Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- From: "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Sep 2005 05:39:37 -0700
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
>
> > > Whether or not it has been demonstrated (and I'd argue that common
> > > sense conclusions from population density maps and human reliance of
> > > fresh water, as well as papers such as the Erlandsson one, do make the
> > > case rather well)
> >
> > I think the only thing that is demonstrated at the micro level is a
> > tiny minority in any large population center (London or LA for
> > instance) actually live on the river bank or the ocean beach, the rest
> > use the convenience of location for a sewer.
>
> That's one view. What did you think of the Erlandsson paper?
I got so far behind on JHE papers I didn't have a chance to look it up
when I was at the library that carried it.
>
> > > the point of this debate is about suitable
> > > comparisons to use to test the hypothesis that humans *were* water-side
> > > creatures. My point is that there simply aren't any suitable analogues
> > > to make any decent comparisons with, so it's futile to look for them.
> >
> > When? Do you mean before 1.8 Mya or so?
>
> I mean today. One of Jason's (many) objections is (I think) that some
> of the traits Hardy cited are only found in 'true' aquatics and not in
> mildly semi-aquatic mammals, as I am proposing might have been enough.
> He's saying that most mildly aquatic mammals are not naked, fat etc.
> I'm saying "so what?" - the absence of mirror image analogues of mildly
> aquatic mammals with human-like traits is not evidence that our
> ancestors were not mildly aquatic. The thing to do, I'm arguing, is to
> look at those traits in humans. Look at the variation in those traits
> and ask the question: Do they improve ability/survivability in water?
> Does having less body hair make you a better swimmer? Does having
> greater adipocity make you less likely to drown?
>
> > > Just because there are no analogues, however, it does not mean that the
> > > evolutionary pathway of Homo sapiens since the LCA with Pan/Gorilla was
> > > not affected more by moving through water than theirs.
> >
> > Since we obviously got separated from the chimps by different habitats
> > at some point in time, I find your argument a little apples and
> > oranges orientated.
>
> Oh really? Why's that? Do you also find the diminished arboreality
> versus the chimpanzee another case of apples and oranges? Or our
> increased terrestriality?
But why would that have anything to do with wading? There are other
arguments out there, and all of them require assumptions somewhere, I
really don't see, "It doesn't take any imagination to realize that
moving through water clearly played a significant part in our evolution
overall" (as you put it) to be all that obvious.
We clearly are better swimmers/divers than
> they are - so why is it so 'apples and oranges' to consider if our
> ancestors moved through water more than theirs did? What's your
> problem?
We are better pole vaulters than they are, could one draw the analogy
that our ancestors were pole vaulting across the rift valley?
>
> > > The ape-human differences that the AAH has always been focused on do
> > > appear to be best explained by greater adaptation to water in our
> > > lineage, even though there are no simple, obvious analogues to make the
> > > comparison with. If they were (some fat, naked, larger brained bipedal
> > > ex-squirrel, perhaps) then sure the penny would have dropped for even
> > > the most aquasceptic person. That there are no analogies simply mean we
> > > have to think a bit more.
> >
> > Unfortunately for AAH, there are other hypotheses out there that have
> > to be considered equally, it is not simply a matter of looking at just
> > one (or one trait or any combination of many traits).
>
> I don't understand your point, sorry.
I'll tie this in with the next question below so I won't have to answer
twice.
>
> > > > Starting from a false premise you are guaranteed to end up with an
> > > > erroneous conclusion.
> > >
> > > That's the spin you want to put on this but, honestly, it isn't what's
> > > going on here. There is an hypothesis: that moving through water has
> > > acted as an agency of selection in human evolution more than our ape
> > > cousins since the LCA. Ok? That's the thing to be tested. Now, how do
> > > we test it?
> >
> > Not by throwing candy, to the chimps, into a moat with no water jacks
> > or crocs in it. :-)
>
> Ok.
Well, I thought it odd that you said you were not totally convinced of
the croc danger (back in June I think it was), yet you did not include
crocs in your test. So naturally there is little danger if crocs are
eliminated from the test.
Then how about studying them in semi-wild/wild conditions? Can you
> think of a quick objection to that too?
I know there have been nearly 1000 posts (and many spinoffs) since
your initial post on May 7, 9:23 pm. It's easy to miss one, I'm sure I
have.
