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


"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Sorry for this belated answer & for the many snippings (to avoid
repetitions): time time time...
Starting points:
- IMO the real hard evidence on our past is our behaviour, physiology,
anatomy & DNA (compared to other mamals), which IMO leave no doubt that our
ancestors once (after the H/P split) were littoral & until very recently
still waterside.
- You think bones & stones are hard evidence of our past, but IMO these are
just (sometimes poor) indications of how these populations lived there.
These populations are usu. of uncertain connection to our ancestors (eg,
apiths are just fossil relatives of HPG, without closer relatedness to H
than to G or P).




>>>>>>> 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.

OK, but the H/P LCA was different from both P & H.





>>> 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.

Later variation? you mean thick a superthick enamel?

>> (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?

My point:
most early & half of living hominids = (super)thick,
(all?) early & living pongids = (super)thick,
why IYO the early hominids-pongids = thin??


>> - 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.

No, no: parallel evolution is the proof of adaptation (otherwise Darwinism
would be an pleonasm: creatures remain becausethey remain). Parallel
evolution of related forms is extremely widespread (eg, Afr.Pliocene suids).
When P & G evolved KWing in parallel, this was not independent, but an
adaptation of resembling forms to the same (changing) environment.

>>[KWing] 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.

If early hominids had thick enamel & Hs has, why wouldn't the "missing" Homo
inbetween?? Same for the other features: the early hominids had low ilia,
+-5 lumbar vertebrae (instead of 3), no very long arms, no KWing, thick
enamel etc.: these are the primitive condictions for catarrhines (low ilia,
7 lumbars, no long arms, no KWing) or apes (thick enamel). In these
respect, humans are not derived, but more primitive than apes. In other
respects we are derived, eg, very large brain, very long legs, projecting
nose, masticatory myosin reduction etc. - in these cases, apes resemble the
primitive hominids (apiths).




>>>>>> 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,





>> 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.






>> 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 Kromdraai do not seem to be associated with
> large lakes or seas (but I will check).

Well possible: these apiths have nothing to do with Homo evolution. StF was
(gallery?) forest http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ; SwK &
KrD were wetlands with reedbeds (parrots etc.).

> 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.

Plateau 6 km form water?? I'd like to see the evidence.





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

We know some populations sometime broke bones (of course: only because these
ex-littorals badly needed the few PUFAs in the bones).
We know the lived at coasts from AinHanech to Mojokerto. Do you believe
they didn't ate coconuts there??


>> 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 see no reason why chimps can't be trained to do such things (circus: bikes
etc.), but I don't see chimps diving 30 metres & more than 2 minutes.


>> 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.

- The anat.compar.arguments are fool-proof & about our ancestors. Take any
human feature. What feature does *not* perfectly fit into a littoral past
followed by lifestyles as we see today?? A dry savanna past OTOH is
incompatible with reduciton of olfaction, higher needs of salt, water, PUFAs
& iodine, thick fat etc.etc.: if we had gone to there (after the H/P split),
we had evolved a keener sense of smell, a greater tolerance of heat & water
scarceness, etc.etc.
- The fossil-archeol.evidence of our relatives OTOH nowhere contradicts this
view.



>> 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://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
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.

1) Of course it's no a beaver: the authors say it's related to squirrels.
2) Its diet includes aquatic & waterside plants. It's the polishing on the
molars that resembles that of afarensis.
3) This has nothing to do with Homo, of course: it's about how apiths lived:
they're found in wetlands, their enamel microwear resembled that of
frugi-herbivores like mountain beavers, their broadened face + premolar
molarisation paralleled that of pandas.

>> 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 :-)

Luckily I'm not responsible for the sensibility of dry savanna believers :-)



>>> 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?

1) Lowland gorillas, yes, of course, but chimps standing in swamps?
2) G & P can hardly be called bipedal AFAIK.
3) What is the connection to littoral Homo?? Homo is no P or G, Lee!

>> 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.

Yes. Confusing me with Algis?



>> 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.





>>>> 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?

Argument a fortiori.

>> 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 :-)

Have you read it?


>> - 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.

Peer-review is good for elaborating things (K-selection), but not for
innovation (r-selection).




>> 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:

Behavior, anatomy etc. are much harder evidence than pieces of bones &
stones without clear relation to living animals.

> 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?

I think you did't follow well: orangs, chimps & humans, but not in
hylobatids or OWMs: how far does this leads us?

