Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Udayana on September 09, 2016, 03:20:22 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98
At last, after decades of proponents being ostracized, shunned and pilloried by some so-called scientists, this theory is being taken seriously. Three cheers for Elaine Morgan :)
-
The Waterside Ape.........................
.....................sounds like a Wetherspoons.
-
Sounds interesting, I'll set my TV recorder for it.
-
It's Radio 4 - not TV.
-
It's Radio 4 - not TV.
Not an issue if you have Sky.......
-
It's Radio 4 - not TV.
I know. My TV recorder records radio as well.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98
At last, after decades of proponents being ostracized, shunned and pilloried by some so-called scientists, this theory is being taken seriously. Three cheers for Elaine Morgan :)
That is true, but it has been taken seriously in some circles for a long time. E.g. Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea) and Desmond Morris (the Human Animal) to name but two. As a complete lay person I have been interested in the idea of the Aquatic Ape for at least 20 years, and I will listen to the broadcast with some interest. Although Elaine Morgan has produced highly questionable and unsupported arguments to defend the AAT, perhaps she has been treated rather harshly perhaps because she was not a scientist but more prominently a literary writer and journalist.
-
Dear Udayana,
This topic was discussed ages ago on this forum, like enki I thought it was fascinating, a swimming ape, another piece in the jigsaw that is evolution :)
Gonnagle.
-
That is true, but it has been taken seriously in some circles for a long time. E.g. Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea) and Desmond Morris (the Human Animal) to name but two. As a complete lay person I have been interested in the idea of the Aquatic Ape for at least 20 years, and I will listen to the broadcast with some interest. Although Elaine Morgan has produced highly questionable and unsupported arguments to defend the AAT, perhaps she has been treated rather harshly perhaps because she was not a scientist but more prominently a literary writer and journalist.
David Attenborough is also more journalist than scientist, and also under attack by scientists for supporting "pseudoscience" -in fact for signing a letter raising concerns about suffering of primates in neuroscience experiments.
I expect scientists to objectively investigate and consider ideas when proposed seriously, even, or maybe especially, when put forward by non-scientists. However often the first reaction is to pile in to defend their own careers and territory.
Paleoanthropolgy has and will always involve a degree of speculation just given the scarcity of physical evidence. Very often any hypothesis has to be well developed before scientists can even understand which observations and data are relevant.
-
Dear Udayana,
http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes/transcript?language=en
Well I am convinced, why, because it makes perfect sense, well that and the fact she is a very sweet and funny little old lady :P
Also the fact that she is poking a finger at those scientists who live in their ivory towers.
So I get the impression that some parts of the scientific establishment are morphing into a kind of priesthood. But you know, that makes me feel good, because Richard Dawkins has told us how to treat a priesthood. (Laughter) He says, "Firstly, you've got to refuse to give it all the excessive awe and reverence it's been trained to receive." Right. I'll go ahead with that. And secondly, he says, "You must never be afraid to rock the boat." I'll go along with that too. Thank you very much.
I will say it again, but this time with feeling, science/evolution is there to be questioned, to be turned on its head, to be poked and prodded.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
Who said that :P well it certainly wasn't me ::)
Gonnagle.
-
That most of humanity spends it's time ''up the creek'' is evidence of aquatic ancestry.
-
David Attenborough is also more journalist than scientist, and also under attack by scientists for supporting "pseudoscience" -in fact for signing a letter raising concerns about suffering of primates in neuroscience experiments.
I expect scientists to objectively investigate and consider ideas when proposed seriously, even, or maybe especially, when put forward by non-scientists. However often the first reaction is to pile in to defend their own careers and territory.
Paleoanthropolgy has and will always involve a degree of speculation just given the scarcity of physical evidence. Very often any hypothesis has to be well developed before scientists can even understand which observations and data are relevant.
Response to paragraph 1
But he is a scientist though, and one that I respect enormously. He has been a supporter of what originally was the aquatic ape theory/hypothesis for some years. As far as the suffering of primates in neuroscience experiments is concerned, I too have concerns. I'm not sure though why you think that such concerns have been linked to 'pseudoscience'. Perhaps, you can give some details.
Response to paragraph 2
And so do I, emphatically. Unfortunately, many scientists, especially anthropologists, have given many cogent counter arguments to Elaine Morgan's AA ideas and speculations over the years, basically because they are over simplistic rather than in line with genuine and objective research, wherever that may lead. If you wish me to, I could easily give you plenty of examples of her lack of rigour, although it would probably be boring for the general reader. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I think that she never produced any study which has actually been peer reviewed. It comes as no surprise to me that the original hypothesis of the aquatic ape has been watered(pardon the pun) down to become the 'waterside ape' of today.
Response to Paragraph 3
I agree with most of what you say above, except for the end part, where you seem to suggest that scientists have to wait for an hypothesis to be well developed before they can understand which observations and data are relevant. Indeed, scientists are usually responsible for actually producing hypotheses on the basis of observations and data which they do understand, and then submitting their findings to their peers fror critical analysis.
And as a note to Gonners, here. She was a "very sweet and funny little old lady" as she died in 2013.
And, finally, I shall be listening on Wed. to the talk on Radio 4 with an open mind, and, especially, because new evidence is promised. :)
-
Hi Enki,
Response to paragraph 1
But he is a scientist though, and one that I respect enormously. He has been a supporter of what originally was the aquatic ape theory/hypothesis for some years. As far as the suffering of primates in neuroscience experiments is concerned, I too have concerns. I'm not sure though why you think that such concerns have been linked to 'pseudoscience'. Perhaps, you can give some details.
Story in The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-attenborough-call-to-end-animal-testing-experiments-on-monkeys-primates-apes-animal-cruelty-a7235771.html)
"The UK Expert Group said: “We are disappointed to see that David Attenborough and a number of scientists have been misled by the pseudoscience in the paper by CFI, an organisation intent on ending research with all animals, not just primates. "
Of-course there may well be objections to findings or suggestions in the CFI paper, but there's no need to rubbish it as pseudoscience, or the signatories to the letter, when they could just list the issues.
Response to paragraph 2
And so do I, emphatically. Unfortunately, many scientists, especially anthropologists, have given many cogent counter arguments to Elaine Morgan's AA ideas and speculations over the years, basically because they are over simplistic rather than in line with genuine and objective research, wherever that may lead. If you wish me to, I could easily give you plenty of examples of her lack of rigour, although it would probably be boring for the general reader. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I think that she never produced any study which has actually been peer reviewed. It comes as no surprise to me that the original hypothesis of the aquatic ape has been watered(pardon the pun) down to become the 'waterside ape' of today.
Her role was really to keep the idea alive rather than research it herself. She herself suggested the idea of semi-aquatic lakeside environments rather than the original full-blown "aquatic-ape". Given the climate history of Africa, hominin evolution must include adaptation to very wet conditions as well as very dry or savannah environments.
