Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1120838162.664841.101740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >>>>>>> ....so when you say 4 Ma I'm confused as to your definition of Homo.
>
> >>>>>> I usu.start from living animals: Homo is everything after the H/P
> >>>>>> split (~6-4 Ma) in our branch. Fossils that no doubt belong to Homo
> >>>>>> are georgicus-ergaster-erectus etc. H.rudolfensis possibly.
> >>>>>> H.habilis s.s. not likely IMO. But whether this or that fossil
> >>>>>> belongs to Homo or to Pan is not so important IMO, & perhaps often
> >>>>>> impossible to say: there's a lot of convergence in evolution. Fossils
> >>>>>> are important in that they're illustrations of how early hominids
> >>>>>> (sensu HPG) could have lived, but it's usu.useless to try to find
> >>>>>> ancestors in fossils.
>
> >>>>> I think I see where you are coming from. Whatever line we happened to
> >>>>> have derived from would be Homo. I suppose that is one way to look at
> >>>>> it, we did have ancestors even though there are a lot of gaps or dead
> >>>>> ends on the tree.
>
> >>>> Yes, it's a line of thinking seldom used by PAs. Unfortunately.
>
> >>> IYO.
>
> >> Yes: they miss a lot.
>
> > *They* is a generalization. Name some names.
>
> +-All of them: most fossil-hunters (eg, Pickford's Orrorin vs Brunet's
> Sahelanthr) believe to find "ancestors"... But perhaps both Pickford &
> Brunet are right? :-)


Perhaps they are both wrong, which doesn't prove anyone else right
either. Your correct observation that we had ancestors doesn't help
answer much in the way of a description, it's a non-starter.


>
>
>
> >>>>> It seems like soon after the LCA there would be a period of time where
> >>>>> the creature on our branch would be indistinguishable from something
> >>>>> like a chimp.
>
> >>>> No, no: this is a common mistake.
>
> >>> I didn't say "like a chimp" I said "something like a chimp" that is the
> >>> equivalent of your saying "probably resembled somewhat apiths"
>
> >> You also said: indistinguishable.
>
> > And you also said: ~6-4 Ma.
>
> Yes: DNA data.

Today we can still recieve blood from a bonobo if properly typed. You
do not have DNA or blood from either chimps or an ancestor at 5 My.
Yes, today it can be done, but I'm skeptical genetics could distinguish
between the two at 5 My.

>
> > You also said: Fossils that no doubt belong to Homo are
> > georgicus-ergaster-erectus etc. H.rudolfensis possibly. H.habilis
> > improbable
>
> Yes, eg, B.Wood & M.Collard 1999 "The human genus" Science 284:65-66.

Yes, already agreed upon up to ca 2 or 2.3 My, depending on who you
believe. Thanks, but you really don't have to provide a cite where we
already agree-it will save time.


>
> > And those meet your definition by the traits you gave. This is fine for
> > 2.4 My ago. It is not fine for ~6 My ago. You don't know if any of the
> > traits you listed (H features were, eg, thick enamel, low ilia, flatter
> > feet, 5 lumbar vertebrae, no very long arms, absence of KWing...) were in
> > place at ~6 My.
>
> See http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html .
> If you think they were not, I'd like to hear why you think that.
> - thick enamel: most Miocene apes


Most Miocene apes? Later variation shows this information doesn't help
much.


(some even super-thick), apiths, orangs,
> humans


Orangs? That just demonstrates how little support can be made for
anatomical-comparative data arguments.
Greater distance of relatedness, yet closer morphology. Why do you
suppose the Piltdown hoaxer chose an orang jaw instead of the far
closer related-to-us chimp jaw?


> - low ilia: monkeys, apiths & humans
> - flatter feet: I should perhaps not listed that here - dubious
> - 5 lumbar vertebrae: apiths & H (apes +-3, monkeys +-7)
> - no very long arms: monkeys, apiths, G & H (rel.arm length :
> H=G<P<orang-gibbons)
> - no KWing: only seen in P & G,


Which is another point, KWing then evolved twice. This demonstrates
anatomical-comparative-data arguments need to be taken with caution.


partly in E.Afr.apiths, not in orang,
> gibbons, humans, monkeys...


None of your observations (without fossil evidence) would provide a
very good description of the missing Homo.

Another thing in common is they all have two eyes. A non-description of
Homo between 2.3 and ~6 My really is not very enlightening, nor have
you really described anything except to note we had ancestors.


