Is man the aquatic ape?

[Fatherjohn]

I just learned of an interesting theory -- that people spent
part of our evolutionary history as water-dwellers. This is
confirmed by the ease with which people learn to swim, our
hairiness etc. Any thoughts?

[Marc Verha]

"fatherjohn" <fatherjohn@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:9dcec572.0307191516.d674b6e@posting.google.com...

> I just learned of an interesting theory -- that people spent
> part of our
evolutionary history as water-dwellers. This is confirmed by
the ease with which people learn to swim, our hairiness etc.
Any thoughts?

:-D Father John, from which planet do you come? Already in
:1960 Alister
Hardy in a famous article in New Scientist asked "Was Man more
aquatic in the past?" He described how a sea-side life -
wading, swimming, collecting coconuts, shellfish, turtles &
turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc. - explains many
human traits (absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) a
lot better than dry savanna scenarios do: very large brain
(but reduced olfactory bulb), greater breathing control,
well-developed vocality, extreme handiness & tool use,
reduction of climbing skills, reduction of fur, more
subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body build, high
needs of iodine, sodium & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.
Hardy was only wrong in thinking his seaside phase happened
c.10 Ma. More likely it happened during the Ice Ages: early
Pleistocene Homo fossils or tools have been found in Israel,
Algeria, Kenya, Georgia, Java. When sea levels dropped,
H.ergaster followed the Mediterranean
(pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian Ocean coasts (erectus).
Pleistocene coasts during the glacial periods were some 120 m
below the present sea level, so many fossil & archeological
finds show the inland Homo populations that entered the
continents along the rivers & wetlands. In spite of this, Homo
remains (but not australopithecine) have frequently been found
amid shells, corals, barnacles etc., throughout the
Pleistocene, in coasts all over the Old World (eg, Mojokerto,
Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on islands that could
only be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma). So far, no arguments
against these ideas have been forwarded.

Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

[Patrick Ja]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:16:52 -0500, fatherjohn wrote (in
message <9dcec572.0307191516.d674b6e@posting.google.com>):

> I just learned of an interesting theory -- that people spent
> part of our evolutionary history as water-dwellers. This is
> confirmed by the ease with which people learn to swim, our
> hairiness etc. Any thoughts?

That should bring Marc V out of the the woodwork... <checks
downthread> yep, it did. Same ol', same ol', too.

--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[Gerrit Han]

"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote:

>> I just learned of an interesting theory -- that people
>> spent part of our
>evolutionary history as water-dwellers. This is confirmed by
>the ease with which people learn to swim, our hairiness etc.
>Any thoughts?

>:-D Father John, from which planet do you come? Already in
>:1960 Alister
>Hardy in a famous article in New Scientist asked "Was Man
>more aquatic in the past?"

<snip>

>So far, no arguments against these ideas have been forwarded.

If you had even a single thread of honesty in you you would
have said that the theory is controversial given the amount
and character of exchange on the subject in this newsgroup
ever since its origin. Your credibility has reached zero.

Gerrit

[Michael Cl]

"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in
message news:3p1lhvosmbvqbs07ng6v8gh3h2ol71tmk5@4ax.com...
> "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> >> I just learned of an interesting theory -- that people
> >> spent part of our
> >evolutionary history as water-dwellers. This is confirmed
> >by the ease with which people learn to swim, our hairiness
> >etc. Any thoughts?
>
> >:-D Father John, from which planet do you come? Already in
> >:1960 Alister
> >Hardy in a famous article in New Scientist asked "Was Man
> >more aquatic in the past?"
>
> <snip>
>
> >So far, no arguments against these ideas have been
> >forwarded.
>
> If you had even a single thread of honesty in you you would
> have said that the theory is controversial given the amount
> and character of exchange on the subject in this newsgroup
> ever since its origin. Your credibility has reached zero.

Verhaegen had credibility?

> Gerrit
--
Hey Marco. Got that A'pith menu yet?

[R Norman]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:31:55 +0200, Gerrit Hanenburg
<G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote:

>"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>>> I just learned of an interesting theory -- that people
>>> spent part of our
>>evolutionary history as water-dwellers. This is confirmed by
>>the ease with which people learn to swim, our hairiness etc.
>>Any thoughts?
>
>>:-D Father John, from which planet do you come? Already in
>>:1960 Alister
>>Hardy in a famous article in New Scientist asked "Was Man
>>more aquatic in the past?"
>
><snip>
>
>>So far, no arguments against these ideas have been
>>forwarded.
>
>If you had even a single thread of honesty in you you would
>have said that the theory is controversial given the amount
>and character of exchange on the subject in this newsgroup
>ever since its origin. Your credibility has reached zero.
>
>Gerrit

I am an interested and somewhat knowledgeable observer (a
biologist, but not a paleontologist) and I really am curious
about the status of the aquatic ape concept. Please -- this is
a naive, but serious question, so no culture wars or flames.

I have read Elaine Morgan and was completely unconvinced, but
that is not a technical scientific presentation. I have done a
search on PubMed (which is certainly not the best place to
search anthropology or paleontology) and found not a lot of
current research papers that seem to bear on this topic. There
is Langdon's (J Hum Evol. 1997 Oct;33(4):479-94.) rather harsh
criticism and a number of Verhaegen's works (Med Hypotheses.
1991 Jun;35(2):108-14).

Is this really an area of research or controversy in
anthropology? Is there anyone besides Verhaegen who actively
proposes the aquatic ape concept? That is, is it truly a
viable theory for which there are opposing camps or is it
(excuse me, Marc, but this is what is seems like) -- Verhaegen
against the world? Not that there is anything wrong with that
-- science is replete with outsiders proving themselves right
eventually. Look at continental drift, for example.

[Marc Verha]

"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in
message news:3p1lhvosmbvqbs07ng6v8gh3h2ol71tmk5@4ax.com...

> >> I just learned of an interesting theory -- that people
> >> spent part of
our evolutionary history as water-dwellers. This is confirmed
by the ease with >which people learn to swim, our hairiness
etc. Any thoughts?

> >:-D Father John, from which planet do you come? Already
> >:in 1960
Alister Hardy in a famous article in New Scientist asked "Was
Man more aquatic in the past?" ... So far, no arguments
against these ideas have been forwarded.

> If you had even a single thread of honesty in you you would
> have said that
the theory is controversial given the amount and character of
exchange on the subject in this newsgroup ever since its
origin. Your credibility has reached zero. Gerrit

Gerrit, jongen... If you had even a single thread of honesty
in you you would have said that you have not 1 single argument
against our scenario.
:-D

[Gerrit Han]

"Michael Clark" <biteme@spammer.com> wrote:

>> If you had even a single thread of honesty in you you would
>> have said that the theory is controversial given the amount
>> and character of exchange on the subject in this newsgroup
>> ever since its origin. Your credibility has reached zero.

>Verhaegen had credibility?

I've been around in this newsgroup since 1995. There hardly
has been day without AAT (or whatever it is called nowadays)
being discussed in some context. Hundreds of arguments have
been put forward. Just check the archives at:

http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/sci.anthrop-
ology.paleo/archive/index.html

and

http://groups.google.com/groups?group=sci.anthropology

I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man get and after all that
maintain that "So far, no arguments against these ideas have
been forwarded"

Gerrit

[Philip Dei]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 09:46:45 -0400, r norman
<rsnorman_@_comcast.net> wrote:

>I have read Elaine Morgan and was completely unconvinced, but
>that is not a technical scientific presentation.

Correct, extremely soft science.

> I have done a search on PubMed (which is certainly not the
> best place to search anthropology or paleontology) and found
> not a lot of current research papers that seem to bear on
> this topic. There is Langdon's (J Hum Evol. 1997
> Oct;33(4):479-94.) rather harsh criticism and a number of
> Verhaegen's works (Med Hypotheses. 1991 Jun;35(2):108-14).

This paper is disappointing for me, Langdon does tend to
exaggerate and he retorts with his Neonotony theory which I
find as 'off the wall' as aquatic ape. It is more
propoganda than good science, and Langdon should have taken
the high road.

>Is this really an area of research or controversy in
>anthropology? Is there anyone besides Verhaegen who actively
>proposes the aquatic ape concept?

Well, I think even Verhaegen has back off the 'Ape' and now
has moved it into the realm of aquatic episodes. Many of the
critiques I made several years ago he has changed his thinking
to bring it into the realm of very weak plausibility versus
absolute impossibility.

The basic issue is diverticulations of evolution, not whether
it is possible, but whether populations would swing into a
diverticulative lifestyle for a time on the path to
generalization versus a path toward generalization. A scale
down version of aquatic theory is plausible, not as an
explanation of hairlessness or S.C. fat, but things like
breath control and swimming ability may have been important
during the more recent phases of human evolution. The
molecular data does not deny this. While the anthropologist
keep talking about savannahs and african plain hunters, the
molecular data keeps hitting the biaka pygmies as a plausible
pMRCA of all humans within the context of a small population.
These are deep woodland dwelling peoples who may have invented
very primative boat technologies to get around the northern
congo region. In fact the rate of expansion out of africa
toward the east and the presense and culture of peoples all
over the world infer that humans had an early, if not weak,
maritime capability. As a result we can put the aquatic
diverticulation into the context of craft building for the
sake of expanding generalist culture, and ability to transit
between different grounds. Aquatic ability would then be in
support of this new technology and in its own right might have
also served as a means of harvesting nutrients on occasion
that earlier protohumans might have avoided.

I think that this would be the practical limit of assertion of
aquatic ability. I don't see a spike in ability from a million
years ago, but more like a blip in ability within the last 300
ky. But when this discussion started out here several years
ago they were talking about swimming apiths 3 to 5 million
years ago with many of the attributes mentioned by Langdon.
The discussion of both the early times and wild behaviors has
subsided so that maybe there is hope that MV and company will
eventually evolve this idea into a more plausible realm.

[Marc Verha]

"Michael Clark" <biteme@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:vhl62pi55rph27@corp.supernews.com...

> Got that A'pith menu yet?

Still not found? I'll help you a bit. M.Verhaegen, P-F.Puech &
S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 17:212-7 http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/lates-
t?pii=S0169534702024904&node=TOC%4 %40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05
Our tooth microwear studies indicate that
A.afarensis molar enamel has a glossy polished surface that is
typical of the molars of capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris
and mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa (24). Both these
semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs, grasses
and the bark of young trees. The microwear of
Australopithecus boisei displays more pits, wide parallel
striations and deep-recessed occlusal dentine features when
compared to A.afarensis (25,26), resembling that of beavers
Castor fiber, which feed on riverine herbs, roots of
water-lilies, bark and woody plants. Apparently, an early
australopith diet of fruits (larger front-teeth) and swamp
herbs (polishing) was supplemented with woody plants in the
robust australopiths (more wear). Walker's suggestion that
A.boisei were bulk-eaters of "small, hard fruits with
casings, pulp, seeds and all"(27) could explain the
deep-recessed dentine, but not the heavily polished enamel
that is typical of marsh-plant feeders (24,25). (3-4) These
microwear data are consistent with two studies on
South-African australopiths (28,29). Sillen provides three
possibilities for low strontium:calcium ratios in
A.robustus: partial carnivory; eating leaves and shoots of
forbs and woody plants; and eating food derived from
well-drained streamside soils (28). Sponheimer and Lee-Thorp
state that A.africanus "ate not only fruits and leaves but
also large quantities of carbon-13-enriched foods such as
grasses and sedges or animals that ate these plants, or
both"(29). However, regular consumption of savannah grasses
is incompatible with the polished, rounded microwear (24,29)
and predominant meat eating is unlikely in view of the blunt
molars27. More probable is a diet of sedges and other
marshland plants supplemented with fruits and animals (e.g.
tools attributed to A.robustus now suggest termite-eating
(30)). Independent lines of evidence thus suggest that
different australopith species regularly waded for
shallow-water plants, possibly like lowland gorillas do
today (15), only much more frequently. Papyrus or reed
sedges were abundant in australopith environments (Table 2)
and are part of the diet of extant hominids. Gorillas eat
bamboo shoots and stalks, as well as swamp herbs and sedges
(Table 1); all hominids eat cane; bipedally wading
chimpanzees and humans collect water-lilies; and rice
growing in shallow water and other cereals are staple foods
for humans.

