Lynne A. Isbell & Truman P. Young 1996 "The evolution of bipedalism in hominids
and reduced group size in chimpanzees: alternative responses to decreasing
resource availability" JHE 30:389-397
             One hypothesis for the evolution of hominid bipedalism is that
bipedalism was more efficient than quadrupedalism for long-distance terrestrial
locomotion, and was favored when resources became scarcer and more widely
separated during the drying of African forests in the Miocene. Here we extend
this scenario for the evolution of bipedalism based on principles of behavioral
ecology of extant primates. Daily travel distance is not only an increasing
function of resource scarcity, but also of group size (because of intragroup
scramble competition). When faced with Miocene drying, hominoids were forced to
evolve either energetically more efficient locomotory abilities or smaller group
sizes. The cost of the latter strategy is that smaller groups are less
successful than larger groups in intergroup contest competition (smaller groups
are supplanted from limiting resources). Among the earliest hominids, bipedalism
may have been favored over small group size as an alternative energetic response
to decreased resource availability. The alternative was to maintain quadrupedal
locomotion but evolve fission-fusion grouping to reduce daily travel distance
for individuals and hence, their energetic costs of travel. We suggest that this
strategy represents the evolutionary pathway taken by chimpanzees. This
divergence of strategies may have been a result of inherent differences in
feeding ecology, but could also have been enhanced by the pre-empting of niche
space by the two closely related and presumably competing hominoid ancestors of
humans and chimpanzees. If so, it could have been a potential factor in the
speciation process that led to modern humans and chimpanzees.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 09:22:43 +0100, "Marc Verhaegen"
<marc.verhaegen@...> wrote:

[Quote from abstract]
>One hypothesis for the evolution of hominid bipedalism is that bipedalism was
more efficient than quadrupedalism for long-distance terrestrial locomotion, and
was favored when resources became scarcer and more widely separated during the
drying of African forests in the Miocene. Here we extend this scenario for the
evolution of bipedalism based on principles of behavioral ecology of extant
primates.

These people have no common sense. This 'efficient bipedalism' mantra
is similar to Peter Wheeler's thermoregulatory stuff - yes, you can
demonstrate a mathematical advantage, but it doesn't necessarily mean
anything in the real world.

And lo and behold, here they are talking about scarcer resources and
drying forests. Shh, don't mention the 'S' word! ;-)

Happy New Year, Marc and everyone in the group.

--
Pauline Ross

"Richard Wagler" <taxidea3@...> wrote in message
news:3E120145.3D9596B6@....

> Marc's ref is an article by Bartholomew and Wilke entitled 'Body
Temperature in Northern Fur Seals" in the Journal of Mammalogy (1956) Vol 37
pps 327-337. In it the authors do note eccrine sweating from their flippers
but go out of their way to point out how limited is the ability of these
seals to handle heat stress on land. The hunters doing the cull would chivy
the bachelor males away from the main rookery with the females and pups
before shooting them and processing the pelt. Even though the hunters were
very gentle and non-abusive - that's their story and they're stickin' to
it - it was not uncommon for these seals to become overheated and even die
during a trip of a few hundred yards. They do not provide any data re volume
of sweat produced etc so Marc's attempt to cite this for his claim that
humans and fur seals are the 'sweatiest' of mammals is typiclly inept.
Rick Wagler

Thanks, Wagler, at least you've done your homework. Fair comment except for
the last sentence: not my fault that there are few data. The most recent
info I read is AR Hoezel ed.2002 "Marine mammal biology" Blackwell, p.87:
"sweat glands on the flippers of otariids aid in heat transfer. On hot days
sea lions & fur seals can often be seen fanning their flippers & increasing
evaporative heat loss at these sites" (Blix cs.1979 Am.J.Phys.236:R188). WN
Mcfarland cs.1979 "Vertebrate life" Collier p.773: "tps that rise to only
10°C during the day. ... Almost any activity on land causes the seals to
pant & raise their hind flippers (abundantly supplied with sweat glands) &
wave them about." When somebody can give me info on eccrine thermoregulatory
sweating in other mammals (or interesting info on sweating in general:
apocrine or eccrine, amounts, possible functions...), I'll be grateful, but
so far I haven't seen any. IOW, I don't have to change 1 letter of what I
said:

- AFAIK the most abundant thermoactive eccrine sweating is seen in human &
sealions.

- Suggesting that our sweating evolved to cope with hot savanna conditions
is ridiculous nonsense. Wishful thinking, typical of some (not you, Wagler)
people here: sacvanna believers who have not more arguments in favour of
their belief that creationists have in favor of theirs.

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

> [Quote from abstract]
> >One hypothesis for the evolution of hominid bipedalism is that bipedalism
was more efficient than quadrupedalism for long-distance terrestrial
locomotion, and was favored when resources became scarcer and more widely
separated during the drying of African forests in the Miocene. Here we
extend this scenario for the evolution of bipedalism based on principles of
behavioral ecology of extant primates.
>
> These people have no common sense. This 'efficient bipedalism' mantra
> is similar to Peter Wheeler's thermoregulatory stuff - yes, you can
> demonstrate a mathematical advantage, but it doesn't necessarily mean
> anything in the real world.
>
> And lo and behold, here they are talking about scarcer resources and
> drying forests. Shh, don't mention the 'S' word! ;-)
>
> Happy New Year, Marc and everyone in the group.
>
> --
> Pauline Ross

I fully agree with you. (of course...)