>
> > But no matter, I was just trying to get some sort of idea when you thought
> > our ancestors left for the coast, which you did answer below.
>
> >>>> Chimps live today. Humans live today. The H/P LCA had some features of
> >>>> P, some features of H & some unique features, and probably resembled
> >>>> somewhat apiths (= fossil hominids 4-1 Ma). Presumably the LCA
> >>>> resembled P more than it did H, but it was no doubt clearly different
> >>>> from P: H features were, eg, thick enamel, low ilia, flatter feet, 5
> >>>> lumbar vertebrae, no very long arms, absence of KWing... ; P features
> >>>> were, eg, small brain with apelike organisation, non-flexed
> >>>> basicranium, no masticatory reduction (MYH16), short legs, no external
> >>>> nose,
>
> >>> [just a OT side observation here.]
>
> >> (what is OT?)
>
> > Off topic, maybe I should have said 'out of place' At one point we were
> > discussing who was making the tools, H habilis or Rudolf, elsewhere, so I
> > didn't think the comment really belonged here, that's all, so I said OT
> > for this paragraph.
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> >>> H. habilis has a very common homo feature, ie, the start of a external
> >>> nose, unlike Rudolf.
>
> >> No, no: probably the reverse: H.rudolf. possibly had an ext.nose
> >> (Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988).
>
> > This says just the opposite
> > http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Hrudolfensis.html?200524 I
> > realize web pages aren't always tops, so if you can *quote* what Trinkaus
> > said, I will concede the point for now.
>
> Lee, whether you concede something or not is not my problem, but the paper
> is RG Franciscus & E Trinkaus 1988 "Nasal morphology and the emergence of
> Homo erectus" AJPA 75:517-527: OH-24, StW-53, ER-1805 & most likely OH-62A
> appear closer to the pongid-like morphology of a flat non-projecting nasal
> region ; ER-1470, ER-1813 & ER-3732 may have possessed rel.more projecting
> noses.

Thank you Marc. And just as I suspected: "appear closer" and "may have
possessed" terminology doesn't exactly inspire confidence. 1988? I'll
see if I can dig up something a little more current, like:

Blumenschine, Robert, et al. 2003 Late Pliocene Homo and Hominid Land
Use from Western Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Science Vol. 299:1217

"Er 1470 and OH 65 can be accommodated in the H. habilis holotype,
casting doubt on H. rudolfensis as a biological valid taxon."

Your tool-using Rudolf may be in jeopardy.

>
> >>> We know external-nose H. erectus could make stone tools, but we don't
> >>> know that any of the no-external-nose hominids could. What is more
> >>> diagnostic, a nose or a long arm? Why should one trait trump another?
>
> >> I'm not following. Relevance of all this?
>
> > Yes, my fault, that comment really belonged where we were discussing
> > tools/Rudolf/H. Habilis.
>
> >> Why do you think some traits trump others?
>
> > I think before we go any further on that we should get the nose issue
> > straightened out.
>
>
>
> >>>> good climbing skills... - Unique featues, eg, very broad pelvis, very
> >>>> long & horizontal femoral necks, very valgus knees... (apiths).
>
> >>> Yes, but the two different creatures didn't just pop out of a hat. These
> >>> differences did take some time.
>
> >> OK, but what is your point?
>
> > I was just trying to get it straight who and when along our evolutionary
> > path the seaside living began.
>
> My view:
> - Miocene hominoid ancestors peri-Tethys coastal forests (aquarboreal) -
> related populations from there inland
> - Plio-Pleistocene Homo ancestors Afr.& Ind.Ocean coasts (non-climbing
> littoral) & related populations from there inland

I will make a note of that.

>
>
>
> >>>>> There could possibly be a 3.4 My gap ( ~6 minus 2.6). The gap for
> >>>>> missing Homo-like activities is larger than the first arguable
> >>>>> evidence (ie, Gona tools) to now. I know there was someone a short
> >>>>> time ago that was arguing that chimps should be reclassified to Homo,
> >>>>> but I don't think it was very well received. I doubt if much could be
> >>>>> accomplished debating the definition of Homo, since there is little
> >>>>> consensus of just where the line is to be drawn.
>
> >>>> The definition is what it always has been: our branch after the H/P
> >>>> split
>
> >>> So it was after all these changes took place [ie, H features were, eg,
> >>> thick enamel, low ilia, flatter feet, 5 lumbar vertebrae, no very long
> >>> arms, absence of KWing...] that H went coastal?
>
> >> Probably not: IMO the early hominoids might well have been coastal forest
> >> dwellers, IOW, our ancestors might have been coastal (forests) since
> >> millions of years.
>
> > I was hoping for something more specific. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you
> > do seem to be arguing that Homo erectus (and Neandertals) was influenced
> > by waterside living.
>
> We have to discern between an IMO extremely well-established theory based on
> our anatomy & behaviour (AAT = our ancestors were littoral once) & different
> detailed hypotheses about how & where exactly this could have taken place.
> We know that Homo fossils & tools are "suddenly" (due to geological
> processes? eg, sea level changes?) found in Algeria, Iran, Java, Georgia,
> Kenya & other places ~1.8 Ma. These places were coastal or lay near large
> paleo"lakes" (R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421).


Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, and Kromdrii do not seem to be associated
with large lakes or seas (but I will check). The Lake Baringo hominids
(and hand-axe sites) were found on a plateau 6 km from the lake (Leakey
1969). Not exactly seaside or large-lake side.


How else would they have
> dispersed than along the coasts??


So, any animal shown to be ancestral to Africa, found outside of
Africa, dispersed along the coasts? We can't walk were elephants can?


or do you have reasons to think they did
> not disperse along the coasts? Don't you think they collected there
> coconuts & also seafood?

We Know they were breaking bones, breaking coconuts is total
speculation.


Why else are humans capable of breath-holding
> several minutes & diving tens of metres deep? Do you see chimps doing that?
> Why can we do this, and chimps can't IYO?


We can throw a fork-ball, a curve ball, slider, and kick a 63 yard
field goal; do you see chimps doing that? Does it mean we evolved
playing baseball and football ~1.8 My ago?


