Re: "Waterside" is meaningless



mclark wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:19�pm, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:31�pm, mclark <mbclar...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 15, 7:41�am, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Prove anything in anthropology and I'll think about responding.

No, that not the way it works. �You don't get to say
I'm OK, you're OK, �You have to establish that "..our
lineage lived in waterside habitats...". �This you have
not done. �You even couch it as a conditional IF followed
by an unsupported assertion ~they would have~.

"Establish" is not the same as "prove".
I think it is well established our lineage lived in waterside habitats
more than chimps and gorillas.

Let's see you try to "establish" it.

1. Since the LCA but before the genus Homo (ca 5Ma - 2.6Ma) assuming
our lineage was australopithecine or similar.
Early hominids are strongly associated with gallery forest habitats.
No-one in orthodoxy contradicts this view these days. Kingdon's "Lowly
Origins" (2003) is based on that exact assumption. Gallery forests
are, you should know, waterside habitats. There has only been one
fossil ever found attributed to a chimpanzee so it's kind of hard to
tell where their ancestors were living, but that fact alone speaks
volumes. Hominid fossils, laid in depositional substrates have been
found in their thousands. Pan/Gorilla - almost nil.

A "gallery forest" grows in the vicinity of water. I'll give you
that. It doesn't count as "waterside habitat" because an
arboreal ape here is indistinguishable from an arboreal ape
anywhere else. You haven't put that ape ~in the water~ such
that any selection would occur. You've put them in a tree.
Big whoop.

2. Early Homo up to H sapiens. (ca 2.6Ma - 250Ka)
Again, notwithstanding the outrageous discrepancy between the number
of fossils found, many early Homo sites are waterside. Many early Homo
species must have migrated along water courses, again placing them
closer to such habitats than chimps.

And again, you haven't "established" that these early
Homo species were under any ~selection~ pressure
vis-a-vis water. Zero, nada, zip.

3. H sapiens (250Ka ->)
Some of the earliest (if not the earliest) H sapiens finds are at the
coasts. e.g. Marean et al (2007) 135-175Ka S Africa, Walter et al
(2000) ca 125ka on the Eritrean coast. I needn't say, of course, that
no similar evidence has ever been found for chimpanzees or gorillas.

And what about the sites inland? Don't they count?
And no, you needn't say it because it doesn't matter.
This part of your argument is as meaningless today
as when you first concocted it. http://tinyurl.com/66uzcn

4. Extant forms.
Humans swim. Billions of swimming incidents have been observed
compared to one (maybe) incident of a chimp. A human infant can be
taught to swim almost from birth with no need for technology and
little help from mum. The same is simply not true for chimps.

Damn near ~all~ vertebrates can swim. So what?
Chimps ~can't~ swim? Perhaps if they were *taught*
like your human infants.... Oh, I see you're saying that
chimps ~can't~ be taught. You're out on a limb now,
aren't ya?

If you cannot except this as "establishing" a more waterside niche for
the human lineage since the LCA with Pan then there really is no point
discussing the matter any further. It would be like trying to convince
an Immam about the evidence for evolution.

No, Algis, I'm not an Immam. Yet here I am, thoroughly
*unconvinced* of "a more waterside niche". I guess you
won't be "discussing the matter any further", huh.

For phase I (wading) longer legs, flatter feet and a more upright
posture would have been traits to make drowning less likely.

But there are perfectly terrestrial explanations for these features

There are, of course, but they are diverse and many are contradictory.
Which of the 35 or so published ideas do you back?

Crompton.

that do not reqire the mental gymnastics that you engage in above.
All of these things are a consequence of habitual, terrestrial
bipedalism.

The only mental gymnastics needed is by defenders of the orthodox
"faith" in all its confusing glory. Which of the many ideas is right
then? Can you agree to one of those, even? I didn't think so.

That's because you ~don't~ think. I look for the origins of
bipedalism in the trees. I regard those other traits you
mention above (longer legs, flatter feet and a more upright
posture) as a ~consequence~ of a shift from tree foraging
to ground foraging --driven perhaps by climate change.


Whereas I am more intrigued by the evidence for vestigial knuckle-
walking traits in early australopiths, a la Richmond & Strait, & am
thereby inclined to expect a terrestrial origin of bipedalism.

