First of all, I assume that any hominins that did survive the flooding of the
Red Sea were confined to the largest island in the Afar/ Red Sea region. And
this population at it's height may have been as small as just a few thousand
individuals. Some estimate that the original human population may have been as
small as 3700 people.


The only hominin that existed in Africa 5.3 million years ago was Ardipithecus.
So the hominins that would have been trapped the largest Afar island would have
been ardipithecines that gradually evolved into Homo.

The mainland was still several kilometers away. And I'm not sure why 
ardipithecines attempting to  specialize in beach combing and the shallow water
predation on shelled invertebrates would wade or swim beyond a few hundred
meters from the shore-- especially females. But it may be possible that as they
evolved more Homo-like attributes they may have attempted such crossings a few
million years later.


The earliest African hominin, Sahelanthropus is dated at between 6.8 to 7.2
million years ago, so the chimpanzee human divergence had to have occurred
before that time. And since I believe that the evidence that Oreopithecus was
also a hominin is overwhelming then the chimpanzee human divergence would have
had to have occurred before Oreopithecus became isolated on the island of
Tuscany-Sardinia more than 8 million years ago.

As I've stated for several years now, molecular clock dates for the human
chimpanzee divergences, or any other phylogenetic groups,  should not be taken
seriously. Recent studies on ancient penguins are a clear illustration of this
fact.

http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem_print.aspx?name=68078801

Marcel F. Williams

>
> Thanks for ref., Marcel
>
> There is a good illustration of a possible island on page.9
> of your paper ... Afar island ... it would appear to be
> roughly 20/25 km in long, an 15 km wide ... an not entirely
> isolated (to anyone who could swim the short distance
> north, to the mainland).
>
> Would speculate that the sea level rise that followed the
> re-filling of the Med sea basin would create such an
> island, but it may have been too early to have been
> occupied (by ancestors of Homo) at 5.3 Mya.  As the
> divergence of the ancestors of chimpanzee and Homo is
> dated to around 5.5 Mya.
>
> Papio/gelada divergence at 4 (3.99) Mya.
> Thought the baboon C  virus was much later, later than the
> retro-virus(PtERV1) that infected apes with only exceptions
> being the ancestors of Homo and the orang-utans, a r-virus
> that struck sometime between 4 and 3 Mya.  A period during
> which the ancestors of Homo were possibly absent from
> mainland Africa (an possibly Arabia). Absent or immune
> to PtERV1.
>
> ---m3d
>

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Elaine Morgan" <elaine@...> wrote:
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: m3dodds
>   To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:08 PM
>   Subject: [AAT] Re: Inefficient Selection: Prevails over Darwinian selection
in Humans
>
>
>
>
>
>   Elaine,
>
>   Yes, Darwin did not coin the phrase "survival of the fittest"
>   himself that 'honour' goes to one of his colleagues - Herbert
>   Spencer who coined it after reading Darwin's "On the Origin
>   of Species", but Darwin himself was to mention the phrase in
>   the third an fourth editions and to use it in either the
>   fifth or sixth edition.
>
>   Apparently vestigial organs, are like backache, sore feet an
>   ill-fitting teeth ... they are part an parcel of a body who's
>   bits and pieces have been re-adapted and adapted endlessly over
>   millions of years ... adaptation isn't perfect, but we are
>   fit enough to thrive.
>
>   What the authors are saying (IMO) in their study, is simply
>   random drift (genetic drift) prevails over Darwinian
>   selection in complex organisms ...
>
>
>   E: Yes, I can think of examples of drift in the direction
>   of a non-advantageous  trait, as long as it was not
>   damaging to inclusive fitness.
>
>    I don't think C.D, would have lost any sleep over that
>
>   E
>
>


Nor over the many advantageous mutations ...


A gene critical for speech.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48680/title/A_gene_critical_for_speec\
h


---m3d

----- Original Message -----
   From: m3dodds
   To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:08 PM
   Subject: [AAT] Re: Inefficient Selection: Prevails over Darwinian selection in
Humans





   Elaine,

   Yes, Darwin did not coin the phrase "survival of the fittest"
   himself that 'honour' goes to one of his colleagues - Herbert
   Spencer who coined it after reading Darwin's "On the Origin
   of Species", but Darwin himself was to mention the phrase in
   the third an fourth editions and to use it in either the
   fifth or sixth edition.

   Apparently vestigial organs, are like backache, sore feet an
   ill-fitting teeth ... they are part an parcel of a body who's
   bits and pieces have been re-adapted and adapted endlessly over
   millions of years ... adaptation isn't perfect, but we are
   fit enough to thrive.