I have no doubt that our seaside
> ancestors were among those dispersing littoral populations. But when &
> where exactly I don't know & don't care:


This is all fine Marc, and it's good to get hypotheses on paper, but
sooner or later one needs tests and evidence. Anatomical-comparative
data arguments are just that, arguments, whether they seem logical or
not.


I'm interested in how & why we
> became what we are, much more than in whether a specific fossil might be our
> direct ancestor or not. You can read several of my hypotheses on our
> anatomy in my Medical Hypotheses papers
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

I just got started on this paper and ran into this:
"Studies of dental enamel microwear provide other details. In the early
australopithecines of Garusi-Laetoli and Hadar (A. afarensis 4-3 Myr
BP), the cheekteeth enamel has a polished surface and the microwear
looks like that of the capybara Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and that of
the mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa (Puech et al., 1986). These animals
are semi-aquatic rodents that feed mainly on sappy marsh and riverside
herbs, grasses and bark of young trees."
---------------------------------------------------------------

http://snohomish.wsu.edu/garden/vertchap.htm
"Another occasional pest in the western parts of Oregon and Washington
is the world's most primitive living rodent, the Mountain Beaver
(Aplodontia rufa). This animal does not usually live high in the
mountains and is not a beaver of any kind, being more closely related
to squirrels. It is found only in the Coastal areas and foothills of
Western North America.

It usually lives in or near wooded lands having large masses of tangled
vegetation such as sword fern, blackberry and salal, its primary
foods."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain beavers are not semi-aquatic animals, nor do they live near
marshes or river sides (unless the marsh or river side happened to have
high-dry ground nearby). Coastal above means as opposed to east of the
Cascade Mountains, it does not imply they physically live on the coast
like a clam. If the cheekteeth microwear of "early
australopithecines" looks like wear on mountain beaver teeth, then
australopithecines were eating plants that were not common to marshes
or river sides.



It may well be that a lot
> of these hypotheses will eventually appear to be completely wrong, but so
> far nobody has been able to provide sensible counter-arguments... :-)

And of course what is sensible to one worker, may not be sensible to
another :-)


>
> > Maybe I'm not seeing something. Is AAH taking claim for the evolution of
> > both bipedalism
>
> No! Where do you get this?

All the pictures of chimps and gorillas standing up in the swamps?



What mammal that spends a lot of time in water is
> bipedal IYO??

An animal that spends a lot of time standing up in the swamps? OK, I
simply didn't have that part correct.


>
> > and our large brain
>
> Large brains are often seen in (semi)aquatics, but not always (Sirenia).
>
> > (in spite of the fact that there seems to be millions of years between the
> > two events)?
>
> ??
> "Bipedalism" was no "event"!


I'm talking about the *separation* between the two, not time of
evolution of each. I already stated: "Yes, but the two different
creatures didn't just pop out of a hat. These differences did take
some time." Poor choice of words that's all.


> You have to analyse our locomotion into its elements:
> - bipedality = 2-leggedness (kangaroo, birds...),
> - long legs (heron, ostrich vs penguin on land),
> - erect trunks (vs bipeds like ostriches),
> - plantigrady (vs digiti- or unguligrades like all mammal cursorials),
> - aligned body (vs kangaroos, bipedal dinos, birds except penguins),
> - etc.
> Comparative arguments suggest the HPG LCA was partly bipedal with frequently
> erect trunks & possibly plantigrady. But an aligned body seems to have been
> later, and long legs are probably much later.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> OK, since you have used the example of the whale and tools, then
> >>>>> whales and tool exploitation should show up earlier on the coast than
> >>>>> inland tools and elephant exploitation (even if that happened to be in
> >>>>> India).
>
> >>>> Yes, there were no fossilisation biases, and if Gona had not been
> >>>> waterside.
>
> >>>>> Since all the fossils in the gap between ~6 and 2.6 are inland, and
> >>>>> you have just demonstrated that coastal preservation is possible, then
> >>>>> Gona caliber tools should be found on the coasts somewhere if they
> >>>>> were developed earlier at those locations.
>
> >>>> The CRAS paper (not I) demonstrated that Pleistocene coastal
> >>>> preservation is possible, not how frequent it should be, nor whether
> >>>> earlier coastal preservations were possible.
>
> >>> But I'm really not saying that the coastal sites have to outnumber the
> >>> inland sites, I agree there is some bias in the record. Even one well
> >>> dated site on the coast that was earlier than the inlands sites would be
> >>> positive evidence rather than negative.
>
> >> Probably, but it's not necessary: we have anatomical-comparative data.
>
> > Yes, Jeffrey Schwartz makes some great observations using comparative
> > data, but still that sort of thing can take you only so far: "If chimps
> > and humans are so alike, why do they look so different? And
> why do orangs and humans have so much in common?"
> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05170/523412.stm
>
> Some answers to these questions can be found in my TREE paper with P-F.Puech
> & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology & Evolution
> 17:212-217.

Great, this journal I can get. For some reason all the libraries near
me have canceled JHE. Don't know if I will be able to get R.Dennell
2003 JHE 45:421 soon.


>
> >> My point is that PAs tend to neglect the importance of the
> >> anatomical-comparative data (on our ancestors) & over-emphasize
> >> (understandably: it's their job) fossil & archeol.data (on our
> >> relatives), and that fossil & archeol.data nowhere contradict the
> >> anat.-comparative data.
>
> > It will certainly be interesting to see what the PAs have to say about
> > this data when its published in the Journal of Human Evolution (or some
> > other peer-reviewed journal).
>
> I'm certainly not very interested to see what peer-reviewing PAs have to say
> on the subject:
> - JHE is incredibly biased: the editors there appear to be about as sensible
> as the geologists in Wegener's time, who "explained" S.Am.-Afr.resemblances
> through hypothetical "land bridges" between the 2 continents.