Notwithstanding that this is a live & unresolved debate in
paleoanthropological circles, and that Mike & I (with our lay
understanding of the discipline) are adopting diametrically opposed
positions on this critical question, we are of course both dedicated
followers of The Paleoanthropological Orthodoxy (or Conspiracy, if you
will).

(Or maybe I shouldn't be telling Algis that Mike? Hang on, let's do
that secret handshake thing & work out what our "position"is.

]Note to lurkers: now watch Algis & especially Marc cycle off into
another of their long and circular harangues, this one about how you
can't have vestigial knuckle-walking traits. Marc just loves
demonstrating what a knuckle-head he is.]

If it's
the energy efficiency model (which I back too by the way for the later
stages) how did it start in the first place? And how does that idea
square up with carrying models - to name but one that is
contradictory. If it's the hand-holding, thin-branch, tree-wobbling,
orang-utan idea that made it to the front page of Science a few months
ago, what's the reason for the Human - Pan/Gorilla divergence there?

What? Do you need it spelled out for you? Maybe a picture....

Chimps (trees)
/
/
LCA
\
\
Humans (terra firma)

The wading idea needs no mental gymnastics. In waist deep water all
great apes switch from quadrupedalism on dry land to bipedalism in
water. Duh. It's so bleeding obvious only a fool could not see it.
It's the only model that would actually kill you if such an ape did
try to continue moving quadrupedally. Honestly. And you call this
mental gymnastics!

Bonobos wading (text from my records; you need subscriber access to
the full-text online article):
"
....
Candidates for Cultural Behavior Observed in Lomako Bonobos But Rare
or Absent in Chimpanzees
....
Forage wade. During the dry season, males and females of all ages walk
quadrupedally along streambeds for up to an hour, stopping now and
then to search through the matrix of rotten leaves and soil for insect
larvae and small Crustacea. The depth of these streams averages about
20 cm, and where deeper pools occur the bonobos cross them by climbing
into trees.
....
Foraging in streams and pools has been reported from Yalosidi (Uehara
1988),Wamba (Kano 1992), Lukuru (Myers-Thompson 2002), and Lomako
(Fruth 1995). Variation seems to exist in the type of locomotion that
occurs in this context: While bonobos at Lomako remain quadrupedal
when wading, reports from Wamba and from Lukuru indicate that bonobos
often go bipedal. This difference may well reflect differences in
habitat or in activity (fishing for insects versus fishing for algae),
flexible patterns of foraging that are likely to involve social
learning.
"
Culture in Bonobos? Between-Species and Within-Species Variation in
Behavior
Gottfried Hohmann and Barbara Fruth
Current Anthropology, Volume 44, Number 4, August–October 2003
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/377649


Yep. Mental gymnastics, that's what I call it.
Go to google video, enter "swimming monkey"
and see what you come up with. There they
are --swimming quadrupeds, even diving, ~breath
holding~ quadrupeds --and none the worse for wear.
A better question might be: why the great apes
are such finicky *avoiders* (if indeed they are)
of water when everybody else isn't. Perhaps its
because they've spent the lions share of their
developmental time in the trees, not venturing out
to where there are bodies of water big enough to
worry about.

For phase II (swiming/diving) being fatter, less hairy and having
better voluntary breath control would have.

You assume swimming and diving and then go looking
to coopt perfectly reasonable terrestrial explanations of
traits to buttress your assertion.

"Perfectly reasonable"? So how come we're the only naked primate? How
come we're the only one with fat babies?

1. Thermoregulation.
2. Nutrition buffer related to brain growth.
3. Weren't you listening the first 300 times this was explained?

Fat is an energey/nutrition sink. �

So why did only human infants, out of all the primates, need this?

Because human infants are the only ones that need
to feed a growing brain in the first ~several years~ of
life. Again, why do you refuse to listen to reason?
How many times has this been explained?

It has nothing to do with fat as a buoyancy aid ala
marine mammals nor can you stretch it to cover streamlining.

That is your opinion and yet a chimp or a gibbon will sink like a
stone in water whilst a human infant will float. Again no mental
gymnastics needed just an ability to open one's eyes to the bleeding
obvious: blatant selection for all to see.

