Re: new description of the AAT group


Mr. Verhagen:

Quite frankly the tree of life on earth is all so interwining and
extremely complex I find it highly doubtful archeologists and molecular
biologists will ever be able to completely make heads and tails of it.
I'm referring how since the beginning of life species have been
connected, diverged, re-connected, etc. That is not to say some things
won't be settled beyond the shadow of a doubt but it will be like tiny
slivers. Some scientists would dispute this. By no means do I say that
in a defeatist way and I know scientists will continue to make amazing
and interesting discoveries which add to our knowledge.

Regarding the fossil record of Hominds I came across this. Fifteen (so
far) different Hominid species:

Origins of Humankind




Fossils Reveal the Story of Our Relatives

In the 8 million years or so since the earliest ancestors of humans
diverged from the apes, at least a dozen humanlike species, called
hominids, have lived on Earth. And this list is getting longer. As
scientists discover new fossils, the hominid family tree grows new
branches.

But fossils are often difficult to categorize neatly as one species or
another. Like all creatures, no two individual hominid species were
exactly alike. And over the millions of years most of the species
existed, hominids changed; they evolved; some diverged and became new
species.

This is the story of our distant relatives, as told by the fossil
record.



A -
Orrorin tugenensis
(6 mya)

B -
Ardipithecus ramidus
(4.4 mya)

C -
Australopithecus anamensis
(4.2 to 3.9 mya)

D -
Australopithecus afarensis
(3.6 to 2.9 mya)

E -
Kenyanthropus platyops
(3.5 to 3.3 mya)

F -
Australopithecus africanus
(3 to 2 mya)

G -
Australopithecus aethiopicus
(2.7 to 2.3 mya)

H -
Australopithecus garhi
(2.5 mya)

I -
Australopithecus boisei
(2.3 to 1.4 mya)

J -
Homo habilis
(2.3 to 1.6 mya)

K -
Homo erectus
(1.8 to 0.3 mya)

L -
Australopithecus robustus
(1.8 to 1.5 mya)

M -
Homo heidelbergensis
(600 to 100 tya)

N -
Homo neanderthalensis
(250 to 30 tya)

O -
Homo sapiens
(100 tya to present)



mya = millions of years ago tya = thousands of years ago






The Hominid Family Tree

At first glance, it seems there are far more questions than answers
regarding the relationships among species on the hominid family tree.
The graphic above plots 15 different species along a timeline spanning
6 million years, and it depicts, with connecting lines, how some
scientists think these species relate to one another (see if the URL at
bottom works. They often don't). A few relationships are clear. For
instance, there is consensus among scientists that the three most
recent species of hominids (Homo heidelbergensis, Homo
neanderthalensis, and modern humans, Homo sapiens) all evolved from an
earlier species called Homo erectus. But other relationships are
murkier.

Indeed, our view of the origins of humankind is incomplete, and the
search for pieces to the puzzle continues. But to view the question
marks on the hominid family tree merely as gaps in our knowledge belies
the reality of evolution. Hominid species were changing over periods of
hundreds of thousands of years, adapting to new environmental
conditions. And so, given that the present fossil record gives us only
a glimpse of these evolving species, it's very difficult -- even
unnatural -- to identify exactly when a species "became" something
else. (Through advances in molecular biology this theoretically may be
possible).

In order to begin to understand human evolution, however, scientists
have had to take the fossils they have, analyze them, and categorize
them based on similarities and differences. In this way, they are able
to find trends among the species and a better understanding of how they
came to be. In this way they have allowed us a glimpse into our ancient
past -- a glimpse that will undoubtedly become clearer in years to
come.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ humans/humankind/low_bandwidth.html


(Of course, this article slights the "new" Homind species of "little
people".)