> 2) Lots of animals can be trained to use tools but do not do so in the
> wild.

The above ones 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.

Time depth 2.5 Ma is not far from H/P.

> 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.

Orangs use lots of tools, (almost) as much as chimps.

> 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.

Orangs can't even open their typical fruit without tools AFAIK (durian). Do
you see them suvive without?




>>>> humans do, early great apes were probably durophagous (thick enamel),

>>> Chimps and gorillas don't have this feature.

>> Gorillas you mean.

> I cited Schwartz.

He's orang-biased.

>> 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.







>>>>>>> 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.

I don't care what S says: it's apparently not very sensible: the best
tool-using mammals besides humans are sea-otters...



> I'm counting throwing missiles as tools.

In that case, P & G are excellent tool-users, see Fr.deWaal.

> The P, G & orang group just do not have the anatomy to suggest anything
> more than limited duty as throwers.

This is wishful thinking, Lee, see Fr.deWaal: their excellent throwing shows
they have the exact anatomy for throwing. I've little doubt they throw many
times better than I do.




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

Just-so ideas are no science, Lee: chimps & baboons throw better than humans
(at least in zoos - both untrained I guess).
Whatever, I don't see the relevance of throwing or not to our ancestors
having been littoral. Throwing harpoons? And if you believe
knapping=throwing, see shellfish...






> 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?

SE.Asian sea people swim before they walk. Breath-hold diving for several
minutes is more natural to them than running & throwing. All humans easily
learn to swim & dive. Can't be said of chimps...








>> d) There's no reason to omit the anatomical & behavioural evidence.

>Well, good luck with the testing aspect.

I think you have to see the difference between empirical & historical
sciences (eg, NC Arens 2002 "Testing hypotheses in historical sciences" TREE
17:206).
It's obvious that the anat.+behav.data prove our ancestors did not live in
dry savanna. And no fossil or archeol."testing" disproves this.





>>>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.

Yes, you have to apply it correctly. That's what we are doing, se our papers
:-)

>> 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.

Exactly: darwininsm: parallelism.

>>> So comparative anatomy can be very deceptive

>> Not if you applies it correctly.

> And mountain beavers? :-)

Exactly, see above :-)





>>>>>> 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 :-).

Are apiths = Homo IYO?? Please be relevant.

FYI our view:
- Miocen apes: peri-Tethys coastal forests & inland
- apiths: frugi-herbivores in forests (graciles) & wetlands (robusts)
- Homo: littoral durophagous omnivore & from there inland



> The fact that our ancestors could survive inland means they never had to
> be on the seashore to begin with.

The fact that inland Homo populations were so different from all the
different apiths & apes & even monkeys shows they had a very special past,
and the specific features show this past included once frequent diving.





>>>> 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.

Why should I? Even if these people got their stones from kilometres away
(what about trade?) how IYO does this contradict our view?







> 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?

Again: my starting-point is living animals. DNA suggest H & P split ~5 Ma.
Whether you could discern them anatomically in the beginning is irrelevant
here: our branch = Homo, the chimp's = Pan. Simple. No fossils needed, no
archeology needed. Simply the living evidence. I would not be very
surprised if Orrorin happened to be in the H line. But whether it was an
early P or H or even G, this is of no relevance to our view, which is based
on comparing living animals.
Now, somewhere on the line from the LCA 5 Ma towards us, we acquired our
typical features:
- very long legs (possible already early, but tibia lengthening rather late
IMO),
- external nose (whether this was in H.rudolf. or only in He is not
relevant, but possibly ~2 Ma),
- masticatory reduction (myosin-16 - possibly 2 Ma? again not so important),
- very large brain (probably (completely?) Pleistocene).
It seems that the typically Homo features evolved during the Pleisto- or
perhaps late Pliocene. I guess it has to do with the lowering sea levels &
the "new" open territories on the continental shelves, eg, along the Indian
Ocean, which were possibly ideal for a dextrous durophagous omnivore. But
whatever, this is of less importance to our essential hypothesis based on
comparative data that our ancestors were littoral once. We know from
fossil-archeol.at least some Homo populations lived at the coasts. I see no
reason why our ancestors could not have been among these. Do you?







>>> 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.

No, no:
- we have archeol.+fossil evidence some Homo populations lived in savannas,
- we have biological evidence our ancestors were littoral once.

--Marc
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1

AAT = Homo littoral diaspora






.

Relevant Pages