Yes, and I pointed that out here:
Message ID: 1121997303.045038.47310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You did not make a reply to that post, unless I missed your re.
If Hunt had studied the
> Conkuoati chimps instead of the Gombe chimps his results would have
> been unequivocally in favour of wading, as opposed to postural feeding.
> If he'd studied bonobos at Lomako - ditto. Would your opinion of his
> work had been effected if he had? Or, when that point is made, do you,
> like Jason, find yourself having to nervously distance yourself from
> Hunt's whole methodology?
One thing Kano pointed out was that even those who specialize in chimp
study in the wild, do not agree as to the best way to approach the
problem. Finding discrepancies between researchers on what they
observe is hardly surprising. So, you claim wading best motivates
chimps to walk bipedally. Kano sees it quite differently. If there are
two choices that are in conflict, I notice the pro-aqua people tend to
grab the example that meets their argument, like it's a solved problem,
then ignore the opposing evidence like it doesn't exist.
>
> > > Some people have tried to claim that it can only be tested
> > > if biological analogues *of the same, proposed, level of aquatic
> > > adaptation* (i.e. not very much) can be shown to have similar traits to
> > > those supposedly explained by the AAH. I am rejecting that notion. Just
> > > because we don't have any close mirror images of our evolution in some
> > > other lineage doesn't mean that it didn't happen to us. Focusing on
> > > converegent evolution can be revealing, but it shouldn't be used as a
> > > show stopper when no such examples exist. Absence of evidence... etc.
> >
> > Well, I'm sure you have a committee looking specifically at what you
> > are up to, so there is nothing I can comment on there.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand that point either.
I assume that your methods and tests are looked at by someone, but are
not going to be made public until after you have finished your
dissertation?
>
> > > > Who exactly is us? Are you speaking for us today or are you speaking
> > > > for the hominids of 2.6 Ma that turned up, unequivocally demonstrated,
> > > > totally adapted to a savanna habitat eating meat? Meat on the hoof
> > > > gravitates to water, so is it any surprise that bones accumulate
> > > > randomly at all sizes of water sources, i.e., tiny springs, too small
> > > > to wade or swim in, all the way up to lake-sides large enough for
> > > > hominids to drown in?
> > >
> > > So these hominids of 2.6Ma that were adapted to eating meat... why did
> > > they exhibit dental *reduction*? Odd trend that.
> >
> > Why do you think reduction is still going on today? Can we assume we
> > are mildly-specialized aquatics from this?
>
> No. I'm just suggesting that a predisposition to meat eating, as a
> major trend in hominin evolution, is rather inconsistent with dental
> reduction.
As I said before, "I'm assuming there _is_ bias because some of the
tools do not suggest a diet of entirely meat, and sure, not all eating
requires tools." I mostly use the meat eating to demonstrate a savanna
connection with the animals. I agree that meat couldn't have been all
they ate. So why is that inconsistent with the dental reduction we see?
OK, what would be in a fish that would be consistent with dental
reduction that couldn't be explained just as well by eating something
else?
You don't see that anywhere else in zoology.
But teeth don't change that quickly, and where else in zoology do you
see a creature that did change (in other areas) as quickly, relatively
speaking, as we have, so changes in teeth may not react as quick as
changes in diet or brain size.
I think the
> encephalisation trend clearly indicates a trend to a higher quality
> diet but the dental reduction seems to contradict the idea it was red
> meat eating that drove it. So... how about fish/shelfish? It seems to
> be the perfect solution.
Anthropologists can show a weak trend of brain enlargement with the
onset of cut marked bones. Is it just a coincidence? Could very well
be a coincidence, but there is evidence. What about H/G who do not eat
fish? What deficiency shows up in their health? Do they have smaller
brains?
>
> > > Clearly they did eat some meat but how can you be sure that there is no
> > > bias in the archeological record here?
> >
> > I'm assuming there _is_ bias because some of the tools do not suggest a
> > diet of entirely meat, and sure, not all eating requires tools. But
> > bias is not evidence for wading or a specialized lifestyle when there
> > are many other scenarios that could equally account for the same
> > phenomenon.
>
> > > What is the probability that a
> > > large bovid femur, containing evidence of stone tool scratch marks,
> > > would survive for 2.6My, as compared to the remains of a dozen catfish?
> > > Surely the odds for the catfish evidence surviving would be vanishingly
> > > small, as Kathlyn Stewart (1994) has described. Surely we have to
> > > factor that into the mix too.
