Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- From: "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Sep 2005 08:20:30 -0700
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
....
> > 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.
Well I think it's a learned paper. For someone who is so sure that
water played so little part in our evolution and appears to claim the
evidentiary high ground in supporting that view, it's rather
disappointing that you are not intimately familiar with it.
....
> > > 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.
My point was that as the most compelling scenario to get apes moving
bipedally is in shallow water then it's a reasonable starting point
when considering hominid bipedal origins. I don't see what's "apples
and oranges" about it.
> > 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?
Tee hee. The usual stock answer. (Well at least it wasn't mountain
climbing, riding bikes, playing pianos this time - you're trying to be
a bit original I can see that) Ok, so why do you not apply that
argument about our relatively weak arboreality or our relatively
efficient terrestrial walking? Why not for any other species
pair-substrate combination? Why is it only when it comes to humans,
chimpanzees and "moving through water" that cultural factors suddenly
become all important and not the usual null hypothesis - good old
natural selection.
....
> > > 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.
I don't think Planckendael would have agreed to their inclusion in my
study.
> > 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.
Sorry. I must have missed it or forgotten about it.
> > 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.
If "pro-aqua" people do that, so too do the aquasceptics, it's just
that they go for the opposite one. I'm not ignoring any evidence. I put
it to you: Of which of the dozen or so models of bipedal origins could
you say this...
"Take a great ape or either sex, place it in condition A (where
condition A simulates the scenario for bipedal origins being proposed)
and observe. What is the probability that this ape will now move
bipedally for as long as the conditions prevail?"
I might suggest that there is precisely one such scenario: the wading
model in waist deep water.
I've considered all the others. I've not ignored *any* of them to my
knowledge. But none of them are as clear cut as the wading one. Indeed,
if any ape did move quadrupedally in condition A it would just die. How
many of the models can say that?
In addition the paleohabitat evidence seems to support it quite a lot.
....
> > > 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?
Well, I've not made my methods a secret. I'm studying wading in humans,
the morphometrics of hominoid pelves/femora, the behavioural contexts
of apes in shallow water and the paleohabitats of the earliest bipeds.
If anyone has any questions I'll answer them but I suppose it's true
that they won't otherwise be made public until I've finished.
....
> > 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?
Fish are energy rich so a fish rich diet (unlike veggies) is consistent
with the trend towards encephalisation. So is a meat rich diet - but
not the dental reduction part.
> > 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.
But hold on, our teeth *did* change, didn't they. Dental *reduction*,
right?
> > 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?
Crawford et al have made a rather good case, I think, that
encephalisation is correlated with the marine food chain.
....
> >
> > 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.
Different evidence, same bias. What tools do you need to acquire a
seasonally marooned bonanza of catfish? Apart from more sophisticated
fishing hooks which came later, what possible technologies might we
expect to see evidencing procurement of fish/shellfish?
How do you know that defence/attack against crocs was not one common
use of stone tools?
> > 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.
Even if that is true I would argue that stone tools have their own
inherent bias - simply because of their durability. For example, for
every two stone tools found in a a given area how many wooden spears
were used by people that lived in the intervening period? Maybe the
ratio was a thousand to one (wooden spears for each stone tool), but
we'd never know about it.
> They were not places that would be conducive to diving, or swimming.
I'm yet to be convinced about that. AFIIR many stone tool sites were
strongly associated with water. Some authors have even proposed that it
was specifically whilst attacking mammals drinking at water holes that
is their best explanation.
> 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.
I agree with that part, at least.
> > > > 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.
My bonobo study showed 92% bipedality in shallow water, 3% on land. The
world record bipedality for a wild ape population is around 40% - much
of it wading - in bonobos at Lomako. (Myers-Thomson.)
> > 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.
Sugar cane? And your evidence for this is...
> > > > 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.
Some sites that do not contain enough water, sure. But some sites do.
I'd suggest that in the 5-8My since the LCA the majority of sites
associated with possible hominids on our lineage are associated with
sufficient water.
> > 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?
I don't like it at all. Because pole vaulting is a human sport that is
clearly a cultural phenomenon which began around 150 years ago in
Germany, whereas moving through water is and always has been the number
one type of locomotion for living things on planet earth and is older
than the hills.
I know you think you're being funny to make such comparisons but
seriously, Lee, you're just showing your ignorance. It's this kind of
sneering that I'm trying to combat. Why is it so ridiculous that moving
through water might have (hold on to the edge of your seat, it's a
really shocking idea, this) moved through water sometimes and that it
might have even been enough to act as an agency of selection? Really,
why? Humans *do* swim and dive better than chimpanzees, better than
gorillas, better than orang utans, better than gibbons, better in fact
than probably any primate. Our cultural extraordinarity does bugger all
to help us move as well as they do in the trees and yet here, it is
invoked as the great excuse to explain our greater abilities in water.
Why?
> > 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.
At least since 130kya - humans migrated along coasts. That's plenty
deep enough and plenty long enough to have an effect on our phenotype.
> > 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.
Yes more than one way - but why is it that the only ways you seem able
to consider without sneering are dry ones?
....
> > 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?)
Very clever. What are you talking about?
> > 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.
Not if they waded in that shallow water bipedally. Not if they also ate
fish/shellfish.
....