Response to Paragraph 3
I agree with most of what you say above, except for the end part, where you seem to suggest that scientists have to wait for an hypothesis to be well developed before they can understand which observations and data are relevant. Indeed, scientists are usually responsible for actually producing hypotheses on the basis of observations and data which they do understand, and then submitting their findings to their peers fror critical analysis.
In theory that is how science proceeds and certainly it is presented in that way. But in practice it is more haphazard. You need a pretty good idea what you are looking for, and some breakthroughs occur when data from previous studies or experiments is re-examined from a new perspective. Sometimes you develop the theory first and then predict outcomes confirmed by experiments that you may not have the ability to run at the time.
And as a note to Gonners, here. She was a "very sweet and funny little old lady" as she died in 2013.
And, finally, I shall be listening on Wed. to the talk on Radio 4 with an open mind, and, especially, because new evidence is promised. :)
As will I :)
-
Hi Enki,
Story in The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-attenborough-call-to-end-animal-testing-experiments-on-monkeys-primates-apes-animal-cruelty-a7235771.html)
"The UK Expert Group said: “We are disappointed to see that David Attenborough and a number of scientists have been misled by the pseudoscience in the paper by CFI, an organisation intent on ending research with all animals, not just primates. "
Of-course there may well be objections to findings or suggestions in the CFI paper, but there's no need to rubbish it as pseudoscience, or the signatories to the letter, when they could just list the issues.
Her role was really to keep the idea alive rather than research it herself. She herself suggested the idea of semi-aquatic lakeside environments rather than the original full-blown "aquatic-ape". Given the climate history of Africa, hominin evolution must include adaptation to very wet conditions as well as very dry or savannah environments.
In theory that is how science proceeds and certainly it is presented in that way. But in practice it is more haphazard. You need a pretty good idea what you are looking for, and some breakthroughs occur when data from previous studies or experiments is re-examined from a new perspective. Sometimes you develop the theory first and then predict outcomes confirmed by experiments that you may not have the ability to run at the time.
As will I :)
Yes I know that that David Attenborough signed this open letter concerning the level of suffering involved in primate experiments, as did many other scientists, anthropologists etc. What I can't understand is why the word 'pseudoscience' is being attached to his involvement. It seems to me that it is all to do with such things as value judgments and moral standpoints. It seems, like you, I see no reason for the word 'pseudoscience' to be used at all.
As regards Morgan's attitude to the aquatic ape hypothesis, she changed her attitude quite considerably from her first book on this subject(The Descent of Woman), where she suggested, for instance, that she had no difficulty in visualising aquatic apes crossing wide bodies of water, to later tending towards seeing swampland as their most probable habitat, citing the Everglades, Ganges Delta, the Amazon basin. Even later, she suggested that 'a flooded forest offers a possible answer' which would unfortunately tend to invalidate much of her proposed evidence. Generally, therefore she seemed to move from the idea of a completely aquatic ape to one who inhabited some sort of littoral environment. I assume this was in response to the many criticisms of her ideas. Her lack of clarity regarding the claimed niche for these supposed proto hominids makes it difficult to assess her hypothesis properly. Incidentally, if human evolution 'must' include adaptation to very wet conditions as well as very dry or savannah environments, it should also include adaptation to mosaic forest environments too.
Unfortunately though, so far, no evidence has yet come to light(with the provisional proviso of the aforementioned program), which makes her hypotheses on such things as bipedalism, the descended layrnx, subcutaneous fat, brain size, fossils(apart from the rather controversial oreopithecus) sit uneasily beside other alternative hypotheses. So, in the case of the AAT, there seems to be no really reliable evidence(either new or previously ignored) to further her ideas, and plenty of alternative suggestions of at least equal merit. I think this is why, so far, the idea of the aquatic ape hasn't really made any substantive ground. In this particular case, the AAT, which was first advanced in 1942 seems rather impervious to predicted outcomes, experimentation or new evidence being found. However, I wait to see just what this program reveals.
-
Unfortunately though, so far, no evidence has yet come to light(with the provisional proviso of the aforementioned program), which makes her hypotheses on such things as bipedalism, the descended layrnx, subcutaneous fat, brain size, fossils(apart from the rather controversial oreopithecus) sit uneasily beside other alternative hypotheses. So, in the case of the AAT, there seems to be no really reliable evidence(either new or previously ignored) to further her ideas, and plenty of alternative suggestions of at least equal merit. I think this is why, so far, the idea of the aquatic ape hasn't really made any substantive ground. In this particular case, the AAT, which was first advanced in 1942 seems rather impervious to predicted outcomes, experimentation or new evidence being found. However, I wait to see just what this program reveals.
However, regarding the fossil evidence, Elaine Morgan suggested that the admittedly meagre evidence for hominid evolution beyond Australopithecus africanus and afarensis (which in itself is hardly extensive) might be greatly enlarged if palaeontologists started looking for evidence more in African coastal regions, than in the previous inland areas of investigation. If there has been such coastal investigation, I think it highly unlikely that it has been any where near as extensive as that carried out in Olduvai Gorge. But then you've got to convince a lot of stubborn (and no doubt cash-strapped) scientists that such areas are worth investigating in order to verify a hypothesis which owes much of its claims to a woman.
It was interesting to hear in this morning's programme that Sir Alastair Hardy (who perhaps first came up with the idea) was so coy about this hypothesis that he waited decades before airing it - and that at an obscure provincial meeting for aquatic sports-people.
-
Although Elaine Morgan has produced highly questionable and unsupported arguments to defend the AAT, perhaps she has been treated rather harshly perhaps because she was not a scientist but more prominently a literary writer and journalist.
Sir Alastair Hardy defended her rather neatly over this by pointing out that Darwin had flunked his medical degree and only completed a university course in theology - whilst Alfred Russell Wallace left school at 14 and became an apprentice surveyor, before he embarked on his heroic voyages of biological discovery.
-
From what I understand what ended up as Homo sapiens was an amalgam of various versions of the species and no doubt these waterside lot just intermingled with the savannah lot to create us, and hence some of the traits that are still present in us today.
-
However, regarding the fossil evidence, Elaine Morgan suggested that the admittedly meagre evidence for hominid evolution beyond Australopithecus africanus and afarensis (which in itself is hardly extensive) might be greatly enlarged if palaeontologists started looking for evidence more in African coastal regions, than in the previous inland areas of investigation. If there has been such coastal investigation, I think it highly unlikely that it has been any where near as extensive as that carried out in Olduvai Gorge. But then you've got to convince a lot of stubborn (and no doubt cash-strapped) scientists that such areas are worth investigating in order to verify a hypothesis which owes much of its claims to a woman.
It was interesting to hear in this morning's programme that Sir Alastair Hardy (who perhaps first came up with the idea) was so coy about this hypothesis that he waited decades before airing it - and that at an obscure provincial meeting for aquatic sports-people.