> > >
> > > Even if the 'meat-eating savanna adapted hominid' idea is absolutely
> > > right for hominins ca 2.6 Ma (and I doubt it is) it does not contradict
> > > a mild for of the AAH because:
> >
> > I certainly agree that meat is not the only thing early Homo was
> > eating. I might be wrong, but I agree just the same.
> > But here you are getting into an area that is testable. I will give you
> > this evidence as an fantasy illustration. Let's say fish scales are
> > found in 21 coprolites (reasonably determined to be Homo) at three
> > different early sites (1.8 Mya) and randomly spaced throughout Africa.
> > The fact that they suggest water nearby deep enough to support fish
> > with scales doesn't mean anything other than a varied diet. It doesn't
> > demonstrate wading or diving or flyrods were used to catch them. It
> > doesn't mean that Homo lived anywhere near the source of the fish
> > (i.e., lakeside).
>
> But what is the *probability* of fish scales surviving, compared to,
> say, scratch marks on a robust bovid femur?
Where OH 7 was found there are catfish skulls. Same with Zinj.
Associations don't prove cause. You are assuming because fish are good
for us that hominids must have been eating them. Catfish, grass roots,
bird scat, seeds, all sorts of what one would think of as perishable
items are preserved at many sites. Preservation is not the problem,
lack of evidence for eating them is. But I don't need bones or scales
to show a larger % of the record, I look at the tool pattern,
preservation is much better.
My point is that whatever
> evidence there is of early human diet is bound to be biased in favour
> of apparent "meat eating" simply because of the relatively durable
> nature of the evidence for it.
But the most durable item in the record are the stone tools. Hominid
fossil finds and evidence of what they were eating make up only a small
fraction of the pattern drawn by the location of the tool finds. Models
based on less than 5% of the total evidence are dangerous (Oliva 1991).
Think of fossils and bones like an exit poll. Interview a few people
who live at a lakeshore if they voted against the proposed waterfront
tax levy, and naturally the result of the poll will show the measure
failed. The stone tools cover the largest portion of the evidence by
far, and they show no preference for lakeside occupation, in fact the
pattern is quite the opposite, small sandy runnels were consistency
chosen, many were thought to have no water in them at all at the time
of occupation.
They were not places that would be conducive to diving, or swimming.
Any body of water that does not contain enough water to wade waist deep
in would not be likely to altering the course of our evolution any more
than taking a bath in a bath tub would be making us aquatic today.
>
> > > 1) It does not contradict the model that bipedal origins began in wet
> > > and wooded habitats, largely through wading, 2-3My before that.
>
> > Yes it does contradict it because it is the null that needs to be
> > falsified. Saying it "does not contradict" is not the same as evidence
> > that it is contradicted.
>
> How come you get to have the null? When was that decided?
The above evidence decides, this is not a personal guess.
Tell you
> what: As apes are most bipedal in shallow water, I'm claiming the null
> hypothesis that bipedalism began there, myself. How do you like that?
Show me the evidence and I will love it.
> Now it's up to you to falsify the null, not me. Saying that the null
> has nothing to do with moving through water is not the same as
> providing any justification for it.
Sorry, sugar cane works better than wading to motivate chimps to walk
bipedally. Yes, no sugar cane in forest, but we don't really know if
other foods would not cause same reaction.
>
> > > 2) It does not contradict the model that proposes that Homo sapiens
> > > moved to littoral habitats 2My later and adopted hair reduction and
> > > increased adipocity partly through increased swimming/diving.
>
> > Yes it does contradict it because it is the null that needs to be
> > falsified. Saying it "does not contradict" is not the same as evidence
> > that it is contradicted.
>
> How come you get to have the null? When was that decided?
Sites are located at waterside locations that do not contain enough
water to either swim, dive, or wade in totally falsifies your 'wading
of imagination' model.
Tell you
> what: As humans clearly swim better than chimps, I'm claiming the null
> hypothesis that human ancestors probably moved through water more than
> they did, myself. How do you like that?
Tell you what: As humans clearly pole vault better than chimps, I'm
claiming the null hypothesis is that human ancestors pole vaulted
across the savanna, even across the small runnels that contained ankle
deep water. How do you like that?
Now it's up to you to falsify
> the null, not me.
Ditto.
