Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question

>>>>>Marc Verhaegen: 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.

>>>>Andrew Nowicki: You believe that apiths are not our ancestors. I believe
>>>>that they are our ancestors.

>>>Algis Kuliukas: 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.

>> More apith-like than chimp-like, at least.

> Ok, so also more bipedal, agreed? and what IYO was the root cause of that
> bipedality? Climbing-Wading, right?

Yes, not unlikely (eg, our TREE paper).

>>> If such species were generally bipedal, due largely to wading,

>> You take your wishes for reality, Algis. Look at the facts. What we
>> know about apith locomotion: curved phalanges (graciles>robusts) =
>> climbing arms overhead, some KWing features (E.Afr.apiths) = parttime
>> KWing, Laetoli footprints (E.Africa), if made by apiths = bipedal.
>> Where do we find such a combination? It's seen in bonobos & lowland
>> gorillas, but these apes are more KWing & less bipedal (& bonobos more
>> climbing than gorillas). IMO such a combination can be expected in swamp
>> forests (graciles) & wetlands (robusts), exactly where we find the fossil
>> & where their dentition suggests their food was found. I guess they waded
>> on 2 legs in shallow swamps, climbed in trees arms overhead, & KWed in
>> meadows feeding on fruits, nuts, reeds, papyrus, sedges etc. (Note this
>> is a recosntruction of how apiths lived. Not of how our ancestors might
>> have lived.)

> Ok, please let me rephrase then: If such species [apiths? MV] were
> generally bipedal when they were not climbing, this would have been
> largely due to wading, agreed?

No:
1) I'm not sure whether all apiths were more bipedal than KWing when they
were not climbing. Chimps also walk on 2 legs on wet ground. Gorillas often
stand & even wade on 4 legs in shallow water. KWing adaptations have
already been described in Lucy & anamensis. Bipedal features in apiths are
assumed because of resemblances with Homo (but IMO these resemblances are
primitive, eg, low ilia (also in monkeys), long femoral necks & valgus
knees, flatter feet etc. - but I can't imagine that, eg, longer fem.necks
(abduction!) are for better cursorialism).
2) If it were so (not impossible), it would not have largely due to wading
IMO: mammals wade on 4 legs: tapirs, hippos, racoons, babirusa, capibara,
waterbuck...
3) Climbing is no doubt more important than wading in how our bipedalism
began. Bipedal animals usu.(if not always?) descend from arboreals. Primates
are arboreal. Indris on the ground are bipedal. Gibbons on branches are.
Tarsiers hop vertically...

>>> then this clearly places bipedalism squarely into the list of ape-human
>>> differences that might be explained by moving through water.

>> ??

> Hominid bipedalism, of course, it what I'm talking about here - not
> kangaroos, or birds, agreed?

No: if you discuss "bipedalism" in whatever species, you have to look at
bipedal animals. What else??
But my "??" meant that your sentence is not very understandable, eg, "moving
through water" = swimming? "bipedalism squarely into ape-human
differences"??

>>> 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.

>> "legitimate part of AAH" is nonsense, Algis: 1) AAT (human ancestors
>> were more aquatic in the past) is no hypothesis, but a firmly based
>> theory. 2) Several PAs still have problems with AAT, so how can you
>> speak about "legitimate"?? 3) I have no problems with apiths parttime
>> wading, but this is not directly about AAT, which is about our ancestors.

>Whether the AAT/H is a theory or an hypothesis is a moot point, here, Marc.

OK, let's talk about AAT then.

> What I meant by 'legitimate' is that human bipedalism has been part of the
> AAH literature from day one (Hardy 1960, Morgan 1972, 1991, 1994, 1998 and
> Verhaegen et al 2002) and remained there until you unilaterally decided,
> for some strange reason, it wasn't any more.

?? I have nothing to decide here, Algis.

> If our ancestors were a'pith-like (and hence perhaps bipedal whilst
> wading) then of course bipedal origins is part of the AAH.

Our locomotion is part of our evolution, of course, but that doesn't mean
that bipedalism has to be explained by wading. In fact, we argued (TREE)
that P & G also had parttime wading ancestors. Can they be called "bipedal"
IYO??

>>> What Marc describes as "AAT s.s." (sensu stricto) I think is his own,
>>> quite recent, unilateral declaration of independence.

