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

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?

Bringing up population density maps doesn't hold water. This is a modern
association brought about by the shift to agriculture and industrialization.
Water is used as a transportation medium, for industrial processes, for
sanitation, etc

"human reliance on fresh water" - oh please. My dog relies on fresh water. My
cat relies on fresh water. The cattle on the ranches in my area rely on fresh
water. Etc This is an earthshaking idea?

> [...]


> > > 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? 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?
>
> > > 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.
>
> > > > 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. Then how about studying them in semi-wild/wild conditions? Can you
> think of a quick objection to that too? 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?
>
> > > 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.
>
> > > > 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. You don't see that anywhere else in zoology. 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.
>
> > > 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? 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.
>
> > > 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? 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?
> 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.
>
> > > 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? 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? 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. 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.
>
> > > 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? It's of a
> bit loaded equation you're using to justify your meat eating null, I
> think. So, yes, they're not equal but the bias is probably the opposite
> of what you seem to be arguing for.
>
> > > 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? Why do you find it so hard to make such a mild concession?
>
> > > > 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. 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. How many African groups make their living
> on the water's edge in comparison? What's the history of the Hazda?
> >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?
>
> > Olduvai...................1 km (FLKNN)
> > Mary Leakey 1971
>
> 1km! Wow.
>
> > "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. 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > > > 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? 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?
>
> If apes are most compelled to move bipedally in shallow water, 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.
> 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.
>
> > Therefore, if waterside habitats are
> > poor places to set up camp today ...
>
> This is based on evidence from just *one* ethnic group, right? The
> Hadza? Streeeeeeeetching it, just a bit, Lee!
>
> > ...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.
> Nariokotome Boy lived in a wetland, as apparently did many H erectus -
> 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. I can similarly probably cite more hard evidence from Homo
> (erectus and sapiens) that indicates 'wetter' rather than 'drier'
> habitats. It doesn't take any imagination to realise that moving
> through water clearly played a significant part in our evolution
> overall, even if the 'muddle in the middle' might be a bit drier.
>
> Algis Kuliukas
.

Relevant Pages