[Richard Wa]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> "Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote
> in message
> news:3p1lhvosmbvqbs07ng6v8gh3h2ol71tmk5@4ax.com...
>
> > >> I just learned of an interesting theory -- that people
> > >> spent part of
> our evolutionary history as water-dwellers. This is
> confirmed by the ease with >which people learn to swim, our
> hairiness etc. Any thoughts?
>
> > >:-D Father John, from which planet do you come? Already
> > >:in 1960
> Alister Hardy in a famous article in New Scientist asked
> "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" ... So far, no arguments
> against these ideas have been forwarded.
>
> > If you had even a single thread of honesty in you you
> > would have said that
> the theory is controversial given the amount and character
> of exchange on the subject in this newsgroup ever since its
> origin. Your credibility has reached zero. Gerrit
>
> Gerrit, jongen... If you had even a single thread of honesty
> in you you would have said that you have not 1 single
> argument against our scenario.
> :-D

Fortunately there is the archive.........

Rick Wagler

[Lorenzo L.]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote
> in message
> news:3p1lhvosmbvqbs07ng6v8gh3h2ol71tmk5@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>>I just learned of an interesting theory -- that people
>>>>spent part of
>>>
> our evolutionary history as water-dwellers. This is
> confirmed by the ease with >which people learn to swim, our
> hairiness etc. Any thoughts?
>
>
>>>:-D Father John, from which planet do you come? Already
>>>:in 1960
>>
> Alister Hardy in a famous article in New Scientist asked
> "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" ... So far, no arguments
> against these ideas have been forwarded.
>
>
>>If you had even a single thread of honesty in you you would
>>have said that
>
> the theory is controversial given the amount and character
> of exchange on the subject in this newsgroup ever since its
> origin. Your credibility has reached zero. Gerrit
>
> Gerrit, jongen... If you had even a single thread of honesty
> in you you would have said that you have not 1 single
> argument against our scenario.
> :-D
>
>

Main Entry: psy·cho·sis Pronunciation: sI-'kO-s&s Function:
noun Inflected Form(s): plural psy·cho·ses /-"sEz/ Etymology:
New Latin Date: 1847
: fundamental mental derangement (as schizophrenia)
: characterized by
defective or lost contact with reality

© 1999 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"One must not assume that an understanding of science is
present in those who borrow its language" Louis Pasteur

[Gerrit Han]

"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote:

>>If you had even a single thread of honesty in you you would
>>have said that the theory is controversial given the amount
>>and character of exchange on the subject in this newsgroup
>>ever since its origin. Your credibility has reached zero.

>Gerrit, jongen... If you had even a single thread of honesty
>in you you would have said that you have not 1 single
>argument against our scenario.
>:-D

Try and make me play that silly game.

Gerrit

[Marc Verha]

"r norman" <rsnorman_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uo6lhvo0nh6pq6n2hc9cigngo3c015fp5c@4ax.com...

> I am an interested and somewhat knowledgeable observer (a
> biologist, but
not a paleontologist) and I really am curious about the status
of the aquatic ape concept. Please -- this is a naive, but
serious question, so no culture wars or flames. I have read
Elaine Morgan and was completely unconvinced, but that is not
a technical scientific presentation. I have done a search on
PubMed (which is certainly not the best place to search
anthropology or paleontology) and found not a lot of current
research papers that seem to bear on this topic. There is
Langdon's (J Hum Evol. 1997 Oct;33(4):479-94.) rather harsh
criticism and a number of Verhaegen's works (Med Hypotheses.
1991 Jun;35(2):108-14).

My Med.Hyp.papers are very speculative. Still essentially
correct IMO (at least, I can't find good counter-arguments),
although sometimes exaggerated perhaps. But even without
believing everything I'm saying in these papers, it's obvious
that AAT in one form or another is correct: there's no doubt
whatsoever that human ancestors were waterside once, although
the details are much less obvious.

> Is this really an area of research or controversy in
> anthropology? Is
there anyone besides Verhaegen who actively proposes the
aquatic ape concept? That is, is it truly a viable theory for
which there are opposing camps or is it (excuse me, Marc, but
this is what is seems like) -- Verhaegen against the world?
Not that there is anything wrong with that -- science is
replete with outsiders proving themselves right eventually.
Look at continental drift, for example.

:-) No, it's no me against the rest, see, eg, the AAT
:discussion
group http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT with a lot of
excellent contributors (& others...). Apart from that, we
have, eg, the group of
Horrobin-Cunnane-Crawford-Broadhurst-Parkington with several
recent publications (on poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.)
which nicely confirm our view (we now think the seaside phase
was Pleistocene, not Miocene as Hardy thought 40 years ago).
AFAICS, there's only & exclusively the problem of the biased
PAs (much like at Wegener's time, when geologists constructed
"land bridges" between Africa & S.America to explain
unexplained facts). It's largely a problem of "outing" IMO.
All biologists who I spoke find some form of waterside
evolution extremely probable, but often they nevertheless
believe the so-called "experts", ie, the savanna believing
PAs... I guess I'd do the same if I didn't know better... (In
fact, I was also unconvinced after reading "The descent of
woman": it could not have been like that, but Elaine's "The
aquatic ape" was much better.) One problem is that PAs rely
mostly on fossils (which they believe belong to our ancestors)
& neglect the comparative data outside the primates. If an
unbiased biologist looks at the data, the conclusions are
obvious. It's only when you are prejudiced by what you're told
at school about human ancestors running after savanna prey,
that you're blind to what really happened. Have you read our
paper of last year in Trends in Ecology & Evolution? If not,
send me your email address & I'll send you the pdf. You'll
like it, like all biologists...

Marc Verhaegen marc.verhaegen@village.uunet.be
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

[Philip Dei]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:05:48 +0200, Gerrit Hanenburg
<G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote:

>I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man get and after all
>that maintain that "So far, no arguments against these ideas
>have been forwarded"

For me it is more pollutive than dishonest.

[Gerrit Han]

Gerrit Hanenburg <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote:

Erratum:

>http://groups.google.com/groups?group=sci.anthropology

Should read:

http://groups.google.com/groups?group=sci.anthropology.paleo

Gerrit

[Marc Verha]

"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in
message news:188lhvojefbmin6i1rd6tjuvfl6mtgd4vs@4ax.com...

> I've been around in this newsgroup since 1995. There hardly
> has been day
without AAT (or whatever it is called nowadays) being
discussed in some context. Hundreds of arguments have been
put forward.

So far, no good arguments against these ideas have been
forwarded. I'm waiting, Gerrit. A sea-side life - wading,
swimming, collecting coconuts, shellfish, turtles & turtle
eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc. - explains many human
traits (absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) a lot
better than dry savanna scenarios do: very large brain (but
reduced olfactory bulb), greater breathing control,
well-developed vocality, extreme handiness & tool use,
reduction of climbing skills, reduction of fur, more
subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body build, high
needs of iodine, sodium & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.
What in Hardy's view is improbable? Hardy was only wrong at
the time, understandably, in thinking his seaside phase
happened c.10 Ma. More likely it happened during the Ice Ages:
early Pleistocene Homo fossils or tools have been found in
Israel, Algeria, Kenya, Georgia, Java. When sea levels
dropped, H.ergaster followed the Mediterranean
(pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian Ocean coasts (erectus).
Pleistocene coasts during the glacial periods were some 120 m
below the present sea level, so many fossil & archeological
finds show the inland Homo populations that entered the
continents along the rivers & wetlands. In spite of this, Homo
remains (but not australopithecine) have frequently been found
amid shells, corals, barnacles etc., throughout the
Pleistocene, in coasts all over the Old World (eg, Mojokerto,
Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on islands that could
only be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma). Again: what is your
problem with Hardy's sea-side theory??

[Jim McGinn]

pdeitik@worldnet.att.net (Philip Deitiker) wrote

> The basic issue is diverticulations of evolution, not
> whether it is possible, but whether populations would swing
> into a diverticulative lifestyle for a time on the path to
> generalization versus a path toward generalization.

Diverticulations of evolution? Diverticulative lifestyle?

> A scale down version of aquatic theory is plausible, not
> as an explanation of hairlessness or S.C. fat, but things
> like breath control and swimming ability may have been
> important during the more recent phases of human
> evolution.

AAT lite?

> As a result we can put the aquatic diverticulation into the
> context of craft building for the sake of expanding
> generalist culture, and ability to transit between different
> grounds.

Aquatic diverticulation?

> The discussion of both the early times and wild behaviors
> has subsided so that maybe there is hope that MV and
> company will eventually evolve this idea into a more
> plausible realm.

"One must not assume that an understanding of science is
present in those who borrow its language" Louis Pasteur

[Fatherjohn]

> I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man get and after all
> that maintain that "So far, no arguments against these ideas
> have been forwarded"
>
> Gerrit

No need to get all snippy. If you have an argument against it,
why not share it? Hmmm?

[Jim McGinn]

Gerrit Hanenburg <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote

> I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man (Marc Verhaegen) get
> and after all that maintain that "So far, no arguments
> against these ideas have been forwarded"

I think the general perception that AAT survives
scrutiny--even though it obviously has not--has much to do
with the fact that yourself and other conventional theorists
have no hypothesis that offers a viable alternative.

Jim

[Richard Wa]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> "Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote
> in message
> news:188lhvojefbmin6i1rd6tjuvfl6mtgd4vs@4ax.com...
>
> > I've been around in this newsgroup since 1995. There
> > hardly has been day
> without AAT (or whatever it is called nowadays) being
> discussed in some context. Hundreds of arguments have been
> put forward.
>
> So far, no good arguments against these ideas have been
> forwarded. I'm waiting, Gerrit. A sea-side life - wading,
> swimming, collecting coconuts, shellfish, turtles & turtle
> eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc. - explains many human
> traits (absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) a lot
> better than dry savanna scenarios do: very large brain (but
> reduced olfactory bulb), greater breathing control,
> well-developed vocality, extreme handiness & tool use,
> reduction of climbing skills, reduction of fur, more
> subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body build,
> high needs of iodine, sodium & poly-unsaturated fatty acids
> etc. What in Hardy's view is improbable? Hardy was only
> wrong at the time, understandably, in thinking his seaside
> phase happened c.10 Ma. More likely it happened during the
> Ice Ages: early Pleistocene Homo fossils or tools have been
> found in Israel, Algeria, Kenya, Georgia, Java. When sea
> levels dropped, H.ergaster followed the Mediterranean
> (pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian Ocean coasts
> (erectus). Pleistocene coasts during the glacial periods
> were some 120 m below the present sea level, so many fossil
> & archeological finds show the inland Homo populations that
> entered the continents along the rivers & wetlands. In spite
> of this, Homo remains (but not australopithecine) have
> frequently been found amid shells, corals, barnacles etc.,
> throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts all over the Old World
> (eg, Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on
> islands that could only be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma).
> Again: what is your problem with Hardy's sea-side theory??