All best wishes for everyone for 2003!

Marc

> >If we were full-time aquatic, but don't look like cetaceans, then not
looking like cetaceans becomes part of the "proof" that we were NOT
full-time aquatic. Craig

> The rest of the "proof" would have to carry most of the weight, because
the differences between cetaceans and us could be entirely due to the much
greater length of time ( x 10 or more) that cetaceans have spent as
full-time aquatics.     -- Ken Moore

It's true that there exists a time gap, but if necessary, evolution can be
very fast. IMO if we ever were fully aquatic (= "full-time aquatic" in
Craig's words I believe), even for only a few thousand years, we would have
lost all our body hair (but these can regrow??), we would have reduced skin
glands, external nose, apical nostrils, scrotal testes, ear size (could be
used for above the water? but for what??), inferior foramen magnum (could
have re-evolved?), we would have shortened our legs (re-lengthened
afterwards??), etc.  AFAICS, we never lost our wading-walking features, not
even our climbing features! I do believe our ancestors were "very" aquatic
(eg, skull thickness in erectus, or see
http://www.egroups.com/files/AAT/acne.jpg ), but not exclusively I think:
why would they not have collected coconuts? shells in the beach sand?
turtles, eggs on land, stranded marine mammals etc.?

Table 3 in Nutr.&Health http://www.egroups.com/files/AAT/Nutr.Health.doc
compared 68 features of 5 groups: semi-aquatics (very loosely defined
group), full aquatics (I only used Cetacea & Sireania, but what about
sea-otters? they never come on land AFAIK?), hominoids (clearly defined),
savanna (loosely defined) & arboreal mammals (loosely):  "In Table 3, the
numerical score for "fully aquatic" is not far short of that for
"semi-aquatic", but in view of our long scalp, axillar and pubic hair,
abundant skin glands (eccrine, sebaceous, and axillar apocrine), scrotal
testes, intermediate ear size, pneumatised skull, inferior foramen magnum
position, broad shoulders, short lumbar spine, non-rudimentary pelvis, very
long legs, tool use, and return to the land, it is unlikely that there ever
existed a fully aquatic stage (although women can give birth in the water,
and there even are children who, like sea-otters, are able to sleep the
whole night floating on the water)." [The last assertion is doubted by
many - I'm not so sure any more.]

IOW, IMO both comparative (but I only used Cetacea & Sirenia, not sea
otters) & functional arguments suggest we never were fully aquatic. The
comparative data, if anything, suggest that human ancestors at one time had
resemblances to sea otters (eg, tool use, back swim), sea lions (eg, manes,
long parallel foot bones), and perhaps to walruses (suction feeding) or even
sea cows (thick bones in H.erectus), but here again our extremely long legs
& perhaps our large extenal nose (larger than in all other primates), eg,
suggest we never were full-time aquatic.

Marc

"Tim Tyler" <tim@...> wrote in message news:H7z8x9.C3K@....

> :> "Aquatic" is a lousy adjective, IMO.    Craig

> : Some thoughts: Alister Hardy asked in his famous paper in the New
Scientist 1960 "Was Man more aquatic in the past?". More aquatic. Yes, of
course, it's obvious that human ancestors were "more aquatic".

> I would not say that.  Our ancestors would probably have been hairier than
us - and may have been less well adapted to water. It seems possible that we
are currently at the pinnacle of our "aquaticness".     -- Tim

That's unlikely IMO, eg, H.erectus had thicker bones, a feature only seen in
slow bottom-dwelling species such as walruses & sea-cows. This & other
features suggest we had far more-aquatic (wading & parttime diving)
ancestors once.

Best wishes for 2003, Tim. Nice to hear from you.

Marc

> > > > > When I use "fully aquatic" I usu. specify Cetacea+Sirenia,
"semi-aquatic" is clear enough isn't it? Marc

> > > > > No, then you've replaced a lifestyle term with a comparative
species.

> > > > No, no: these are the only examples we have.

> > > I know.  But when you fail to define, and instead use an example, you
have to take the whole example.

> > No, no: it's simple: full = complete.

> It's simple only to you because you aren't recognizing that someone else
might use the word differently.

That's why I give the examples.

>  I'm not telling you that your definition is right or wrong, or that
another's use of the term "aquatic" is right or wrong.  I'm saying that
reasonable people use the term differently, and until a single usage is
agreed upon, the term can't be used as a standalone adjective.

The term is not important. It's the scenario. But it has to have name. I try
to avoid the term "aquatic" because it's too loaded, but this not always
possible & the term "AAT" is widely know.

> > You have to look at it statistically. And to look at all features apart.
If you have a lot of features that are not seen in fully aquatics, the
chance is low that the species has been fully aquatic (note the additional
problem of the temporal aspect). ...