Saying that the null has nothing to do with moving
> through water is not the same as providing any justification for it.
First you have to provide deep enough water to begin with, you have
not.
>
> Sorry. But you have to agree it's a bit arbitrary this 'null' business.
> It's more a matter of historical accident - that idea became accepted
> first - than anything evidence based. Clearly both sides have to be
> objectively assessed, not one side claiming to be 'Kings of the Castle'
> just because they got there first. That's hardly scientific.
Your problem is as I said above: "Finding discrepancies between
researchers on what they observe is hardly surprising. So, you claim
wading best motivates chimps to walk bipedally, Kano sees it quite
differently. If there are two choices that are in conflict, I notice
the pro-aqua people tend to grab the example that meets their argument,
like it's a solved problem, then ignore the opposing evidence like it
doesn't exist." There is more than one way to skin a cat.
>
> > > 3) Even if they were relying, as much as you seem to be suggesting, on
> > > meat
> >
> > No, I'm just saying that primarily meat forms the null, that is the
> > evidence you have to work with at this point (this does not mean the
> > evidence can't tip in some other direction in the future). When you
> > get to the point that fishscales, in coprolites (or some other equally
> > compelling acceptable evidence), are found in equal numbers as sites
> > with cut-marked bones, then at that point we will only arrive at a tie.
> > Then we can argue about whether lakeside or savanna lifestyle is the
> > cause. Until that time comes, you are arguing from imagination and I am
> > arguing from the factual evidence. The two are not equal, no matter how
> > much you imagine it so.
>
> Again, why does meat primarily form the null? When was that decided? In
> 1925 by Dart? The point that Stewart exposed is that fish scales are
> hardly likely to ever be found in "equal numbers" are they?
Right, and the shark's teeth found on the beach with seashells
demonstrates that the seashells were eating the sharks.
Do you know that there is more hard evidence to show that catfish were
eating hominds than there is evidence of hominids eating catfish? (the
bait has been cast into the sandy runnel, I wonder if he will bite? Is
this a troll?)
It's of a
> bit loaded equation you're using to justify your meat eating null, I
> think.
The meat eating serves to demonstrate a link to savanna fauna more than
anything else, and to shallow water. Which leaves the aqua ape high and
dry. I don't really need the biological part of the argument.
So, yes, they're not equal but the bias is probably the opposite
> of what you seem to be arguing for.
"Probably" (negative argument again) sums up your argument quite nicely
:-)
>
> > > that accumulated around water-side niches in the intermediate
> > > period, then some wading and swimming may well have also been selected
> > > for - specifically, more than in the lineage leading to Pan/Gorilla.
>
> > You have not demonstrated water-side niches in an intermediate period.
>
> I was repeating your point that whatever water-side activity they did
> might have been for hunting meat around water holes.
All I'm saying is
> that even if that was all they were doing, more than the chimps, then
> that alone means they probably waded and swam more than chimps too,
> right?
Wrong, that is the part you just can't see. And the reason you can't
see it is because you have been brainwashed by total incompetents
(geologically speaking) writing misinformation in diet magazines, just
vague generalities and terms that have no meaning in the world of
science.
Like: "For the past fifteen million years, the East African Rift Valley
has been a unique geological environment which contains many enormous
freshwater lakes. Paleoanthropological evidence clearly indicates that
hominids evolved in East Africa, and that early Homo inhabited the Rift
Valley lake shores."
Shallow runnels N= >40
Lakeside sites N=0 (but I'm still searching)
Why do you find it so hard to make such a mild concession?
Because to swim and dive, and wade you have to have enough water around
to do so. The pattern of tools (N=40 to N=0) demonstrates that this was
not the case. To make vague generalizations that early hominids lived
NEAR (what ever that means) "enormous lakes" is not supported by the
archaeological evidence. Any cursory investigation into the actual site
reports demonstrates that it was the small-dry streambeds and
waterside-runnel locations that were being utilized. These do not make
good swimming holes. Modern H/G have proven water sources dangerous
and spoil hunting opportunities. Ancient pattern reflect same thinking.
In most cases it cannot be demonstrated that lakes even existed at all
when the runnels were occupied Isaac 1977, Dominguez-Rodrigo 2001, Hay
2003).