   What the authors are saying (IMO) in their study, is simply
   random drift (genetic drift) prevails over Darwinian
   selection in complex organisms ...


   E: Yes, I can think of examples of drift in the direction of a
non-advantageous

   trait, as long as it was not damaging to inclusive fitness.

    I don't think C.D, would have lost any sleep over that

   E


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

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Elaine Morgan" <elaine@...> wrote:
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: m3dodds
>   To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:06 PM
>   Subject: [AAT] Re: Inefficient Selection: Prevails over Darwinian selection
in Humans
>
>   Darwinian survival of the fittest ("only the fittest organisms
>   will prevail") would work to eliminate those mildly
>   deleterious mutations. (as unfit to survive)
>
>
>   > It is interesting that they have been able to describe in
>   > greater detail how it works. It is just the idea that this
>   > process somehow triumphs over the Darwinian process that
>   > striked me as simply a rhetorical flourish.
>
>   Triumphs in the sense - (inefficient) natural selection - is about
>   being fit enough to survive, not the fittest to survive.
>
>   E: Okay. But is that news? It was not Darwin who coined the phrase "survival
of the fittest."
>    If the unfitness is minimal it can hang around for very long periods of
time, especially if the non -fitness
>   is not energetically expensive. It is a long time since we lived in  the
trees, but our newborns  can still hang on to  something and support their own
>   weight in their first days of life. The vermiform appendix has apparently
lost its raison d'etre (though I seem to have read somebody querying that
recently)
>   but the difference that its size makes to our inclusive fitness is too
marginal to cause it to shrink any further and its size varies very widely
between
>   different individuals. (So does that of the clitoris but that is another
story).
>
>   Elaine.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



Elaine,

Yes, Darwin did not coin the phrase "survival of the fittest"
himself that 'honour' goes to one of his colleagues - Herbert
Spencer who coined it after reading Darwin's "On the Origin
of Species", but Darwin himself was to mention the phrase in
the third an fourth editions and to use it in either the
fifth or sixth edition.

Apparently vestigial organs, are like backache, sore feet an
ill-fitting teeth ... they are part an parcel of a body who's
bits and pieces have been re-adapted and adapted endlessly over
millions of years ... adaptation isn't perfect, but we are
fit enough to thrive.

What the authors are saying (IMO) in their study, is simply
random drift (genetic drift) prevails over Darwinian
selection in complex organisms ...


---m3d

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Dudman" <ausell@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: newpapyrus
> To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:14 AM
> Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets
>
> Hello Marcel....
> >
> > So this suggest that humans were geographically isolated from
> > baboons and the virus when it was active sometime after the
> > divergence of baboons (Papio) from the gelada (Theropithecus)
> > and before the appearance of Homo 2.6 million years ago.
> >
> What Homo are you referring to that appeared at 2.6 Mya?
>
> Rob.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: newpapyrus
> To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:14 AM
> Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets
>
> >
> > Would agree not all high ground would have become islands
> > when the Red sea flooded, but if the area was roughly the
> > same as it is today those areas north of the Danakil alps
> > could have become islands, or a single large island ....
> >
> > The island would have had to been large enough to retain a
> > chunk of forest large enough to sustain a largely frugivore
> > group of hominins for a number of generations, to allow for
> > an adaptation to a diet in which meat (from marine sources)
> > would make up the larger part. (meat counts for only about
> > 4 to 6% of the chimpanzee diet)
> >
> > Those on the island/s would have remained as vulnerable to
> > the retro-virus as their mainland kin between 3 an 4 Mya
> > if the retro-virus, was air-borne.
> >
> >
>
> A map of the Northern Afar region during the Early Pliocene can be found in
> the files section in my 2006 paper 'Morphological evidence of marine
> adaptations in human kidneys'.
>
> I should note that-- technically-- evidence of infection by the Baboon C
> virus is found in all Old World primates, but amongst the hominoids, humans
> indicate extremely low levels of infection similar to that of Asian
> hominoids (orangutan, siamang and gibbons) rather than African hominoids
> (chimpanzee and gorilla). So this suggest that humans were geographically
> isolated from baboons and the virus when it was active sometime after the
> divergence of baboons (Papio) from the gelada (Theropithecus) and before the
> appearance of Homo 2.6 million years ago.
>
> Marcel F. Williams



Thanks for ref., Marcel

There is a good illustration of a possible island on page.9
of your paper ... Afar island ... it would appear to be
roughly 20/25 km in long, an 15 km wide ... an not entirely
isolated (to anyone who could swim the short distance
north, to the mainland).