Hi Dicky,
In response to this post and your post 15:
The trouble with the fossil evidence is that it cannot easily be used to substantiate any of Morgan's claims because they mainly relate to soft tissue. of course you are right that even the fossil evidence is meagre, but, even then, this often relates to the proximity of bodies of water, as you would expect. (e.g. The Turkana Boy found in the sediment of lake Turkana or the various finds at the Olduvai Gorge, which was once the site of a large lake.) The idea that early hominids tended to settle near areas of water(especially fresh water such as rivers/lakes) is not disputed. Nor is the idea disputed that early hominids might well use the coast as they journeyed out of Africa. However the idea that Morgan puts forward. for instance, in her book, the Scars of Evolution, is that between 6 to 7 My and 3.5My ago, the primates ancestral to man went through a semi aquatic or wholly aquatic stage, for long enough to leave vestigial clues, possibly because they were trapped on an island. Now, it is possible that a small, isolated population under stress can lead to significant evolutionary adaptation, but it does seem unlikely. Of course, there are examples of species moving from sea to land, and then back to sea(e.g.ceteceans and sirenians), but these have not been in the remarkably short time suggested by the AAH. Hence, to be convincing, I would suggest that such extraordinary claims as Morgan produces, need some powerful rather than suggestive evidence. There are also a whole bunch of difficult questions, which the AAH doesn't seem to be able to answer in any convincing way.
The fact that a woman stuck her neck out, and not even a scientist at that, may have had some relevance to attitudes when she produced her series of books dealing whole or in part with the AAH. That is why I suggested that she may have been treated harshly, but that is no reason not to look at her ideas as objectively and critically as possible. I certainly do not examine her ideas from the viewpoint that she was a woman, a feminist icon and a layperson in these matters. That would be silly.
However, I await for the second part of David Attenborough's broadcast before I come to any conclusion on new evidence to be offered in favour of the 'Waterside Ape', although, so far, it isn't looking particularly promising.
-
Dear Amateur Scientists,
And here was me thinking the study of evolution was as dull as ditch water, but no! when you step away from the likes of Dawkin who only wants to blow raspberries at intelligent design proponents it becomes a fascinating subject.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07v0hhm#play
Very interesting programme, is it sacrilegious to label the father of evolution as a amateur scientist :P When your better half asks "Dear, does my bum look big in these jeans" you can reply "yes dear, but your Subcutaneous Fat is lovely and you can't fight evolution" :o
Do you suffer from surfers ear dude!!
I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide
Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied;
And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying,
And the flung spray and the blown spume, and the sea-gulls crying.
Who doesn't like seafood! is this why I am a shellfish sort of person, is this why, as a kid I was dragged to Saltcoats every summer, my parents were just reacting to their evolutionary instincts.
Is this why in fetal development we have webbed finger and toes :o
Taking the sea air, the Victorian's swore by it,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9403379/The-sea-air-It-really-is-healthy.html
Us Glaswegians love to go "doon the watter"
http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/scottish-phrase-of-the-week-doon-the-watter-1-3579774
We are just following our evolutionary instincts.
Dear Forum,
How many of us swim, how many of us enjoy swimming?
Dear Parents,
Do your kids swim? How early did they learn to swim?
https://www.waterbabies.co.uk/baby-swimming/benefits-of-learning-early
5. It develops their co-ordination
Being in the water helps improve co-ordination and balance, and learning to swim with toys will help your little one’s co-ordination and motor skills. A 2009 study by the Norwegian University of Science & Technology found that babies who swim have better balance and can grasp objects more easily¹ than non-swimmers.
Did I not read somewhere that this is one of the reasons why our hands wrinkle in water, so that we can grasp slippery objects ???
Anyway, enough meandering, I look forward to the second part of the programme.
Gonnagle.
-
Part two was just as interesting. It's just fascinating to be at and see a point where the paradigm is, possibly, about to flip.
Science is not just a mechanical progress towards "the truth" but its path is influenced by many other factors - fashion, status, money, politics, prejudice, persistence ... sometimes just luck.
-
Having listened twice to both programmes, I certainly find them interesting, and there is much in them that I have no disagreement with whatever. As far as new evidence is concerned though, I genuinely cannot find anything that is particularly new at all.
This almost seems a re-run of the programme that David Attenborough did in 2005, which I listened to at the time, and which originally sparked my interest in the AAH.
For those who wish to examine a different take on The AAH, I would point them to:
http://www.aquaticape.org/
-
Dear Udayana,
Well I am convinced ( well about eating more oily fish :P ) and by a happy coincidence I love oily fish, so more tuna, salmon and mackerel in my diet ::)
Just to add, this is what this kind of forum does best, expands your knowledge, gets the old grey matter churning, evolution has just got very sexy for me :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HFXNrrK5YE
Amazing, and no, not awesome, Americans have given me a severe dislike of the word awesome.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Udayana,
Well I am convinced ( well about eating more oily fish :P ) and by a happy coincidence I love oily fish, so more tuna, salmon and mackerel in my diet ::)
Just to add, this is what this kind of forum does best, expands your knowledge, gets the old grey matter churning, evolution has just got very sexy for me :P :P
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonnagle,
What we eat day to day has probably got nothing to do with hominid/hominin evolution. The vast majority of our current diets just did not exist or were not easily available 20000 years ago let alone over 2 million years ago. I myself, as a vegetarian, don't eat meat or fish, have only eaten fish once - entirely by accident! - and my brain is perfectly fine! Though, on the other hand, for all I know you are the last Glaswegian hunter gatherer and live on wild berries, hunting wild animals, scavenging and fishing! - but it doesn't mean that you will be any cleverer than someone eating a normal healthy diet :(
I do love swimming though and miss it terribly if I haven't been able to get to a pool for a couple days.
Evolution is interesting, but nearly every point can be argued over. It's the detail that makes it interesting. The points made by Jim Moore (in Enki's link) will no doubt still be argued over decades from now, with each side carefully picking out the facts that conform their biases. All I'd like is that everyone keeps an open mind, not just writing off one school or idea out of prejudice or arrogance - but also to notice when those other factors are affecting their investigations and conclusions.
-
Hi Udayana,
I knew that a historian (or a journalist, or anyone telling a story) was forced to choose, out of an infinite number of facts, what to present, what to omit. And that decision inevitably would reflect, whether consciously or not, the interests of the historian.
― Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States
The hope is, of course, as you quite rightly say:
that everyone keeps an open mind, not just writing off one school or idea out of prejudice or arrogance - but also to notice when those other factors are affecting their investigations and conclusions.
