Re: poor runners (Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?

From: Marc Verhaegen (fa204466_at_skynet.be)
Date: 03/04/05 

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:09:03 +0100

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:1109926028.897892.168920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>>>> Do you ever really read what I'm saying? Apith locomotion (IMO a
>>>> mixture of vertical climbing, arm-hanging, short-legged BHBK bipedality
>>>> & KWing) was more different from ours than from that of the Afr.apes
>>>> (less bipedal & more KWing than the apiths).

>>> [AK] Yes I do read what you say Marc. That's what's so confusing. You
>>> seem to change your mind every five minutes. Now you're saying... "Apith
>>> locomotion (IMO a mixture of vertical climbing, arm-hanging,
>>> short-legged BHBK bipedality & KWing)" See? Wading's not even mentioned
>>> now.

>> This apith bipedality is mostly wading, of course: what else? Running
>> over some savanna?? :-D

> So wading *was* important in bipedal origins!

What "bipedal origins"? Again: apiths don't say much about Homo ancestry
IMO.

>I'm more confused about what you're saying than ever. [snipped equally
>positive quotes from Marc's 2002 paper about wading]

>>> 'Can't you read?', you ask. Yes I can read. I read Marc Verhaegen saying
>>> that he finds the *nonwading* explanations for human bipedalism
>>> *unconvincing*. But, just three years later, he now says that argument
>>> is 'no good'

>> No, no: you don't read well. I'm still staying the non-wading
>> explanations are wrong IMO. This statement doesn't say anything on the
>> wading argument, only on the non-wading ones. OK? OTOH, I maintain
>> thatšIMO *your* wading argument is wrong. Don't you really see the
>> difference?? A bit of logical thinking...

>So... (let me see if I get this right)... your wading ideas are right and
>my wading ideas are wrong. Is that it? Why?

Your wading arguments (wading bonobos...) are wrong IMO.

>See, I thought my wading ideas *were* your wading ideas! That is: Bipedal
>*origins* (not perfection) due to aquarboreal (climbing-wading) behaviour
>in Miocene apes.

Again:
Miocene:
1) Helio-Griphopith c 17-15 Ma were probably still above-branch. They're
found in coastal forests (Heliopith southern Tethys, Griphopith northern
Tethys). I think they were aquarboreal, but predom.climbing
+surface-swimming.
2) Dryo-Oreopith in southern Europe c 10-7 Ma were probably below-branchers.
Oreopith (also aquarboreal IMO) might have been wading parttime.
3) Sahelanthr-Orrorin-Ardipith c 7-5 Ma are found in forested lake-sides.
It's essentially unproven, but they might have been parttime bipedal waders
IMO.
Pliocene:
3a) Apiths c 4-1 Ma were IMO vertical climbers + bipedal waders in swamp
forest & wetlands.
Peistocene:
3b) Homo c 2-0 Ma were IMO predom.divers-waders at the Afr.& Ind.Ocean
coasts. One of these became sapiens: bipedal waders-walkers.

>>> and in fact that 'it stinks'! Please Marc, when did you change your
>>> mind? and why? Answer that, at least. Algis Kuliukas

>> Thanks for the quotes, Algis. :-) The whole paper can be found in the
>> AAT files. I see no reason to change it much [*], to the contrary: all
>> this implies that wading+climbing alone (IMO, as in apiths) are
insufficient to explain why human & chimp locomotions differ. Besides,
apith locomotion doesn't say much about human locomotion: AAT is not about
apiths (P215), but about Homo (P216-7: "more linear build ... waders and
divers").

>Well clearly the proposed wading-climbing behaviour of a'piths is
>insufficient, but if they were doing a fair bit of wading then, as the
>earliest hard evidence for hominid bipedalism, it makes a pretty strong
case for the wading origins model of bipedalism, doesn't it. No matter what
the explanation is for chimp knuckle-walking and the evolution of modern
human bipedalism, wading is clearly important in it's origins. That's all
*my* ideas are based on, so why is this wrong?

It's not so "clearly": AFAIK waders are always QPal.

>> Again: IMO, without diving (& climbing & wading) you can't come to
>> humanlike locomotion, IOW, wading + climbing are not enough to explain
>> our bipedality; wading (in general) is no explanation for bipedalism; our
>> locomotion requires (among others) a +-straight build, which AFAIK can
>> only be explained by regular diving. Can I be more explicit, Algis?

> No, I think that's quite clear now, thanks. And I think it's complete
> baloney. Why do I think it's baloney? Because there's very little evidence
> for it. *Especially* there's none (except penguins) of your precious
> *comparative* evidence.

You're wrong here.

> By the way, why didn't you answer this point in my recent posting...?

I answered your points hundred times, Algis, but you simply don't get it.

[AK]>>>Yes and bonobos are bipedal in centimteres of water. Why don't you go
along to Planckendael this afternoon and you'll see them for yourself.

[MV]>> And when they come out of the water, they walk on *4* legs...

>So what? So do otters, crocodiles, alligators, platypuses, frogs, water
>shrews, desmans, swamp rabbits, beavers, bank voles, capybaras, polar
>bears, minks, seals, sealions, walruses, hippos, turtles, monitors, newts
>and salamanders - and they all have some kind of linear build for swimming
>(& usually diving). Why is the comparative evidence so unimportant there,
>all of a sudden?

?? The compar.data are of course very important. Don't you really see your
sloppy thinking?? Humans are bipedal. The others are QPal. IOW, aquaticism
(incl. wading) does not explain bipedalism.

>In fact the only scrap of comparative evidence you have for an aquatic
>animal having bipedality through linear build is... the penguin. And guess
>what, Marc, a penguin doesn't have any fore-limbs so it hasn't
got any choice other than being bipedal just like every other bird!

Sigh. Hopeless.

Penguins are linear, Algis. Ostriches are not. Flamingoes are not. OK?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... >kind of statement that proto-hominin x ate food source y in habitat z ... parsimoniously infer that proto-hominins may have eaten a wide variety ... underlie selection leading to obligate terrestrial bipedalism. ... >wading they did, the more bipedal they would become. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... >>the coasts and exploit all sorts of mangrove and other wetland food ... > could be obtained without wading. ... >>bipedalism is unlikely to have been a particularly good thing on land, ... is that quadrupedal wading kills in waist deep water. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: AAT = (Plio)Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts & got a littoral diet.
    ... >> Aquarboreal doesn't mean it necessarily includes wading. ... >> don't think it improbable (at least not in late Homo), ... Surely the best precursor to terrestrial bipedalism is some ... It's "hominins" etc. which cofuse minds & which we don't need. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... no matter what evidence I ... driven hominid bipedalism, the evidence in extant apes for wading is ... strongly causative (92% bipedality associated with wading in the only ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... >> could be obtained without wading. ... waist-deep water would have any selective effect at all. ... >been driven by wading as by terrestrial bipedalism. ... then there could be no selection for features other than those they ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Quantcast