The little people of Flores, Indonesia

October 2004

At the end of October 2004 the front pages of newspapers world-wide
carried a major geoscientific story; not about some natural disaster
but the discovery of astonishingly tiny people who shared an island
with us "big 'uns" not so long ago. They were not pygmies, but an
entirely different hominin species from ours (Brown, P et al . 2004. A
new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores,
Indonesia. Nature, v. 431, p. 1055-1061; Morwood, M.J. et al . 2004.
Archaeology and age of a new hominin from Flores in eastern Indonesia.
Nature, v. 431, p. 1087-1091). That the species came to light at all is
down to the skill of Indonesian archaeologist Thomas Sutikna and his
team of workers, who found the most important remains. The bones had
the consistency of putty, because the find was made in a cave in humid
tropical rain forest and fossilisation had not begun. By being treating
with a glue, oddly known as "Tarzan's Grip" the remains survived
excavation to be analysed in the lab. About one third the size of a
modern human's, the skull was at first suspected to be that of an
infant Homo sapiens . Even cursory examination proved beyond doubt that
it was not. It carries worn adult molars, has no chin and possesses
clear brow ridges. Limb bones suggest a stature around 1 metre (by far
the smallest member of the human family), with proportionately longer
arms than ours. Leaving aside the sheer tinyness of this roughly
20-year old female, these features most resemble Asian H. erectus ,
whose remains from mainland Asia and the larger Indonesian islands date
from before 1.5 Ma to possibly as late as 20 ka.

Dates from the whole suite of Homo floresiensis remains show a
remarkably long occupation of Flores, certainly for most of the last
glacial period until 18 ka, and perhaps extending back 840 thousand
years and to as recent as the early Holocene. For the later part of
their occupancy members of H . floresiensis must have shared the
densely forested island with modern people, who arrived there between
35 to 55 ka ago. How the little people arrived is a problem. Unlike the
western Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Java, which would have been
connected to Asia by land bridges during periods of glacial low sea
levels, Flores and the eastern Indonesian chain of small islands are
surrounded by water that is deeper than 200 metres. Even the greatest
extent of continental ice during the Pleistocene could not have drawn
off enough sea water to create a dry passage from Java, and Flores is
not adjacent to that known home of H. erectus , but separated from it
by the islands of Sumbawa and Komodo, and more deep channels. Together
with the hominin remains in the cave are bones of the notorious Komodo
Dragon, rats as big as dogs and minuscule elephants, so the original
colonisers could have drifted from Java on floating vegetation rafts in
the same way as the precursors of these other animals. Unlike rats,
monitor lizards and elephants, it is unlikely that they swam the
necessary 150 km, and there are no records of pre-modern human boats.
Whatever, new arrivals on small islands find totally different
conditions from those on larger ones or continents. Potential food is
limited, yet predators are fewer. There is a well-known tendency for
evolutionary miniaturisation of larger mammals, the tiny elephant
Stegodon found in the same cave being a case in point. In general it is
reckoned that small-island mammals tend towards a size that is
equivalent to a very large rabbit. Not so for lizards, and the Komodo
Dragon, still a terrifying predator on the eponymous island, would have
been top of the food chain on Flores.

Another puzzling feature of H. floresiensis is that despite having
brains the size of a grapefruit (roughly the size of those of
australopithecines), they seem to have used both sophisticated tools
and fire. They were not dim-witted. Their overlap with modern humans
for so long is also intriguing. In Europe the Neanderthals, physically
more than a match for any modern human, drifted to extinction within
about 5 thousand years after first encounters. On Flores, the truly
diminutive H. floresiensis clung on for far longer, possibly because
resources were much richer than in frigid high latitudes. Local people
throughout eastern Indonesia today tell legends of the little people
they call Ebo Go Go . Perhaps they survived into far more recent times.
Undoubtedly, the dense forests and innumerable caves of the island
chain may have other surprises in store. For the moment, there can be
none greater than finding that modern humans walked the Earth with at
least two other human species not that long ago. Nor is that of
scientific interest alone. As the editorial in New Scientist of 30
October 2004 observes, "... Homo floresiensis throws into doubt many
of our assumptions about intelligence". They lived just as
successfully as modern human colonisers of Flores for tens of thousands
of years, despite the competition and possibly worse. So brain size may
not be the key to cleverness on which we pride ourselves. Nor are we as
unique as we generally suppose. As with Tolkien's hobbits, we should be
humbled by their tenacity.

