.
>> sapiens?? Who speaks about sapiens?? Stop twisting my words, Algis.
> Ok, sorry, the genus Homo. I'm not twisting your words. I'm trying to
> understand why you've apparently decided to abandon one of the major
> tenets of the AAH.
"abandon"?? I lost my faith in Holy Hardy? :-D
I'm not discussing persons, but facts & hypotheses.
>> >> >> > Of course they're not bipedal - because they don't wade much
>> >> >> > today and their ancestors presumably haven't for millions of
>> >> >> > years. The *point* is that wading is a significant causal
>> >> >> > behaviour for an animal with the right pre-requisites (almost
>> >> >> > uniquely, that means apes) for bipedal locomotion.
>> >> >> That's your belief, but so far you haven't given good arguments.
>> >> > If you think 92% bipedality in water compared to < 3% bipedality on
>> >> > land is not a good argument then you're in the same camp as the
>> >> > aquasceptics. Congratulations. I hope you enjoy their company.
>> >> It's not because bonobos are more on 2 feet while wading than while
>> >> walking that this must lead to humanlike locomotion! Don't you get
>> >> this?
>> > So swimming is the missing piece of the jigsaw, is it? Only swimming
>> > leads to fully upright terrestrial bipedalism with an efficient
>> > inverted-pendulum gait? That's *real* wishful thinking, that is, Marc.
>> ?? No irrelevant blabla, Algis! Stop twisting my words. See above.
> Look, if wading wasn't the major factor that led to human bipedalism,
> *what was it*? You are the world-famous AAH proponent who is now saying
> that wading wasn't a major factor in the adoption of human bipedalism,
> contrary to both Hardy and Morgan. You're the one saying that early Homo
> was littoral and swam and dived a lot. So, if not wading, what? I can only
> conclude you think it was swimming and diving. Heck, that's what you've
> said yourself. You even compared us to penguins! I'm trying to pin you
> down to make a definitive statement on this. I don't think it is
> "Irrelevant blabla" and I am desperately trying not to twist your words.
IMO "efficient inverted pendulum gait" is ridiculous nonsense. Ostrich =
inverted pendulum??
The rest I answered above, no?
>> >> Our littoral lifestyle did not evolve at once.
>> > I never said it did.
>> I didn't say you did. Just read the next sentence instead of interrupting
>> with no reason.
> It's what you do all the time Marc. You don't like to sample your own
> medicine, do you?
own medicine?? What do you mean by that? Is this an expression?
>> >> More likely is a very gradual evolution, eg: 0) early anthropoids
>> >> African forests ~30-25 Ma: above-branch climbing, 1) early
>> >> hominoids Tethys coastal forests ~20-15 Ma: idem + surface-swimming,
>> >> 2) early hominids Afr.coasts ~10-5 Ma: vert.climbing + wading +
>> >> surface-swimming, 3) early Homo Afr.& Ind.Oc.coasts ~2-1 Ma:
>> >> climbing reduction, diving, 4) early sapiens ~200 ka Africa:
>> >> diving reduction, wading + walking. (1-2) Aquarboreal Ape
>> >> Theory = hominoid evolution. (3) littoral = AAT s.s. = typically
>> >> human features = Homo evolution.
>> > I don't disagree with much of that except ... 1) I think that
>> > wading was a major factor in your step 2.
>> Not impossible, but in fact unknown.
> Why is it that when you make a statement... 'early hominids Afr.coasts
> ~10-5 Ma: vert.climbing + wading + surface-swimming', that's ok - no need
> for qualifiers about it being 'unknown' there. But when I *agree* with
> you, but stress a part of it 'wading was a major factor', then you now say
> that it is 'unknown'? Why are you so argumentative about everything? You
> are as bad as Jason Eshleman. If I made a statement to him that 'the sky
> was blue' he would argue with it, putting in some proviso - and you're
> just as bad. It's just not helpful, Marc. It's just being egotistical.
I thought this of you.
>> > 2) You have a big significant step missing in riparian habitats on
>> > E.African Pleistocene between 5 and 2 Mya.
>> Riparian?? = riverside?? any evidence??
> From what I can see almost all the E African Pleistocene hominid fossil
> evidence is from such habitats. Do you discount all of that as having no
> relevance in human evolution?
Again:
- AAT is anatomical-behavioral-physiological evidence about our direct
ancestors ("scars of evolution").
- Fossils hominids is not about our direct ancestors. They're illustrations
of how our extinct relatives might have lived. It's about the fossils
themselves & about hominids=P+H+G.
>> > 3) Your step 3 involved a great deal of terrestrial walking too.
>> Great?? Why do you think so?
> Because... 1) Their skeletal anatomy manifestly indicates human-like
> bipedality.