Could an ape have lived in swamp forests and waded a lot and
could this ape have given rise to the hominids? Sure, why not?

One littlle problem. There is not a shred of evidence that any
hominid of whatever species or time ever did such a thing.
This lack of evidence is all the argument we dryapers need.
We've got our candidates and the palaeoecological studies to
firmly situate them. What do you have? A macro that indicates
how densely ignorant you are about the processes of
fossilization and site formation.

Please don't go on about comparative evidence. You've proven
over and over that you have no idea about what that beast
actually looks like (See : Monkeys, proboscis - bipedalism in)

Rick Wagler

[Richard Wa]

fatherjohn wrote:

> >
> > I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man get and after all
> > that maintain that "So far, no arguments against these
> > ideas have been forwarded"
> >
> > Gerrit
>
> No need to get all snippy. If you have an argument against
> it, why not share it? Hmmm?

If you don't know of the Google usenet archive find out about
it and use it. If you are the credulous sort who really wants
to believe in the AAT, go ahead. Jump in the deep end. I'm
not going to stop you. I've got nothing invested in your
mental welfare.

Rick Wagler

[Gerrit Han]

fatherjohn@subdimension.com (fatherjohn) wrote:

>> I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man get and after all
>> that maintain that "So far, no arguments against these
>> ideas have been forwarded"

>No need to get all snippy. If you have an argument against
>it, why not share it? Hmmm?

As a newbie you should have taken the time to consult the
archives before rushing into the room. You have no idea how
much time and energy people here have put into arguing pro and
contra AAT. So, I will not engage in that debate because I
already know exactly where that's going to end. Since the last
time no new information or arguments have been put forward
that will make anyone shift position. Repeating everything
because you weren't around at the time is not an option.

Gerrit

[Gerrit Han]

jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote:

>> I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man (Marc Verhaegen)
>> get and after all that maintain that "So far, no arguments
>> against these ideas have been forwarded"

>I think the general perception that AAT survives
>scrutiny--even though it obviously has not--has much to do
>with the fact that yourself and other conventional theorists
>have no hypothesis that offers a viable alternative.

Great, another ego who's had his head up his ass all the time
and wondered what caused the darkness.

Gerrit

[Gerrit Han]

"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote:

>>I've been around in this newsgroup since 1995. There hardly
>>has been day without AAT (or whatever it is called nowadays)
>>being discussed in some context. Hundreds of arguments have
>>been put forward.

>So far, no good arguments against these ideas have been
>forwarded. I'm waiting, Gerrit.

So, what have I been doing all these years, talking to myself?

> A sea-side life - wading, swimming, collecting coconuts,
> shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds
> etc. - explains many human traits (absent in our nearest
> relatives the chimps) a lot better than dry savanna
> scenarios do:

>very large brain (but reduced olfactory bulb),

Major reliance on cognition. Works very well in a
terrestrial context

>greater breathing control, well-developed vocality,

Could have evolved purely in the context of vocal
communication. Works very well in a terrestrial context.

>extreme handiness & tool use,

Works very well in a terrestrial context (woodworking,
butchery, etc.)

>reduction of climbing skills,

Works very well in a terrestrial context.

>reduction of fur,

Thermoregulation. Works very well in terrestrial context.

>more subcutaneous fat,

Energetic buffer. Works very well in terrestrial context.

>very long legs, more linear body build,

Locomotion (increased stride length). Works very well in a
terrestrial context.

>high needs of iodine, sodium

Exaggerated. Need can very well be satified in
terrestrial context.

>& poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.

Idem.

>What in Hardy's view is improbable? Hardy was only wrong at
>the time, understandably, in thinking his seaside phase
>happened c.10 Ma. More likely it happened during the Ice
>Ages: early Pleistocene Homo fossils or tools have been found
>in Israel, Algeria, Kenya, Georgia, Java.

So what? The majority of sites (Koobi Fora, Olduvai, etc.)
have no link to marine environments whatsoever. There is no
evidence in the fossil record that suggests Homo had its
origin at the seaside, on the contrary. Oldest Homo is found
at inland localities.

>When sea levels dropped, H.ergaster followed the
>Mediterranean (pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian Ocean
>coasts (erectus).

Pure speculation, no evidence at all.

>Pleistocene coasts during the glacial periods were some 120 m
>below the present sea level,

How convenient.

>so many fossil & archeological finds show the inland Homo
>populations that entered the continents along the rivers &
>wetlands. In spite of this, Homo remains (but not
>australopithecine) have frequently been found amid shells,
>corals, barnacles etc., throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts
>all over the Old World (eg, Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table
>Bay, Eritrea), even on islands that could only be reached by
>sea (Flores 0.8 Ma).

A rather selective sample of sites. What about Shanidar,
Zhoukoudian, Atapuerca, to name but a few inland sites? How
about, Homo was rather eurytopic and made a living wherever it
could, no aquatic adaptations needed.

>Again: what is your problem with Hardy's sea-side theory??

It has nothing but paleofantasy to back it up.

Over and out.

Gerrit

[Philip Dei]

On 20 Jul 2003 11:35:37 -0700, fatherjohn@subdimension.com
(fatherjohn) wrote:

>>
>> I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man get and after all
>> that maintain that "So far, no arguments against these
>> ideas have been forwarded"
>>
>> Gerrit
>
>No need to get all snippy. If you have an argument against
>it, why not share it? Hmmm?

This is more or less a futile effort, long term discussions
with Marc tend to be more or less unproductive as marc avoids
many issues and is constantly changing the subject to those
points he feels are strongly supportive of his point of veiw.
Discussion on a point by point basis with Marc, are at best,
difficult. This is not coming from one of his common
combatants, he makes some reasonable points at times. The
problem is that the doesn't really contain his defense to
reasonable points and spreads his defense over reasonable and
unreasonable, and keeps pushing the argument into highly
controversial and refutable areas.

More or less I ignore him and when he gets bad I killfile him,
it is not worth arguing with him. Richard, Lorenzo, and others
have spent years arguing with Marc, however he is very slow to
catch onto the more important points they make.

I think they should treat him like I treat Keeter, if a
persion wishes to be continually unreasonable in a discussion
and continually drag the discussion into the toilet, get the
old scorefile out and flush it into bitbucket land.

Finally, the argument is basically a punching of a paper
tiger, the so-called 'savanah ape theory' whereas I think that
most people in modern paleoanthropology would argue that if
anything the transition was from an arboreal ape to a mosaic
ape, and no-one here come out in clear support of savanah ape
as a encompassing theory that explains human evolution. The
basis of the argument is that Marc clobbers the Savanah Ape
Theory in order to proport his Aquatic Ape theory, Langdon
attacks the Aquatic Ape theory to proport his extreme version
of the Neonotized Ape theory. Its a mess. From a PA outsider
looking in it doesn't look very scientific.

[Marc Verha]

"Richard Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3F1ABF15.574F0B59@shaw.ca...

> > So far, no good arguments against these ideas have been
> > forwarded. I'm
waiting, Gerrit. A sea-side life - wading, swimming,
collecting coconuts, shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs, bird
eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc. - explains many human traits
(absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) a lot better than
dry savanna scenarios do: very large brain (but reduced
olfactory bulb), greater breathing control, well-developed
vocality, extreme handiness & tool use, reduction of climbing
skills, reduction of fur, more subcutaneous fat, very long
legs, more linear body build, high needs of iodine, sodium &
poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc. What in Hardy's view is
improbable? Hardy was only wrong at the time, understandably,
in thinking his seaside phase happened c.10 Ma. More likely it
happened during the Ice Ages: early Pleistocene Homo fossils
or tools have been found in Israel, Algeria, Kenya, Georgia,
Java. When sea levels dropped, H.ergaster followed the
Mediterranean (pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian Ocean
coasts (erectus). Pleistocene coasts during the glacial
periods were some 120 m below the present sea level, so many
fossil & archeological finds show the inland Homo populations
that entered the continents along the rivers & wetlands. In
spite of this, Homo remains (but not australopithecine) have
frequently been found amid shells, corals, barnacles etc.,
throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts all over the Old World
(eg, Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on
islands that could only be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma).
Again: what is your problem with Hardy's sea-side theory??

> Could an ape have lived in swamp forests and waded a lot and
> could this
ape have given rise to the hominids? Sure, why not?

:-)

Pleas let hear your alternative...

> One littlle problem. There is not a shred of evidence that
> any hominid of
whatever species or time ever did such a thing.

Open your eyes, Wagler. There's nothing at all in the fossil
data that contradicts our view based on comparative evidence:
§ Lukeino KNM-LU 335 "pre-australopithecine": 'The red beds
seems to contain marginal lacustrine deposits as indicated by
the presence of algal mats and lacustrine bivalves (including
complete specimens with valves in the closed position)'
(Pickford, 1975).

§ Tabarin KNM-TH 13150 "pre-australopithecine": 'The fauna
includes aquatic animals such as molluscs, fish, turtles,
crocodiles, and hippotami, along with others that might be
found in the vicinity of a lake of river' (Ward & Hill, 1987).

§ Ardipithecus ramidus: 'Sedimentological, botanical and
faunal evidence suggests a wooded habitat for the Aramis
hominids [.] Aquatic elements (turtle, fish, crocodile) are
rare. Large mammals (hippopotamus, proboscideans, rhinos,
equids, giraffids, bovines) are rare. Primates are very
abundant' (WoldeGabriel et al., 1994); '[.] interpreted to
have been a closed woodland. At Aramis, aquatic species and
large mammals are rare, and colobines make up over 30% of all
vertebrate specimens collected' (Leakey et al., 1995).

§ Kanapoi KNM-KP 29281 Australopithecus anamensis: Fish,
aquatic reptiles, kudus and monkeys are prevalent. 'A wide
gallery forest would have almost certainly been present on
the large river that brought in the sediments' (Leakey et
al., 1995).

§ Chad KT 12 A. cf. afarensis: 'The non-hominid fauna contains
aquatic taxa (such as Siluridae, Trionyx, cf. Tomistoma), taxa
adapted to wooded habitats (such as Loxodonta, Kobus,
Kolpochoerus) and to more open areas (such as Ceratotherium,
Hipparion) [.] compatible with a lakeside environment' (Brunet
et al., 1995).

§ Garusi-Laetoli L.H. A. anamensis or afarensis: Teeth and
mandible fragments, the hardest skeletal parts which are
frequently left over by carnivores (Morden, 1988), come from
wind-blown and air-fall tuffs (Leakey et al., 1976).
Cercopithecine and colobine monkeys are present (Protsch,
1981; Leakey et al., 1976).