Would speculate that the sea level rise that followed the
re-filling of the Med sea basin would create such an
island, but it may have been too early to have been
occupied (by ancestors of Homo) at 5.3 Mya.  As the
divergence of the ancestors of chimpanzee and Homo is
dated to around 5.5 Mya.

Papio/gelada divergence at 4 (3.99) Mya.
Thought the baboon C  virus was much later, later than the
retro-virus(PtERV1) that infected apes with only exceptions
being the ancestors of Homo and the orang-utans, a r-virus
that struck sometime between 4 and 3 Mya.  A period during
which the ancestors of Homo were possibly absent from
mainland Africa (an possibly Arabia). Absent or immune
to PtERV1.

---m3d

Homo habilis. The earliest Oldowan tools are dated at up to 2.6 million years
ago at Gona in Ethiopia.

Marcel F. Williams

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Dudman" <ausell@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: newpapyrus
> To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:14 AM
> Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets
>
> Hello Marcel....
> >
> > So this suggest that humans were geographically isolated from
> > baboons and the virus when it was active sometime after the
> > divergence of baboons (Papio) from the gelada (Theropithecus)
> > and before the appearance of Homo 2.6 million years ago.
> >
> What Homo are you referring to that appeared at 2.6 Mya?
>
> Rob.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: newpapyrus
> To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:14 AM
> Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets
>
> >
> > Would agree not all high ground would have become islands
> > when the Red sea flooded, but if the area was roughly the
> > same as it is today those areas north of the Danakil alps
> > could have become islands, or a single large island ....
> >
> > The island would have had to been large enough to retain a
> > chunk of forest large enough to sustain a largely frugivore
> > group of hominins for a number of generations, to allow for
> > an adaptation to a diet in which meat (from marine sources)
> > would make up the larger part. (meat counts for only about
> > 4 to 6% of the chimpanzee diet)
> >
> > Those on the island/s would have remained as vulnerable to
> > the retro-virus as their mainland kin between 3 an 4 Mya
> > if the retro-virus, was air-borne.
> >
> >
>
> A map of the Northern Afar region during the Early Pliocene can be found in
> the files section in my 2006 paper 'Morphological evidence of marine
> adaptations in human kidneys'.
>
> I should note that-- technically-- evidence of infection by the Baboon C
> virus is found in all Old World primates, but amongst the hominoids, humans
> indicate extremely low levels of infection similar to that of Asian
> hominoids (orangutan, siamang and gibbons) rather than African hominoids
> (chimpanzee and gorilla). So this suggest that humans were geographically
> isolated from baboons and the virus when it was active sometime after the
> divergence of baboons (Papio) from the gelada (Theropithecus) and before the
> appearance of Homo 2.6 million years ago.
>
> Marcel F. Williams
>
> > ---m3d
>

Complex embryos displaying bilaterian characters from Precambrian Doushantuo
phosphate deposits, Weng'an, Guizhou, China
Jun-Yuan Chen cs 2009 PNAS


Three-dimensionally preserved embryos from the Precambrian Ediacaran
Doushantuo Formation, Weng'an, Guizhou, southern China, have attracted great
attention as the oldest fossil evidence yet found for multicellular animal
life on Earth. Many embryos are early cleavage embryos and most of them
yield a limited phylogenetic signal. Here we report the discovery of two
Doushantuo embryos that are three-dimensionally preserved and complex.
Imaging techniques using propagation phase-contrast based synchrotron
radiation microtomography (PPC-SR-¦ĚCT) reveal that the organization of
cells
demonstrates several bilaterian features, including the formation of
anterior-posterior, dorso-ventral, and right-left polarities, and cell
differentiation. Unexpectedly, our observations show a noticeable difference
in organization patterns between the embryos, suggesting that they represent
two distinct taxa. These embryos provide further evidence for the presence
of bilaterian animals in the Doushantuo biota. Furthermore, these
bilaterians had already diverged into distantly related groups at least 40
million years before the Cambrian radiation, indicating that the last common
ancestor of the bilaterians lived much earlier than is usually thought.

----- Original Message -----
From: newpapyrus
To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:14 AM
Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets

Hello Marcel....
>
> So this suggest that humans were geographically isolated from
> baboons and the virus when it was active sometime after the
> divergence of baboons (Papio) from the gelada (Theropithecus)
> and before the appearance of Homo 2.6 million years ago.
>
What Homo are you referring to that appeared at 2.6 Mya?