Biased? Maybe that's why my local libraries stopped taking it. Being
that JHE is so biased, does that call into question the validity of the
Dennell paper?


> - Other peer-reviewed anthropol.journals have no problems in accepting AAT
> papers (eg, R.Bender cs.1997 "Der Erwerb menschlicher Bipedie aus der Sicht
> der Aquatic Ape Theory" Anthrop.Anz.55:1-14).
> - TREE is peer-reviewed. The PA reviewers tried to reject it, but the
> biologists managed to get it accepted. :-) AAT is a biological rather than
> an anthropological hypothesis.

Hope there is nothing on mountain beavers in the paper :-)


> - Peer review often seriously seems to hinder scientific progress, eg,
> M.Enserink 2001 "Peer Review and Quality: a Dubious Connection?" Science
> 293:2187.

Kinds of like laws, some of them are bad, but without the majority of
them we would be in a worse situation overall.



>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>> Chimps break hard nuts with stones, bones break easy enough when
> >>>>>>>>> bashed with a rock. Tests have already been done to show that
> >>>>>>>>> hominid-bashed bones are in the record.
>
> >>>>>>>> - Chimps hunt. Do they break bones?
>
> >>>>>>> The bad thing about chimps is we don't have any idea of when they
> >>>>>>> started doing much of anything before a couple hundred years ago.
>
> >>>>>> We have a lot indirect evidence: chimps use tools, orangs use tools,
> >>>>>> early apes were probably durophagous (thick enamel), IOW, the great
> >>>>>> hominoid LCA presumably used stones.
>
> >>>>> This may be true if pongo, pan, and gorilla remained fixed with no
> >>>>> evolution of their own after the split with the LCA.
>
> >>>> ?? Why should their evolution then have been fixed IYO?
>
> >>> It wouldn't, so how can you assume "IOW, the great hominoid LCA
> >>> presumably used stones." ?
>
> >> Chimps use tools, orangs do,
>
> > Yes, today.
>
> Humans do, then why do you think the chimp-orang-human LCA did for some
> reason not use tools?


OK, forgetting for the moment hard evidence is lacking:
1) If one accepts the fact that the LCA used tools, then one could also
argue that the LCA of the LCA also used tools. Where does this stop,
jellyfish?
2) Lots of animals can be trained to use tools but do not do so in the
wild.
3) Once tool use started with Homo, it was a continuous unbroken thread
where ever Homo is found, this suggests time depth. This is not so
even with chimps today. Some fish for termites, others make hats, but
there doesn't seem to be much in common or fixed as in Homo's tools.
This suggests a lack of time depth.
4) Yeah, gorilla could have forgot how, but LCA may not have had any
more reason to use tools than gorilla or orang, who rarely uses tools.
Some orangs probe for insects with a stick as do chimps, but there
again, IIRC, not all do, suggesting something rather recent just
catching on.


Tool use is simply an option (today) with our closest kin, not
something mandatory that they couldn't live without. So there is even
less reason LCA did.


>
> >> humans do, early great apes were probably durophagous (thick enamel),
>
> > Chimps and gorillas don't have this feature.
>
> Gorillas you mean.

I cited Schwartz.


Chimps are intermediate. But most Miocene apes had
> thick enamel, and a lot of early hominids (Ouranopith & apiths) even had
> super-thick enamel.
>
> >> so why wouldn't the early apes not have been using stone tools? I'm not
> >> saying they did, only that I don't see any reason why they didn't.
>
> > I'm not saying they didn't/couldn't, but I don't see any evidence that
> > they did, and I prefer factual evidence over reason.
>
> See above: Griphopith, Ouranopith, Suivapith, Lufengpith, Gigantopith,
> Orrorin, Australopith... very factual.
>
>
> >>>>> This doesn't prove the LCA did.
>
> >>>> Of course not.
>
> >>> Then I'm not sure why you would presume the LCA would use stones,
> >>> whether for throwing, breaking nuts, or anything else.
>
> >> AFAICS, there's no reason why they would not have used tools: chimps,
> >> orangs & humans do (only the predom.herbivorous gorillas don't much), and
> >> the early great apes had probably thick enamel (probably for hard foods).
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> Stone throwing/use seems to be associated with how much time a primate
> >>>>> spends on the ground.
>
> >>>> Apes are excellent throwers, but why must this be correlated to tool
> >>>> use?
>
> >>> Isn't a missile a tool? It was just an example because we know the Gona
> >>> creatures were throwers,
>
> >> Ah? How do you know?
>
> > Sue: "I finally recognized that Nick was not really hitting rocks
> > together; instead, he was throwing the rock in his right hand against the
> > edge of the rock in his left hand, letting the force of the controlled
> > throw knock off the flake. The "hammer rock" never really left his right
> > hand, but it was none the less thrown, as a missile, against the "core,"
> > or the rock held in place in his left hand." And: "Once I realized how
> > Nick was actually flaking stone, I grasped the profound similarity between
> > the activities of throwing and stone knapping." Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and
> > Roger Lewin. 1994:3 KANZI: THE APE AT THE BRINK OF THE HUMAN MIND. John
> > Wiley & Sons.
>
> ??
> I hope you're not saying that knapping=throwing??