> Now we're totally off the point.  I don't question your case here.

Yes, you do, Craig: you think our ancestors were fully aquatic (or full time
aquatic if you want) once, I don't think so.

> I'm saying that when you use an example as a way of defining the term, you
are admitting that there is no adequate definition.

I use the examples in order not to be misunderstood.

> More on this later, I think - gotta go to work.    Craig

Work on January 1st? Have a nice day, Craig.

Marc

> From one book about seals :  "The Antartic fur seal can move almost as
fast as a person can run, and the leopard seal can wrigle over ice at a
similar speed. Photographers should take note when approaching seals on a
beach as they may move with greater ease and rapidity than expected." --
Mario

What book is that, Mario? Does this mean furseals are about as terrestrial
as humans are?

Marc

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@v...> wrote:

[snip]

> > Now we're totally off the point.  I don't question
> > your case here.
>
> Yes, you do, Craig: you think our ancestors were
> fully aquatic (or full time aquatic if you want)
> once, I don't think so.

I DO question your case elsewhere; I don't question
your case HERE because I was trying to discuss the
definitions, not the evidence.  We're not getting
anywhere, because you apparently think I'm trying to
talk about evidence.
>
> > I'm saying that when you use an example as a
> > way of defining the term, you are admitting
> > that there is no adequate definition.
>
> I use the examples in order not to be misunderstood.

IOW, the terminology is not adequate, which is my
point.  The term "aquatic" is not defined, and should
not be used as if it were.

> > More on this later, I think - gotta go to work. Craig
>
> Work on January 1st? Have a nice day, Craig. Marc

That was yesterday.  Today is New Year's and Sherry
and I spent it rummaging in the store room, putting in
new shelving.  Whoopee.  Now we're going to open a
bottle of champagne and probably fall asleep in front
of the fireplace.

Craig
www.PassionateApe.com

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "craighagstrom <craigh@b...>"
<craigh@b...> wrote:

[snip]

> > Work on January 1st? Have a nice day, Craig. Marc
>
> That was yesterday.

Hmm, I meant to say that message was sent yesterday.

Craig
www.PassionateApe.com

A paleo anthropologist has said that it was obvious by just looking
at a Neandertal skeleton that they were a different species. How
interesting. So, simply inspecting a skeleton can determine that if a
modern hom-sap were to attempt breed with a neanderthal then it is
impossible that they would have viable offspring. Perhaps if they had
read of the work of Dan Leiberman:
www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/origins/armadillo.html
then they might not be so certain.....

"CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Dan Lieberman does to armadillos what most
children do to their hamsters: He makes them run on treadmills. It's
a quaint habit but, more to the point, it's helping the Harvard
anthropologist gain startling insights into mankind's origins. The
confluence between jogging termite eater and evolving human may seem
unlikely. The connection is real, however, and forms the basis of an
intriguing research program that's teasing out some fundamental
truths about our evolutionary history - through the study of animal
bone and tooth growth. Lieberman has shown that the more the
armadillo exercises, the thicker its bones will be.

It may not sound like much. But such information has crucial
implications in understanding why we are thin-boned, while our
Neanderthal predecessors were thickset. In the past, these variations
were thought to reflect different genetic predispositions. By
contrast, Lieberman's work suggests they reflect disparities in
lifestyle and behavior. "Being big-boned is not merely a gift of the
genes," he said. "If I want to make an animal hyper-robust, I can do
it simply in the laboratory. I can make little Neanderthal armadillos
by making them run on treadmills when young."
Lieberman has demonstrated this effect on several species, but his
favorite remains the South American armadillo. This is because the
females bear batches of four genetically identical offspring every
pregnancy. Armed with two pairs of genetic doppelgangers, Lieberman
has been able to study the environment's effects on an armadillo's
physiological development without worrying about the influence of
inherited differences.

Joggers and snufflers
In his experiments, he took two armadillos from a batch and let them
continue their normal snuffling lives. The other pair had to run on a
treadmill for at least an hour a day. The results can now be seen in
the shoe boxes of armadillo bones that Lieberman stores in his
cramped office. Armadillo joggers have noticeably thicker bones than
genetically identical, sedentary snufflers.And that leads us to the
Neandertal lineage of earlier human beings about 250,000 years ago
and survived until about 30,000 B.C., when they were extinguished by
a wave of thin-boned African interlopers: Homo sapiens. The reason
why stronger, more robust and apparently equally intelligent
Neanderthals should have perished, while our upstart ancestors
thrived, remains one of modern science's most enduring mysteries
given that only bones, teeth, stone tools and little else remain of
our Neolithic predecessors. Lieberman's audacious experiments suggest
an answer, however. "From my armadillo work, it is clear Neanderthals
had thicker bones than modern humans, not because of major inherent
differences, but because their behavior was dissimilar," he said.
"Life was more active. They had to work harder and hunt more because
they used the environment differently from modern humans."