Rob.


----- Original Message -----
From: newpapyrus
To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:14 AM
Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets

>
> Would agree not all high ground would have become islands
> when the Red sea flooded, but if the area was roughly the
> same as it is today those areas north of the Danakil alps
> could have become islands, or a single large island ....
>
> The island would have had to been large enough to retain a
> chunk of forest large enough to sustain a largely frugivore
> group of hominins for a number of generations, to allow for
> an adaptation to a diet in which meat (from marine sources)
> would make up the larger part. (meat counts for only about
> 4 to 6% of the chimpanzee diet)
>
> Those on the island/s would have remained as vulnerable to
> the retro-virus as their mainland kin between 3 an 4 Mya
> if the retro-virus, was air-borne.
>
>

A map of the Northern Afar region during the Early Pliocene can be found in
the files section in my 2006 paper 'Morphological evidence of marine
adaptations in human kidneys'.

I should note that-- technically-- evidence of infection by the Baboon C
virus is found in all Old World primates, but amongst the hominoids, humans
indicate extremely low levels of infection similar to that of Asian
hominoids (orangutan, siamang and gibbons) rather than African hominoids
(chimpanzee and gorilla). So this suggest that humans were geographically
isolated from baboons and the virus when it was active sometime after the
divergence of baboons (Papio) from the gelada (Theropithecus) and before the
appearance of Homo 2.6 million years ago.

Marcel F. Williams

> ---m3d

>
>
>
> Would agree not all high ground would have become islands
> when the Red sea flooded, but if the area was roughly the
> same as it is today those areas north of the Danakil alps
> could have become islands, or a single large island ....
>
> The island would have had to been large enough to retain a
> chunk of forest large enough to sustain a largely frugivore
> group of hominins for a number of generations, to allow for
> an adaptation to a diet in which meat (from marine sources)
> would make up the larger part. (meat counts for only about
> 4 to 6% of the chimpanzee diet)
>
> Those on the island/s would have remained as vulnerable to
> the retro-virus as their mainland kin between 3 an 4 Mya
> if the retro-virus, was air-borne.
>
>

A map of the Northern Afar region during the Early Pliocene can be found in the
files section in my 2006 paper 'Morphological evidence of marine adaptations in
human kidneys'.

I should note that-- technically-- evidence of infection by the Baboon C virus
is found in all Old World primates, but amongst the hominoids, humans indicate
extremely low levels of infection  similar to that of Asian hominoids
(orangutan, siamang and gibbons) rather than African hominoids (chimpanzee and
gorilla). So this suggest that humans were geographically isolated from baboons
and the virus when it was active sometime after the divergence of baboons
(Papio) from the gelada (Theropithecus) and before the appearance of Homo 2.6
million years ago.

Marcel F. Williams


> ---m3d

----- Original Message -----
   From: m3dodds
   To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:06 PM
   Subject: [AAT] Re: Inefficient Selection: Prevails over Darwinian selection in
Humans

   Darwinian survival of the fittest ("only the fittest organisms
   will prevail") would work to eliminate those mildly
   deleterious mutations. (as unfit to survive)


   > It is interesting that they have been able to describe in
   > greater detail how it works. It is just the idea that this
   > process somehow triumphs over the Darwinian process that
   > striked me as simply a rhetorical flourish.

   Triumphs in the sense - (inefficient) natural selection - is about
   being fit enough to survive, not the fittest to survive.

   E: Okay. But is that news? It was not Darwin who coined the phrase "survival
of the fittest."
    If the unfitness is minimal it can hang around for very long periods of time,
especially if the non -fitness
   is not energetically expensive. It is a long time since we lived in  the
trees, but our newborns  can still hang on to  something and support their own
   weight in their first days of life. The vermiform appendix has apparently lost
its raison d'etre (though I seem to have read somebody querying that recently)
   but the difference that its size makes to our inclusive fitness is too
marginal to cause it to shrink any further and its size varies very widely
between
   different individuals. (So does that of the clitoris but that is another
story).

   Elaine.