That is exactly what Sue was saying above.


>
> > Chimps throw today, and yes, they can (or at least Kanzi can) hit a rock
> > on the ground with another rock. But can Kanzi throw a 109 mph fast ball
> > to home plate 445 feet away, no.
>
> ?? Sorry, I'm not following. Fr.deWaal said apes are excellent throwers.


OK, you said: "Apes seem to throw better than baboons (see DeWaal
above),"

And I said: "don't bet on it." DeWaal was making un-demonstrated
assumptions.
And yes they all throw, but excellent compared to who, children at the
zoo?



A
> ref you provided said that baboons are excellent throwers.


But only compared to gorilla and orangs, it looks to me like a tie
between chimps and baboons. DeWaal doesn't know what he is talking
about, much less substantiate his claim with documentation.


IOW, I don't see
> what human tool use has to do with throwing. Throwing can well be more than
> 20 Ma.

I'm counting throwing missiles as tools.
The P, G & orang group just do not have the anatomy to suggest anything
more than limited duty as throwers.

>
> > This suggests we've had more practice at throwing for a longer period of
> > time (demonstrated by spalls left in the record). Also see more on
> > throwing http://williamcalvin.com/bk5/bk5ch8.htm
>
> Do you buy the Calvin stuff??

If you do not see the association between throwing and flintknapping,
then I'm not surprised that Calvin is relegated as *stuff* to you.


>
>
>
> >>> but there is zero evidence that throwing was practiced by the apes (at 2
> >>> My) or by the LCA. We only know what apes do today. There is no
> >>> time-depth to when they started doing anything as far as tool use.
>
> >> Same reasoning: humans throw accurately, apes do (F.deWaal), why wouldn't
> >> their LCA??
>
> > Same reasoning, no time depth. Many creatures stumble on to the same
> > adaptations independently of each other. For instance, you mentioned
> > above that chimps were our closest relatives. This means knuckle walking
> > evolved twice (or we were knuckle walkers once).
>
> Among primates, only P & G are KWers. But good throwers are capuchins,
> baboons, chimps, humans... & not unlikely most primate spp.


Good? What is good? Can any of those mentioned apes down a zebra at
30-40 meters as a human can?

Cricket players throw balls exactly same distance as I cited for
baseball players, well over 400 feet. And your documentation that
chimps can do this? You keep repeating chimps throw well, but I don't
see any evidence of this AFAICS.

Isaac, Barbara 1987 Throwing and human evolution. The African
Archaeological Review, 5, pp. 3-17


>
> >>>> Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: "Now, please, don't believe
> >>>> everything you hear about apes not throwing. ... Out in the open, their
> >>>> skills are even more striking. ... The estimated distance of this case
> >>>> was 25 m. In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus..."
>
> >>>>> I don't know this for a fact, but I would be willing to bet baboons
> >>>>> spend more time throwing rocks than pongo. No reason to believe LCA
> >>>>> had anything to do with rocks, since time on the ground was probably
> >>>>> minimal.
>
> >>>> Apes seem to throw better than baboons (see DeWaal above), so this
> >>>> ground-spending argument has no basis.
>
> >>> Don't bet on it http://www.uncoveror.com/baboons.htm
>
> >> Thanks a lot, Lee.
>
> > You are welcome, see below.
>
> >> The link says: "CURIOUS CHILD CAUSES BABOON FRACAS - ... The entire troop
> >> became agitated, and started to fling rocks, dirt clods, mud, and their
> >> feces at the children, their teacher, and all other humans within sight,
> >> never once missing a target. ... Don't throw rocks at the red-ass
> >> baboons. When they throw them back, they don't miss!"
>
> > Notice especially that a *child* could throw a rock *to* the biggest
> > baboon. Let's get equals against equals here. Accuracy is only a small
> > part of the equation. No ape can win a rock throwing contest against a
> > trained human, only against human couch potatoes.
>
> Please try to be objective, Lee: (untrained) baboons "don't miss".


Objective? Can a baboon or any other monkey/ape down a zebra at 30-40
meters (Isaac 1987)?


>
>
> >>> In a fight to the death, I'll take the ground dwelling baboons and
> >>> ground dwelling Nolan Ryan with his 109 MPH fast ball. So the
> >>> ground-spending argument is valid.
>
> >> (Who is Nolan Ryan?)
>
> > A trained ballplayer. We throw better than apes. Ask Frans de Waal if he
> > would rather have a chimp throwing at him or a major-league ballplayer.
>
> Trained... the man doesn't do much besides throwing I guess?

MV: "..... humans capable of breath-holding
several minutes & diving tens of metres deep." The man doesn't do
much besides training for diving I guess?


>
> >> Both hominoids & cercopiths throw accurately,
>
> > Savanna dwellers throw better than chimps, orang, or gorilla.
>
> You keep repeating this, but without any evidence AFAICS.


Wrong, where is DeWaal's evidence? I just cited Barbara Isaac, I
suggest DeWaal start reading her paper.

I correctly cited 109 MPH and over 400 foot throws for man. What can
DeWaal counter with? Apes are amateurs.