Palentologists need to admit that there are servere limitations on
what bones alone can tell us. The "sabre-toothed tiger" has recently
been renamed "Sabre-toothed cat." The reason must be related to the
fact that if you give them a modern lion and tiger skelleton to
examine, they cannot tell them apart! Without a wealth of other
information, bones cannot tell us the whole story. But when it comes
to human evolution, if the P.A.s say that if a theory cannot be
extrapolated from their fossils, then it must be incorrect. It was
for this reason that I was excited that if an eminent amatuer
paleantologist like David Attenborough can understand the viability
of AAT, then surely the professionals might be open to some
modification of their position. The AAT episode is broadcast in a few
weeks time in the UK. It will interesting to see who picks up the
story.

Bernie

When I read the expression "aquatic" I take it to refer to an animal
that has all of its important life cycles in water (conception, birth
foraging, death etc). If one of them takes place on land, like sea
turtles laying eggs etc) then I think of them as semi-aquatic, even
though the egg laying takes up only a tiny percentage of their
lifespan. Perhaps we should use the expression "partially aquatic"
instead? Also, what is the definition of an amphibious species?
Different species of frogs can live 100% in water or 100% out of
water. Yet they are all considered to be amphibians. Perhaps we just
have to acept that all terms in biology can be ambiguous at some
level and that academics must be allowed to use them as they see fit.
That is unless they are obviously completely wrong, in which case one
should just cite the journal that rebuts the point in queastion and
move on.

Bernie

The BBC is reporting this story:

A chimp who has grown up among humans may have developed the ability
to talk, claims a research team from the US. The findings, published
in New Scientist magazine, may come under fire from other scientists.
But they may further challenge the long-held belief that apes have no
language ability.

Kanzi, an adult pygmy chimp, is kept at Georgia State University in
Atlanta, and, like many other primates, can communicate by pointing at
symbols. However, researchers recently noticed that he was also making
gentle noises while he interacted with humans.

By studying many hours of videotape, Dr Jared Taglialatela and Dr Sue
Savage-Rumbaugh spotted four distinct sounds that accompanied
particular actions, corresponding to "banana", "grapes", "juice" and
"yes".

Full story at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2617063.stm

--
Pauline Ross

> When I read the expression "aquatic" I take it to refer to an animal that
has all of its important life cycles in water (conception, birth foraging,
death etc). If one of them takes place on land, like sea turtles laying eggs
etc) then I think of them as semi-aquatic, even though the egg laying takes
up only a tiny percentage of their lifespan. Perhaps we should use the
expression "partially aquatic" instead? Also, what is the definition of an
amphibious species? Different species of frogs can live 100% in water or
100% out of water. Yet they are all considered to be amphibians. Perhaps we
just have to acept that all terms in biology can be ambiguous at some level
and that academics must be allowed to use them as they see fit. That is
unless they are obviously completely wrong, in which case one should just
cite the journal that rebuts the point in queastion and move on.     Bernie

The partially aquatic theory or PAT? Yes, in the case of our ancestors
"partially aquatic is perhaps the best term, but "semi-aquatic" (at one time
they spent most of their (active) time in water IMO) & "amphibious"
("capable of operating in water & land") are not wrong IMO. If we use
"amphibious ancestors" we couild keep "AAT".

Marc

> www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/origins/armadillo.html     ...
"Being big-boned is not merely a gift of the genes," he said. "If I want to
make an animal hyper-robust, I can do it simply in the laboratory. I can
make little Neanderthal armadillos by making them run on treadmills when
young." ...

We know for many years that bone thickness is partly due muscle insertions &
activity (Washburn), but I doubt whether Leiberman can make armadillo skulls
thick occipitally & thin frontally, as seen in archaic Homo, eg, Petralona
skull
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/files/Bookstein%2799%20compar.fr.profiles%
20An.Rec..pdf .



> Palentologists need to admit that there are servere limitations on what
bones alone can tell us. The "sabre-toothed tiger" has recently been renamed
"Sabre-toothed cat." The reason must be related to the fact that if you give
them a modern lion and tiger skelleton to examine, they cannot tell them
apart! Without a wealth of other information, bones cannot tell us the whole
story. But when it comes to human evolution, if the PAs say that if a theory
cannot be extrapolated from their fossils, then it must be incorrect. It was
for this reason that I was excited that if an eminent amateur paleantologist
like David Attenborough can understand the viability of AAT, then surely the
professionals might be open to some modification of their position. The AAT
episode is broadcast in a few weeks time in the UK. It will interesting to
see who picks up the story.    Bernie

If it wasn't for the so-called "professionals" (read "biased ones"), AAT
would long been accepted IMO. Please let us know when it's broadcast.

Marc

> > > Now we're totally off the point.  I don't question your case here.

> > Yes, you do, Craig: you think our ancestors were fully aquatic (or full
time aquatic if you want) once, I don't think so.

> I DO question your case elsewhere; I don't question your case HERE because
I was trying to discuss the definitions, not the evidence.  We're not
getting anywhere, because you apparently think I'm trying to talk about
evidence.

No, but I don't find definitions interesting when we know what we're talking
about: I used "fully aquatic" only for mammals that are always in the water.
My papers left no doubt about that.

> > > I'm saying that when you use an example as a way of defining the term,
you are admitting that there is no adequate definition.