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

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Elaine Morgan" <elaine@...> wrote:
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: m3dodds
>   To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 7:41 PM
>   Subject: [AAT] Re: Inefficient Selection: Prevails over Darwinian selection
in Humans
>
>
>
>
>
>   >Elaine,
>
>   I would say neither, think he is simply saying complexity arises
>   from inefficient selection, that more complex organisms rely
>   on inefficient selection.
>
>   These two quotes may summarise it ...
>
>   "The more simple a creature is, the fewer specialized proteins
>   it possesses. Humans and other higher-order mammals need many
>   specialized proteins to build the specialized tissues in their
>   skin, skeleton and organs. Even more specialized proteins are
>   needed to maintain and regulate them. This complexity requires
>   that the duplicates of the original jack-of-all-trades gene be
>   retained, but this does not happen unless selection is
>   inefficient. This is frequently a point of contention between
>   proponents of evolution and intelligent design. [QUOTE]
>
>   (selection is inefficient, there is no 'designer')
>
>   "This observation fits with the general theory that large
>   organisms with relatively small population sizes -- compared
>   to microbes -- are subject to the vagaries of random genetic
>   drift and hence the accumulation of very mildly deleterious
>   mutations," Lynch said. [QUOTE]
>
>   Both the above quotes, are from the Rice University
>   news release.
>
>   There is something reassuring in the notion of inefficient
>   selection, random selection ...
>
>   E: I can see it could be an argument against ID (as if there
>   weren't enough already).Apart from that it hinges on what they
>   mean by "efficient" and what they mean by  "Darwinism." If the
>   accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations was necessary to
>   make possible the required degree of complexity, then that
>   accumulation was selected for.





Not necessarily ...

Darwinian survival of the fittest ("only the fittest organisms
will prevail") would work to eliminate those mildly
deleterious mutations.  (as unfit to survive)





>   It is interesting that they have been able to describe in
> greater detail how it works. It is just the idea that this
> process somehow triumphs over the Darwinian process that
> striked me as simpoly a rhetorical flourish.
>
>
>   Elaine



Triumphs in the sense - (inefficient) natural selection - is about
being fit enough to survive, not the fittest to survive.


---m3d

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "newpapyrus" <newpapyrus@...> wrote:
>
> Of course, the Danakil Peninsula was too high ever to become an island during
the flooding of the Red Sea. But their were areas just north of the Danakil Alps
that apparently did become islands during the early Pliocene possibly large
enough to accommodate several thousand hominins.
>
> Marcel F. Williams
>



Would agree not all high ground would have become islands
when the Red sea flooded, but if the area was roughly the
same as it is today those areas north of the Danakil alps
could have become islands, or a single large island ....

The island would have had to been large enough to retain a
chunk of forest large enough to sustain a largely frugivore
group of hominins for a number of generations, to allow for
an adaptation to a diet in which meat (from marine sources)
would make up the larger part. (meat counts for only about
4 to 6% of the chimpanzee diet)

Those on the island/s would have remained as vulnerable to
the retro-virus as their mainland kin between 3 an 4 Mya
if the retro-virus, was air-borne.


---m3d




> > Thanks, Marcel.
> >
> >
> > Those dates are more in line with those of Lumiere ...
> >
> > Evolution of Human bipedalism: A hypotheses about where it happened.
> > by L.P.La Lumiere [1981]
> >
> > Which would mean if the ancestors of Homo were on Danakil island
> > they were on the island for the duration of the Pliocene.
> > (5.332 million to 2.588 million years ago)
> >
> > At the end of the Pliocene, they could have dispersed
> > along the coasts.
> >
> >
> > ---m3d
> >








> > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > The Afar evidence is very compelling. It seems likely that it
played a part in the story somewhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > The flooding apparently started 4mya and the dessication ende only
very recently, around 80,000 years ago.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Think Lumiere - speculated that the island would have
> > > > > > formed some time in the Pliocene, and re-connected
> > > > > > with the mainland at around 2.6 Mya ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 2.6 Mya date could be relevant (as a number of gene
> > > > > > mutations, like the one that reduced the jaw and jaw
> > > > > > muscles, seemed to have occurred around 2.5 Mya) ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If as Elaine suggests - it was a large island, possibly
> > > > > > it had sufficient surviving forest to last, an maintain
> > > > > > a refugee population. As it would have taken more than
> > > > > > a few generations for a mainly frugivore hominid to
> > > > > > replace and increase the meat component in its diet, by
> > > > > > one sourced on the shore an foreshore. A component that
> > > > > > played a crucial role as Dr.Cunnane says in evolution
> > > > > > of the human brain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once the island re-connected at around 2.5 Mya, its
> > > > > > inhabitants could have dispersed north and along
> > > > > > the coasts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---m3d
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not my understanding m3d.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wrote to Paul Mohr, a geologist who has worked on the Afar traingle
and written several papers about this. He told me the timescale was more along
the lines above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mohr, Paul A (1978). Afar. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary
Sciences Vol:6 Pages:145-172
> > > > >
> > > > > My own view is that this evidence indicates that one lineage of
hominids became isolated on Danakil for about 4 million years and diverged from
the australopithecine-like hominids living in the rift valley. The Danakil
population would have been isolated from the mainland (thereby explaining the
retrovirus evidence) and much more swimming/diving adapted than the mainland
clade.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, when the dessication process began, the two populations formed a
hybrid zone between the two populations and from that I still have this
compelling hunch that the Homo sapines speciation event arose out of a
hybridisation event of these two hominin subspecies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Algis
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Algis,
> > > >
> > > > If I understand you correctly, I am not sure hybridisation would
> > > > be possible after a period of more than 4 million years.
> > > >
> > > > Would not for example the descendants of a'pith-like common ancestor
> > > > separately accumulate a number genetic mutations/changes over a
> > > > period of 4 million years, a period during which they would
> > > > effectively be two distinct species?
> > > >
> > > > There is also the question of shared ancestry, of H.sapiens having
> > > > a common ancestor with Homo neanderthal, a common ancestor in
> > > > Iberia from whom H.sapiens inherited the ability to hear the
> > > > spoken word. (a change to the bones of the inner ear)
> > > >
> > > > So I would suggest, either a much shorter period of isolation
> > > > on Danakil island(ending before the start of the Pliestocene),
> > > > or that our ancestors were never on Danakil island, but were
> > > > somewhere else, perhaps in SE.Asia.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Remembrance Sunday 2009
> > > > We shall remember them.
> > > >
> > > > ---m3d
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Algis, for the Paul Mohr ref:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Evolution of Human bipedalism: A hypotheses about where it happened.
> > > > by L.P.La Lumiere [1981]
> > > >
> > > > http://www.jstor.org/pss/2398648
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@> wrote:
>
> >
> > Algis,
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, I am not sure hybridisation would
> > be possible after a period of more than 4 million years.
> >
> > Would not for example the descendants of a'pith-like common ancestor
> > separately accumulate a number genetic mutations/changes over a
> > period of 4 million years, a period during which they would
> > effectively be two distinct species?
> >
> > There is also the question of shared ancestry, of H.sapiens having
> > a common ancestor with Homo neanderthal, a common ancestor in
> > Iberia from whom H.sapiens inherited the ability to hear the
> > spoken word. (a change to the bones of the inner ear)
> >
> > So I would suggest, either a much shorter period of isolation
> > on Danakil island(ending before the start of the Pliestocene),
> > or that our ancestors were never on Danakil island, but were
> > somewhere else, perhaps in SE.Asia.
> >
> >
> >
> > Remembrance Sunday 2009
> > We shall remember them.
> >
> > ---m3d
>
>  Hi m3d,
>
> 4 My is not necessarily sufficient to cause a speciation. There are examples
of much more distant inter-breedings than that. Chimps/bonobos apparently are
seperated by 3.5 My and still interbreed with viable ofspring that is fertile as
far as I rememeber.
>
> In this model, early Homo would have evolved on Africa as is the curent model.
The only additional aspect I'm proposing is a new, as yet undiscovered
sub-species of Homo living on Danakil (H danakilensis? :-) ) so this would not
have been ancestral to H neanderthalensis or the other Homos.
>
> Algis
>


Morning Algis,

3.5 Mya seems to have been sufficient time for human and
chimpanzee to be distinct species some two million years
ago, when H.erectus was about to make an appearance.
(or do envisage H.erectus, going into a dark cave
hand-in-hand with a chimp ... )

Is not the date for the bonobos/chimp split a bit more
recent than 3.5 Mya?  say around 1.5 Mya? (or 2 Mya)

And would not any sub-species that managed to survive on
the island until around 100,000 years ago, have been
quickly wiped-out when they came into contact with Homo
that evolved elsewhere?  (in line with that oddball OoA
theory - that claims that all older versions of Homo, were
wiped out by Homo sapiens that left north Africa a few
tens of thousand years ago?)


---m3d

----- Original Message -----
   From: m3dodds
   To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 7:41 PM
   Subject: [AAT] Re: Inefficient Selection: Prevails over Darwinian selection in
Humans





   >Elaine,

   I would say neither, think he is simply saying complexity arises
   from inefficient selection, that more complex organisms rely
   on inefficient selection.

   These two quotes may summarise it ...