>> If I declare independance, I must have been dependent once, no?
>> dependent from what?? :-D

> I meant your new definition ... AAT = (and only equals) Homo littoral
> diaspora, and not bipedal origins. Hardy didn't argue that, Morgan didn't
> argue that and neither did you in your TREE paper.

I don't know what Hardy & Morgan argued, but I do know that our TREE paper
was about 1) aquarboreal Miocene apes, 2) wading-climbing apiths (ie, not
about us), 3) wading-diving Homo. We gave our arguments why IOO this has to
be like that. So far, nobody (dry apers, Algis...) has given convincing
objections.

>>> Clearly, all the pro AAH texts have included bipedal origins as a major
>>> component. Even his own TREE (2002) paper did.

>> ah??

> See the quote below.

OK, I will.

>>> I have repeatedly asked for, but have not yet received, a clear answer,

>> ?? I have repeatedly answered, but for some reason you don't seem to
>> neglect this.

(omit "don't")

>When and why did you decide the AAH didn't include bipedal origins any
>more? When did you answer that?

Don't be ridiculous: I never "decided (!!) the AAH (??) didn't include
bipedal origins (?)"! Why on earth should I produce such a nonsensical
sentence?? I can say (if you want something from me here) that, as in other
bipeds, our "bipedal origins" were clearly in our arboreal past.


>>> as to when and why he made this decision to sever off and effectively
>>> dump what has always seemed to me to be the AAH's strongest card.

>> "seemed"... Better use reliable arguments than questionable ones.

> Put it this way: Take an ape and place it in waist deep water and it moves
> bipedally. There is no other such ape-human difference than can be
> demonstrated so clearly and predictably by water.

Take an ape & place it on land: bipedal?? Put it in ankle deep water. Put it
in neck deep water. Algis, Algis... You don't have to prove that we like
most primates often stand on 2 legs in waist-deep water, you have to tell us
why you think we differ from other primates in standing on 2 legs on land.

>>> I find it quite bizarre and very depressing.

>> Yes, we know you do, but that's your problem, Algis.

>>> Marc has literally shot the AAH in the foot but doing this, IMO.

>> IYO.

>>>>> AAT says 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...

>>> Marc, you should make it clear that this is what *your* version of the
>>> AAT says.

>> Do you disagree with it? Then I'd like to know your arguments for
>> disagreeing. It's exactly what Hardy said (except for the time frame, of
>> course: PAs then thought that H & P split 10-15 Ma).

> No, as I say in my very next sentence, I agree with much of it. Hardy also
> said that he thought wading lead to our upright posture.

Good thought. But proven??

>>> That's not what Hardy or Morgan argued. You might be right, and I do
>>> agree with big parts of your model as you know, but it is frustrating
>>> when you seem to have taken it upon youself to redefine the big general
>>> idea to be your specific one. When, how and why did that happen? It
>>> certainly doesn't help people to understand what this thing is.

>> Time to make it clear?

>>>> There is no reason to believe that bipedal hominids were better suited
>>>> for collecting this food than quadrupedal monkeys.

>> Who said this? Not me.

>That was Andrew, I think.

Yes. I don't understand what he means by that. Uncomprehensable.

>>>>> The theory (based on the behavior, anatomy & physiology of living
>>>>> humans compared to other animals) 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...

>>>> Yes. AAT does explain it better than dry savanna scenarios, but it does
>>>> not explain bipedalism.

>> (I didn't say this last sentence -MV)

> Really? So who did, Andrew? I thought he was arguing that wading was part
> of the AAH. So anyway do you disagree with it? Are you now saying that you
> *do* think the AAT explains hominid bipedalism? Please, can we be clear on
> this point.

Yes, Andrew I think. I don't know what he meant by that. IMO, AAT (Homo
more aquatic than Pan) is an important element of the explanation of our
locomotion. What had you thought I had thought?

>>> That is your opinion, based only on your recently concocted neo-AAT =
>>> (and only equals) Homo Littoral Diaspora. In the broadest definition of
>>> the AAH, clearly it *does* attempt to explain *hominid* bipedalism too

>> Nonsense!

> Apparently you do not disagree with it, then!

??
It's not my opinion!

>> AAT s.s. has nothing to do with *hominids*!

> What, exactly *is* "AAT s.s"? When was that decided, and by whom?