> > I use the examples in order not to be misunderstood.

> IOW, the terminology is not adequate, which is my point.  The term
"aquatic" is not defined, and should not be used as if it were.

IIRC, I never called our ancestors "aquatic", only "semi-aquatic". It's
vague term, but so is our ancestors' lifestyle.

> > > More on this later, I think - gotta go to work. Craig

> > Work on January 1st? Have a nice day, Craig. Marc

> That was yesterday.  Today is New Year's and Sherry and I spent it
rummaging in the store room, putting in new shelving.  Whoopee.  Now we're
going to open a bottle of champagne and probably fall asleep in front of the
fireplace.     Craig     www.PassionateApe.com

:-)

Marc

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?
res=F30610FC38580C768EDDAB0994DA404482

Small Amount Of Fish in Diet Is Said to Yield Big Benefits

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. (NYT) 877 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 18 , Column 6
LEAD PARAGRAPH - Men who eat seafood as seldom as once a month may
cut their risk of the most common kind of stroke by more than 40
percent, a new study by the Harvard School of Public Health has
found.
Many studies over the last two decades have found that eating fish
reduces the risk of stroke and heart attack. What is surprising about
this one is that it shows how little fish -- one to three meals a
month of virtually any fish or shellfish, like salmon sushi, tuna on
rye, broiled lobster or McDonald's Filet-O-Fish -- appears to produce
the maximum benefit.

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service

Man's early hunting role in doubt


19:00 02 January 03

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition

Hunting skills may not after all have triggered the tremendous burst of
human evolution at the beginning of the ice ages nearly two million years
ago. Instead of man the hunter, the driving force behind this evolutionary
surge may have been woman the gatherer, with both mother and grandmother
playing a vital role.


  Hunter or scavenger
For 40 years, anthropologists have leaned toward the notion that rich,
nourishing meat - brought home by hunters and shared out - played a crucial
role in human origins. This would explain why evolution selected for larger,
smarter hunters with lighter jaws and teeth: precisely the changes seen as
Homo erectus arose in eastern Africa.

The hunter-driven scenario also included the formation of nuclear family
groups, in which men hunted while women gathered plants and cared for their
children, thus kicking off humans' social evolution as well.

But this picture may be wrong on several counts. To begin with, early men
probably were not bringing meat home to the family. Most evidence of hunting
by early African Homo erectus comes from archaeological sites containing
both animal bones and primitive stone tools. But most of these lie next to
rivers, the kind of predator-filled habitat that today's Hadza
hunter-gatherers in Tanzania call a "city of lions".

"They're certainly not places where early humans were spending the night,"
says James O'Connell, an anthropologist at the University of Utah in Salt
Lake City. O'Connell is lead author of a critique of the hunting hypothesis
published in the latest issue of the Journal of Human Evolution (vol 43, p
831).


Fast food


Instead, the remains probably represent temporary meal sites - perhaps a
convenient patch of shade - where the group gathered around a fallen animal,
O'Connell and his team suggest.

Most likely, the "hunters" were not actually hunting either. Many of the
bones bear both cut-marks from primitive stone tools and the tooth marks of
animals. When the researchers compared these with marks on bones made in
modern experiments, they found that the pattern of marks and the mix of
bones were similar to those left by human scavengers (see graphic).

This suggests that early humans drove other predators away from freshly
killed carcasses - a view now gaining support among palaeoanthropologists.
But O'Connell's team went a step further. They wanted to know what kind of a
living early African Homo erectus made if in fact they were scavengers, not
hunters.

The Hadza people today scavenge avidly in the same way, and studies in the
late 1980s noted that they found an average of one carcass every two to
three weeks. Based on that observation, the team estimated that early humans
might have picked up a carcass every few days in the wettest areas, but in
drier areas might have got as little as one a month: nowhere near enough to
live on.


Family affair





Related Stories


Neanderthals' strong-arm tactics revealed
21 November 2002

Out of Africa migration may be a no-brainer
4 July 2002

Neanderthal butchery site uncovered
25 June 2002


For more related stories
search the print edition Archive



Weblinks


James O'Connell, University of Utah

Homo erectus, Smithsonian museum

Journal of Human Evolution



If fathers were not feeding their children meat most of the time, that means
mothers and, perhaps, grandmothers must have been. Older women might have
proved crucial in feeding children, the researchers say, allowing the
mothers to get pregnant again more quickly.

Evolution would thus favour a long lifespan, which is closely linked to
large body size and delayed maturity. Suddenly, all the major changes in
human life history are explained by foraging, not hunting.

Critics point out that even if the meat supply was not reliable enough to
live on, it must have been important in evolutionary terms. Humans have been
top carnivores - a highly unusual role for a primate - since at least the
Stone Age.

"Something special did happen with regard to carnivory," says Robert
Blumenschine, a palaeoanthropologist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick,
New Jersey. "The extent to which it shaped human evolution remains in
question, but I would think it must have had some strong influence."


