Re: Early savanna runners

Savanna Fantast is pretty sure:

I'm pretty sure that Christopher Ruff is much better versed in
statistical and other research techniques than any AAT proponent.

It's obvious from the above that he's not.

That's why he is able to produce original research (something AAT
proponents have yet do

You confuse original & experimental.
No experiments in historical sciences, my boy.

For example, you can quantify human and australopithecine skeletal
anatomy and use that information in dynamic modeling to compare their
locomotion.

Wishful thinking & self-delusional.
You clearly miss common sense in locomotion & evolution:

Bramble and Lieberman (2004), in a much-discussed review article in Nature,
cite a number of derived Homo features they claim to be adaptations for more
efficient endurance running in arid, open habitats. However, while some of
these supposedly ?cursorial adaptations¹ appear first in the fossil record
in H. habilis, others appear first in H. erectus, and others still in H.
sapiens, suggesting a much more complex story than proposed by Bramble and
Lieberman. Their conclusions are reached without systematic comparisons with
other animals (including endurance runners) and with general comparisons
restricted to fossil hominids and Pan. Since convergent traits are strong
indicators of evolution in similar environments (Bender 1999), a systematic
comparison with a broad range of animals with a variety of locomotor
strategies would have been more informative.
In addition, discussion of possible locomotion styles is restricted to
walking and running, with no consideration at all given to activities such
as wading, swimming or underwater foraging, yet humans are regular waders
and more accomplished swimmers and divers than other primates. Most of the
list¹s ?adaptations¹ for walking could just as easily be explained by
wading. One of the frequent ?explanations¹ in the list is ³stress
reduction², a reference to the vertical posture of humans with the weight
resting on two legs. But this says nothing about endurance running, with
standing, wading, walking or short distance running all using a similar
posture, and therefore all requiring stress reduction. Other ?explanations¹
include ³counter rotation², ³thermoregulation² and ³stabilization², but no
comparative data to corroborate these interpretations are provided. In other
words, their ?explanations¹ are ad hoc suppositions, applied to one example
(human ancestors) without any consideration as to whether these supposed
adaptations are seen in other animals, which means their ?explanations¹ are
statistically invalid (n=1). Long legs, and possibly shortened forearms,
could be seen as running adaptations, but these are just as typical of
wading and swimming species compared with runners (Hildebrand 1974: 584,
Bender 1999).
In a waterside scenario, wading and swimming would be preadaptative to the
humanlike ?vertical¹ locomotion that Bramble and Lieberman believe to be a
direct adaptation to endurance running. In our view, frequent terrestrial
locomotion, whether for walking or for (relatively slow) running, was more
recent (H. sapiens) and could not be derived directly from an ancestral
locomotion in forests, whether on the ground or in the branches, because in
that case a more baboon-like locomotion would be expected (the ?baboon
paradox¹).
Most of Bramble and Lieberman¹s ?adaptations¹ are not what we would expect
in a cursorial (running) animal. For example, their list includes ³enlarged
posterior and anterior semicircular canals², but there are no comparisons
with, for instance, giraffes (heads high above the ground), gibbons (fast
and versatile locomotion), kangaroos (cursorial bipeds), or swimming or
diving species. It is conceivable in fact that the frequent change of
posture seen when diving for seafood (descending and ascending) required a
different labyrinth structure, and that the H. erectus labyrinth was adapted
to terrestrial walking and running as well as to wading, swimming and diving
locomotions.
There is no indication that an ³expanded venous circulation of neurocranium²
had anything to do with thermoregulation, but there is long-standing
evidence of expanded venous networks in diving species (Slijper 1936).
More balanced heads and short snouts are not seen in cursorial species,
whether bi- or quadruped, and low shoulders are compatible with wading and
diving.
What Bramble and Lieberman refer to as ³narrow body form², ³narrow thorax²
and ³narrow pelvis² is not clear to us: compared to most primates, humans
have a relatively very broad thorax and pelvis (laterolaterally), and this
was even more so in the case of australopithecines. In our opinion, the
combination of ?flared¹ iliac blades and very long and relatively horizontal
femoral necks as seen in H. erectus indicates well-developed ad- and
abduction, which is obviously not an adaptation for running, but would not
be unexpected and indeed would be advantageous for a species that had to
regularly wade, tread water, swim or climb. In H. sapiens the pelvis
(bi-iliac diameter) did become narrower and the femoral necks shorter and
more vertical, and we agree with Bramble and Lieberman that this could be
related to more frequent terrestrial locomotion.
Plantar arches, enlarged tubera calcanei, close-packed calcaneo-cuboid
joints and short toes are not seen in cursorials, whether bi- or quadruped,
to the contrary: running species are typically unguli- or digiti-, not
plantigrade and typically have elongated toes.
In conclusion, there is no evidence that any of the features described by
Bramble and Lieberman (2004) are typical either of savannah dwellers or
frequently running animals, whether slow or fast. Until the features are
considered in the context of swimming and wading as well as terrestrial
movement, their interpretations should be considered with extreme caution.
As it is, there is no obvious reason why any of the features cited could not
have been of advantage in a littoral environment. We do not deny that humans
today are adapted to terrestrial locomotion, but in our opinion the peculiar
human anatomy is not directly derivable from a typical primate ancestor who
moved from closed to more open, arid habitats.
At least two conspicuous anatomical features of H. erectus are notably not
included in the list of features cited by Bramble and Lieberman (2004).