>
> > > > There is a Plio-Pleistocene site preference toward the smaller bodies
> > > > of water that would offer no benefit to a wading lifestyle, in fact
> > > > many sites are located in stream beds that contained no water at all
> > > > at the time of occupation. The preponderance of first evidence (at
> > > > least where it can be reasonably demonstrated that Homo was involved
> > > > with the site formation process) is an avoidance of water-side sites
> > > > large enough to wade or swim in.
> > >
> > > I find that very hard to believe, Lee. What evidence do you have to
> > > back that up?
>
> Pretty impressive-looking list, Lee, thanks.
Actually, that isn't anywhere near the complete list, I just got tired
of typing.
But I think you're
> stretching your argument just a bit in several places...
>
> > Distance from ANY water source OR large lake today:
> > Hazda ...................1-2 km
> > O'Connell et al. 2002
>
> That's one ethnic group, Lee.
No, that's two, you separated out the mid-Columbia, who, like the Hazda
avoided the large-lake shores for the same reasons as the Hazda. The
N=40 early hominid sites of two million years ago is good reason to
believe they were thinking the same thing. Waterholes are dangerous
most of the time and permanent occupation messes up the hunting
possibilities. This pattern, today and yesterday, is evidence that
swimming time would be near nil, or at least not enough to have had any
influence on human evolution.
How many African groups make their living
> on the water's edge in comparison?
Groups with AK 47s and fire or hunter-gatherer groups with out AK 47s
and fire or groups of HG 2 Mya with neither?
What's the history of the Hazda?
"It is unsurprising that the modern hunter gatherers who live in
relatively remote African environments generally do not locate their
camps immediately adajacent to a water sources. They use fire to
discurage predators and, of course, have the option to employ
relatively effective weapons against them if necessary. The place I
would NEVER chose to establish a camp in the African savanna is next
tio a water source (Binford 1983)."
Yesterday I talked to an experienced African big-game hunter. I asked
him how close he would set up camp next to a lake or waterhole--- reply
with no hesitation: "not very close." He went on to repeat basically
what Binford said in his chapter on
Life and Death at the Waterhole. Animals that are a basic part of the
food chain get into and get away from water sources as quickly as
possible. Elephants of course leave when they want to.
> >From what I understand of African tribal history they have probably
> moved into their current habitats having been displaced by other groups
> - no doubt by other groups that now live much closer to the water-side
> habitats.
>
> > Mid-Columbia ..... no known sites on major-basin lakes.
> > Osborne 1958
>
> No need for "major-basin lakes" - not by that late stage in the human
> diapora.
>
> > Plio-Pleistocene boundary:
> > Kapthurin beds.................8 km
> > Margaret Leakey 1969
>
> 8km from what?
Eight km from the alleged "enormous freshwater" lake Lake Baringo. Kind
of a long way to go for a dip, don't you think?
>
> > Olduvai...................1 km (FLKNN)
> > Mary Leakey 1971
>
> 1km! Wow.
Actually I have my required N=40 sites to statistically validate my
shallow-runnel position, and FLKNN was the closest one I could find to
possible "enormous lakeside" occupation. More bad news for you, Hay
isn't sure there was a lake there at all when FLKNN was occupied.
Fiebel isn't sure there was a lake at Turkana at that time either,
Potts ditto at Olorgesailie, Dominguez-Rodrigo ditto at Lake Natron. So
what's next nearest enormous lake, Victoria? WOW! So much for the
enormous-lakeside gang.
>
> > "At Olduvai the Acheulean sites tend to lie along the former stream
> > channels away from the playa lakes." Hay 1967a, 1976.
> >
> > "The environmental setting of the hominid locality was a stream in a
> > small valley incised into the western lake margin during a period of
> > low lake level."
> > Blumenschine et al. Late Pliocene Homo and Hominid Land Use from
> > Western Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Science Vol. 299 1217-1221 (2003).
> >
> > "These streambeds have the appearance of ephemeral, seasonal features:
> > very shallow, braided grooves with sandy patches along their courses.
> > The largest were perhaps 15 to 20m wide and 50 to 100 cm deep, with
> > very gently sloping banks (see sections of DE/89, fig. 17).....Though
> > there may have been seasonal swamp pools in various parts of the basin,
> > the stable lake waters, if they existed during the time of the
> > occupation of the Main Site, were confined to the Koora trough about 3
> > km away." Isaac 1977:45
> >
> > WestTurkana Basin: "tributary channels ...