§ Hadar, Afar Locality: 'Generally, the sediments represent
lacustrine, lake margin, and associated fluvial deposits
related to an extensive lake that periodically filled the
entire basin' (Johanson et al.,
1982)

§ Hadar AL.333 A. afarensis: 'The bones were found in
swale-like features [.] it is very likely that they died and
partially rotted at or very near this site [.] this group of
hominids was buried in streamside gallery woodland'
(Radosevich et al., 1992).

§ Hadar AL.288 gracile A. afarensis: Lucy lay in a small,
slow moving stream. 'Fossil preservation at this locality
is excellent, remains of delicate items such as crocodile
and turtle eggs and crab claws being found' (Johanson &
Taieb, 1976).

§ Makapan A. africanus: '[.] very different conditions from
those prevailing today. Higher rainfall, fertile, alkaline
soils and moderate relief supported significant patches of
sub-tropical forest and thick bush, rather than savannah.
Taphonomic considerations [.] suggest that sub-tropical forest
was the hominins' preferred habitat rather than grassland or
bushveld, and the adaptations of these animals was therefore
fitted to a forest habitat' (Rayner et al., 1993; see also
Reed, 1993; and Wood, 1993).

§ Taung australopithecine: 'the clayey matrix from which the
Taung cranium was extracted, and the frequent occurrence of
calcite veins and void fillings within it (Butzer, 1974, 1980)
do suggest a more humid environment during its accumulation'
(Partridge, 1985).

§ Sterkfontein A. africanus and Swartkrans A. robustus: Many
South African australopithecines are discovered in riverside
caves, presumably often filled with the remainders of the
consumption process of large felids (Brain, 1981).

§ Kromdraai: A. robustus was found near grassveld and
streamside or marsh vegetation, in the vicinity of quail,
pipits, starlings, swallows, and parrots, lovebirds and
similar psittacine birds (T. N. Pocock in Brain,
1983).

§ Turkana KNM-ER 17000 and 16005: A. aethiopicus was
discovered near the boundary between overbank deposits of
large perennial river and alluvial fan deposits, amid water-
and reedbucks (Walker et al., 1986).

§ Lake Turkana: 'The lake margins were generally swampy, with
extensive areas of mudflats [.] Australopithecus boisei was
more abundant in fluvial environments, whereas Homo habilis
was rare in such environments [.] Australopithecus fossils are
more common than Homo both in channel and floodplain deposits.
The gracile hominids [.] seem to be more restricted
ecologically to the lake margin than are the robust forms'
(Conroy, 1990).

§ Ileret A. boisei: 'the fossil sample reflects climatic
and ecological environmental conditions differing
significantly from those of the present day. At Ileret, 1.5
Myr ago, climatic conditions must have been cooler and more
humid than today, and more favourable to extensive forests
[.] The prominence of montane forest is particularly
striking [.] dominated by Gramineae and Chenopodiaceae
appropriate to the margins of a slightly saline or alkaline
lake' (Bonnefille, 1976).

§ Konso A. boisei: 'The highly fossiliferous sands at the
mid-section of KGA10 are interpreted to be the middle to
distal portions of an alluvial fan, deposited adjacent to, and
extending into, a lake. Fossils and artefacts deriving from
horizons of sands and silts are not abraded and show evidence
of minimal transport. A large mammalian assemblage has been
collected from the deposits, showing a striking dominance of
Alcelaphini [.] to indicate the presence of extensive dry
grasslands at KGA10' (Suwa et al.,
1984).

§ Chesowanja A. boisei: 'The fossiliferous sediments were
deposited in a lagoon [.] Abundant root casts [.] suggest that
the embayment was flanked by reeds and the presence of
calcareous algae indicates that the lagoon was warm and
shallow. Bellamya and catfish are animals tolerant of
relatively stagnant water, and such situation would also be
suitable for turtles and crocodiles' (Carney et al., 1971).

§ Olduvai middle Bed I: A. boisei O.H.5 as well as
habilis O.H.7 and
O.H.62 were found in the most densely vegetated, wettest
condition, with the highest lake levels (Walter et al.,
1991), near ostracods, freshwater snails, fish, and
aquatic birds (Conroy, 1990); '[.] the middle Bed-I faunas
indicate a very rich closed woodland environment, richer
than any part of the present-day savanna biome in Africa
[.]' (Fernández-Jalvo et al., 1998). 'Fossilized leaves
and pollen are rare in the sediments of Beds I and II, but
swamp vegetation is indicated by abundant vertical roots
channels and casts possibly made by some kind of reed.
Fossil rhizomes of papyrus also suggest the presence of
marshland and/or shallow water' (Conroy, 1990). '[.]
Cyperaceae fruits were common in H. habilis habitat
(Bonnefille, 1984). Ancient Egyptians ate Cyperus papyrus
root which was also present at Olduvai in swamp-margins
and river banks' (Puech, 1992).

§ Olduvai O.H.24 habilis: 'Crocodile remains predominate among
the faunal material from this site and more than 2,000 teeth
were found. Tortoise plates, shells of Urocyclid slugs, fish
vertebrae and scales, bird bones and pieces of ostrich
eggshell were also relatively common (Leakey et al., 1971).

§ Malawi UR 501 early Homo: 'The Plio-Pleistocene Chiwondo
Beds of Northern Malawi have yielded molluscs and fragmented
remains of fish, turtles, crocodiles and large mammals [.]
Microvertebrates and carnivores are virtually unrepresented in
the assemblage [.] The general ecological setting of the
Malawi Rift during the Late Pliocene was a mosaic environment
including open and closed, dry and wet habitats, and which
harbored a small and ecologically unstable paleolake Malawi'
(Schrenk et al., 1995).

§ Chemeron KNM-BC1 early Homo: 'The Fish Beds [.] seem to be
almost entirely lacustrine and fluviatile; fish remains are
abundant [.] Molluscs also lived in the lake, and locally
their remains accumulate to form shelly limestones' (Martyn &
Tobias, 1967).

§ Turkana Boy KNM-WT 15000 H. erectus: 'Mammalian fossils are
rare at this locality, the most abundant vertebrate fossils
being parts of small and large fish. The depositional
environment was evidently an alluvial plain of low relief [.]
Typical lacustrine forms (for example, ostracods, molluscs)
could invade the area [.] The only other fauna found so far in
the fossiliferous bed are many opercula of the swamp snail
Pila, a few bones of the catfish Synodontis and two fragments
of indeterminate large mammal bone [.]' (Brown et al., 1985).

§ Mojokerto H. erectus: 'The basal part of the Putjangan Beds
is composed of volcanic breccias containing marine and
freshwater molluscs. The rest of the Putjangan Beds is
composed of black clays of lacustrine origin' (Ninkovich &
Burckle, 1978).

§ Peking H. erectus: 'A big river and possibly a lake were
located to the east and contained various water species; along
the shorelines grew reeds and plants, which were home for
buffalo, deer, otters, beavers and other animals' (Poirier,
1978); '[.] accumulation in quiet water. The cave at this time
was probably the locus of ponded water and was probably more
open to the atmosphere' (Weiner et al., 1998).

§ Hopefield, Rabat & Terra Amata: H. erectus fossils came from
sandstone made up from dune sand resting upon a former sea
beach (De Lumley,
1990). In Terra Amata, 'there are also indications that the
inhabitants ate oysters, mussels and limpets - shells of
which are present. The presence of fish bones and fish
vertebrae indicate that the population also fished'
(Poirier, 1987).

Summary: nothing that contradicts our view based on
sompar.evidence.

> This lack of evidence is all the argument we dryapers need.
> We've got our
candidates and the palaeoecological studies to firmly situate
them. What do you have? A macro that indicates how densely
ignorant you are about the processes of fossilization and site
formation. Please don't go on about comparative evidence.
You've proven over and over that you have no idea about what
that beast actually looks like (See : Monkeys, proboscis -
bipedalism in) Rick Wagler

You've proven over & over to be blind to the comparative
evidence. Nasalis is the only colobine with a short tail
(concolor), the only one with an external nose (larvatus),
lives in mangroves, swims very well, wades a lot on 2 legs,
even walks on dry land on 2 legs, is the largest colobine, one
that frequently climbs arms overhead, IOW, it deviates from
the typical monkey towards the ape condition. Why? Because
it's evolving into the wading-clmibing condition: "the
features that typically distinguish apes from monkeys (i.e.
large size, tail-loss and arm-hanging) were adaptations for
what we call an 'aquarboreal' locomotion in an environment
that included both trees and water. A vertical posture and an
ability to climb with the arms raised above the head could
have helped a wading primate to enter or leave the water by
grasping overhanging branches or waterside vegetation, and to
grasp fruits above the water. Body enlargement and tail
reduction would hinder agile arborealism, whereas a larger
body is more easily supported in water and helps reduce heat
loss (explaining why aquatic mammals are larger than related
terrestrial forms). Tails would be of little use for a wading
and/or swimming primate and cause both drag and heat loss."

Marc Verhaegen

http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

[Marc Verha]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f1ca31e.4211915@netnews.worldnet.att.net...

> Well, I think even Verhaegen has back off the 'Ape' and now
> has moved it
into the realm of aquatic episodes.

Dietiker, don't be ridiculous. Inform a bit before saying
something. You should at least know that the term "aq.ape"
comes from Elaine, and that I always meant "semi-aquatic". I
have not much to change in the first paper I wrote. 1985:
"Abstract: Much more than other primates, man has several
features that are seen more often in aquatic than terrestrial
mammals: nakedness, thick subcutaneous fat-layer, stretched
hindlimbs, voluntary respiration, dilute urine etc. The
Aquatic Ape Theory states that our ancestors once spent a
significant part of their life in water. Presumably, early
apes were plant and fruit eaters in tropical forests. Early
hominids also ate aquatic food; at first mainly weeds and
tubers, later sea shore animals, especially shellfish. With
the Pleistocene cooling, our ancestors returned to land and
became bipedal omnivores and scavengers and later hunters of
coastal and riverside animals." A significant part of their
life. Okidoki?