Bull***. I'm sure your reviewers said it more politely.

Go down to your local mall and have a gander at humanity.
Do they look streamlined to you? �Less hair? �

If you're suggesting that many people are overweight, sure. But the
point is that human infants, even if their mother was on the edge of
starvation, are nevertheless born with more sc fat than the other
primates. Why is that, Michael?

What, you can't read? No, I'm not talking about "overweight"
versus "underweight". I'm talking about all those obtuse angles
involving legs and arms, hair, cultural accoutrements, various and
sundry bulges etc. T H E Y A R E N O T S T R E A M -
L I N E D!!

Human mothers on the edge of starvation will not
reproduce. You know this. Human babies' relationship
with SC fat is, again, focused on brain growth. <Yawn>

If you took a photo of one of those people diving into a pool, sure
they'd look streamlined.

They are not streamlined. Their linear body arrangement
is a function of the fact that they balance their bodies
on top of two feet. Are you paying attention?

If he was, would he notice that naked aquatic mammals don't have long
cylindrical limbs with high surface area and the most sensitive and
nerve ending-rich parts of their anatomy (I mean fingers & toes, but
yes, that too) right our there at the end? Would he notice that
fingers & toes, hand & feet don't accumulate subcutaneous fat?

Would he - oh, what's the #$%^& point?


Yes, less hair. Humans have lost most of their functional body hair.
What? Are you clinging to that delusion too? That humans and great
apes have the same amount of body hair? See, it's when you refuse to
accept the basic facts that I know i've won the argument.

It's when you make it up that I know you're a dishonest little
prick. Where have I said that humans and great apes have
the same amount of body hair? I've said that the loss of
body hair has enabled an enhanced thermoregulation --ideally
suited to manage heat stress resulting from physical activity
in open areas. Sound familiar? Still think you've won the argument?

Haven't we been through that before? �

Yes and every time you have to ignore the facts and pretend them away.
Not a sign of a scientific person, more the sign of a religious one.

I've ignored no facts, pretended nothing away, graduated
Summa Cum Laud with several science degrees, and am
an atheist. Gee, you can't get a ~solitary thing~ right,
can you...?

How about breath control. �What shall
I tell my neighbor about his rock-diving dog? �Shall I tell him
that the dog is in serious danger? �What's the LCA for my
neighbor and his dog? �Too bad, Algis, your assertion
remains unsupported.

We evolved from apes, not dogs.

Gee thanks, Algis, I sure blew that one. Now can
we get around to the point? The dog is diving for
rocks --in the lake. Is he breathing water? Should
I call a rescue squad? He's a quadruped. Maybe
I should whisper in his ear that he needs to stand up.
Any more stupid diversions?

The amazing bonobo Kanzi, which was
able to learn the most incredible symbolic communication skills, could
not even be taught to say "banana". Voluntary breath control is
clearly the key differnce. If you read any book on language origins
(e.g. Robbins Burling's "The Talking Ape") you' dsee that there is,
again, no contention from the field here. The only contention one ever
finds is from aquasceptics because they know that to concede any
ground at all would be heretical to their group

The dog holds his breath. There. I was hoping you
could be persuaded to look at it but I finally had to
say it myself. He's doing it voluntarily, too. And as
you so rightly pointed out, he is not a primate. Hmmm,
perhaps voluntary breath control isn't the sole purview
of the primates then, eh?

Wildebeests are not apes. They did not evolve from large, arboreal
primates that had a propensity to upright posture.

No kidding. �That's a convenient hustle when you need it.
How about when you're looking to explain "..longer legs, flatter feet
and a more upright posture.."?
And it's a convenient dodge. �If wildebeests are drowning
by the hundreds, and thousands ~annually~, where is the
selection for *anything* amongst them?

I use the same argument. Compared to apes we have longer legs, flatter
feet etc. I use the same argument every time. Humans, compared to our
ape cousins, are clearly waterside adapted.

But they do swim, right? I mean isn't that one of your usual dumb
arguments: "Wildebeests can swim too, so does that make them aquatic?"

No, that's your argument: "Humans can swim, so that makes them
aquatic."
Recognize it?