:)
-
However the idea that Morgan puts forward. for instance, in her book, the Scars of Evolution, is that between 6 to 7 My and 3.5My ago, the primates ancestral to man went through a semi aquatic or wholly aquatic stage, for long enough to leave vestigial clues, possibly because they were trapped on an island. Now, it is possible that a small, isolated population under stress can lead to significant evolutionary adaptation, but it does seem unlikely. Of course, there are examples of species moving from sea to land, and then back to sea(e.g.ceteceans and sirenians), but these have not been in the remarkably short time suggested by the AAH.
Hello enki
For me, one of the more astonishing claims of the programme came from a few supporters of the theory who were prepared to suggest that the aquatic ape period was much more recent than the 5-7 million to 3.5 million b.p. period that Hardy and Elaine Morgan had suggested. One hypothesised its occurring during the time of Homo Erectus (1 million years ago?), and another during the early years of the establishment of our own species, Homo Sapiens - maybe 100,000 years ago at most. I would certainly think that such recent estimates must be precluded by any reputable evolutionary theory. Nonetheless, aren't we still very much in the dark about the rates of evolutionary change? Isolation of an animal group has been suggested as a principal cause of speciation, but I believe Darwin himself (despite his Galapagos observations) was reluctant to claim this as the only cause of dynamic evolutionary change. (In this respect, I think E.M's idea of hominids isolated on an island is speculative in the extreme.)
Enter Stephen J. Gould, and his Punctuated Equilibrium. He was prepared to accept that from his observations of the fossil record that stasis over vast aeons is a pretty common phenomenon, but interspersed with periods of very rapid evolutionary change. I have to admit that I don't have the in-depth knowledge or indeed full understanding of what Gould was arguing to be able to suggest why such rapid evolutionary change might occur under certain conditions, but I think he might have thought that 3.5 million years was enough to effect a few bodily modifications in a hominid. We're not talking about a creature becoming fully aquatic here (as in the case of the cetaceans that you cite) - simply spending a lot of time in the water in search of the most readily available food supply.
The question of food supply is of course the clincher to several aspects of the argument. Was it not posited that lypids * found in abundance in aquatic animal tissue, but not so abundant in terrestrial animals, was an essential element in the preservation of healthy human organisms? And that these substances for long periods of the year were extremely meagre in animal prey, but always in high amounts in marine life? Those that had the healthier marine diet would certainly be the 'fittest' to survive. It was also argued that these substances were essential for the massive growth of the human brain, and that those creatures deprived of such essential ingredients never develop large brains. Thus, the propensity to develop larger brains would be intrinsically dependent on consistent supplies of the chemicals in question over possibly a few million years. And that would certainly give the hominids involved an evolutionary advantage.
*Not sure if these were the substances mentioned. I'm not a biochemist :)
-
Hi Gonnagle,
What we eat day to day has probably got nothing to do with hominid/hominin evolution. The vast majority of our current diets just did not exist or were not easily available 20000 years ago let alone over 2 million years ago.
Udayana
The programme specifically argued that what ancient hominids ate had a very great deal to do with their evolution! This was of course over a very long period of time, but it was emphasised that the compounds found in a diet based on aquatic plants and animals may have indeed caused the hominid brain to increase in size and capacity.
What we eat today, of course, whether we are omnivores or vegetarians is unlikely have much effect - for better or worse - than our ancestors. Those of us in the developed world have a huge range of nutritious food to choose from to help keep all our bodily and mental functions thriving. With our remote ancestors it was not so - they ate what they could get, and what they could get most easily, if they were in the right locations, was aquatic, especially marine animals and plants.
-
Dicky, I quite agree.
The availability or not of sources of fatty acids and lipids most probably did affect the lives and evolution of our distant ancestors, but this does not really mean that we are best eating what they ate, even if we were able to.
The diets we choose affect our survival and reproduction rates and thus, along with some epigentic effects, does affect future evolution of our species.
-
Hi Gonnagle,
What we eat day to day has probably got nothing to do with hominid/hominin evolution. The vast majority of our current diets just did not exist or were not easily available 20000 years ago let alone over 2 million years ago. I myself, as a vegetarian, don't eat meat or fish, have only eaten fish once - entirely by accident! - and my brain is perfectly fine! Though, on the other hand, for all I know you are the last Glaswegian hunter gatherer and live on wild berries, hunting wild animals, scavenging and fishing! - but it doesn't mean that you will be any cleverer than someone eating a normal healthy diet :(
I do love swimming though and miss it terribly if I haven't been able to get to a pool for a couple days.
Evolution is interesting, but nearly every point can be argued over. It's the detail that makes it interesting. The points made by Jim Moore (in Enki's link) will no doubt still be argued over decades from now, with each side carefully picking out the facts that conform their biases. All I'd like is that everyone keeps an open mind, not just writing off one school or idea out of prejudice or arrogance - but also to notice when those other factors are affecting their investigations and conclusions.
Vegetarian? You don't look too healthy in your photo!
Was your mother a veggie? Because most of the brain growth occurs before we are born I believe.
-
Hello enki
For me, one of the more astonishing claims of the programme came from a few supporters of the theory who were prepared to suggest that the aquatic ape period was much more recent than the 5-7 million to 3.5 million b.p. period that Hardy and Elaine Morgan had suggested. One hypothesised its occurring during the time of Homo Erectus (1 million years ago?), and another during the early years of the establishment of our own species, Homo Sapiens - maybe 100,000 years ago at most. I would certainly think that such recent estimates must be precluded by any reputable evolutionary theory. Nonetheless, aren't we still very much in the dark about the rates of evolutionary change? Isolation of an animal group has been suggested as a principal cause of speciation, but I believe Darwin himself (despite his Galapagos observations) was reluctant to claim this as the only cause of dynamic evolutionary change. (In this respect, I think E.M's idea of hominids isolated on an island is speculative in the extreme.)
Enter Stephen J. Gould, and his Punctuated Equilibrium. He was prepared to accept that from his observations of the fossil record that stasis over vast aeons is a pretty common phenomenon, but interspersed with periods of very rapid evolutionary change. I have to admit that I don't have the in-depth knowledge or indeed full understanding of what Gould was arguing to be able to suggest why such rapid evolutionary change might occur under certain conditions, but I think he might have thought that 3.5 million years was enough to effect a few bodily modifications in a hominid. We're not talking about a creature becoming fully aquatic here (as in the case of the cetaceans that you cite) - simply spending a lot of time in the water in search of the most readily available food supply.
The question of food supply is of course the clincher to several aspects of the argument. Was it not posited that lypids * found in abundance in aquatic animal tissue, but not so abundant in terrestrial animals, was an essential element in the preservation of healthy human organisms? And that these substances for long periods of the year were extremely meagre in animal prey, but always in high amounts in marine life? Those that had the healthier marine diet would certainly be the 'fittest' to survive. It was also argued that these substances were essential for the massive growth of the human brain, and that those creatures deprived of such essential ingredients never develop large brains. Thus, the propensity to develop larger brains would be intrinsically dependent on consistent supplies of the chemicals in question over possibly a few million years. And that would certainly give the hominids involved an evolutionary advantage.