Bob Holmes
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993222

For more exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New
Scientist print edition.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/02

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Pauline M Ross <pmross@d...> wrote:
> The BBC is reporting this story:
>
> A chimp who has grown up among humans may have developed the ability
> to talk, claims a research team from the US. The findings, published
> in New Scientist magazine, may come under fire from other
> scientists.  But they may further challenge the long-held belief
> that apes have no language ability.
>
[snip]
> --
> Pauline Ross

The story is also in the current New Scientist, article by Anil
Ananthaswamy.  Kanzi is an adult male bonobono (pygmy chimp) kept at
Georgia State University.  Whilst assimilating human language, he
appears to have created, and speak, his own four-sound language.  The
researchers at Georgia State University (Jared Taglialatela and Sue
Savage-Rumbaugh) say they haven't taught him this, he did it on his
own.  Their peers at other universities are cautious.

Male bonobonos are famous for being Nature's gentlemen - happily
bossed around by the female most of the time but rallying to the
cause when their tribe is attacked.  [Lessons in chivalry for men
here?].  Ray of light for men here: perhaps matriarchy if and when it
returns to human society (as foreseen by some experts) will not
necessarily stunt male intellectual development?

More on language in the same issue - "researchers have discovered a
universal language among bacteria - a sort of microbial Esperanto".
Apparently bacteria communicate when deciding to attack their hosts
(switch to virulence) or bide their time, peaceful coexistence,
whilst awaiting reinforcements.  This is called 'quorum sensing' and
offers a promising route for medical treatment: instead of attempting
to wiping out bacteria and provoking immunity by natural selection,
weaken their ability to sense a quorum and delay matters until the
body's natural immune system can cope.  Article "Make peace not war"
by Geoff Watts.

David

News story from the BBC:

* Ape culture hints at earlier evolution *
Complex behaviour of orang-utans suggests human culture started to
develop 14 million years ago, much earlier than thought.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/sci/tech/2622101.stm

--
Pauline Ross

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/chimpculture030102.html

  From the dainty use of a leaf as a napkin to saying goodnight with a
  lip-quivering raspberry splutter, the orangutan is a cultured ape, able to
  learn new tricks and pass them along to the next generation, researchers say.

  The discovery suggests that early primates, which include the ancestors of
  humans, may have developed the ability to invent new behaviors, such as tool
  use, as early as 14 million years ago, some 6 million years earlier than
  once believed.

  "If the orangutans have culture, then it tells us that the capacity to
  develop culture is very ancient," says Birute Galdikas, a co-author of a study
  appearing this week in Science.

  In the march of evolution, "orangutans separated from our ancestors and from
  the African apes many millions of years ago," she said, and the new study
  suggests "they may have had culture before they separated."
  ...
  Galdikas, a researcher at the Orangutan Foundation International, and eight
  other international primate scientists analyzed years of observations of the
  shy southeast Asian orangutan and concluded the ape definitely has the
  ability to adopt and pass along learned behaviors.

  The researchers studied results from observations of six widely separated
  bands of orangutans in Borneo and Sumatra and found that each group practiced
  unique behaviors.

  For instance, members of bands in Borneo and Sumatra make a kiss-squeak noise
  by compressing the lips and drawing in air. Both groups used leaves to amplify
  the noise, but only the Borneo group had discovered they could change the
  sound by cupping the hands over the mouth. The sounds are apparently used for
  communicating socially. None of the other groups demonstrated this skill.

  The opposite of the kiss-squeak is the raspberry - breath is blown out through
  compressed lips to make a splattering sound. Only one of the six groups does
  this habitually and it seems to be related to a bedtime ritual, Galdikas said.

  A group in Sumatra has learned to use leaves as gloves when handling spiny
  fruits. None of the others have discovered this yet. Another Sumatra band has
  learned the unique skill of getting a drink by dipping a leafy branch into a
  water-filled tree hole and then licking the moisture from the leaves.

  Galdikas said a group in Borneo routinely will force a small tree to the
ground,
  riding it as it falls, and then grabbing nearby forest limbs before crashing to
  the ground. Another group, in Sumatra, uses the same technique as a defensive
  maneuver, pushing over tree snags when they feel threatened.
  ...
  Only a single group of the six has discovered how to use sticks to extract
  insects from tree holes or to wedge out seeds from fruits. Such tool use is
  common among chimpanzees, but the Sumatra orangutan band puts a unique twist on
  the practice - they grip the stick with their teeth instead of their hands.

  The dainty use of a napkin has been discovered by one band. Apes in a Borneo
  band routinely wipe their faces with leaves and parents teach the social skill
  to their young.

  Altogether, the researchers found 24 examples of behaviors that are routinely
  practiced by at least one of the groups and passed along to new generations.
  Twelve other behaviors, such as making a pillow with twigs, was seen only
rarely
  or was practiced by only a single individual.

This is *very* interesting news. The implications of such behaviors extendingway
back into the past, tho that's a bit of a wild claim, are especially intriguing.