They are regularly exposed to the risk of drowning and, guess what,
they can swim. Chimpanzees, bonobos, orang-utans and all the species
of gibbon do not swim so it seems very unlikely that they were exposed
to the same risk. We can though - so what does that tell you?

It tells me that the apes have been in the trees and that
we've been on the ground. Any more questions?

Easy, Michael. You are really easy to answer..

You haven't answered me yet.

Over and over again, I kick your weak arguments into touch.

You have done nothing of the sort and to think so
is to be deluded.

Not an idiot, no. Just someone that has been so exposed to the usual
misrepresentations he has never grasped what was being proposed or, if
he has, he's too worried about his reputation to go public on them.

Oh, of course not. �He's human after all and can't think for
himself. �He's been deluded, ~brainwashed~, and threatened
by the vast, terrestrial conspiracy to keep his secret desires
and wants to himself.

Not brainwashed. Why do you always have to try to twist my words? Oh
yeah, I know, becauise that's the only way you can convince yourself
that you can beat my arguments. I am not saying there was any
conspiracy actually. I've said this 100 times although you have to
keep trying to pretend I am. It's not really an honest approach. I
prefer Hanlon's razor. I've said this before: Don't assume a
conspiracy when you haven't first ruled out stupidity. Now "stupidity"
here, doesn't mean any individual, but the peer review process itself.
It's clearly evolved to allow new ideas to be censored from getting
into the literature and being openly discussed by a self-appointed
clique.

Yea, all your critics are stupid. And so is the peer-review
process. I can see now how you've been so misunderstood.
Too bad you don't speak the English language so that you
could explain to the rest of the world just why you've swallowed
this whole line of hooey. Oh, you do speak it? Why haven't
I seen you string any meaningful sentences together, then?

Even Richard Dawkins, my hero, is guilty of the same.

What, did RD say something against the AAH?
I'd ask if you were getting any of this but I already
know the answer to that question.

He's never said anything against the so-called "aquatic ape
hypothesis" (better named waterside hypotheses - plural because there
are several - of human evolution) as far as I know. I'd happily tell
you if I did because then I could add him to a list of people who are
going to be very embarassed when the truth comes out. I think Richard
Dawkins is far to smart to say anything so stupid.

Please add me to your list of people "who are
going to be very embarassed..." I'd much rather
be there than in the list of people who think humans
are bipeds because chimps can't swim.

He did write this though:
�Other hypotheses of bipedal evolution invoke the benefits of height,
perhaps standing upright to look over the long grass; or to keep the
head above the water whilst wading. This last is the imaginative idea
'aquatic ape' theory of Alister Hardy, ably championed by Elaine
Morgan.� Dawkins (2004:82)

I'll say it's an "imaginative idea".

Dawkins, Richard (2004). The Ancestor's Tales. Weidenfeld and Nicolson
(London)

Elaine told me that she once sat next to him at a dinner and he was
similarly open about it. He suggested that tactically she'd been wrong
to attack an entire field and, instead, should have attacked an
individual. I think he has a point but then again there are so many
individuals to attack it's hard to know where to start.

Attack? That's funny. Be sure to bring something
besides a wet noodle, OK?

The reason I said Dawkins was guilty of "the same" is that in several
of his books (e.g. Ancestor's Tale) he sometimes makes the usual
assumption of a savannah past. I'm also disappointed with his rather
weak view on bipedal origins - a meme that just caught on. For such an
adaptationist as he, I think he could do much better.

I (and others) don't think it's an assumption. It's a conclusion
based on the preponderance of the evidence. That you
and Marco conflate the origins of bipedalism with the
crucible of the savanna is your loss. Like some blind
little puppy dog, you're barking up the wrong tree.

That's really funny --you, telling Dawkins that he could
do much better. You couldn't shine his shoes.

I must say, in the 4 odd years you've been gone,
you haven't learned a damn thing. And the arrogance
is misplaced, Algis. Some people have earned the
right. You haven't.

Algis Kuliukas

"The bigotry and wilfull ignorance of
some people, apparently, has no limit."
--A. Kuliukas, 09/29/2004

Ask Algis about food-carrying hypothesis.

Then ask him why those famous bipedal Planckendael bonobos waded into
the moat...

The ability for self-delusion clearly knows no bounds.
Algis Kuliukas 13-Oct-2004
.

Quantcast