[R Norman]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:14:12 +0200, "Marc Verhaegen"
<fa204466@skynet.be> wrote:

>
>"r norman" <rsnorman_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:uo6lhvo0nh6pq6n2hc9cigngo3c015fp5c@4ax.com...
>
>> I am an interested and somewhat knowledgeable observer (a
>> biologist, but
>not a paleontologist) and I really am curious about the
>status of the aquatic ape concept. Please -- this is a naive,
>but serious question, so no culture wars or flames. I have
>read Elaine Morgan and was completely unconvinced, but that
>is not a technical scientific presentation. I have done a
>search on PubMed (which is certainly not the best place to
>search anthropology or paleontology) and found not a lot of
>current research papers that seem to bear on this topic.
>There is Langdon's (J Hum Evol. 1997 Oct;33(4):479-94.)
>rather harsh criticism and a number of Verhaegen's works (Med
>Hypotheses. 1991 Jun;35(2):108-14).
>
>My Med.Hyp.papers are very speculative. Still essentially
>correct IMO (at least, I can't find good counter-arguments),
>although sometimes exaggerated perhaps. But even without
>believing everything I'm saying in these papers, it's obvious
>that AAT in one form or another is correct: there's no doubt
>whatsoever that human ancestors were waterside once, although
>the details are much less obvious.
>
>> Is this really an area of research or controversy in
>> anthropology? Is
>there anyone besides Verhaegen who actively proposes the
>aquatic ape concept? That is, is it truly a viable theory for
>which there are opposing camps or is it (excuse me, Marc, but
>this is what is seems like) -- Verhaegen against the world?
>Not that there is anything wrong with that -- science is
>replete with outsiders proving themselves right eventually.
>Look at continental drift, for example.
>
>:-) No, it's no me against the rest, see, eg, the AAT
>:discussion
>group http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT with a lot of
>excellent contributors (& others...). Apart from that, we
>have, eg, the group of
>Horrobin-Cunnane-Crawford-Broadhurst-Parkington with several
>recent publications (on poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.)
>which nicely confirm our view (we now think the seaside phase
>was Pleistocene, not Miocene as Hardy thought 40 years ago).
>AFAICS, there's only & exclusively the problem of the biased
>PAs (much like at Wegener's time, when geologists constructed
>"land bridges" between Africa & S.America to explain
>unexplained facts). It's largely a problem of "outing" IMO.
>All biologists who I spoke find some form of waterside
>evolution extremely probable, but often they nevertheless
>believe the so-called "experts", ie, the savanna believing
>PAs... I guess I'd do the same if I didn't know better... (In
>fact, I was also unconvinced after reading "The descent of
>woman": it could not have been like that, but Elaine's "The
>aquatic ape" was much better.) One problem is that PAs rely
>mostly on fossils (which they believe belong to our
>ancestors) & neglect the comparative data outside the
>primates. If an unbiased biologist looks at the data, the
>conclusions are obvious. It's only when you are prejudiced by
>what you're told at school about human ancestors running
>after savanna prey, that you're blind to what really
>happened. Have you read our paper of last year in Trends in
>Ecology & Evolution? If not, send me your email address &
>I'll send you the pdf. You'll like it, like all biologists...
>
>Marc Verhaegen marc.verhaegen@village.uunet.be
>http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
>http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
>
>
Thank you. I am, in fact, interested only in primary research
publications in peer-reviewed journals. I don't care how long
this argument has been going on in news groups. They are not
scientific literature.

You mention a paper in "Trends in Ecology and Evolution".
There is, in fact, a journal of that name published by
Elsevier but I can't find your paper in it. I did find the web
site http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/MV/Verhaegen.htm which is
listed as "Published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 3
March 2002" but the journal volume 17, issues 1 through 4 (Jan
through April 2002) doesn't seem to have it. The web site
cites the paper as Aquarboreal ancestors? [Opinion] Marc
Verhaegen, Pierre-François Puech and Stephen Munro Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, (February 12, 2002),
10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02431-4

I don't find it in PubMed and the date and volume/page numbers
don't aggree with the table of contents for the Elsevier
publication "Trends in Ecology and Evolution" for 2002. The
most recent reference to you I find in PubMed seems to be
Anthropol Anz. 1997 Mar;55(1):1-14. Is the "Continental Shelf
Hypothesis with S Munro at Nutr Health. 2002;
10(1017):25-7. related? It is the only think I could find
for S Munro.

Could you give me a better citation? The journal citation,
please, not a web page.

[Philip Dei]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:27:03 +0200, "Marc Verhaegen"
<fa204466@skynet.be> wrote:

>Dietiker, don't be ridiculous. Inform a bit before saying
>something. You should at least know that the term "aq.ape"
>comes from Elaine, and that I always meant "semi-aquatic". I
>have not much to change in the first paper I wrote. 1985:
>"Abstract: Much more than other primates, man has several
>features that are seen more often in aquatic than terrestrial
>mammals: nakedness, thick subcutaneous fat-layer, stretched
>hindlimbs, voluntary respiration, dilute urine etc. The
>Aquatic Ape Theory states that our ancestors once spent a
>significant part of their life in water.

Yes, however . .

> Presumably, early apes were plant and fruit eaters in
> tropical forests. Early hominids also ate aquatic food; at
> first mainly weeds and tubers, later sea shore animals,
> especially shellfish. With the Pleistocene cooling, our
> ancestors returned to land and became bipedal omnivores and
> scavengers and later hunters of coastal and riverside
> animals." A significant part of their life.

Yes returned to land has bearing on what you meant as
significant, your argument then was the pliocene, as in when
pliestocene shift occurred. Now you are arguing they were
aquatic at the pliestonce/pliocene boundary with an emphasis
on pliestocene.

In addition you are arguing seaside now versus "before
returning to land then"

You can score points by not being an egocentric ass for a
change and admitting a shift, start fessing up and you might
just get yourself less argument here [apparently you are not
interested in less argument].

[Marc Verha]

"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in
message news:ap3mhvg362nk5npt7gjbm1f0h0avdn7bjt@4ax.com...

> >So far, no good arguments against these ideas have been
> >forwarded. I'm
waiting, Gerrit.

> So, what have I been doing all these years, talking to
> myself?

You have not been thinking all those years, that's clear.

> > A sea-side life - wading, swimming, collecting coconuts,
> > shellfish,
turtles & turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc. -
explains many human traits (absent in our nearest relatives
the chimps) a lot better than dry savanna scenarios do: very
large brain (but reduced olfactory bulb),

> Major reliance on cognition.

Why don't you explain why, whereas humans have much larger
brains than chimps, 1 part has become much smaller: the
olfactory bulb? Why if we became terrestrial?? As you know,
terr.mammals have rel.larger olf.bulbs than arboreal ones.

> Works very well in a terrestrial context

Of course, what had you thought?? In what follows, I'll snip
this rephrain: nobody doubts humans are terrestrial. Why on
earth do you believe it should not work in terr.contexts??

> >greater breathing control, well-developed vocality,

>Could have evolved purely in the context of vocal
>communication.

Ah? Then why don't chimps evolved it??

> >extreme handiness & tool use,

> Works very well in a terrestrial context (woodworking,
> butchery, etc.)

Works better at the waterside, have a look at the hands of
so-called finger otters. Very humanlike. Remarkable
parallelism.

> >reduction of climbing skills,

> Works very well in a terrestrial context.

Savanna baboons are excellent climbers. Why not humans??

> >reduction of fur,

> Thermoregulation. Works very well in terrestrial context.

We wear clothes, remember?

> >more subcutaneous fat,

> Energetic buffer.

Possible, but where is your proof for this just-so
supposition?? eg, why not in chimps??

> >very long legs, more linear body build,

> Locomotion (increased stride length).

Bipedal mammals are not linear: jumping rodents, indris on
land, kangaroos... Why IYO? why are we an exception? why are
our legs in theextension of our bodies? why like penguins
rather than like ostriches?

> >high needs of iodine, sodium

> Exaggerated. Need can very well be satified in terrestrial
> context.

Can. Not very well. Think how valuable salt was.

Why "forgetting" iodine?? Remember the cretins, myxedemas,
goiters in the mountains & inland. Millions of people. Easily
cured by living at sea.

> >& poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.

> Idem.

Where do you find PUFAs, Gerrit? In the savanna?

> >What in Hardy's view is improbable? Hardy was only wrong at
> >the time,
understandably, in thinking his seaside phase happened c.10
Ma. More likely it happened during the Ice Ages: early
Pleistocene Homo fossils or tools have been found in Israel,
Algeria, Kenya, Georgia, Java.

> So what? The majority of sites (Koobi Fora, Olduvai, etc.)
> have no link to
marine environments whatsoever. There is no evidence in the
fossil record that suggests Homo had its origin at the
seaside, on the contrary. Oldest Homo is found at inland
localities.

If so, so what? The fossil record in no way contradicts the
compar.data.

> >When sea levels dropped, H.ergaster followed the
> >Mediterranean
(pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian Ocean coasts (erectus).

> Pure speculation, no evidence at all.

They ran over the mountains, you believe?? :-D Gerrit, it has
even become common wisdom among the smarter PAs these days,
eg, Stringer.

> >Pleistocene coasts during the glacial periods were some 120
> >m below the
present sea level,

> How convenient.

Dry apers deny sea levels were lower?? :-D

I suggest you (re)read J.Parkington 2001 "Milestones: the
impact of the systematic exploitation of marine foods on human
evolution" PV Tobias cs.eds "Humanity from African naissance
to coming millenia" Firenze UP: "Evidence for earlier marine
food consumption is severely impacted by the lowering &
subsequent rise in sea level during isotop stages 4, 3 & 2.
The absence of well dated marine foods in archaeol.sites from
these stages almost anywhere in the world is largely
preservational, and simply reflects the massive lost of land,
and with it the sites from which coastal resources were
exploited, from c.15 ka."

> >so many fossil & archeological finds show the inland Homo
> >populations
that entered the continents along the rivers & wetlands. In
spite of this, Homo remains (but not australopithecine) have
frequently been found amid shells, corals, barnacles etc.,
throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts all over the Old World
(eg, Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on
islands that could only be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma).

> A rather selective sample of sites. What about Shanidar,
> Zhoukoudian,
Atapuerca, to name but a few inland sites?

In what way do inland sites contradict our scenario that early
Homo dispersed along the sea?? Besides, Zhoukoudian, to give
only 1 example: "A big river and possibly a lake were located
to the east and contained various water species; along the
shorelines grew reeds and plants, which were home for buffalo,
deer, otters, beavers and other animals' (Poirier, 1978); '[.]
accumulation in quiet water. The cave at this time was
probably the locus of ponded water and was probably more open
to the atmosphere' (Weiner et al.,
1998)."

> How about, Homo was rather eurytopic and made a living
> wherever it could,
no aquatic adaptations needed.

AFAIK Homo was probably not eurytopic until MSA, eg, HJ Deacon
1998 "Modern human emergence: an Afr.archaeol.perspective"
Dual Congress abstr.p.35: "... a major division can be
recognised betw.the Afr.Acheulian & the MSA with the
transition currently dated to some 250 ka. Acheul.populations
can be described as stenotopic, occupying a narrow niche in
riverine-wetland habitats. By contrast Middle & Later SA pops
were eurytopic ..."

> >Again: what is your problem with Hardy's sea-side theory??

> It has nothing but paleofantasy to back it up. Over and out.

Every little detail is based on comparative evidence. What
can't be said of the alternatives if there are any left... Do
you happen to have an alternative?

You have no alternative scenario. You say our scenario has no
problems. I think you have a problem...

Marc Verhaegen

http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

[Jim McGinn]

Gerrit Hanenburg <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote

> > > I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man (Marc Verhaegen)
> > > get and after all that maintain that "So far, no
> > > arguments against these ideas have been forwarded"
>
> > I think the general perception that AAT survives
> > scrutiny--even though it obviously has not--has much to do
> > with the fact that yourself and other conventional
> > theorists have no hypothesis that offers a viable
> > alternative.
>
> Great, another ego who's had his head up his ass all the
> time and wondered what caused the darkness.

As Gerrit exemplifies here, there are a lot more similarities
between AAT and conventional theory than conventional
theorists want to consider. Whenever somebody points out the
fact that conventional thinking really doesn't amount to
anything more than a bunch of half-baked notions that don't
even come close to fitting together into a real hypothesis
then the typical reactions of these conventional adherents is,
like Marc, emotional.

Gerrit, if you can't deal with the fact that my hypothesis
has, thus far, evaded any attempts to find fault with it I
would suggest you find a new hobby. My hypothesis is still
very young yet. It's only going to get worse. Trust me.

Jim

It's only a matter of time.

[Jim McGinn]

Gerrit Hanenburg <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote

> Major reliance on cognition. Works very well in a
> terrestrial context

What are the selective factors that brought about this, "Major
reliance on cognition?"