1) H. erectus typically has a more robust, and therefore heavier, skeleton
than all other ­ fossil and extant ­ primates, including H. sapiens and the
other apes. One of its defining characteristics is the shape and size of the
femoral bone, which shows cortex thickening and densening (pachyostosis) and
a narrow medullar cavity (medullary stenosis). The cranial bones, especially
the posterior part (the occiput), are also notably thicker than in other
primates including H. sapiens. Unusually heavy bones would be a disadvantage
for a species relying on endurance running, and are not seen in running
mammals such as dogs or horses, whereas for a species collecting sessile
food from the water¹s edge, including underwater foraging, they could have
been a significant advantage. Human divers such as the Ama of Korea
frequently use weights to help them descend (Hong and Rahn 1967).
Slow-diving mammals for sessile foods typically have medullary stenosis and
pachyostosis to a much higher degree than in H. erectus (walruses, dugongs
and fossil littoral species such as Kolponomos, Odobenocetops and some
Thalassocnus species), while fast-diving mammals for mobile prey have
light-weight bones (dolphins and sealions).

2) H. erectus had less basicranial flexion than H. sapiens, meaning that
the eyes would have been more naturally oriented towards the sky if they
were standing with an upright posture (remembering that we do not know for
certain which posture H. erectus may have preferred when on dry land),
rather than directed more towards the horizon, as is the case when H.
sapiens stands with an upright posture. This would be a disadvantage for a
species relying on endurance running because, among other things, more
energy would be needed to look at where the feet were making contact with
the ground. In a diving position, as well as in a more procumbent body
position while wading for food, for example, the less flexed cranial base
would have resulted in the eyes being more naturally oriented in the
direction the individual was moving (i.e., in the case of swimming and
diving, head first through the water). We are not aware of any models which
suggest early Homo ran with a bent hip posture, but we do note that human
sprinters generally run with the body leaning forward.

Within many contemporary Homo sapiens populations there are individuals who
are capable of long distance running, but compared to typical savannah
species, humans are slow and inefficient (Figure 4). Moreover, recent
research suggests that endurance training in athletes sometimes causes
cardial arrhythmias and sudden death (Ector et al. 2007). Even Bramble and
Lieberman (2004) admit that ³humans are mediocre runners in several
respects² and ³running is more costly for humans than for most other
mammals². And since H. erectus generally had heavier bones than H sapiens,
longer femoral necks and shorter tibiae, it must have been even less
efficient in running than extant H. sapiens.


See for example:
Crompton, R. et al. 1998. The mechanical effectiveness of erect and
"bent-hip, bent-knee", bipedal walking in Australopithecus afarensis.
JHE 35: 55-74.
Kramer, P. and Eck, G. 2000. Locomotor energetics and leg length in
hominid bipedality. JHE 38: 651-666.
Wang, W. et al. 2003. Energy transformation during erect and
"bent-hip, bent-knee" walking by humans with implications for the
evolution of bipedalism. JHE 44: 563-579.

You're about as smart as the "scientist" who mathematically proved that
flies couldn't fly. No comparisons outside hominids. Al this shows that
you're not much of a scientist. Why don't they compare to non-hominids??




) and get it published through the appropriate channels.