>
> >> IOW, throwing hasn't much to do with human evolution, nor with ape
> >> evolution, nor with ground vs tree-dwelling.
>
> > Well, in William Calvin's opinion it does. He knows far more about how the
> > brain functions and it's evolution than you or I.
>
> I'm sure he doesn't know more than I do about brain functioning.

You are a neurobiologist at a major university?

And your publications in Journal of Neurophysiology are ?????
http://tinyurl.com/dj7mf

When I search Verhaegen, M in PubMed I see (from a layperson's view
of course) an excellent résumé on just about everything but
publications on the functioning of the human brain:
"The influence of different concentrations of volatile anesthetics on
the threshold for cortical spreading depression in rats"



>
>
>
>
> ....
>
> >> 1) Our arguments are based on the behavior, anatomy & physiology of
> >> living humans compared to other animals
> >> http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT : they suggest that some time after
> >> the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors were seaside omnivores who
> >> collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles, shell-, crayfish,
> >> algae... This explains many typically Homo traits (not seen in apes or
> >> australopiths) a lot better than dry savanna scenarios do: brain size,
> >> diving skills, breathing control, vocality, small mouth & chewing
> >> muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway, projecting nose, reduced
> >> sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty, long legs, body
> >> alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs of water,
> >> sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids...
>
> > Thank you for the review. I have followed some of these debates over the
> > years, but not nearly as close as some of the other readers on this list
> > (obviously :-). From what I've seen so far, the world is not quite ready
> > to accept your conclusions.
>
> Part of the world, yes. Part of the world doesn't even accept Darwin, and at
> the time, most geologists didn't accept Wegener's conclusions about Africa &
> S.America having been part of 1 continent once.

But this isn't Wegener's time, this is 2005. Did Wegener publish his
views of brain function in Journal of Neurophysiology as Calvin has?


>
> >> 2) We know that ~1.8 Ma Homo remains (fossil & archeol.) are found in
> >> Algeria, Iran, Kenya, Georgia, Java... No reason why they would have
> >> dispersed over the mountains rather than along the coast.
>
> > People can walk to and over these areas today, no reason to suspect our
> > ancestors couldn't have walked were other animals did, or did all other
> > African-animal migrants follow the coast also? Java seems to be the only
> > case where I would agree with you, but that hardly is proof of how the
> > other areas were populated, one case does not prove another (not to
> > mention the dating problems associated with the Java remains).
>
> Our anatomy strongly suggests they didn't walk where typical terrestrial
> mammals walked: we are totally different: slow, plantigrade,
> water+Na-dependent etc.


We have found the tools right next to were the other animals walked,
that is proof we walked where they walked. We don't need comparative
evidence to decide something different.
Elephants can climb Mount Everest? Given enough head start, no animal
(that is a threat to us) can catch a human (assuming the human doesn't
have a broken leg).



Why would our ancestors have walked through dry
> savannas where they could simply have followed the coasts?


Because the savannas weren't there at the time of departure?


>
> >> IOW, in the fossil & archeological record, this waterside episode is
> >> reflected in the Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian
> >> Ocean & African coasts: 1.8-Ma Homo remains come from always near lakes
> >> or seas (R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421). In spite of sea level changes (Ice
> >> Ages), Homo much more than australopith remains have been found amid
> >> shells, corals & barnacles, from 1.8 to 0.1 Ma (throughout the
> >> Pleistocene), in coasts all over the Old World (Mojokerto, Terra Amata,
> >> Table Bay, Eritrea...), even on islands that could only be reached by sea
> >> (Flores 0.8 Ma http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ).
>
> > This observation is 5 million years after the fact, unless you are
> > claiming no evolution took place before Homo e and 7 million years ago.
>
> After what fact??

After the fact of 4 million years of evolution. You cannot fill this
gap with what H. erectus was doing at 1.8 million years ago with what
some unknown ancestor was doing 5 million years ago. Just because
someone was on the line to Homo, doesn't make him Homo nor do you know
he was doing what Homo e was doing.


>
> >> 3) There are no fossil or archeol.data which contradict this seaside
> >> diaspora.
>
> >Total lack of evidence between 2 My and 7 My is not very convincing IMO.
>
> a) AAT is about Homo, ie, *after* the H/P split ~5 Ma, ie, somewhere between
> ~5 & 0 Ma.

Having 5 lumbar vertebrae and two eyes in common with the LCA doesn't
define someone as Homo between ~6 My and 2.6 My.



> b) The retrovirus data suggest H might have been absent from Africa between
> 4 & 3 Ma.


Yes, I like that idea. I will check on it. Puts the original PAs of the
early 1900s right back in the ballgame. Doesn't put anyone seaside
however.


> c) Fossil finds are very biased.

I know, that's why you are finding fossils next to big lakes. That's
where hominids get covered with mud and preserved, this tells you
nothing about where they were spending most of their time. You simply
don't find them out on the savanna because that's where they are least
likely to be preserved in the record, simply bias.


Think alone of Pleistocene sea level
> lowerings.
> d) There's no reason to omit the anatomical & behavioural evidence.

Well, good luck with the testing aspect.



>
>
>
> .....
>
> >Are you familiar with the work of Jeffrey Schwartz? He has lots of
> >comparative data also (in fact, some of it is pretty good), but it doesn't
> >make his conclusion right.
>
> 1) Schwartz: excellent facts, but lousy interpretations.