I kinda have to wonder why it took so long to spot such behaviors. Maybe it was,
and just dismissed.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "craighagstrom <craigh@b...>"
<craigh@b...> wrote:
> I put the END of our aquatic period about 2mya.
> And without the aquatic past we not only would not
> speak; we would have no need to.           Craig

         I agree with you Craig. Then we started to use tools, and
we didn't use it to catch fish. That tools helped us to spread all
over the world (they were enough, not something in later stage,
IMO). We could like to be near water, OK.
         It is only my assertion, I don't want to start discussion
on that matter, since I think that we have some other things to do
now, and we all know each other's position (so this could be a
waste of time). I only wanted to say that regarding AAT a lot of
things aren't strictly defined, not only one view is prevailing
(IMO). -- Mario

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Verhaegen" <fa204466@s...> wrote:
> > > > > > > ... "aquarboreal" is ... the only solution how you get
> from arboreal to amphibious.   Marc
>
> > > > > > It's one explanation, not the only possible
> explanation    Craig
>
> > > > > Ah? What other possible explanation do you have, Craig?
>
> > > > Arboreal to terrestrial; terrestrial to amphibious;
> amphibious to full-time aquatic.
>
> > > You make it even more complicated!: since there are no abrupt
> transitions in biology we have
>
arboreal>terrarboreal>terrestrial>amphibious>aquatic>amphibious>terre
strial.
> Impossible.  Even arb.>terrarb.>amph.>terr. is already extremely
> imparsimonious, and also impossible of course: in that case we
> would have evolved in baboon-like direction.
>
> > "Parsimony" does not mean that the shortest answer is the only
> correct
> one; it means that we should tend to favor the answer with the
> highest explanatory power.
>
> OK, in both these meanings arb.>terr.>aquatic>terr. is unlikley.

         I don't see it to be unlikely. There is example : Gelada
baboons share a lot of features with humans (I would even say that
some of these features are unique to both Geladas and humans). So,
arb.>terr.>aquatic>terr. very likely, IMO.
         I think I could add one question here. When you climb
something which you cannot embrace with you chimp-like big toe
(cliff, big tree), isn't this good condition to develop valgus knee?
TIA -- Mario

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Verhaegen" <fa204466@s...> wrote:
> > > > Now we're totally off the point.  I don't question your case
> here.
>
> > > Yes, you do, Craig: you think our ancestors were fully aquatic
> (or full time aquatic if you want) once, I don't think so.
>
> > I DO question your case elsewhere; I don't question your case
> HERE because
> I was trying to discuss the definitions, not the evidence.  We're
> not
> getting anywhere, because you apparently think I'm trying to talk
> about evidence.
>
> No, but I don't find definitions interesting when we know what
> we're talking
> about: I used "fully aquatic" only for mammals that are always in
> the water. My papers left no doubt about that.

         I will never use any other term but aquatic (lol, I am
never sure with that 'but'. Did I construct this sentence
rightly?).
         Everybody knows what we are talking about. Pa's and laymen.
So, I don't think we should change in order to attract anybody to
us. Regading laymen, AAT isn't religion (I don't think that
anybody here look it this way, I am only trying to analize things),
but it is about arguments. To look at changing anything in order
to attract somebody would deffinitely distruct us in looking at
arguments, which can only end up badly.
         OTOH, PA's should know what we are talking about, very
well. I wouldn't change the name only to bring us close together.
So that they can say: "You see, we called you fools because it was
you who were wrong all that time, not us. It was you who named
your theory wrongly." They would probably be satisfied if we call
it Aquatic Savanna Theory. Then everything will be alright.
         Regarding therm 'aquatic'. I think the one who named our
theory, did excellent job. It isn't definition of a state of
living, it is the name of theory. It defines the direction in
which humans evolved from previous state . Just
like 'savanna'. 'Savanna' was used in very same sense. Only now,
after all these years, they are questioning what savanna really
means (see). They see that they were wrong, so they are trying to
say that it was us who actually wrongly interpreted therm
'savanna'.
         It is all silly game. Please all of you, don't waste your
nerves on this. You will not make us more right. Only arguments
will. And who don't want to discuss with us arguments, only
because we look ugly to him (we are not mainstream, and his
ambitions are to be accepted by mainstream), is idiot, and AAT
won't benefit with him around. -- Mario

I've been giving the question of adaptations that can 'almost' be fully
explained by a more aquatic past , some thought. And I wonder if they could be
explained by a population, some living a largely aquatic/sea-shore existence
others more terrestrial/woodland/wet-land, which due to geographical proximity
and or isolation continue to inter-breed thereby becoming 'Jack of all Trades'
as opposed to  'masters of one'.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

If this was so then wouldn't only adaptations which provided advantage in both
environments be selected for?


________________________________________________________________________
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s)
to whom it is addressed.  Any views or opinions presented are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of United Kingdom
Accreditation Service.  If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that
you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying of this mail is strictly prohibited.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses on behalf of United Kingdom
Accreditation Service by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Connolly, Paul" <psc1@u...> wrote:
> I've been giving the question of adaptations that can 'almost' be
fully explained by a more aquatic past , some thought. And I wonder
if they could be explained by a population, some living a largely
aquatic/sea-shore existence others more terrestrial/woodland/wet-
land, which due to geographical proximity and or isolation continue
to inter-breed thereby becoming 'Jack of all Trades' as opposed
to  'masters of one'.
>
> Am I barking up the wrong tree?
>
> If this was so then wouldn't only adaptations which provided
advantage in both environments be selected for?
>

I think nearly every AAT proponent would find it difficult to argue
against such a step in our evolution somewhere, if not several times,
and this has been discussed here. For example, there are "extreme"
AATers like Marc who propose a long spell of isolation from any land
dwelling at all, but even he proposes long periods like you propose
as well. (He would also say that for example chimps and gorillas have
apes like the ones you mention in their past.)