appropriate... :-D
1985. The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario. Medical
Hypotheses 16, 17-32 & erratum 24, 300.
1986. E Morgan & --. In the beginning was the water. New Scientist 1498,
62-63.
1986. Een korte inleiding tot de waterapentheorie. Marswin 7, 64-69.
1987. Origin of hominid bipedalism. Nature 325, 305-306.
1987. The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases. Medical Hypotheses
24, 293-299.
1987. Speech origins. Human Evolution 2, 381.
1987. Vertonen de fossiele hominiden tekens van wateraanpassing? Marswin 8,
142-151.
1988. Aquatic ape theory and speech origins: a hypothesis. Speculations in
Science and Technology 11, 165-171.
1990. African ape ancestry. Human Evolution 5, 295-297.
1991. Aquatic ape theory and fossil hominids. Medical Hypotheses 35,
108-114.
1991. Aquatic features in fossil hominids? M Roede, J Wind, J Patrick & V
Reynolds eds. The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction? Souvenir, London, 75-112.
1991. Human regulation of body temperature and water balance. Ibidem,
182-192.
1992. Review: C Mascie-Taylor & G Lasker eds 1991, Applications of
biological anthropology to human affairs, CUP. European Sociobiological
Society Newsletter 28, 14-17.
1992. Did robust australopithecines partly feed on hard parts of Gramineae?
Human Evolution 7, 63-64.
1992. KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1805 endocasts. Language Origins Society Forum
15, 17-18.
1993. Aquatic versus savanna: comparative and paleo-environmental evidence.
Nutrition and Health 9, 165-191.
1994. Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes? Human Evolution 9,
121-139.
1995. Aquatic ape theory, speech origins, and brain differences with apes
and monkeys. Medical Hypotheses 44, 409-413.
1995. Aquatic ape theory, the brain cortex, and language origins. ReVision
18, 34-38.
1996. Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape
skulls. Human Evolution 11, 35-41.
1997. In den Beginne was het Water. Nieuwste Inzichten in de Evolutie van de
Mens. Hadewijch, Antwerpen.
1997. R Bender, -- & N Oser. Der Erwerb menschlicher Bipedie aus der Sicht
der Aquatic Ape Theory. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 55, 1-14.
1997. In support of the Gimbutas scenario. Language Origins Society Forum
24, 13-14.
1997. Sweaty humans. New Scientist 2091, 53.
1998. Australopithecine ancestors of African apes? MA Raath, H Soodyall, D
Barkhan, KL Kuykendall & PV Tobias eds. Abstracts of Contributions to the
Dual Congress. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 128-129.
1998. Human/ape brain differences and speech origins. Ibidem, 131.
1998. -- & P-F Puech. Wetland apes: hominid palaeo-environment and diet.
Ibidem, 47.
1999. --, N McPhail & S Munro. Bipedalism in chimpanzee and gorilla
forebears. European Sociobiological Society Newsletter 50, 4-12.
1999. -- & S Munro. Bipeds, tools and speech. Mother Tongue V, 161-168.
1999. -- & S Munro. Australopiths wading? Homo diving? Proceedings of the
Symposium ?Water & Human Evolution¹. Universiteit Gent, Ghent, 11-23.
2000. -- & S Munro. The origins of phonetic abilities: a study of the
comparative data with reference to the aquatic theory. J-L Dessalles & L
Ghadakpour eds. The Evolution of Language. Proceedings. Ecole Nationale
Supérieure des Télécommunications, Paris, 236-240.
2000. -- & P-F Puech. Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered:
paleo-environmental and comparative data. Human Evolution 15, 175-186.
2002. -- & S Munro. The continental shelf hypothesis. Nutrition and Health
16, 25-27.
2002. --, P-F Puech & S Munro. Aquarboreal ancestors? Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 17, 212-217.
2004. -- & S Munro. Possible preadaptations to speech. A preliminary
comparative approach. Human Evolution 19, 53-70.
2007. -- & S Munro. New directions in palaeoanthropology. SI Muñoz ed.
Ecology Research Progress. Nova, New York, 1-4.
2007. --, S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender & N Oser. The original econiche
of the genus Homo: Open Plain or Waterside? SI Muñoz ed. Ecology Research
Progress. Nova, New York, 155-186.

I see no Journal of Human Evolution, American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, American Journal of Human Biology, Evolution,
Paleobiology, etc. in that list, you know, the peer-reviewed
professional science journals.
Besides, none of your publications represents genuine research. Most
of it has the character of highly speculative and qualitative reviews.

My little boy, your anthropocentrism once more proves your
short-sightedness.
Again: your *only* "argument" is based on authority, it's not science, but
pure just-so thinking.

The *only* time we sent something to a *biological* journal they accepted.
That's 100 % in your statistical thinking.
TREE acepted our paper: 2 biological reviewers accepted it, although 2 PA
reviewers rejected it. Typical of the unbiological thinking that
unfortunately still rules in PA.
As long as PAs remain anthropocentric & think humans are unlike all other
animals, they'll keep parotting each other & will never understand how we
evolved.

Only biased Savanna Fantasts like you claim that humans are unlike all other
mammals, and the only fat & naked mammals that don't spend a lot of time in
water.

In fact, over the years you have proven to be totally unable to give us 1
argument why our ancestors were not waterside: collection of waterside foods
(eg, fruits & nuts, turtle & bird eggs, shell/crayfish, water(side)plants,
drowned herbivores, stranded whales etc.) explains unique Homo traits (not
seen in apes & australopiths) many times better than dwelling in forests or
dry plains: huge brain, slow-diving skills, breath control, vocality, small
mouth+chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway, projecting nose,
poor sense of smell, handiness & tool use, late puberty, long legs, alined
body, poor climbing, flat feet, fur loss, fatness, profuse sweating, high
needs of water, sodium, iodine, poly-unsat.fatty acids (DHA), etc. All
these features are typically seen in different combinations in waterside &
(semi)aquatic animals, but strikingly absent in savanna dwelling mammals.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
Description:
* Human evolution based on comparative anatomy & physiology.
* Comparative & fossil information on human & ape evolution.
* Waterside diaspora of Homo after Homo & Pan split ~5 Ma.
AAT:
* Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term E.Morgan 1982)
* Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes (aqua=water, arbor=tree)
* Amphibious Ancestors Theory of Plio-Pleistocene Homo (AAT strict sense)

http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html





.

Loading