Agreed, I just said that. That is exactly the point of why
comparative-data has to be viewed with caution.


> 2) He only compares between hominoids, not with other mammals. IOW, his
> approach is totally unlike ours.


Well, hominoids are our closest relatives. I fail to see using
ostriches as an example of human evolution.


>
> > So comparative anatomy can be very deceptive
>
> Not if you applies it correctly.

And mountain beavers? :-)



>
> > and a very debatable issue.
>
> Yes, see our discussion.

Yes.


>
>
>
>
> >>>> I'm only saying whale butchering should be considered,
>
> >>> Sure, but 1 My is a long time from when inland living started. I'm not
> >>> arguing that Homo e could not have butcher a whale a million years ago.
> >>> That isn't evidence he evolved there, everyone realizes Homo e had a
> >>> wide range of territory.
>
> >>>> and it's many times easier to butcher a stranded whale on the beach
> >>>> than to catch & kill & butcher an antilope I'd think.
>
> >>> But antelope (or some type of bone) evidence with human modification
> >>> shows up a million before that inland. Your whale evidence is 1 My too
> >>> late.
>
> >> Again: 1) The fossil & archeol.evidence is very scanty.
>
> > Yes, on the seaside it is, but not inland.
>
> If you see any inland evidence that contradicts our view, I'd like to hear,


Broken bones for a start, not broken coconuts. Meat polish on tools at
FxJj 50 at Koobi Fora (Isaac 1983:11). Where is your swamp grass
evidence? Yes I know, on the teeth of mountain beaver :-).


> eg, why do you think our littoral ancestors could not have had inland
> relatives?


Too late, just because lakes are mentioned, doesn't mean physically
near the lake shore or anywhere near it as my Lake Baringo example
exemplifies.


In fact, the fact that these inland populations used stones & had
> to use stone to collect the necessary PUFAs only confirms they had littoral
> ancestors.


Negative evidence doesn't cancel positive evidence. We have inland
populations to study, no tools on the coast can also mean nobody was
there in the first place, until long after the radiation from inland
out. The fact that our ancestors could survive inland means they never
had to be on the seashore to begin with.


>
>
> >> 2) Littoral fossilisation is esp.difficult.
>
> > I sympathize with you up to a point here, but nothing before ca 1 or 2 My
> > ago is just too big a gap for me to accept, sorry. Again, stone tools
> > don't require fossilization.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean with this. Stone tools = archeology?

Sure, just like footprints in volcanic ash.
Where fossils are found there is bias, you have agreed to that. Water
helps the fossilization process. On the other hand, tools are found
(Olduvai Gorge) scattered from lakeside to 13 miles away from the lake
and that is just to where the quarry rock outcrops. At this point the
tools become biased for the same argument you use, no exposures or
erosional surfaces deep enough and you can't find them. No telling just
how far their range actually was, nor where their home bases were
located (assuming they even utilized such a thing). This gives some
approximation (rough of course) of their range at c 1.8 My without
needing any fossils. The distribution of stone tools implies a large
range of habit utilization, not a preference for lakeside living.

What was their ancestor's range at 5 My? You have absolutely no way of
knowing that. You don't have any fossils or stone tools to do the
tracking.


>
> >> 3) We have the arguments in our anatomy, physiology & behaviour. These
> >> arguments are superior to the fossil data, but are often neglected.
>
> > Arguments that are plausible do not prove cause (says Binford).
>
> Binford is an archeologist, not a biologist. He didn't say anything on our
> arguments.

That's because you don't have any stone tools to argue about (much less
fossils before 1.8 My), on the coast until long after H. erectus was
already moving over a major portion of the Old World.



>
> > Then someone from the AAT community should publish in JHE and point out
> > the neglect.
>
> I answered this "objection" above.


I noticed one of your publications said [OPINION]in the title. That's
fine, every one has one of those. I'll check out the other one however.


>
> >> 4) Without a littoral interlude we can't explain why we became so
> >> different from forest- (chimp) or savanna-(baboon)-dwelling relatives.
>
> > Well, the same argument would apply to the differences between chimps and
> > baboons.
>
> No, no, certainly not: we "explained" this in our TREE paper! :-)

Yes, I will read it.


>
> > At the equator the forests extend to the sea. Why are there chimps here at
> > all (or baboons for that matter) if seaside living was such an advantage?
> > Chimps are not physically blocked from the sea or rivers.
>
> You forget Homo populations?

Do you have a peer-reviewed paper that re-defines Homo? H.
habilis/Rudolf or maybe H. erectus are at c 2 My. An ancestor doesn't
mean the same as species. You have a gap at least twice as long as you
have evidence for it. ~6 to 2.My.
Geez, I'm a lumper, and I agree Orrorin, kadabba may be dead ends, but
calling something Homo at 5 My is far beyond anything I've ever heard
of. Anyone out there besides you believe this? Any papers published?



