Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122427343.618463.72230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> > Sensible talk, Andrew, but not the final solution. I agree apiths might
>> > have
>> > been parttime waders in swamp forests, wetlands etc. But this has
>> > nothing
>> > to do with AAT s.s., which is about our ancestors: about Homo, not
>> > about
>> > apes or apiths.
>>
>> You believe that apiths are not our ancestors.
>> I believe that they are our ancestors.
>
> This is an important point, IMO. Even if australopithecines were not
> directly on the Homo lineage and, technically, let's face it - the
> chances are vanishingly small that any of the hard evidence we have
> (i.e. fossil evidence) for australopithecines were, then it still seems
> pretty likely that whatever population (or populations) contained those
> individuals that were ancestral to Homo around 5-2Mya, were a'pith
> like.
>
> If such species were generally bipedal, due largely to wading, then
> this clearly places bipedalism squarely into the list of ape-human
> differences that might be explained by moving through water. This is
> true whether this kind of species was also ancestral to Pan/Gorilla or
> not, as it still implies wading was a key factor in bipedal origins
> even if P/G subsequently lost that through reduced wading. It is
> therefore logical that bipedal origins is a legitimate part of the AAH.

What if they weren't bipedal *due largely to wading*? And how
can you tell? And what about all that other incipient bipedalism
in the other primates? Does that have an aquatic element as well?
If so, where is it? It's nice to see so much dissension in the ranks
of the wet apes. It adds another element to the cheap, circus-like
atmosphere of your usual shtick.

>
[Marco! Don't leave me! <sob sob>]
> Algis Kuliukas
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
--Voltaire


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: poor runners (Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?
    ... so if you are talking about the evolution of bipedalism in Homo ... Even you have them wading to some degree. ... that their direct ancestors were, ... > need it & there's not the slightest evidence for it, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
    ... >>> not about apes or apiths. ... >> You believe that apiths are not our ancestors. ... > were ancestral to Homo around 5-2Mya, ... > then this clearly places bipedalism squarely into the list of ape-human ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... Moving through water more means more wading. ... > the Miocene ancestors of chimps and bonobos. ... If enhanced bipedalism and perhaps weapon use allowed them to ... everyone would normally do it - even quadrupedal apes. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: poor runners (Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?
    ... wading orangs & films of wading colobus. ... AFAIK, apart from humans, straight-bodied vertical bipedalism is ... I'm speaking about our ancestors, ... Fossils hominids is not about our direct ancestors. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
    ... >> to do with AAT s.s., which is about our ancestors: about Homo, not about ... > You believe that apiths are not our ancestors. ... If such species were generally bipedal, due largely to wading, then ... but it does not explain bipedalism. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)