"decided"??
s.s. & s.l. are meant to make things clearer:
- AAT sensu stricto is about Plio-Pleistocene Homo (basically littoral),
IOW, why we differ from apes (what Hardy & Morgan tried to explain).
- AAT sensu lato is about Mio-Pliocene hominids-pongids (basically
aquarboreal), IOW, how it evolved.

>> FYI: pongids=Pongo=orang, hominids=Pan,Homo,Gorilla. AAT s.s. is
>> about the differences between H & P.

> Yes and one of the biggest and most obvious differences is that we are
> bipedal and they are not [too categoric] and one of the clearest [no] and
> most demonstrable [no] reasons is wading in water, so why is bipedal
> origins suddenly nothing to do with the AAH, IYO?

Stop misrepresenting me. I've answered this 1000 times, but I'm afraid
you'll never get it.

>>> (but not, of course, bipedalism generally). Hardy and Morgan make that
>>> very clear indeed

>> I don't know what they made clear, but we know more than 40-30 years ago.
>> Continental drift is not the same as plate tectonics.

> Hardy (1960:644) "The idea of an aquatic past might also help to solve
> another puzzle ... how man obtained his upright posture..."

"might help", yes, excellent. As we said 1000 times, we don't have the
slightest problem with this. Hardy: "I see him becoming more & more of an
aq.animal going further out of the shore; I see him diving for shellfish,
prising out worms, burrowing crabs & bivalves frm the sand at the bottom of
shallow seas, breakingopen sea-urchins, & then, with increasing skill,
capturing fish with his hands" (capturing fish with the hands is done by
some Oceanic populations, but I think shell-crayfish collection etc. wer
more important).

> Morgan (1998) wrote four chapters on it. and...

>>> and even your own TREE paper of 2002 said that you found nonwading
>>> explanations of human bipedalism unconvincing.

>> Yes.

>>> You've tried to put an amazing twist on that sentence now to imply that
>>> people shouldn't actually take this to mean that you found wading
>>> explanations convincing (!)

>> Can't you read?? You're becoming as hair-splitting as the dry apers. No
>> wonder you seem to like "discussions" with them. The sentence means
>> exactly what is says.

> It's you who are being hair splitting and pedantic. I'm reading your
> sentence and coming to the conclusion that 99% of people reading would
> have. How foolish of me to think it meant you actually found wading
> explanations *convincing*. Silly me. I should have realised it was just a
> riddle that *actually* meant you didn't find any explanations convincing,
> not even wading ones.

Why do you care what "we find"? Why don't you look at the facts & think for
your own?? Feeling better if I rephrase the sentence: "Explaining human
locomotion without involving (at least some) wading is not very convincing
IOO"?

>>> but you cannot, surely, be surprised if 99 % of people who read your
>>> tree paper would understand it that way, after all you mention wading 24
>>> times in just six pages in the context of human evolution. --Algis
>>> Kuliukas