> > > 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)
Gosh - so you're arguing that Potts and people like that have just got
it wrong. There were no great variations in climate in the Pliocene, it
just got ultra dry, is that it? So it's not so much a savanna theory
that you're backing as a desert theory?
> > 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).
>>From 130kya there was plenty water to swim and dive.
In the Pliocene there were, I thought, large variations in climate -
from wet to dry and back again. Was I wrong? So there were no flooded
valleys? No lakes? Just dry runnels, is that it?
In the Miocene and early Pliocene the earliest hominid sites have been
characterised as "wet and wooded" - perfect for bipedal wading.
....
> > Pretty impressive-looking list, Lee, thanks.
>
> Actually, that isn't anywhere near the complete list, I just got tired
> of typing.
Then please tell me some more.
> > 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.
Oh, two. That's not really very different, is it? Just because the
Hadza don't do much wading/swimming it doesn't mean other ethnic groups
don't.
> > 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?
Another clever answer. Why didn't you try to give an estimation of the
answer? See what I'm getting at?
> 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.
That's not what I asked.
....
> > > 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?
Ok. So how far from the nearest river/pond of 1m depth in the wet
season?
> > > 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.
"Wasn't sure" - who could be *sure* of anything 2-3Mya? Why is ok for
you to use negative arguments but not me?
....
> > 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.
It's not fear, Lee, it's time and effort. I'm just getting the feeling
it's not worth while bothering. Your sneering indicates you're not
really open to the idea.
> > 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.
Really? So how did the first people get to Australia?
> > > 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.
I see you seem to have a bit of chip on your shoulder about that quote.
> "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.
Those 40 Homo sites were when and where?
> > > > > 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?
Nothing to say on that, Lee?
> > > > 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.
Nothing to say on that either.
> > > 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.
I assume it because many (if not the large majority) of the papers I've
read tell me so. Papers written by the original researchers. I assume
it because we can swim better than chimps and I think that an
evolutionary story that argues our lineage lived specifically *away*
from water (as you are arguing) is a highly improbable scenario to
explain that.
> > If apes are most compelled to move bipedally in shallow water,
> Wrong, not demonstrated, see sugar cane.
Is this just more sneering or what?
> > 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.
In this example I was, in fact, thinking of swimming/diving. Humans are
far better at swimming than chimps. Amazing really, considering our
ancestors explictly lived away from water (if we were to believe what
you're saying.)
But even if I was talking about wading, there's no fallacy. I'm
comparing two species in a given medium, not a species ranked alongside
the best in that medium.
> > 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.
Humans swim and dive better than chimps. That's not an un-demonstrated
assumption, it's blatantly obvious to everyone except those rabidly
aquasceptic people for whom the words "AAH proponents have a good point
there" would cause them to choke before voicing them.
Any other pair of species where one moved better than the other in such
a basic medium on the planet would lead to this default null hypothesis
about it: It was caused by one species being better adapted to that
medium than the other. Because it involves the dreaded 'a' factor,
however, in this case we cannot do that. In order to invoke the
absolutely dry null hypothesis instead we are encouraged to laugh away
any criticisms of this with analogies like "well, we pole vault better
than chimpanzees too!" (Yes, *pole vault*!)
> > > 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.
Sorry *two*. Two out of how many thousands? And this is your rock solid
evidence that humans never went in the water?
> > 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.
For every hunter-gatherer group of people living away from the water's
edge, I expect there was another doing coastal foraging. And, more to
the point, I expect there were ten that did a little of both.
> > > ...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?
I don't knwo, do you? I suspect they were a'pith like, if not a'piths
sensu stricto.
> > 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?).
Yes I read them. So, are you claiming that Turkana boy died away from
the water too? Are you caliming that it's just "misinformation" to
think otherwise? The more I read your stuff, Lee, the more I'm
beginning to think you have some kind of ultra-dry agenda here.
....
> > 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.
Why? You mean the "no stone tools" zone?
> No one really knows
> for sure who is related to whom or just where they originated.
True. But the hominids that did live there lived in wet and wooded
habitats and they're the best evidence we have for anything approaching
our ancestors.
> I can similarly probably cite more hard evidence from Homo
> > (erectus
> >
> No you can't. But you can try if you like.
Let me try one right now as a test: How about Turkana Boy? Drier or
wetter?
> > and sapiens) that indicates 'wetter' rather than 'drier'
> > habitats.
>
> Sapiens sure, at some point we adapted to umbrellas, but that's called
> industrial progress.
Er, Lee... we can swim. Please don't tell me that was only because of
the British Empire.
> > 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.
Ok. A just reproof. Please allow me to rephrase it: It doesn't take any
imagination to see how moving through water could have played a
significant part in our evolution overall and even less to think of
simple ways of testing the hypothesis.
All we need now is for open minded people to do the testing. Now there
lies real the problem.
> 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)."
Oooh. I wonder where he got that idea from? This doesn't sound like
primary research to me, it sounds like the author likes Wheeler's idea
and is trying to get the facts to fit it.
> 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.
Sorry, where is that citation from?
The only *imaginings* going on here are those leading to the phenomenon
of *Pole Vaulting* being offered as an equivalent ape-human locomotor
disparity to swimming and diving.
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.
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Prev by Date: Re: Chimp, Y, and social structure
- Next by Date: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- 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
|