*Not sure if these were the substances mentioned. I'm not a biochemist :)
If the lose of hair is part the equation of the argument then the waterside process would have had to have started around 5 million year ago which is when it is taken that we started to lose our hair.
Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium is based on a substantial change in the environment which makes other adaptions more viable, adaptions which would have been lost otherwise. We diverged from our common ape ancestor with the other modern apes about 6-7 million years ago. This would imply that some kind of environmental change occurred then and which no doubt pushed some of those ancestral apes to find other food sources(?). It would be nice if a TV programme was done on this relating the climate changes that went on over these millions of years and the evolutional change of our species.
It should be noted, from what I can tell that we were not fully upright until probably Homo erectus (hence name) if not later (does anyone know this?). Which would imply to me that it was being on the savannah that finally gave the final push to this fully erect status as we chased prey around and developed amble buttocks.
I have to say I find this diet argument slightly dubious but for no real scientific reason.
-
Vegetarian? You don't look too healthy in your photo!
Was your mother a veggie? Because most of the brain growth occurs before we are born I believe.
My brain is fine but the rest is built of electrical and electronic trash :)
The WEEE Man (http://www.edenproject.com/visit/whats-here/giant-sculpture-made-of-waste)
My parents, grandparents and presumably ancestors back for many generations, (back to Eden?) were vegetarian. I started a thread a while back on a study on genetic changes associated with vegetarianism - in genes that affect processing of essential fats such as omega 3 and 6.
Vegetarian genes (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11817.msg602325#new)
-
If the lose of hair is part the equation of the argument then the waterside process would have had to have started around 5 million year ago which is when it is taken that we started to lose our hair.
Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium is based on a substantial change in the environment which makes other adaptions more viable, adaptions which would have been lost otherwise. We diverged from our common ape ancestor with the other modern apes about 6-7 million years ago. This would imply that some kind of environmental change occurred then and which no doubt pushed some of those ancestral apes to find other food sources(?). It would be nice if a TV programme was done on this relating the climate changes that went on over these millions of years and the evolutional change of our species.
It should be noted, from what I can tell that we were not fully upright until probably Homo erectus (hence name) if not later (does anyone know this?). Which would imply to me that it was being on the savannah that finally gave the final push to this fully erect status as we chased prey around and developed amble buttocks.
I have to say I find this diet argument slightly dubious but for no real scientific reason.
The huge differences in dating any aquatic stage show how far off any solid theory is. Investigation has to be related to knowledge of environmental effects of historical climate change in Africa. I'd speculate that we have been in and out of the water a number of times.
-
Hello enki
For me, one of the more astonishing claims of the programme came from a few supporters of the theory who were prepared to suggest that the aquatic ape period was much more recent than the 5-7 million to 3.5 million b.p. period that Hardy and Elaine Morgan had suggested. One hypothesised its occurring during the time of Homo Erectus (1 million years ago?), and another during the early years of the establishment of our own species, Homo Sapiens - maybe 100,000 years ago at most. I would certainly think that such recent estimates must be precluded by any reputable evolutionary theory. Nonetheless, aren't we still very much in the dark about the rates of evolutionary change? Isolation of an animal group has been suggested as a principal cause of speciation, but I believe Darwin himself (despite his Galapagos observations) was reluctant to claim this as the only cause of dynamic evolutionary change. (In this respect, I think E.M's idea of hominids isolated on an island is speculative in the extreme.)
Enter Stephen J. Gould, and his Punctuated Equilibrium. He was prepared to accept that from his observations of the fossil record that stasis over vast aeons is a pretty common phenomenon, but interspersed with periods of very rapid evolutionary change. I have to admit that I don't have the in-depth knowledge or indeed full understanding of what Gould was arguing to be able to suggest why such rapid evolutionary change might occur under certain conditions, but I think he might have thought that 3.5 million years was enough to effect a few bodily modifications in a hominid. We're not talking about a creature becoming fully aquatic here (as in the case of the cetaceans that you cite) - simply spending a lot of time in the water in search of the most readily available food supply.
The question of food supply is of course the clincher to several aspects of the argument. Was it not posited that lypids * found in abundance in aquatic animal tissue, but not so abundant in terrestrial animals, was an essential element in the preservation of healthy human organisms? And that these substances for long periods of the year were extremely meagre in animal prey, but always in high amounts in marine life? Those that had the healthier marine diet would certainly be the 'fittest' to survive. It was also argued that these substances were essential for the massive growth of the human brain, and that those creatures deprived of such essential ingredients never develop large brains. Thus, the propensity to develop larger brains would be intrinsically dependent on consistent supplies of the chemicals in question over possibly a few million years. And that would certainly give the hominids involved an evolutionary advantage.
*Not sure if these were the substances mentioned. I'm not a biochemist :)
Hi Dicky,
Morgan regards the crucial gap between Ramapithecus at 9My and Australopthecus at 3.7 My(Morgan 'The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis') and refines the precise period between 8 and 6 My. Of course ramapithecus is now regarded as being part of the orangutan group and is not a viable ancestor for the hominid line. It is interesting that in her earlier book, she considers that there were 'ten or twelve million years in the water'(Morgan 'The Descent of Woman')
Stephen Gould's (and others) hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium mainly deals with the idea of the problems related to stasis and the sudden appearance and disappearance of species, as we see it in the fossil record. It is proposed that it is usually the result of rare and geologically rapid events, allowing new morphologies to form quickly.
I'm not sure that this helps explain the AAH though. Surely Ockham's Razor suggests that with a terrestrial antecedent and a terrestrial descendent shortly(geologically) thereafter, the evolutionary trajectory would be through terrestrial intermediates. As regards the coastal theory of the aquatic/semi aquatic ape, it is surely true that hominids have occupied a successful niche in mosaic/savannah habitats, even with the suggested aquatic changes of, for instance, bipedality, the descended larynx, sweating(involving salt and water loss) and subcutaneous fat. So, why did these proto-hominids desert such a rich and productive niche for the rigours of the savannah? After all the Miocene cooling provides the necessary pressure to justify a savannah/mosaic woodland explanation whilst the coastal aquatic scenario would seem a more stable environment, leading to increasingly more well adapted aquatic/semi aquatic hominids better suited to survival, maybe leading to a population explosion. Their subsequent disappearance is surely a problem for those who suggest that coastal waters was where they originated. A tsunami, perhaps?
Your point about the marine food supply and the enlargement of the brain is an interesting one. This is largely founded on the fact that omega 3 fatty acids are required for brain growth, and that omega 3 is abundant in fish in particular. First of all, Morgan argues that there is no evidence that the savannah requires more intelligence to exploit than the ancestral forest.(Morgan 'Descent of the Child'). Of course she is correct, but fails to consider other factors whichare often cited as leading to larger brains, such as socialization and co-operation. Also, although some cetaceans can be generally considered to have large brains, and good EQs, what about other marine species, especially intellectually challenged fish?