>
> >> A littoral phase nicely explains most of this, see
> >> http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
>
> ....
>
>
>
> >> ?? You mean: when hominid populations radiated inland? Our view in short
> >> : Miocene pongids-hominids : coastal forests peri-Tethys, Lake Chad etc.
> >> (Heliopith, Griphopith, Dryopith, Samburupith, Oreopith, Sahelanthr)
> >> Plio-Pleistocene apiths : African wetlands
> >> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm Plio-Pleistocene
> >> Homo : African &/or Indian Ocean shores & from there inland along rivers.
>
> > OK, that helps.
>
> Fine.
>
>
>
>
> ..........
>
>
> >>> If you can use a biased record for the lack of coastal finds, I will
> >>> claim in return that the record is also biased by the simple fact that
> >>> the odds of preservation is favored in water/mud over a body that dies
> >>> out in the open on the savanna or in the jungle away from a water
> >>> source.
>
> >> Well possible, but our anatomy simply refutes a typical savanna past: we
> >> lack sun-reflecting fur (shaved sheep overheat), but have thick SC fat
> >> layers never seen in savanna mammals (it's a heat trap).
>
> > Heat trap? That's good, during the Pleistocene nights were freezing where
> > some of the stone tools have been found, they had to keep warm somehow.
>
> Yes, that what furs are good for... :-)
> As you probably know, fat people overheat readily, run even more slowly than
> other people, have to sweat more than other people etc.
>
> You seem to believe that furs have anything to do with SC fat?
> These are 2 totally different features wich should be considered apart:
> - elephants & aardvarks have no fur & no SC fat,
> - seals have fur & thick SC fat,
> - humans have SC fat, but no fur,
> - monkeys have fur & no SC fat.

OK, I'm sure you have been over this a dozen times, you don't have to
again, SC fat looks like an easy search when I have some time.



>
> >> We have a water+Na-wasting cooling system
>
> > We have a lot of genetic baggage we don't use to capacity. If our
> > ancestors could make fine tools, they also had brains enough to get out of
> > the mid-day sun. Some Mexicans still take a mid-day siesta (the ones with
> > out air-conditioning).
>
> Well, the usual savanna "explanations" are that our ancestors ran on 2 legs
> over the savanna at midday...
>
> >> (Na & water are scarse in the savanna,
>
> >Not where the tools are found.
>
> Yes, at riversides... :-)

Not at Baringo, Olorgesailie, Olduvai, but maybe an exception at
Kalambo Falls..:-)


>
> >>but abundant at the coast:
>
> > Salt water isn't very good to drink, and river deltas are poor places to
> > get a drink.
>
> I'm not suggesting they drank salt water, I'm suggesting their diet included
> seafood.
>
> >> overheated sealions on land also sweat abundantly). Our max.urine
> >> concentration is much lower than in savanna-dwelling mammals.
>
> > The savanna is not/was not a continuous-burning desert.
>
> I'm not saying that.
>
> >> We need much more water than savanna-dwellers, have to drink more often,
> >> but can't drink large quantities at a time. We're much too slow (<35
> >> km/hr). Very vulnerable (unportected skin).
>
> > That's why the tools are found in areas with plenty of shade trees
> > (root-casts do preserve in the record).
>
> OK, but your problem is that savanna baboons don't use tools.

Probably explains why we are not baboons.


>
> >> Plantigrade (slow runners). Have an unusually poor olfaction. We have a
> >> rel.low body temperature, very low body Tp fluctuations (oryxes can
> >> easily have 45°C in the afternoon!). Etc.
>
> > You are working too hard, take a siesta under a nice shade tree :-)
>
> Never heard of Wheeler with his vertical running under the midday sun
> theories?


Written from an air-conditioned condo in Los Angeles no doubt. A
couple of weeks ago I was talking to a person who is an experienced big
game hunter in Africa. He said they do their hunting from dawn to 10:00
AM.


As you know, the siesta is the AAT explanation... :-)


You are too late, this fact was known long before the AAT by anyone
with experience living or hunting in Africa.


>
>
> >>> If only one skeleton in a million gets preserved, then the odds are it
> >>> will be in the water/mud regardless of whether or not the hominids lived
> >>> near the source or not.
>
> >> Yes, the fossil record is much less reliable than the living evidence.
>
>
>
> >>>>>> If H ancestors came from the Indian Ocean or other coasts, this
> >>>>>> problem is solved.
>
> >>>>> Only if there were a problem that needed solving in the first place.
>
> >>>> How else do you explain why H & P differ?
>
> > Well, the forests that chimps live in go right out to the coasts. Why do
> > we have chimps at all if sea-side habitat was available to them also?
>
> The seaside *was* available to hominids. Species split, some remained at the
> seaside, others followed the water inland.

And your evidence that they followed the water inland?


>
> >>> Same way P and gorilla ended up so much alike (as compared to us as the
> >>> yard stick), we had a different niche.
>
> >> OK, but which different niche exactly?
>
> > That's just it, the coast/rivers were available to chimps also, why are
> > they so different?
>
> Because they didn't have a littoral past, of course. Why else IYO??

Because we have evidence of a savanna past, not a littoral one.


>
> >> Can't be the savanna, see above.
>
> > Must be the savanna,
>
> No, no, see above: poor olfaction, plantigrady, slow speed, fatness, high
> water needs, low body temperature, low temperature fluctuations
> etc.etc.etc.: can't be the savanna.

We have evidence of a savanna past, not a littoral one.
A whale on the beach 1 My ago is too late for evidence of anything. We
finally got to the moon also, doesn't mean we spent part of our
evolutionary history there.


>
> Lee, sorry, I have time now to proceed this further. Perhaps later.

No problem, I'll get to your paper in Trends in Ecology soon as I can.



>
> --Marc

.

Relevant Pages
Loading