>
> >greater breathing control, well-developed vocality,
>
> Could have evolved purely in the context of vocal
> communication. Works very well in a terrestrial context.

What are the selective factors that brought about, "vocal
communication?" In other words, what was the
environmental/social context by which such could evolve. Why
did such extreme levels of vocal communication evolve in our
lineage but no other lineages?

> >extreme handiness & tool use,
>
> Works very well in a terrestrial context (woodworking,
> butchery, etc.)

Why did it evolve?

You're not explaining anything here, Gerrit. You're doing the
same thing Marc is, you are pointing to a habitat and saying,
"see, it works here."

Jim

[Ross Macfa]

Gerrit Hanenburg <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in
message news:<cktlhvos46mamfg5dm00hd5ok956te7hd9@4ax.com>...
> fatherjohn@subdimension.com (fatherjohn) wrote:
>
> >> I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man get and after all
> >> that maintain that "So far, no arguments against these
> >> ideas have been forwarded"
>
> >No need to get all snippy. If you have an argument against
> >it, why not share it? Hmmm?
>
> As a newbie you should have taken the time to consult the
> archives before rushing into the room. You have no idea how
> much time and energy people here have put into arguing pro
> and contra AAT. So, I will not engage in that debate
> because I already know exactly where that's going to end.
> Since the last time no new information or arguments have
> been put forward that will make anyone shift position.
> Repeating everything because you weren't around at the time
> is not an option.
>
> Gerrit

Newbie - or deliberate troll? Patrick James' response was
suggestive that it might have been him. It smacks more of Marc
himself, or 1 of his fawning lackies (more likely the latter,
given Marc's well-established technophobia - could he work out
how to create a false e-mail account & start a troll off).

Father John, whoever you are, this is seriously well-worked
ground, & although it's slightly more entertaining than the EC
& J show, or the BK vs. PD show, it's still tired & pointless.
Nick off...

Ross Macfarlane

[Richard Wa]

Jim McGinn wrote:

> My hypothesis is still very young yet.
> It's only going to get worse. Trust me.

> It's only a matter of time.

We do, Jim, we do.....

Rick Wagler

[Jim McGinn]

Gerrit Hanenburg <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote

>
> Try and make me play that silly game.

I think Gerrit is going to take is ball and go home.

[Paul Crowl]

"r norman" <rsnorman_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rdkmhvgsugkikdal3ple2s7g0q0cu2gtvn@4ax.com...

> >> Is this really an area of research or controversy in
> >> anthropology? Is
> >there anyone besides Verhaegen who actively proposes the
> >aquatic ape concept?

> Thank you. I am, in fact, interested only in primary
> research publications in peer-reviewed journals.

There are numerous 'sciences' and 'scientific' journals in
which peer-reviewed 'primary research' is published, but in
which you will not find the remotest whiff of science. It's
all 'shadow-boxing' or 'cargo-cult' stuff. The 'practitioners'
have seen what the truly great sciences have achieved and set
up similar structures to emulate them -- in the hope of making
the same kinds of achievements. But -- unsurprisingly -- after
decades of 'work', nothing whatever emerges.

Ever looked at Psychology? Or Sociology?

Regrettably Paleo-Anthropology has been reduced to a roughly
similar state.

You will find almost no science in the peer-reviewed journals.
Yet, unlike the pseudo-sciences, it has a real job to to.
There are real questions to be asked and answered. The origins
of its problems are quite different.

The discipline lost its way a long time ago and has been
wandering in near-science-free wilderness ever since. This
situation goes back to soon after Darwin. There have been so
many bad ideas in this general area (e.g. race and Hitler and
all that stuff), and the whole topic is so sensitive (e.g.
class, gender, et al.) that all the practitioners have given
up having ideas. They take care to say as little as possible
in every one of their publications.

How can you have a science where everyone is too scared to
have an idea? Or if they do get one, too scared to express it?

Paul.

[Marc Verha]

"r norman" <rsnorman_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rdkmhvgsugkikdal3ple2s7g0q0cu2gtvn@4ax.com...

> >> I am an interested and somewhat knowledgeable observer (a
> >> biologist,
but not a paleontologist) and I really am curious about the
status of the aquatic ape concept. Please -- this is a naive,
but serious question, so no culture wars or flames. I have
read Elaine Morgan and was completely unconvinced, but that is
not a technical scientific presentation. I have done a search
on PubMed (which is certainly not the best place to search
anthropology or paleontology) and found not a lot of current
research papers that seem to bear on this topic. There is
Langdon's (J Hum Evol. 1997 Oct;33(4):479-94.) rather harsh
criticism and a number of Verhaegen's works (Med Hypotheses.
1991 Jun;35(2):108-14).

> >My Med.Hyp.papers are very speculative. Still essentially
> >correct IMO (at
least, I can't find good counter-arguments), although
sometimes exaggerated perhaps. But even without believing
everything I'm saying in these papers, it's obvious that AAT
in one form or another is correct: there's no doubt whatsoever
that human ancestors were waterside once, although the details
are much less obvious.

> >> Is this really an area of research or controversy in
> >> anthropology? Is
there anyone besides Verhaegen who actively proposes the
aquatic ape concept? That is, is it truly a viable theory for
which there are opposing camps or is it (excuse me, Marc, but
this is what is seems like) -- Verhaegen against the world?
Not that there is anything wrong with that -- science is
replete with outsiders proving themselves right eventually.
Look at continental drift, for example.

> > :-) No, it's no me against the rest, see, eg, the AAT
discussion group http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT with a
lot of excellent contributors (& others...). Apart from that,
we have, eg, the group of
Horrobin-Cunnane-Crawford-Broadhurst-Parkington with several
recent publications (on poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.)
which nicely confirm our view (we now think the seaside phase
was Pleistocene, not Miocene as Hardy thought 40 years ago).
AFAICS, there's only & exclusively the problem of the biased
PAs (much like at Wegener's time, when geologists constructed
"land bridges" between Africa & S.America to explain
unexplained facts). It's largely a problem of "outing" IMO.
All biologists who I spoke find some form of waterside
evolution extremely probable, but often they nevertheless
believe the so-called "experts", ie, the savanna believing
PAs... I guess I'd do the same if I didn't know better... (In
fact, I was also unconvinced after reading "The descent of
woman": it could not have been like that, but Elaine's "The
aquatic ape" was much better.) One problem is that PAs rely
mostly on fossils (which they believe belong to our ancestors)
& neglect the comparative data outside the primates. If an
unbiased biologist looks at the data, the conclusions are
obvious. It's only when you are prejudiced by what you're told
at school about human ancestors running after savanna prey,
that you're blind to what really happened. Have you read our
paper of last year in Trends in Ecology & Evolution? If not,
send me your email address & I'll send you the pdf. You'll
like it, like all biologists...

> Thank you. I am, in fact, interested only in primary
> research
publications in peer-reviewed journals. I don't care how long
this argument has been going on in news groups. They are not
scientific literature.

Peer reviews tend to promote the peers & friends, not the
innovations.
M.Enserink 2001 "Scientific Publishing: Peer Review and
Quality: A Dubious Connection?" Sci.293:2187
"...researchers found little evidence that peer review
actually improves the quality of research papers."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5538/2187a
When we sent our paper to TREE, 2 referees wanted it
published (I guess the biologists), 2 refused it (I guess
the PAs). Luckily, the editor (as every unbiased
scientist) liked it.

> You mention a paper in "Trends in Ecology and Evolution".
> There is, in
fact, a journal of that name published by Elsevier but I can't
find your paper in it. I did find the web site
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/MV/Verhaegen.htm which is listed
as "Published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 3 March
2002" but the journal volume 17, issues 1 through 4 (Jan
through April 2002) doesn't seem to have it.

IIRC it was first published online (Feb. or March?), but
appeared printed in the May issue.

> The web site cites the paper as Aquarboreal ancestors?
> [Opinion] Marc
Verhaegen, Pierre-François Puech and Stephen Munro Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, (February 12, 2002),
10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02431-4 I don't find it in PubMed and
the date and volume/page numbers don't aggree with the table
of contents for the Elsevier publication "Trends in Ecology
and Evolution" for 2002. The most recent reference to you I
find in PubMed seems to be Anthropol Anz. 1997 Mar;55(1):1-14.
Is the "Continental Shelf Hypothesis" with S Munro at Nutr
Health. 2002; 16(1):25-7. related? It is the only think I
could find for S Munro. Could you give me a better citation?
The journal citation, please, not a web page.

- M.Verhaegen, P-F. Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal
ancestors?" TREE
17:212-7 http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?pii=S016-
9534702024904&node=TOC%4 %40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05 - you
can also find it in the AAT files
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
- Our paper "Continental shelf..." (proceedings of the Oslo
symposium "Marine fat and human health" 2000) is a summary
of our view then, much less detailed than the TREE paper
(see below, but it needs a few minor corrections).
- The Anthrop.Anzeiger paper (on bipedalism) was written by
Renato Bender & Nicole Oser (in German). I only corrected a
few unimportant things, and translated the abstract.

Marc Verhaegen marc.verhaegen@village.uunet.be
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
______________