Greater encephalisation, of course, is shown in both homo habilis and homo erectus rather than the australopithecines, and these are clearly associated with a terrestrial environment as witnessed by stone tools and bones.
As regards the omega 3 fatty acids, we don't really need loads of it as(apart from infants) we can synthesize it from vegetable oils and meat sources, as well as the seashore. Indeed, if you move back say two hundred years(or before dietary supplements and mass food availability) plenty of people with normal brains existed on diets which didn't have marine elements. Also the idea that rich sources of omega 3 would, in some way, kickstart larger brains is postively Lamarckian in its intent. Evolution doesn't work that way. If it did, why haven't fish eating species such as herons, diving ducks, otters, seals developed much larger brains?
Finally, whilst scanning Ch 9 of Gould's 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory'(which was a bit like wading through treacle), I did come across this quote. I hasten to add that he was not talking about the AAH at all, but, for me, this quote is entirely apposite.
He mentioned G.K.Chesterton, who wrote that all art is limitation. He then goes on to say:
The same principle operates in science, where claiming too much, or too broad a scope of application, often condemns a good idea to mushy indefiniteness and consequent vacuity
I think that the AAH had a kernel of a good idea, I'm not against it, but Morgan tried to encompass too much in her enthusiasm to put it across. It does seem now to have reached a point however, that in a much more watered down form, the idea of the waterside ape can be looked at with new eyes.
-
Dear enki,
I have not read all of your link ( it is quite lengthy ).
http://www.aquaticape.org/
but can you tell me if it deals with the fossil evidence that when man first stood up there was no Savannah.
It does deal with a definition of Savannah,
http://www.aquaticape.org/savannah.html
Gonnagle.
-
Dear enki,
I have not read all of your link ( it is quite lengthy ).
http://www.aquaticape.org/
but can you tell me if it deals with the fossil evidence that when man first stood up there was no Savannah.
It does deal with a definition of Savannah,
http://www.aquaticape.org/savannah.html
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonners,
As far as I know, there is some slight evidence that ramidus could have walked upright, but the evidence is tenuous. The first real evidence came from both the discovery of 'Lucy'(australopithacus afarensis and the footprints of 3 afarensis individuals at Laetoli Tanzania. This was almost definitely at a time when the drier climate had produced mosaic woodland rather than dense forest, and also near to large lakes.(I have actually seen mock ups of these footprints at the small museum at the Olduvai Gorge.) Now, of course, the whole area is very dry and barren. Afarensis remains have been found covering an age of between roughly 4 My and 2.5 My. Interestingly the size of the afarensis brain is similar to that of a chimp.
-
Dear enki,
Then why does Sir David in the second episode ( 16.30 mins in ) tell us that the Savannah hypothesis is on shaky ground, and I quote, the inescapable fossil evidence that Savannah's as we know them today were simply not around when man first stood up
.
He then goes on to tell us about a scientist, Philip Tobias ( three times Nobel prize nominated ) who says that the Savannah hypothesis should be thrown out of the window.
I am really taken by this aquatic ape theory, it all sounds quite sensible, not that I think we should throw out the Savannah hypothesis just that it can sit quite nicely beside it, man the hunter and fisherman ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear enki,
Then why does Sir David in the second episode ( 16.30 mins in ) tell us that the Savannah hypothesis is on shaky ground, and I quote, .
He then goes on to tell us about a scientist, Philip Tobias ( three times Nobel prize nominated ) who says that the Savannah hypothesis should be thrown out of the window.
I am really taken by this aquatic ape theory, it all sounds quite sensible, not that I think we should throw out the Savannah hypothesis just that it can sit quite nicely beside it, man the hunter and fisherman ;)
Gonnagle.
Gonners,
Perhaps because the original Savannah hypothesis has been considerably modified in the last 20 years or so. It was originally promulgated by Raymond Dart after discovering the taung skull in 1925. But time and discoveries have moved on. The generally accepted interpretation now is of a mosaic woodland, which would give good tree cover, but which may well have involved travelling on the ground between woodland areas. These areas, over time, became drier and drier. David Attenborough was quite right in suggesting that the savannah habitat wasn't around when man first stood up. The clue is in the words "as we know them today". The original habitat may well have included flooded areas, swampy areas, lakes etc. and the idea that bipedalism came about through wading in low water must take its place with the many other suggestions.
-
Hi Dicky,
Morgan regards the crucial gap between Ramapithecus at 9My and Australopthecus at 3.7 My(Morgan 'The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis') and refines the precise period between 8 and 6 My. Of course ramapithecus is now regarded as being part of the orangutan group and is not a viable ancestor for the hominid line. It is interesting that in her earlier book, she considers that there were 'ten or twelve million years in the water'(Morgan 'The Descent of Woman')
Stephen Gould's (and others) hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium mainly deals with the idea of the problems related to stasis and the sudden appearance and disappearance of species, as we see it in the fossil record. It is proposed that it is usually the result of rare and geologically rapid events, allowing new morphologies to form quickly.
I'm not sure that this helps explain the AAH though. Surely Ockham's Razor suggests that with a terrestrial antecedent and a terrestrial descendent shortly(geologically) thereafter, the evolutionary trajectory would be through terrestrial intermediates. As regards the coastal theory of the aquatic/semi aquatic ape, it is surely true that hominids have occupied a successful niche in mosaic/savannah habitats, even with the suggested aquatic changes of, for instance, bipedality, the descended larynx, sweating(involving salt and water loss) and subcutaneous fat. So, why did these proto-hominids desert such a rich and productive niche for the rigours of the savannah? After all the Miocene cooling provides the necessary pressure to justify a savannah/mosaic woodland explanation whilst the coastal aquatic scenario would seem a more stable environment, leading to increasingly more well adapted aquatic/semi aquatic hominids better suited to survival, maybe leading to a population explosion. Their subsequent disappearance is surely a problem for those who suggest that coastal waters was where they originated. A tsunami, perhaps?
Your point about the marine food supply and the enlargement of the brain is an interesting one. This is largely founded on the fact that omega 3 fatty acids are required for brain growth, and that omega 3 is abundant in fish in particular. First of all, Morgan argues that there is no evidence that the savannah requires more intelligence to exploit than the ancestral forest.(Morgan 'Descent of the Child'). Of course she is correct, but fails to consider other factors whichare often cited as leading to larger brains, such as socialization and co-operation. Also, although some cetaceans can be generally considered to have large brains, and good EQs, what about other marine species, especially intellectually challenged fish?
Greater encephalisation, of course, is shown in both homo habilis and homo erectus rather than the australopithecines, and these are clearly associated with a terrestrial environment as witnessed by stone tools and bones.