For those who do not propose life on the waves (without a boat) in
our past, the above is quite a normal version of AAT, which shows, by
the way, a type of theory which comes close to certain orthodox
theories (mosaic theory etc).

Best Regards
Andrew

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@v...>
wrote:
> > From one book about seals :  "The Antartic fur seal can move
> almost as
> fast as a person can run, and the leopard seal can wrigle over ice
> at a
> similar speed. Photographers should take note when approaching
> seals on a
> beach as they may move with greater ease and rapidity than
> expected." -- Mario
>
> What book is that, Mario? Does this mean furseals are about as
> terrestrial as humans are?             Marc

         Oh, it is nothing serious. There is series of books by
publisher Todtri, called "A Portrait of Animal World". You can buy
it cheaply, over here. I have books about big cats, crocs, seals,
gorrilas, pigs, etc. They are large but thin books, with a lot of
pictures (very usuful), and definitly more info than you can find
in animal enciclopedias. Info isn't very scientifical, but OTOH
you can find things which you cannot find in scientifical books,
like "babirusa is more delicious than domestic pig" or "be careful
when you photograph seals, they can be very fast". I find this
info valid and usuful.
         Regarding our terrestriality. Well, you've got to have
something. Either it is some shell, shield, poison, canines,
usually it is in combination with speed. And what do we have? A
beautiful eyes? Lol. Well, I asked the question. The mere thing
that question can be asked (and not so easily answered) is
interesting enough, IMO.
         Eg. I've got answer from Bob (Keeter),  something like he
is imagining seals chasing ungulates over savana, lol. Well, that
IS funny, isn't it. The next thing, Bob sent me some article where
there is clearly stated that Apiths aren't efficient walkers, nor
that they can be fast runners (because of torso). So, what are
these people over in s.a.p. talking about? -- Mario

>
> > > What is/was the function of scalp hairs in children? any
ideas? solar
> shield??
>
> > It's valuable as a way to grasp a child - even if it's flailing
wildly in
> the water, a handful of head hair will reliably let an adult lift
the
> child's face out of water so it can breathe.     Craig
> www.PassionateApe.com
>
> Yes, well possible.
>
> Marc

An odd thing about infants is that they are born with "some" scalp
hair.  Then at about 6 weeks after birth, that hair mostly falls out
and new hair starts growing in.  Sometimes the color is different.
I have no idea why this might be.  I remember Elaine talking about
the changes of scalp hair in women during pregnancy--getting very
thick and then very thin and then back to normal  suggesting that
the thickening might be left over from an aquatic era when Mom
needed more scalp hair for a newborn to hang onto.  I never thought
about the infant's hair. Interesting.
I'm very happy about Attenburrough's book.  He can be very
influencial.
Tina Bjornstad

In a message dated 1/3/03 7:47:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, psc1@...
writes:


> Am I barking up the wrong tree?
>
> If this was so then wouldn't only adaptations which provided advantage in
> both environments be selected for?
>

here's possibly another wrong tree.  Humans are weak compared to apes.  Could
that be because in water great strength not needed?
Ray


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > > > What is/was the function of scalp hairs in children? any ideas?
solar shield??

> > > It's valuable as a way to grasp a child - even if it's flailing wildly
in the water, a handful of head hair will reliably let an adult lift the
child's face out of water so it can breathe.     Craig

> > Yes, well possible. Marc

> An odd thing about infants is that they are born with "some" scalp hair.
Then at about 6 weeks after birth, that hair mostly falls out and new hair
starts growing in.  Sometimes the color is different.  I have no idea why
this might be.

Do yo have more information on this, Tina? about 6 weeks? It's true that
newborns often have longer head hairs, and that is often replaced by shorter
hair, often of lighter color. But I haven't seen good descriptions of this.

> I remember Elaine talking about the changes of scalp hair in women during
pregnancy--getting very thick and then very thin and then back to normal
suggesting that the thickening might be left over from an aquatic era when
Mom needed more scalp hair for a newborn to hang onto.

Women's hair grow thicker during pregnancy & remain thick during lactation.
Afterwards, under hormonal influence, they become thinner again. Yes, the
most plausible explanation IMO is for the newborn to hang unto. Elaine told
me at the Valkenburg conference that she no longer thought this has to be
correct, but IIRC her husband Morien said he still found it one of Elaine's
most brillant ideas. I think Morien was right. Is this so, Elaine?

> I never thought about the infant's hair. Interesting.  I'm very happy
about Attenburrough's book.  He can be very influencial.   Tina Bjornstad

Let's hope so.

Marc