   "The more simple a creature is, the fewer specialized proteins
   it possesses. Humans and other higher-order mammals need many
   specialized proteins to build the specialized tissues in their
   skin, skeleton and organs. Even more specialized proteins are
   needed to maintain and regulate them. This complexity requires
   that the duplicates of the original jack-of-all-trades gene be
   retained, but this does not happen unless selection is
   inefficient. This is frequently a point of contention between
   proponents of evolution and intelligent design. [QUOTE]

   (selection is inefficient, there is no 'designer')

   "This observation fits with the general theory that large
   organisms with relatively small population sizes -- compared
   to microbes -- are subject to the vagaries of random genetic
   drift and hence the accumulation of very mildly deleterious
   mutations," Lynch said. [QUOTE]

   Both the above quotes, are from the Rice University
   news release.

   There is something reassuring in the notion of inefficient
   selection, random selection ...

   E: I can see it could be an argument against ID (as if there weren't enough
already).Apart from that it hinges

   on what they mean by "efficient" and what they mean by "Darwinism." If the
accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations was necessary to make possibkle the
required degree of complexity, then that accumulation was selected  for.

   It is interesting that they have been able to describe in greater detail how
it works. It is just the idea that this process somehow triumphs over the
Darwinian process that striked me as simpoly a rhetorical flourish.


   Elaine



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

----- Original Message -----
From: Algis
To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:58 PM
Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets

Hello Algis.......
>
> > .....If this was the case, then there is surely no reason to
> > think that a close offshore island would be unaffected by
> > winds coming from mainland Africa? Why do you think
> > another vector is more likely?
>
> It's a fair objection I suppose but there are ways round it.
> I am ignorant of virologist but is it a fair assumption that
> these viruses could have spread by wind across several
> kilometres of open water?
>
The answer would seem to be an unqualified 'yes'.......

'The persistence of the infectivity of influenza virus in aerosols
has been studied in the laboratory. In experiments that used
homogeneous aerosolized influenza virus suspensions, virus
infectivity (assessed by in vitro culture) at a fixed relative
humidity undergoes an exponential decay; this decay is
characterized by very low death rate constants, provided
that the relative humidity was in the low range of 15%--40%.
These results are consistent with those of an older study
(admittedly performed in a more rudimentary manner) in
which infectious influenza viruses in an aerosol could be
demonstrated for up to 24 h by using infection in mice as a
detection method, provided that the relative humidity was
17%-24%.'

and

'Because aerosols settle very slowly in still air, they are easily
carried over long distance by turbulences and air currents, and
this may potentially cause long-distance infections. Certainly, the
demonstration of long-range infection implies aerosol transmission.'

In...
'Review of Aerosol Transmission of Influenza A Virus: Influenza
Virus Aerosols'

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546777_2
___________

Humidity is an important factor and given the climate regime of
the time and the fact that we are talking about a coastal region,
it's likely that the average humidity would be in the higher range
of 15%-40%, but still within the range for the viruses to survive
and spread. I would think that both Africa-wide pandemics
would qualify as the 'demonstration of long-range infection'.
>
> Even if it could, perhaps H danakilnesis? was shielded from
> the effects because they lived on the ocean-side of the island.
> It surely would depend on the prevailing winds at the time of
> the epidemic.
>
Typically, coastal tropical winds are going offshore in the
morning and coming onshore in the late afternoon (the
Fremantle Doctor is such a wind and named for the relief
it can bring after a day of searing temps.) Each morning
(more or less), the prevailing winds would have provided
the perfect transport for virus aerosols to get to offshore
islands. This applies to both pandemics.

You suggest some sort of 'wind shadow' on the seaward
side of the island. Here I bear in mind that once a wind has
reached an island it becomes defined by the topographical
features of the land and in this it would be no different to
anywhere else in Africa with similar terrain. If the viruses
were wind-dispersed and spread over the mainland terrain
to infect all primates, it seems very much like special pleading
to think that a Danakil island would be any different in this
regard.
>
> Whatever happened, our ancestors must have been
> isolated from the epidemic somehow. It's the old parsimony
> thing again.One hominid evolving bipedalism from a knuckle
> walking LCA leaving two knuckle-walkers is more parsimonious
> than Two knuckle-walkers evolving from a bipedal LCA leaving
> one biped - but not much more parsimonious.
>
I would suggest that the issue of parsimony here is not so
much a matter of bipedalism developing from knuckle-walking,
but a question of whether there is an alternative explanation for
the absence of the RV markers that has both supportive
evidence and a greater parsimony than the Danakil island
suggestion.