As regards the omega 3 fatty acids, we don't really need loads of it as(apart from infants) we can synthesize it from vegetable oils and meat sources, as well as the seashore. Indeed, if you move back say two hundred years(or before dietary supplements and mass food availability) plenty of people with normal brains existed on diets which didn't have marine elements. Also the idea that rich sources of omega 3 would, in some way, kickstart larger brains is postively Lamarckian in its intent. Evolution doesn't work that way. If it did, why haven't fish eating species such as herons, diving ducks, otters, seals developed much larger brains?
Finally, whilst scanning Ch 9 of Gould's 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory'(which was a bit like wading through treacle), I did come across this quote. I hasten to add that he was not talking about the AAH at all, but, for me, this quote is entirely apposite.
He mentioned G.K.Chesterton, who wrote that all art is limitation. He then goes on to say:
I think that the AAH had a kernel of a good idea, I'm not against it, but Morgan tried to encompass too much in her enthusiasm to put it across. It does seem now to have reached a point however, that in a much more watered down form, the idea of the waterside ape can be looked at with new eyes.
The problem with this, in our ancestors movements, is what is meant by savannah and what was the climate really like at various stages of our evolution?
If the waterside existence did create a population explosion then perhaps some did move inland because of this.
-
Hi Gonners,
As far as I know, there is some slight evidence that ramidus could have walked upright, but the evidence is tenuous. The first real evidence came from both the discovery of 'Lucy'(australopithacus afarensis and the footprints of 3 afarensis individuals at Laetoli Tanzania. This was almost definitely at a time when the drier climate had produced mosaic woodland rather than dense forest, and also near to large lakes.(I have actually seen mock ups of these footprints at the small museum at the Olduvai Gorge.) Now, of course, the whole area is very dry and barren. Afarensis remains have been found covering an age of between roughly 4 My and 2.5 My. Interestingly the size of the afarensis brain is similar to that of a chimp.
Was 'Lucy' fully upright? I thought not.
-
Was 'Lucy' fully upright? I thought not.
Hi Jack,
The general consensus is that she was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)#Ambulation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20141127-lucy-fossil-revealed-our-origins
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750
Although debate still continues as to how much time she would spend in trees, if at all.
-
Just to show that there are other views available:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/16/david-attenboroughs-aquatic-ape-series-based-on-wishful-thinking
-
Dear enki,
Thanks for the link,
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/16/david-attenboroughs-aquatic-ape-series-based-on-wishful-thinking
And all the other links that the original link takes me to.
Just to ask ( and does anyone else agree ) Darwins theory ( Fact ) is undisputed, but our story ( human evolution ) is still to be written, a point in question, our lack of hair, so many theories but no definite answer, another, walking upright.
Please forgive me if I seem to be asking very simple questions, I am but a novice, but I find it very refreshing to discuss this subject without any recourse to Creationist bashing.
Also, doing a bit of research on this topic ( going off at a bit of a tangent ) parents seem to worry about at what stage their child begins to walk, would it be helpful to take your child to the swimming, let them wade in the shallow end, helped by the adult, the buoyancy of the water, just a thought flitting through my Aquatic ape brain. ???
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonners,
On the subject of evolutionary reasons for our near nakedness, compared with most other animals(but the only primate), one idea is that it influences the efficiency of sweating, although it increases the risk of hypothermia. Also, we can't be sure, exactly where it came in, in the evolution of the hominid line. A list of some of the suggestions/hypotheses are present in this paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/213774095_Evolution_of_nakedness_in_Homo_sapiens
It is worth looking, at least briefly, at the sub divisions of the above paper, as they show both the advantages and disadvantages of the various proposed hypotheses.
As regards your idea that very young children, regularly taken to a water/swimming environment, aids in learning to walk, as far as I know, the answer is a qualified yes, because in a water environment a greater range of muscles are improved, which encourages walking, rather than crawling, at an earlier age. This, of course, is in addition to the other benefits such as bonding, dispelling the fear of water, improving co-ordination etc.
https://www.waterbabies.co.uk/baby-swimming/benefits-of-learning-early
look at the section entitled 'it builds their strength'.
For me, the evolution of the hominid line, and how homo sapiens sapiens is the last surviving member, is a fascinating one. There are many gaps to be filled, and each new discovery has its own part to play. It is nowhere near complete, as you quite rightly say, but we do have some generally agreed structures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#Primates
-
Hi Jack,
The general consensus is that she was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)#Ambulation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20141127-lucy-fossil-revealed-our-origins
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750
Although debate still continues as to how much time she would spend in trees, if at all.
Just got round to viewing these links, thank you. The technical stuff of anatomy went right over my head but still plenty to follow with my limited know how on this.
If 'Lucy' wasn't fully upright then she sounds as if she was pretty much there. I didn't know about her lumber curve which is very telling.
So what makes a Homo genus?, as she is a Australopithecine, and yet is walking pretty much upright. I realise the brain size was near that to an apes. Diet and teeth?
-
Just got round to viewing these links, thank you. The technical stuff of anatomy went right over my head but still plenty to follow with my limited know how on this.
If 'Lucy' wasn't fully upright then she sounds as if she was pretty much there. I didn't know about her lumber curve which is very telling.
So what makes a Homo genus?, as she is a Australopithecine, and yet is walking pretty much upright. I realise the brain size was near that to an apes. Diet and teeth?
Good question, Jack.
This might be a useful article.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_1.htm
However, exact points of when one genus becomes another are often very difficult to decide(if they actually exist, that is), and, especially in paleoanthropology where specimens are hard to come by. In my own interest area of ornithology, there is often considerable debate as to whether a particular bird is a species or subspecies, for instance. It's usually called 'lumping' and 'splitting'. Birders prefer splitting, of course. :) E.g. only in recent times have the carrion crow and the hooded crow being generally accepted as meriting the taxonomic name species, rather than sub species. Similarly with the common chiffchaff and the Iberian chiffchaff.
-
Good question, Jack.
This might be a useful article.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_1.htm
However, exact points of when one genus becomes another are often very difficult to decide(if they actually exist, that is), and, especially in paleoanthropology where specimens are hard to come by. In my own interest area of ornithology, there is often considerable debate as to whether a particular bird is a species or subspecies, for instance. It's usually called 'lumping' and 'splitting'. Birders prefer splitting, of course. :) E.g. only in recent times have the carrion crow and the hooded crow being generally accepted as meriting the taxonomic name species, rather than sub species. Similarly with the common chiffchaff and the Iberian chiffchaff.
Reading through the link it states that Homo habilis was the first of the hominins that acquired brains that were detectably or significantly larger than apes. If the waterside theory is correct then these should be found near watery locations at the time. It also states that when habilis came on the scene 2.5 mya the climate was influx in Africa which was predominately a dry and cooling period. This could have meant that all species moved towards and hung around water locations (and possibly small prey and plants became scarce), and that, presumably, habilis found a way to go fishing.