> > No conclusive evidence that a major lake
> > actually existed at this stage." Feibel 1993(meaning when
> > Turkana Boy was alive).>
> >
> > East Turkana Basin.
> >
> > Hippo artifact site "....lying in streambed hollow."
> > Isaac 1978:62
> >
> > This does not mean there are no sites located near lakes. What the
> > above falsifies is that there is no demonstrated trend to lakeside
> > occupation.
>
> I could pick up far more citations just from Stewart and Erlandsson to
> name two which provide as much contrary evidence, Lee.
Don't let fear stop you from posting your "far more" citations.
I cite from primary African workers and you cite from secondary
sources, that's fair.
The real point
> for me is that much of the OoA II diapora was very likely coastal and
> from 130ky at least early modern humans are clearly associated with a
> coastal lifestyle.
No, actually an un-demonstrated assumption, and more likely totally
false.
>
> > Also, OH 7 may be a good example of what happens to
> > hominids who venture too close to waters edge.
>
> So here's one very strong piece of evidence - right from from the
> muddle in the middle - that at least one hominid might have been taken
> by a croc - and you choose to use it as evidence *against* the
> water-side idea. Mmm.
What does waterside have to do with anything at all? Shallow
water--defined as any body of water small enough to comfortably throw a
rock across would not have anymore impact on human evolution than it
does today, which would be zero. As opposed to water deep enough to
require some sort of specialization that could possibly have an impact
human evolution, i.e., "or the past fifteen million years, the East
African Rift Valley has been a unique geological environment which
contains many enormous freshwater lakes. Paleoanthropological evidence
clearly indicates that hominids evolved in East Africa, and that early
Homo inhabited the Rift Valley lake shores." Which is just the opposite
of the evidence.
"Enormous lake shores" deep enough to wade in or dive in. Try to get
you or Marc to define anything specific is like trying to catch smoke.
How can anyone refute anything when anything is never anything more
than a generalization. I can tell you how deep the water Homo was at
more than 40 sites, in many cases within a few cm, and in no case is
there any evidence that it was at "enormous" depth.
Braded runnels is where the sites were at, knee deep at best and some
apparently had no water in them at all at the time of occupation. Don't
tell me a pond the size of a back-yard wading pool is going to
influence human evolution in a aqua direction.
>
> > > > Two and a half million years ago is where the cultural evidence starts,
> > > > the on-the-ground evidence is savanna hominids (or at least one was)
> > > > eating meat and avoiding the larger bodies of water ( not exclusively
> > > > so, but statistically so). This evidence is the null hypothesis, this
> > > > is what needs to be falsified. The leap of faith required to get from
> > > > the null to "water-side" is incredulous. The burden is on those who
> > > > think otherwise to demonstrate otherwise.
> > >
> > > This might be true of a period in human evolution around 3 - 2 Mya.
> >
> > Yes, that is why it is the null, because it has hard evidence to
> > support it. Those who argue from another position need to falsify where
> > we do have evidence with better evidence of their own.
>
> Well there is the small matter that humans swim better than chimps. How
> on earth did that happen if we *avoided* the water? Doesn't it strike
> you as a bit odd? Miraculous, even?
>
> > > But that isn't the whole story, is it?
>
> > Agreed.
>
> > > It's only about one fifth of the
> > > story. In earlier phases and in later phases our ancestors are much
> > > more positively associated with water-side habitats.
>
> > The trouble with "more positively" is that it is based on:
> > 1) N=s such a small number that it is statistically insignificant, and
> > therefore meaningless.
>
> I doubt that. Most pre-Homo hominid sites have been characterised as
> "wet and wooded" by Reed and some others.
>
> The later H sapiens dispora was clearly, to a very large extent,
> coastal.
>
> It's stretching it in the extreme, to claim that these are
> statistically insignificant and meaningless.
>
> > 2) If a certain pattern can be demonstrated for one fifth of the time
> > (recent), then the other four fifths cannot be assumed to be different
> > until demonstrated otherwise (and this is not saying that it can't be
> > falsified), it just means you can't assume it falsified with vague
> > generalizations and assumptions).
>
> Why's that Lee?
It's called evidence, not imagination.
If four fifths (the earliest parts and the latest
> parts) of the timescale is associated with more association with wet
> habitats, why does the one fifth in the middle that seems to be less
> so, get to be the default?