MV & SM 2002 "The Continental Shelf Hypothesis" Nutrition &
Health 16:25-27

We try to reconstruct ape and human evolution by using the
available biomolecular, geological, fossil and comparative
data. Our hypothesis is that wading-climbing hominids in
coastal forests near the Arabian peninsula evolved during the
Ice Ages into wading-diving Homo on the tidal flats along the
Indian Ocean.[1] The Old World higher primates originated in
Africa, where they split into monkeys and apes more than 30 Ma
(million years ago). Typical features of apes, as opposed to
monkeys, are larger size, tail loss, and arm-hanging. These
features seem to have been present in some early African ape
fossils about 20-16 Ma (large size and perhaps tail loss in
Proconsul, arm-hanging and more vertical body in
Morotopithecus). It is believed the African-Arabian and
Eurasian continents made contact about 18 Ma, and formed the
changing coastlines of the Tethys and later the Mediterranean
Sea.[2] It is not sure on which continent the apes split into
the lesser apes (gibbons, Asia) and the great apes (Asia and
Africa). Between about 16 and 6 Ma, most great-ape fossils are
found in southern Eurasia (dryopithecines). DNA and fossil
data suggest the great apes split into pongids (orangutans,
Asia) and hominids about 13 ± 3 Ma, then the hominids split
into gorillas and humans-chimps about 8 ± 2 Ma, and humans and
chimpanzees split about 6 ± 2 Ma. Pongid fossils are found in
Asia after about 10 Ma (sivapithecines), and hominid fossils
in Africa after about 6 Ma (australopithecines). Presumably
the ancestors of the australopithecines, African apes and
humans lived in Africa-Arabia at the time when they split into
gorillas and humans-chimps (8 ± 2 Ma). We argue the early apes
led a climbing-wading or 'aquarboreal' life in forest swamps,
where they became bigger (for thermo-regulatory and
gravitational reasons), lost the tail (which was of no use for
wading, and thermo-regulatorily disadvantageous in water), and
became arm-hangers and more bipedal (for wading and grasping
branches and perhaps fruits above the water). Proboscis
monkeys often wade bipedally to cross shallow stretches of
water between mangrove trees, and lowland gorillas regularly
wade on two legs through forest swamps in search of reed
sedges and aquatic herbs.[3] Perhaps in about the same way,
but more frequently, our apish ancestors might have waded in
shallow waters of forest clearings, gallery forests or
mangrove areas, in search of fallen fruits, herbs, sedges or
molluscs. An aquarboreal population of great-apes in the
coastal forests between Africa and Eurasia may have given rise
to different offshoots, such as the Eurasian dryopithecines
and later the African australopithecines. The western branch
of the dryopithecines seems generally to be more hominid-like
(e.g. Dryopithecus, Graecopithecus, Oreopithecus, Europe),
whereas the eastern branch is considered to be pongid
(e.g. Sivapithecus, India).[2] Early dryopithecine
fossils have been found in marine near-shore sands along
the Tethys Sea (Heliopithecus ca.17 Ma at the Persian
Gulf, and Austriacopithecus ca.14 Ma in what are now the
Alps).[2] Later, thinner-enamelled leaf-eating
dryopithecines dwelt in swamp forests (Dryopithecus
ca.13-10 Ma in western-central Europe, and Oreopithecus
ca.9-7 Ma on the island of Tuscany-Sardinia).[2] It is
believed that Oreopithecus' diet included water lilies,
reeds and sedges, pondweeds, cattails, horsetails and
stoneworts, but more hominid-like dryopithecines in
Greece and Anatolia, like later australopithecine and
Homo species, had much thicker enamel and probably lived
in less forested milieus (Graecopithecus and
Ankarapithecus ca.10-8 Ma). Arguably, the
australopithecines left the Red Sea coasts and followed
the African Rift Valley, where their fossils (ca.6-1 Ma)
have been found in gallery forests, lakeside grasslands,
riverside reedbeds, papyrus swamps, montane forests and
shallow lagoons.[1] Their postcranial anatomy suggests
they might have waded regularly on two legs and perhaps
on their knuckles
(e.h. bipedal footprints, knuckle-walking features of
wrists, very long arms in later fossils), and spent
part of their time in the trees (e.g. curved
phalanges, cranially oriented shoulder joints,
toeing-in of feet). Their dentition suggests their
diet included fruits and nuts, aquatic herbs and
sedges, and hard foods, possibly reed or bamboo (e.g.
broad cheekteeth, polished microwear, very thick
enamel).[1] Meanwhile, human ancestors might have
remained near the coasts. Hard tools and thick enamel
are typical of hominids, capuchin monkeys, and sea
otters. Mangrove capuchins crack nuts with stones and
use shells to remove oysters from mangrove trunks.[4]
Sea otters have flat cheekteeth resembling those of
australopithecines, and open shells by hammering them
with stones.[5] Chimpanzees, which have somewhat
thinner molar enamel, crush hard-shelled nuts with
stones. Conceivably, the human-chimp ancestors some 6
Ma used hard objects to open hard-shelled coconuts and
oysters in coastal forests. During the Ice Ages, the
climate cooled and dried, sea levels dropped, coastal
forests shrank, and vast tidal flats and estuaries
emerged on the continental shelves along the Indian
Ocean. Our tool-using and bipedally wading ancestors
were ideally preadapted to colonise these new
shellfish-rich niches. They lost their climbing
adaptations, and presumably collected shellfish and
other seafoods by wading and later by diving too.
Humans, much more than nonhuman primates, have
efficient diving and breath-hold capabilities, which
preadapted to the development of voluntary sound
production and speech.[6] It was at the seashore, we
suggest, these wading-diving beach-combers acquired
their huge brain, voluntary speech, stone tool
technologies and extreme dexterity, as well as their
external nose, naked skin, thicker subcutaneous fat,
linear swimming-build and long wading-legs.6 Indeed,
Homo fossils, as opposed to australopithecines, are
typically found near shellfish (e.g. Chiwondo,
Chemeron, Nariokotome, Zhoukoudian, Boxgrove, Terra
Amata, Rabat, Hopefield, Gibraltar). Although
sea-level rises and the actions of waves and tides
have drastically reduced the chances of discovering
hominid fossils at sea beaches, Homo erectus remains
have been discovered amid shellfish, barnacles and
corals, from the Mojokerto skull at Java about 1.8
Ma,[7] to the Acheulean tools of Eritrea about 0.1
Ma.[8] Stone tools discovered on the island of Flores
suggest that, already 0.8 Ma, Homo erectus crossed the
19-kilometers-wide Wallace's Line. The 'fast'
dispersal of Homo erectus from Java to the Cape and
England most likely occurred along the seashores. From
there, different Homo sidebranches could have migrated
up rivers into the interiors of Africa and Eurasia.
Initially restricted to the edges of rivers and lakes,
human populations such as neandertals and modern
humans might have later moved to areas further from
permanent water.

[1] Verhaegen, M. and Puech, P.-F. (2000) Hominid lifestyle
and diet reconsidered, Human Evolution 15, 151-162
[2] Else, J.G. and Lee, P.C., eds (1986) Primate Evolution,
Cambridge University Press
[3] Doran, D.M. and McNeilage, A. (1997) Gorilla ecology and
behavior, Evol.Anthrop. 6, 120-130
[4] Fernandes, M.E.B. (1991) Tool use and predation of oysters
by the tufted capuchin, Primates 32, 529-531
[5] Walker, A. (1981) Diet and teeth - dietary hypotheses and
human evolution, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London B 292, 57-64
[6] Morgan, E. (1997) The aquatic ape hypothesis - the most
credible theory of human evolution, Souvenir
[7] Von Koenigswald, G.H.R. (1958) Begenungen mit dem
Vormenschen, Diederichs, Köln
[8] Walter, R.C. et al. (2000) Early human occupation of the
Red Sea coast of Eritrea during the last interglacial,
Nature 405, 65-69

Further literature in files
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT Eritrean tools ca.125 ka
http://www.exn.ca/hominids/outofafrica.cfm Ghent symposium
1999 http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html Phillip
Tobias on AAT http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm

[Fatherjohn]

If you are the credulous sort
> who really wants to believe in the AAT, go ahead. Jump in
> the deep end. I'm not going to stop you. I've got nothing
> invested in your mental welfare.
>
> Rick Wagler

No need to be all evasive . . . you can't even provide a
"link"? Hmmmmm

[Marc Verha]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3f1b348e.17256453@netnews.worldnet.att.net...

> >Deitiker, don't be ridiculous. Inform a bit before saying
> >something. You
should at least know that the term "aq.ape" comes from
Elaine, and that I always meant "semi-aquatic". I have not
much to change in the first paper I wrote. 1985: "Abstract:
Much more than other primates, man has several features that
are seen more often in aquatic than terrestrial mammals:
nakedness, thick subcutaneous fat-layer, stretched hindlimbs,
voluntary respiration, dilute urine etc. The Aquatic Ape
Theory states that our ancestors once spent a significant
part of their life in water.

> Yes, however . .

> > Presumably,early apes were plant and fruit eaters in
> > tropical forests.
Early hominids also ate aquatic food; at first mainly weeds
and tubers, later sea shore animals, especially shellfish.
With the Pleistocene cooling, our ancestors returned to land
and became bipedal omnivores and scavengers and later hunters
of coastal and riverside animals." A significant part of
their life.

> Yes returned to land has bearing on what you meant as
> significant, your
argument then was the pliocene, as in when pliestocene shift
occurred. Now you are arguing they were aquatic at the
pliestonce/pliocene boundary with an emphasis on pliestocene.

I'm not arguing that. I'm only mentioning the possibility. I
wasn't there. Can't you think for yourself??

> In addition you are arguing seaside now versus "before
> returning to land
then"

What else?? what should I have written IYO?? Man, don't be
ridiculous.

> You can score points by not being an egocentric ass for a
> change and
admitting a shift, start fessing up and you might just get
yourself less argument here [apparently you are not interested
in less argument].

[R Norman]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:44:32 +0200, "Marc Verhaegen"
<fa204466@skynet.be> wrote:

>"r norman" <rsnorman_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:rdkmhvgsugkikdal3ple2s7g0q0cu2gtvn@4ax.com...
>

>> You mention a paper in "Trends in Ecology and Evolution".
>> There is, in
>fact, a journal of that name published by Elsevier but I
>can't find your paper in it. I did find the web site
>http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/MV/Verhaegen.htm which is listed
>as "Published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 3 March
>2002" but the journal volume 17, issues 1 through 4 (Jan
>through April 2002) doesn't seem to have it.
>
>IIRC it was first published online (Feb. or March?), but
>appeared printed in the May issue. <snip>

>>Could you give me a better citation? The journal citation,
>>please, not a web page.

>- M.Verhaegen, P-F. Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal
> ancestors?" TREE
>17:212-7 http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?pii=S01-
> 69534702024904&node=TOC%4 %40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05 -
> you can also find it in the AAT files
> http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT

I have it. But what is so difficult about simply specifying
"Trends in Ecology and Evolution (5):212-217(2002)"?

[Philip Dei]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:39:49 +0100, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:

>You will find almost no science in the peer-reviewed
>journals. Yet, unlike the pseudo-sciences, it has a real job
>to to. There are real questions to be asked and answered. The
>origins of its problems are quite different.

You are an _ASS_ Paul. The worst science is in Journals like
Science, Nature, PNAS . . . the best science is in peer
reviewed journals feild specific journals like Journal of
Human Evolution, Amer J Phys Anthropology. And there is alot
of very good work in these journals. There is some crap also,
but science doesn't stare at the crap very long.

[I normally do not respond to Paul, but this is an issue of
importance that new readers should be aware that the primary
literature is by far the best source of information, if the
primary literature does not suffice it only gets worse with
reviews, and books. If you are interested in primary
literature join groups like PaleoAnthro, where articles of
importance are available, but you won't find much on AAT, CAT,
SAT, FAT, or any other ape theory]

[Patrick Ja]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 0:03:15 -0500, Ross Macfarlane wrote (in
message <18fa6145.0307202103.11750966@posting.google.com>):

> Gerrit Hanenburg <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in
> message news:<cktlhvos46mamfg5dm00hd5ok956te7hd9@4ax.com>...
>> fatherjohn@subdimension.com (fatherjohn) wrote:
>>
>>>> I mean, how fucking dishonest can a man get and after all
>>>> that maintain that "So far, no arguments against these
>>>> ideas have been forwarded"
>>
>>> No need to get all snippy. If you have an argument against
>>> it, why not share it? Hmmm?
>>
>> As a newbie you should have taken the time to consult the
>> archives before rushing into the room. You have no idea how
>> much time and energy people here have put into arguing pro
>> and contra AAT. So, I will not engage in that debate
>> because I already know exactly where that's going to end.
>> Since the last time no new information or arguments have
>> been put forward that will make anyone shift position.
>> Repeating everything because you weren't around at the time
>> is not an option.
>>
>> Gerrit
>
> Newbie - or deliberate troll? Patrick James' response was
> suggestive that it might have been him.

Ah... just to clarify. No, I ain't 'father john'. And 'father
john' appears to be posting from somewhere in upstate New
York. (NNTP-Posting-Host:
171.75.78.37) Marc V (NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.136.107.15) seems
to be posting from Belgium.

'course, this proves little, as the newsdawg is in Kalifornia
(somewhere near San Diego, IIRC) and I most definitely ain't
posting from anywhere on the North American Continent.

As to whether it was a deliberate troll or not, well, DUH!
It'd have taken flashing lights and a siren to make it
more obvious.