But from my old notes we lost our hair by at least 3.5 mya, and possibly started to lose it from around 5 mya. If the waterside theory is using this loss of hair as part of our ability to swim, and have a streamlined body, then something doesn't fit for our fish diet should, by their reckoning, have increased our brains prior to habilis.
The link at the end mentions gene mutations and this is where I find the diet idea iffy. If there are not the genes to create large brains and the cranium to house it then no amount of fish is going to change things much. Just musing through the possible logic of it.
Do you know or understand the reference in the radio programme (I may have missed heard) that our nose size and shape have something to do with the waterside theory because its size is disproportionate to our ability to detect and be sensitive to odours?
-
As a bit of oblique information there was a Miocene ape, Oreopithecus bambolii that lived around 9 - 7 mya, that was bipedal but structurally different from hominins. It was found in Sardinia and circumstances would seem to indicate it having no links whatsoever with our ancestors, and as such would be a case of independent adaption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreopithecus
-
As a bit of oblique information there was a Miocene ape, Oreopithecus bambolii that lived around 9 - 7 mya, that was bipedal but structurally different from hominins. It was found in Sardinia and circumstances would seem to indicate it having no links whatsoever with our ancestors, and as such would be a case of independent adaption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreopithecus
oblique, but interesting, thank you
-
Reading through the link it states that Homo habilis was the first of the hominins that acquired brains that were detectably or significantly larger than apes. If the waterside theory is correct then these should be found near watery locations at the time. It also states that when habilis came on the scene 2.5 mya the climate was influx in Africa which was predominately a dry and cooling period. This could have meant that all species moved towards and hung around water locations (and possibly small prey and plants became scarce), and that, presumably, habilis found a way to go fishing.
But from my old notes we lost our hair by at least 3.5 mya, and possibly started to lose it from around 5 mya. If the waterside theory is using this loss of hair as part of our ability to swim, and have a streamlined body, then something doesn't fit for our fish diet should, by their reckoning, have increased our brains prior to habilis.
The link at the end mentions gene mutations and this is where I find the diet idea iffy. If there are not the genes to create large brains and the cranium to house it then no amount of fish is going to change things much. Just musing through the possible logic of it.
Do you know or understand the reference in the radio programme (I may have missed heard) that our nose size and shape have something to do with the waterside theory because its size is disproportionate to our ability to detect and be sensitive to odours?
Hi Jack,
I'll just concentrate on your last paragraph, if that's okay.
Smell:
Morgan talks about our olfactory lobes being small and relates this to similar diminution in aquatic mammals(with a total loss in cetaceans)(Morgan 'The Aquatic Ape'). She is quite correct. However what about the other primates,which, as an order, are associated with reduced olfaction, with apes and monkeys having a smaller olfactory system than lemurs and lorises(Jones 'Cambridge Encylcopedia of Human Evolution'). She fails to mention that, for instance, a move away from a largely vegetarian diet to scavenging could provide further pressure to reduce a sense of smell.
Nasal Closure:
A really important requirement for adapting to an aquatic lifestyle would be the ability to close the nostrils. Homo sapiens cannot do this.
Verhaegen suggested that the erectile tissue of the inferior nasal concha(a scroll like bone in the nasal cavity) might fulfill this function to some extent(nasal obstruction can occur with rapid humidity or temperature change) and suggests that it has a linkage with the diving rhythm of Korean and Japanese divers.(verhaegen 'The Aquatic Ape Theory). This seems to me a little like cherry picking to me.
Morgan also has a tentative suggestion that by everting the top lip, and pressing it against the nose, the nostrils could be closed. She also suggests that our ability not to be able to do this now is down to no natural selection pressure encouraging this trait to continue. I suggest that this tentative speculation is indeed just that.
Nose size and shape:
Morgan sees the human nose to be 'one of humanity's most baffling hallmarks'(Morgan 'The Aquatic Ape'), but other primates such as baboons and mandrills have developed unusual nose structures too. How does one explain the proboscis monkey? Morgan expresses the idea that the bridge of the nose is useful in deflecting water when diving, but it seems highly unusual that evolution has produced such an evolved appendage as the nose, and yet not so well adapted as to provide nasal closure when being immersed in water. Some ideas for our nose structure and shape are contained in this article:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2082274-the-evolution-of-the-nose-why-is-the-human-hooter-so-big/
Incidentally thanks for the info in your mess. 46. Had a quick check on this. I definitely find it interesting.
-
Hi Jack,
I'll just concentrate on your last paragraph, if that's okay.
Smell:
Morgan talks about our olfactory lobes being small and relates this to similar diminution in aquatic mammals(with a total loss in cetaceans)(Morgan 'The Aquatic Ape'). She is quite correct. However what about the other primates,which, as an order, are associated with reduced olfaction, with apes and monkeys having a smaller olfactory system than lemurs and lorises(Jones 'Cambridge Encylcopedia of Human Evolution'). She fails to mention that, for instance, a move away from a largely vegetarian diet to scavenging could provide further pressure to reduce a sense of smell.
Nasal Closure:
A really important requirement for adapting to an aquatic lifestyle would be the ability to close the nostrils. Homo sapiens cannot do this.
Verhaegen suggested that the erectile tissue of the inferior nasal concha(a scroll like bone in the nasal cavity) might fulfill this function to some extent(nasal obstruction can occur with rapid humidity or temperature change) and suggests that it has a linkage with the diving rhythm of Korean and Japanese divers.(verhaegen 'The Aquatic Ape Theory). This seems to me a little like cherry picking to me.
Morgan also has a tentative suggestion that by everting the top lip, and pressing it against the nose, the nostrils could be closed. She also suggests that our ability not to be able to do this now is down to no natural selection pressure encouraging this trait to continue. I suggest that this tentative speculation is indeed just that.
Nose size and shape:
Morgan sees the human nose to be 'one of humanity's most baffling hallmarks'(Morgan 'The Aquatic Ape'), but other primates such as baboons and mandrills have developed unusual nose structures too. How does one explain the proboscis monkey? Morgan expresses the idea that the bridge of the nose is useful in deflecting water when diving, but it seems highly unusual that evolution has produced such an evolved appendage as the nose, and yet not so well adapted as to provide nasal closure when being immersed in water. Some ideas for our nose structure and shape are contained in this article:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2082274-the-evolution-of-the-nose-why-is-the-human-hooter-so-big/
Incidentally thanks for the info in your mess. 46. Had a quick check on this. I definitely find it interesting.
Thank you for that. It seems that as our faces 'drew back' our noses had nowhere to go so stayed where they were protruding out. Been staring at peoples' noses and wondering about this process, and got some funny looks back!
This thread has been great as I haven't read anything on our ancestors for some time and totally forgot about the aquatic ape. Thanks.