"their" =apiths?? =erectus?? manifestly?? why do you think so?
> 2) Humans are predominantly terrestrial. When they weren't swimming,
> diving or climbing, how do you suppose they were moving about?
Why necessarily moving? What's wrong with laying on the beach? :-) I have
little doubt they also waded & beach-combed on 2 legs & climbed cocotrees.
>> >> >> Our locomotion, like everything in nature, did not evolve at once:
>> >> > Of course. So why are you arguing that ape wading being nothing like
>> >> > human walking is of any importance?
>> >> Because wading does not explain bipedalism. All wading mammals are
>> >> quadrupedal. None is bipedal. Even the large lowland gorillas wading
>> >> in forest swamps do this often on 4 legs.
>> > In water apes are always bipedal if the water is deep enough. It
>> > therefore explains hominid bipedal origins *perfectly*.
>> It does not! Just see lowland gorillas. You don't call then "bipedal"??
> This is the kind of argument I would expect from the most rabid
> aquasceptic. That's like a creationist arguing ... 'we couldn't have
> evolved from apes... look at gorillas, they walk on all fours!'
Do you have to resort to that kind of arguments, Algis?? Sigh...
> If one of your opponents had argued anything like that against you, you
> would heap an insult on them.
Idem.
> I am desperately trying to stop myself doing so here now, but I'm finding
> it very difficult.
Just answer, Algis. IMO there are good reasons to suppose that these
gorillas descend from waders-climbers, so according to you they should be
bipedal. I can only say they are not. OK?
>> >> >> - early hominids = aquarboreal (wading + vertical climbing?)
>> >> > Agreed!!!
>> >> OK, not unlikely, but still hypothetical (I think you snipped a bit:
>> >> this was part of a proposed scenario, wasn't it?): not based on
>> >> comparative data, but on indirect evidence.
>> > No, I didn't snip it, Marc. What's your problem? That I agreed with
>> > you? You seem to be changing your mind because I did. Amazing.
>> Didn't I say "early hominids = vert.climbing-wading" was hypothetical?
>> I'm pretty sure that early apiths were predom.wading-climbing, but I'm
>> less sure about the hominid LCA lifestyle.
> It's *all* hypothetical, Marc. Why do you switch to being so pedantic when
> I agree with you? So that you can keep the argument going, no doubt.
It's not all hypothetical.
- A waterside past is not hypothetical. It's a fact. Only fools like the dry
apers deny this.
- How exactly it happened is still very hypothetical. There are vast
differences in probability. I'm not sure how the hominid LCA lived exactly.
How much did it climb? how much wade? did it dive? what did it eat? did its
diet include certain seafoods? mangrove oyster? bottom shellfish? did they
live in wetlands?
>> >> >> - early Homo = littoral+diving
>> >> > ...and bipedal walking too, right. I mean they did come to the shore
>> >> > sometimes, didn't they?
>> >> Yes, of course, eg, we know archaic Homo butchered stranded whales &
>> >> wildebeest...
>> >> >> - early sapiens = wading+walking
>> >> > ... and a bit of swimming/diving too but mainly walking. So, we're
>> >> > not that far apart, are we? :-) Algis Kuliukas
>> >> Of course, we mostly agree. I only want you to do the correct
>> >> reasonings.
>> > And I you.
>> >> http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT AAT = Homo diaspora (littoral
>> >> diet)
>> > It's much, much more than that. Algis Kuliukas
>> I see no reason to doubt that our typically human features evolved
>> somewhere else. Do you have arguments for some other scenario?
> As I said, I agree with much of your thinking (I got the wading-climbing
> idea from you!
Then you should remember that this was mostly about apiths, which IMO are
probably not our ancestors but relatives? You have to make the distinction
about hypotheses about fossils & hypotheses about our ancestors. You mix
them. Again:
- I have little doubt gracile apiths were predom.wading-climbing. Based
mostly on their anatomy & dentition.
- I don't know exactly how the H/P LCA lived: % wading? diving? climbing?
diet?
>) but you seem to have changed your mind about the importance of wading in
>the last few months and I still don't know why? I think you stress
>littoral habitats and swimming/diving locomotion too much and Rift valley
>fossil evidence and terrestrial bipedalism too little. That's not much of a
>gap, let's not make it appear bigger than it is by being too argumentative.
>Algis Kuliukas
OK.
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
AAT = Homo diaspora (littoral diet)
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
'Truth is the intersection of independent lines'--R.Levins 1966
- Next message: Marc Verhaegen: "at least 1 dry aper converted to AAT (Re: More On Meat Eating - Growing Children Need It"
- Previous message: Daryl Krupa: "Re: Paleo Fraud"
- In reply to: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: poor runners (Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?"
- Next in thread: Michael Clark: "Re: poor runners (Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