> It smacks more of Marc himself, or 1 of his fawning lackies
> (more likely the latter, given Marc's well-established
> technophobia - could he work out how to create a false
> e-mail account & start a troll off).
>
> Father John, whoever you are, this is seriously well-worked
> ground, & although it's slightly more entertaining than the
> EC & J show, or the BK vs. PD show, it's still tired &
> pointless.

Marc V is still doing the No True Scotsman dance...

> Nick off...
>
> Ross Macfarlane

--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[Gerrit Han]

jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote:

>As Gerrit exemplifies here, there are a lot more similarities
>between AAT and conventional theory than conventional
>theorists want to consider. Whenever somebody points out the
>fact that conventional thinking really doesn't amount to
>anything more than a bunch of half-baked notions that don't
>even come close to fitting together into a real hypothesis
>then the typical reactions of these conventional adherents
>is, like Marc, emotional.

>Gerrit, if you can't deal with the fact that my hypothesis
>has, thus far, evaded any attempts to find fault with it I
>would suggest you find a new hobby. My hypothesis is still
>very young yet. It's only going to get worse. Trust me.

When someone without any academic experience brands me as a
conventional theorist without a viable hypothesis, and who
suggests that *his* theory is the only viable and thoroughly
tested alternative, then I know I'm dealing with a snob. I
have no business with such people.

Gerrit

[Patrick Ja]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 6:21:53 -0500, fatherjohn wrote (in
message <9dcec572.0307210321.596fbd22@posting.google.com>):

> If you are the credulous sort
>> who really wants to believe in the AAT, go ahead. Jump in
>> the deep end. I'm not going to stop you. I've got nothing
>> invested in your mental welfare.
>>
>> Rick Wagler
>
> No need to be all evasive . . . you can't even provide a
> "link"? Hmmmmm

He said, and I quote:

"If you don't know of the Google usenet archive find out
about it and use it. If you are the credulous sort who really
wants to believe in the AAT, go ahead. Jump in the deep end.
I'm not going to stop you. I've got nothing invested in your
mental welfare."

For some reason you seem to have trimmed his first
sentence, the one which provided you with sufficient info
for your purposes.

However, it's possible that you're sufficiently dim that
you've never heard of Google. Google is located at
<http://www.google.com/>. You might be more interested in
Google Groups, the usenet archive refered to in the quote
above. You can search that archive in several ways. My
personal fav is
<http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en>, but
YMMV. From the Advanced Group search page you can track
down most threads in almost all usenet newsgroups going
back for decades. You could, for instance, search for all
examples of AAT or AAH in s.a.p. Example search: <http://w-
ww.google.com/groups?as_epq=aquatic%20ape&safe=images&ie=I-
SO-8859- 1&as_ugroup=sci.anthropology.paleo&lr=&hl=en>
which gives 4890 hits and took a whole 0.32 seconds. I set
that search up by going to the Advanced Groups search page,
putting 'aquatic ape' into the 'with the exact phrase' box
and 'sci.anthropology.paleo' into the 'Return only messages
from the newsgroup' box, then clicking on the 'Google
search' button.

You may now have a look at the relevant threads and draw your
own conclusions. Or you may continue trolling. Your choice.

--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[Gerrit Han]

"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote:

>>> A sea-side life - wading, swimming, collecting coconuts,
>>> shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs,
>>> seaweeds etc. - explains many human traits (absent in our
>>> nearest relatives the chimps) a lot better than dry
>>> savanna scenarios do: very large brain (but reduced
>>> olfactory bulb),
>
>> Major reliance on cognition.

>Why don't you explain why, whereas humans have much larger
>brains than chimps, 1 part has become much smaller: the
>olfactory bulb? Why if we became terrestrial?? As you know,
>terr.mammals have rel.larger olf.bulbs than arboreal ones.

No, not true, you're making this up again. See Stephan et al.
(1981). For example, Lemur variegatus has a brain volume of
20,461 mm3 and a bulb size of 369 mm3, in Papio anubis this is
154,987 and 287 respectively, in Pan troglodytes 313,493 and
257, and in Homo sapiens 1,063,399 and 114 mm3. The arboreal
lemur has the smallest brain and the largest olfactory bulb.
There is a trend in primates in general to reduce the
olfactory structures in the CNS and become more reliant on
visual information. Homo simply follows the trend. What really
requires explanation is why Homo has such a large neocortex.
One suggestion is the "social brain hypothesis" (Dunbar, in
press). Humans have more complex societies that require more
information processing.

Stephan, H. et al. (1981). New and Revised Data on Volumes of
Brain Structures in Insectivores and Primates. Folia
Primatologica 35: 1-29.

Dunbar, R.I.M. (in press). The Social Brain: Mind, Language,
and Society in Evolutionary Perspective. Annual Review of
Anthropology.

>> Works very well in a terrestrial context
>
>Of course, what had you thought?? In what follows, I'll snip
>this rephrain: nobody doubts humans are terrestrial. Why on
>earth do you believe it should not work in terr.contexts??

That is what you are constantly suggesting by your insistence
on an aquatic context to explain these features.

>> >greater breathing control, well-developed vocality,
>
>>Could have evolved purely in the context of vocal
>>communication.
>
>Ah? Then why don't chimps evolved it??

Why didn't chimps evolve horns, tusks, feathers, and a long
sticky tongue? Perhaps that has something to do with genetic
disposition, contingency, and the particular (social)
environment in which they evolved. Hoots and pants will do for
a chimp in its forest community but not in the middle of NYC
(although...).

>> >extreme handiness & tool use,
>
>> Works very well in a terrestrial context (woodworking,
>> butchery, etc.)
>
>Works better at the waterside, have a look at the hands of
>so-called finger otters. Very humanlike. Remarkable
>parallelism.

The hands of primates in general are well suited to
manipulation. This has nothing to do with water. Neither does
tool manufacture and use. If there is a context of use then
Oldowan and Acheulean industries are mostly found in the
context of butchery. Wear analysis suggests the same and in
addition also woodworking (Dominguez-Rodrigo et al. 2001).
There is no indication that manipulation and tool use in
hominids evolved in an aquatic context.

Dominguez-Rodrigo, M. et al. (2001). Woodworking activities
by early humans: a plant residue analysis on Acheulian
stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania). Journal of Human
Evolution 40, 289-299.

>> >reduction of climbing skills,
>
>> Works very well in a terrestrial context.
>
>Savanna baboons are excellent climbers. Why not humans??

Well, humans are still relatively good climbers compared to
horses and dogs. However, humans have become dedicated
terrestrial bipeds, which means either a sacrifice of their
climbing skills or a lower limb morphology that is less
efficient in walking.

>> >reduction of fur,
>
>> Thermoregulation. Works very well in terrestrial context.
>
>We wear clothes, remember?

Take 'em off when we get hot, remember?

>> >more subcutaneous fat,
>
>> Energetic buffer.
>
>Possible, but where is your proof for this just-so
>supposition?? eg, why not in chimps??

See for example Kuzawa (1998). Subcutaneous fat is the first
to be mobilized in case of nutritional stress. Humans, with
their much larger brains, are much more at peril when the
foodsupply is interrupted. It's also suggested that early
humans lived in more unpredictable seasonal environments where
there would have been selection for an energy buffer. Of
course the buffer hypothesis need not be the only explanation.

Kuzawa, C. (1998). Adipose Tissue in Human Infancy and
Childhood: An Evolutionary Perspective. Yearbook of Physical
Anthropology
41:177-209.

>> >very long legs, more linear body build,
>
>> Locomotion (increased stride length).
>
>Bipedal mammals are not linear: jumping rodents, indris on
>land, kangaroos... Why IYO? why are we an exception? why are
>our legs in theextension of our bodies? why like penguins
>rather than like ostriches?

Because hominoids already have a an orthograde tendency in the
trees, they are not pronogrades. I've said this often before
but you simply seem to ignore it. This is becoming a useless
repetition of moves.

>> >high needs of iodine, sodium
>
>> Exaggerated. Need can very well be satified in terrestrial
>> context.
>
>Can. Not very well. Think how valuable salt was.
>
>Why "forgetting" iodine?? Remember the cretins, myxedemas,
>goiters in the mountains & inland. Millions of people. Easily
>cured by living at sea.

This has more to do with the "blessings" of the Neolithic,
sedentism and agriculture, than with deficiency of terrestrial
environments (see Spencer Larsen, 1995). Reliance on a few
selected crops and farm animals from a nutrional point of view
was not exactly an health improvement compared to traditional
hunter-gatherers.

Spencer Larsen, C. 1995. Biological Changes in Human
Populations with Agriculture. Annual Review of Anthropology
24: 185-213.

>> >& poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.
>
>> Idem.
>
>Where do you find PUFAs, Gerrit? In the savanna?

Well, traditional hunter-gatherers such as the Kalahari !Kung
find them in wild animals (wild game meat is known to contain
appreciably more PUFAs than farm animals, Crawford 1968), and
in particular from mongongo nuts (57% fat of which 10%
palmitic acid and 43 linoleic acid). In combination with low
salt, as a result, these people do not suffer from high blood
pressure and coronary heart disease even at old age. (Truswell
& Hansen, 1998).

Crawford, M.A. (1986). Fatty-acid ratios in free-living and
domestic animals: possible implications for atheroma.
Lancet 1: 1329.

Truswell, A.S. and Hansen, J.D.L. (1998). Medical Research
among the !Kung. In Lee & Devore (eds.). Kalahari
Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their
Neighbors. Harvard University Press.

>> >What in Hardy's view is improbable? Hardy was only wrong
>> >at the time,
>understandably, in thinking his seaside phase happened c.10
>Ma. More likely it happened during the Ice Ages: early
>Pleistocene Homo fossils or tools have been found in Israel,
>Algeria, Kenya, Georgia, Java.
>
>> So what? The majority of sites (Koobi Fora, Olduvai, etc.)
>> have no link to
>marine environments whatsoever. There is no evidence in the
>fossil record that suggests Homo had its origin at the
>seaside, on the contrary. Oldest Homo is found at inland
>localities.
>
>If so, so what? The fossil record in no way contradicts the
>compar.data.

It doesn't support it either. Since the majority of early
hominid sites are located inland there isn't really any
indication from the point of view of the fossil record the the
sea side was the environment of evolutionary adaptedness.

>> >When sea levels dropped, H.ergaster followed the
>> >Mediterranean
>(pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian Ocean coasts (erectus).
>
>> Pure speculation, no evidence at all.
>
>They ran over the mountains, you believe?? :-D Gerrit, it has
>even become common wisdom among the smarter PAs these days,
>eg, Stringer.

The presence of numerous inland sites indicate that early
humans found their way around there. How do you explain the
presence of the Shanidar hominids in the Zagros Mountains far
awy from the sea side?

>> >Pleistocene coasts during the glacial periods were some
>> >120 m below the
>present sea level,
>
>> How convenient.
>
>Dry apers deny sea levels were lower?? :-D

Pleistocene sea levels fluctuated. But it's nice to know
that virtual archeology, based on sites that have not been
found and are supposed to be submerged, is an argument in
favor of the AAT.

>I suggest you (re)read J.Parkington 2001 "Milestones: the
>impact of the systematic exploitation of marine foods on
>human evolution" PV Tobias cs.eds "Humanity from