Re: David Attenborough reporting chimp wading (and supporting a waterside model for human evolution)

On Jun 27, 10:12 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The fact that they spent only 0.37% of their time in the water is also
an "obvious point". So is the fact that they were bipedal 3-5 times as
much of the time out of the water than in. The fact that most of the
time they were bipedal in the water they were attempting to pick up
food is a less obvious point, but it is still a point of fact.

Yes it's obvious but it's also obvious that if a similar group of apes
lived in habitats that were flooded then they'd move bipedally most of
the time. (e.g. bonobos 24% bipedality Jo Myers Thompson.) Clearly
chimps and bonobos don't like getting into the water - that's why zoos
tend to put a moat around their enclosures - but it's even clearer
that if they have no choice they DO go in... and they go in and stay
bipedally when they do so.

Their reasons for going in water would largely be to do with
collecting food, I accept, but it would not be universal. The point
that you still haven't conceded is that my study showed that it was
the movement in water (and not the carrying) which resulted in a
switch to bipedalism... on land before getting the food (quadrupedal),
in water appraoching the food (bipedal), moving out of the water
carrying the food (bipedal) on land, with the food (quadrupedal).

The real point is that the importance of "92% bipedal in the water" is
an interpretation (yours), one of several viable interpretations, but
the one on which you have chosen to construct a large percentage of
your hypothesis. I'd venture to interpret that 92% of your hypothesis
is based on evidence that 0.37% of your paleoanthropological peers
would accept as valid.

If I was doing my PhD in Belgium I could have studied them for two-
three years and I'd have got a similar result. (There were several
post grad students observing them for diffrent reasons who had been
watching them for a long time and they told me it always happenned
like that - on land quadrupedal, in water bipedal - again and again
and again.) But you're not disputing that, are you? (at least I hope
not.) What your claiming as your 'big' fact is that they still spend
most of their time on land. Well BFD, I know that. I'm not claiming
that bonobos ARE bipedal, they're great apes. The whole point is to
consider an evolutionary scenario where a great ape ancestor of ours
is MORE LIKELY to move bipedally. That's what shallow water does, it
gets apes to move bipedally. How can such a simple, satisfying
explanation that clearly helps solve the biggest riddle in
anthropology for 150 years be resisted by people who claim to be
scientific? Because it would mean they'd have to admit to being wrong
and clearly to these people being "right" personally, today, is more
important that science being right in the long run. Some "scientists"
they are.

It ~is~ suggesting that a) wading was the evolutionary driving force
for bipedalism, and b) that this in some way provides support for a
putative aquatic origin. On ~extremely~ flimsy evidence.

Yes but it's thr MEDIUM that compels the bipedalism, not the food. No
matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise the evidence is clearly
against you. Please just concede that.

I didn't deny it, I asked if you or anyone had seen it happen. And I
also posted that I stand corrected in reply. However do not kid
yourself, it does not bring you any closer to having made your case.

Well thanks for that, at least. I think it just adds yet more evidence
onto something that is overwhelmingly ovious to anyone who is
objective. Wading HELPS explain hominin bipedal origins better than
any other model.

I don't deny evidence. I deny spurious interpretations of
inconsequential evidence, especially those made by sad fools who can't
cope with their own failure in life.

What could be better evidence for a model of bipedal origins than to
say "take a group of great apes and put them in scenario x and they
WILL move bipedally, unsupported, for as long as the conditions
prevail"? How can this be construed as "spurious" or
"inconsequential"?

Ad hominem noted. It's really all you can do, at the end. Attack the
messenger because the message is irresistable.

... which yours doesn't [guarantee extant ape bipedalism]...

Oh, but it DOES, easily: Put a group of apes in a tank of waist deep
water and they WILL move bipedally for as long as the condition
prevail. If they moved quadrupedally they would DIE. Which other model
can say that?

... see, you have a habit of ramping up your ridiculous claims further
and further with every strident squawk ...

"ridiculous" claims? They are simple observable, repeatable facts. You
clearly just don't like being wrong. Shame.

If you ever come back with a hypothesis that fits any of those
descriptions, reapply for your PhD...

The hypothesis does and I might...

My new sig:
92% of Algis' hypothesis is based on evidence that 0.37% of his
paleoanthropological peers would accept as valid.

Odd sig. My masters thesis (including the 92% figure) won me a
distinction. Leslie Aiello said she thought that part was one of the
best pieces of work she'd ever seen at that level .

Algis Kuliukas

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... The earliest evidence for hominid bipedalism is ... wading apears to have been highly likely. ... from moving in water might have influenced our evolution. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is Oreopithicus the Aquatic Ape Link?
    ... >> phenotype more than it has with our nearest cousins, the apes. ... >> the quality of evidence, methods etc of proponents and reject good ... our bipedalism in such places. ... shallow water and did so bipedally. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Gorrillas use tools, too
    ... >>> universal ape behavior in spite of contrary evidence that it is not so ... > quadrupedally wading apes in shallow water. ... > shallow water waderp-ape being bipedal is drawn into question. ... >>> favoring obligate bipedalism. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Tobias 1995
    ... If the apes had access to the same amount of water time and didn't ... X *if* they were wading more...then bipedalism was the result. ... Tracks are primary evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • MV is the most published author on sap
    ... We *know* apes are most predictably bipedal in waist ... reduces drag in water. ... *only* model that *is* supported by any kind of evidence. ... muddy ground - they have a greater tendency to bipedalism than on dry ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)