In case you hadn't noticed, the paper was on:
- Miocene ape lifestyle ("aquarboreal") = AAT s.l.,
- apith lifestyle, see above,
- Homo lifestyle = AAT s.s.: from our TREE paper:
Were Homo ancestors waterside omnivores? - Late Plio- or early Pleistocene
human ancestors could have migrated to or remained near the coast and
exploited marine resources. Dolphins and seals have larger brains than
terrestrial relatives of equal size31 and human brains are three times those
of chimpanzees. The long-chain, polyunsaturated lipid ratios of shellfish
and fish are more similar to the ratios in the human brain than are any
other food source known32. This highly nutritious diet is argued to have
been important for building and fuelling large brains32. Hard-shelled
foods, e.g. shellfish and nuts, generally require thick enamel, which is
typically seen in sea-otters27, capuchin monkeys33 and the majority of
living and fossil hominids-pongids (see Box 1 and Table 2). Walker wrote
that if 'a mammalogist were asked which mammalian molars most resembled
those of Australopithecus, the answer would probably be orang-utan molars.
If asked to look outside the order Primates, the answer would probably be
the molars of the sea otter (Enhydra lutra). This species possesses small
anterior teeth, and large, flat molars with thick enamel'27. A recent
study34 indicated that A. or H. habilis microwear resembled that of
chimpanzees (and orangutans35), H. ergaster resembled that of capuchins
(more hard or brittle foods), and neither taxon specialized on raw
meat34,35. Sea-otters, capuchins and chimpanzees all open shells by
hammering them with hard objects. The most dextrous mammals, besides humans,
are raccoons, otters, capuchins and chimpanzees. Conceivably,
human-chimpanzee ancestors, like mangrove capuchins33, used stones to remove
and open coconuts growing on palm-trees and oysters on mangrove roots (Fig.
1). If chimpanzee ancestors moved inland, stone-use might have become
confined to nut-cracking, but for coastal human ancestors stone use would
have become more important, and the long association with coastal foods
might explain the later Stone-Age industries. Today, breath-hold diving
is practised by human subsistence cultures that gather shellfish or seaweed.
Diving mammals, such as cetaceans and pinnipeds, are able to take a deep
breath whenever they intend to dive and comparative data suggest that
voluntary breath-control in humans is much better developed than in monkeys,
apes, dogs and pigs5,36,37. Many tree- (e.g. gibbons) and water-dwellers
(e.g. otters, dolphins and humpback whales) have well-developed
sound-producing capabilities36. Vocal communication might have been
important during wading activities, when smell and body language would have
been less effective5. Along with voluntary breath-control and a large brain,
this could have contributed to the evolution of human speech5.
Anatomically (H. rudolfensis) and archaeologically (Oldowan tools), the
genus Homo appears in East Africa c. 2.5 Mya, at about the beginning of the
Pleistocene, when increased glaciation was locking large amounts of water in
the ice-caps and causing sea-levels to drop. If the coastal lagoons produced
more food for a tool-using omnivore than the decreasing forests, it could
explain why Homo reduced its climbing abilities, evolved diving abilities
and dispersed along the Indian Ocean. If Homo lived in such environments
during glaciations their remains would have been deposited at Pleistocene
beaches which in most cases are now some hundred metres below sea-level.
Archaic Homo fossils, footprints and tools have been discovered near coasts
all over the Old World17, from Boxgrove (UK) and Hopefield (South Africa),
to Mojokerto (Indonesia). The Mojokerto fossil, found amid barnacles, corals
and molluscs38 in a river delta probably c. 1.8 Mya, might be among the
oldest H. erectus fossils ever discovered. Archaeological evidence suggests
that H. erectus crossed a 19 km-wide strait to reach the Indonesian island
of Flores more than 0.8 Mya, well before any evidence of boat-building3.
Stone-tools found in 0.12 My-old Eritrean reefs39 support the idea that Homo
spp. have a long history of coastal resource exploitation. Arguably,
modern humans evolved from beach-combers who gradually became more suited to
wading and diving (Fig. 1), developing more linear bodies, longer legs,
larger brains and tool-using skills. This coastal phase could help explain
furlessness, subcutaneous fat and voluntary breath-control - features unique
among primates but common to walruses, seacows, babirusas, hippos, whales
and dolphins4,5. It could also help explain why humans are more efficient
swimmers-divers than other primates4,5,37,40. We propose that
several Homo populations, including H. sapiens, returned to a more
terrestrial existence, colonized coastal areas and river valleys in Africa
and Eurasia, exploited waterside plants and animals including waterfowl,
turtles, stranded whales, antelope and hippo, but were unable to adopt a
more chimpanzee-like form of quadrupedalism because whereas knuckle-walking
gorillas and chimpanzees evolved directly from short-legged waders-climbers,
Homo already had long legs and a more linear build. Terrestrial bipedalism
is slower than quadrupedalism and leads to backaches, hip and knee problems
but also 'frees' the hands for communication and the manipulation and
transport of food, water, weapons, tools and babies.

Marc Verhaegen

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

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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... phobia that you claim forced proto-hominins into a pattern of bipedal ... >that the fact that quadrupedal apes move bipedally in water, ... But you claim they weren't wading for hours at a time, ... >selection of traits that would aid terrestrial bipedalism. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... >> sustained terrestrial bipedalism. ... >to adopt in waist deep water than quadrupedalism. ... When apes are in water approaching waist deep, ... Bipedal wading doesn't ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... > morphological changes necessary for efficient terrestrial bipedalism. ... Apes will already do this on land, no water required. ... Requires millions of years of wading for one thing... ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... >>yet the anatomical adaptations for bipedalism preceded longer legs. ... As wading is relatively costly ... persuaded) how wading through water would be selected for. ... the more bipedal apes would become. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: poor runners (Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?
    ... in waist deep water the stresses that compel bipedalism are ... >> changes that result from upright posture) and in very shallow water ... What's the difference between standing up and wading as ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)