At this time you are probably perplexed as to what all this has to do
with AAT and where I'm going. I'll try to explain. You state, "AAT =
shoreline adaptations in the genus Homo = about Homo after the split
with Pan.

* Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term of E. Morgan
1982)
* Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes (aqua =water, arbor
=tree)
* Amphibious Ancestors Theory of Plio-Pleistocene Homo (AAT strict
sense)
AAT s.s. (based on the behavior, anatomy, physiology & DNA of living
humans
compared to other animals) says that sea/lake-side ancestors collected
coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae etc. This

explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes or apiths) better than
plains-
or forest-dwelling scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing
control, vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent,
longer airway, projecting nose, poor sense of smell, handiness, tool
use,
late puberty, long legs, aligned body, poor climbing, fatness, fur
loss,
high needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.

In the fossil & archeological record, we see this in the
Plio-Pleistocene
diaspora of Homo populations along the Indian Ocean, African coasts,
Rift
valley lakes etc. (eg, R.Dennell 2003 JHE 45:421, M.Trauth cs.2005
Science),
& probably from there inland along rivers etc. Homo much more than
apith
remains have been found (in spite of sea level fluctuations) amid
shells,
corals & barnacles throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts al over the
Old
World: Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea, incl.islands that
could
only be reached by sea: Flores 0.8 Ma."

First of all, your making several assumptions without any scientific
evidence to back them up. For example, you state "brain size, diving
skills, breathing control, vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles,
tongue bone descent, longer airway, projecting nose, poor sense of
smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty, long legs, aligned body, poor
climbing, fatness, fur loss,
high needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids
etc.are apparently due to solely to an acquatic environment. I'm
willing to say some of these characteristics we owe to our acquatic
environment as we "evolved" out of that environment. Natural selection
retained some. But I don't believe we totally evolved into a mammal and
primate i.e. a Hominid while being constantly or frequently in the
water. My own belief is we "evolved" from tree dwelling shrews or
something like them. Of course, evolution occurs on a continuum and
before we were in the trees we were on the land, water, land, etc.,
etc.

You state, " Homo much more than apith remains have been found (in
spite of sea level fluctuations) amid shells,
corals & barnacles throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts al over the
Old World: Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea, incl.islands
that could only be reached by sea: Flores 0.8 Ma." Well apes aren't
Hominids are they even if we share a few things in common. Finding more
Homo than apith remains amid shells, corals and barnacles throughout
the Pleistocene (I'll have to research how long that age was) only
suggest Homo lived closer to the shoreline than apes. Not in the water.

You write, "AAT s.s. (based on the behavior, anatomy, physiology & DNA
of living humans compared to other animals) says that sea/lake-side
ancestors collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles, shell-,
crayfish, algae etc." Do you dispute the Bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee is
our closest living genetic relative? Is the Bonobo a sea/lake-side
primate? It happens to live left of the Congo river but would you
describe the Bonobo as falling in line with AAT?

I think AATs needs to change its orientation and really try to
scientifically focus just how we evolved out of the oceans and evolved
into a primate. I think this is a potential field for marine biologists
and those who do dolphin and whale research as well as other research.
I would change it to ATE (acquatic theory of evolution).

Sincerely,
Michael Ragland


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: new description of the AAT group
    ... Fifteen different Hominid species: ... the hominid family tree grows new branches. ... AAT is not about hominids, but about Homo, not about the last 8 ... AAT and where I'm going. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Savanna Theory ridiculous nonsense
    ... with later Homo. ... Although the two earliest species of Homo, ... produced a new species of Australopithecus and hominid postcranial ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Faster Than A Hyena?
    ... that all species of homo, including the early/questionable ones, were ... niche from later ... community vs. community competition) that accelerated hominid ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Too funny: CreationWiki takes a spoof as real
    ... Piltdown Man was a hoax, and is not a species of hominid. ... The Australopithicines, Homo habilus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Clam bake: another disproof for AAT
    ... The Homo maxilla AL 666, dated to 2.3 Ma, along with a stone tool assemblage ... was recovered from deposits of the Hadar ... Fish and gastropods, ... Homo erectus Waterside hominid ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)