Because you don't know that wet habitats were the norm for Homo (or the
direct line to Homo). You assume that because there is evidence that
*some* hominds were doing so, this is not evidence that they were all
living in wet areas.
>
> If apes are most compelled to move bipedally in shallow water,
Wrong, not demonstrated, see sugar cane.
in
> depths where practically no other animal ever does, I think that is
> good grounds for making the wet and wooded habitats the null for the
> early phases.
>
> If one animal moves better than another in a given medium the null
> hypothesis is (unless the two animals are humans and chimps and the
> medium is water) usually that the difference is explained by selection.
The fallacy in your statement is that neither of your examples,
chimps/Homo, are good waders. In fact, in terms of wading efficiency,
they must rank near the absolute bottom when it comes to wading
efficiency, so selection for the worst is hardly an argument.
> So greater exposure to water-side should be the null hypothesis for
> later human evolution too, that you should have to disprove, in my
> opinion.
Since you don't have anything other than un-demonstrated assumptions,
i.e., waterside living, wading is better than everything else, water
depth at sites, etc., I don't see that you have much of a null, unless
you want to call it the null of un-demonstrated assumptions.
>
> > Therefore, if waterside habitats are
> > poor places to set up camp today ...
>
> This is based on evidence from just *one* ethnic group, right?
Wrong see above.
The
> Hadza? Streeeeeeeetching it, just a bit, Lee!
No, you said just the Hazda, not me. Go ahead, counter Binford if you
can, then I will name my big-game hunter, he had a lot more to say.
>
> > ...and also this trend is demonstrated at
> > 1.8 Mya, then water-side habitats can not be assumed to be good
> > places to occupy earlier -until there is statistically demonstrated
> > evidence to believe otherwise. And, yes, everyone is in the same boat
> > with the lack of good evidence before 1.8 Mya, everyone has to start
> > with some assumptions no matter which hypothesis is being argued before
> > 1.8Mya.
>
> Hadar was a wetland. Many early pre-Homo sites were wet and wooded.
So, just exactly where was the line to Homo at this time?
> Nariokotome Boy lived in a wetland, as apparently did many H erectus -
There is no evidence that the Turkana Boy died amid reeds & hippo
trails (you need to review Walker & Leakey (1993) again. You have read
them haven't you? Or did you get this misinformation from some
secondary researcher who was never at the site?).
> at least coastal or lakeside. I think you're clutching at dry straws
> here Lee.
>
> > > There is a rather
> > > large body of evidence for that. I'd say that there's no justification
> > > for extrapolating that 'savanna null hypothesis' both backwards and
> > > forwards in time to cover the entire spectrum of human evolution.
>
> > It is not really so much a matter of extrapolating back, but a matter
> > of falsifying the null. But I'm still good for further back into the
> > dark zone than you, (and yes, at some point back when there were
> > changes), but I've got the last hard evidence that needs to be
> > falsified, you have imagination.
>
> I can cite more hard evidence from pre-Homo sites associating them with
> "wet and wooded" habitats than you can associating them with dry
> habitats.
Yes, but pre-Homo is in the little-evidence zone. No one really knows
for sure who is related to whom or just where they originated.
I can similarly probably cite more hard evidence from Homo
> (erectus
No you can't. But you can try if you like.
and sapiens) that indicates 'wetter' rather than 'drier'
> habitats.
Sapiens sure, at some point we adapted to umbrellas, but that's called
industrial progress.
It doesn't take any imagination to realise that moving
> through water clearly played a significant part in our evolution
> overall,
Well there you go, a conclusion based on what you need to prove.
even if the 'muddle in the middle' might be a bit drier.
That is where the null comes in. We have early Homo identified with:
"The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
East Africa. Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
posture Dennell 2003:442)."
Drier and Homo adapted to the Sahara Desert (Dowsett et al 1994,
Clark 1992).
"If hominids had already dispursed across the African grasslands in the
late
Pliocene (Brunet et al., 1995), there is little reason why they might
not have
dispersed into similar grasslands in Asia, as suggested recently by
Dennell (1998) and
Turner (1999)."
This sums up 1st Homo and it doesn't require imagination as your
negative arguments do.
>
> Algis Kuliukas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- From: Algis Kuliukas
- Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Prev by Date: Re: Why You May Never Comprehend Human Evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Chimp, Y, and social structure
- Previous by thread: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Next by thread: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