The evidence is comparative.....all other extant primates who
also lack these markers had ancestors who were a long way
from Africa when these two viruses were spreading. It follows
that the most parsimonious explanation for the lack of these
markers in H.ss., is that our ancestors were also a long way
from Africa when the viruses were active.
>
> Assuming there were two markers on the mainland hominin,
> and none on the Danakil hominin then, if H sapiens were the
> result of a hybridisation, yes, the probability would be that
> we'd have one of the markers - but it's not that much more
> likely than having both, or none. It's like flipping a coin twice.
>
> I must say, I just like the hybridisation idea - I think it explains
> more (e.g. karyotype change) questions than it raises.
>
I'm not sure what you mean by 'karyotype change'....are you
referring to the comparison between chimp and human karyotypes?
How would an island at the eastern extreme of Africa explain
our karyotype dissimilarities and similarities with an animal that
shows no evidence whatsoever of having been in east Africa
until c.200 Kya?

Is this a hybridization with a'piths that you have in mind?

To be honest, I'm very perplexed to find advocates of a theory
(AAT) that rests almost entirely on comparative evidence, then
ignoring/discounting some very reasonable comparative evidence
in order to preserve the idea of an offshore island in the Danakil
region.

Rob.

----- Original Message -----
From: Algis
To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:58 PM
Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Dudman" <ausell@...> wrote:

Hi Rob

> > .....The Danakil population would have been isolated from the
> > mainland (thereby explaining the retrovirus evidence).......
> >
> Well.......maybe not. There were two of these RVs - one a
> baboon type C virus reported by George Todaro, referenced
> on your riverapes site and cited by Elaine in one of her books
> (my apologies - I don't remember which one, but she sent me
> a copy of Todaro's paper.) The title of Todaro's paper leaves
> no doubt about his preferred explanation for the absence of the
> markers in H.ss.
>
> The second reported by Yohn et al, was the PTERV1.....a
> much more widely discussed pandemic that seems to be the
> one that most refer to when they write of the 'retrovirus evidence'.
> You don't mention which of these two you mean when you use
> the phrase here....did you mean both?

Thanks for the 'heads up'. I actually was thinking of both.

> Either way, the crux of the matter is the vector. Here we have
> two pandemics that affected Africa's primates before the
> climate changes c.2-3 Mya which established the zonal
> climatic regime that we know today. At the times of these
> RVs, Africa was a tropical area from the Med. Sea to the
> Cape (at one stage there were even plants growing as far
> south as Antarctica). Given the widespread nature of the
> diseases, the hybridisation of the diseases to cross to
> different primate species and no climatic zonal barriers to
> wind patterns, I think that the most parsimonious and
> plausible vector for both diseases would be as wind-
> transported aerosols.
>
> If this was the case, then there is surely no reason to think
> that a close offshore island would be unaffected by winds
> coming from mainland Africa? Why do you think another
> vector is more likely?

It's a fair objection I suppose but there are ways round it. I am ignorant
of virologist but is it a fair assumption that these viruses could have
spread by wind across several kilometres of open water?
Even if it could, perhaps H danakilnesis? was shielded from the effects
because they lived on the ocean-side of the island. It surely would depend
on the prevailing winds at the time of the epidemic.

> Mohr's 'compelling hunch' about hybridisation requires that
> the markers for both infections have been 'bred out', yet
> couldn't we expect that at least one of the two markers
> would remain?

It's my hunch, not Mohr's. I'm sure he wouldn't want to be associated with
such a crazy idea! :-)

Whatever happenned, our ancestors must have been isolated from the epidemic
somehow. It's the old parsimony thing again. One hominid evolving bipedalism
from a knuckle walking LCA leaving two knuckle-walkers is more parsimonious
than Two knuckle-walkers evolving from a bipedal LCA leaving one biped - but
not much more parsimonious.

Assuming there were two markers on the mainland hominin, and none on the
Danakil hominin then, if H sapiens were the result of a hybridisation, yes,
the probability would be that we'd have one of the markers - but it's not
that much more likely than having both, or none. It's like flipping a coin
twice.

I must say, I just like the hybridisation idea - I think it explains more
(e.g. karyotype change) questions than it raises.

Algis

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "newpapyrus" <newpapyrus@> wrote:
> >
> > The proto-Red Sea was fed by the Mediterranean which became isolated from
its feed waters from the Atlantic around 6.1 million years ago after global sea
levels began to fall after 7.2 million years ago, so the Red Sea also became
dessicated after 6.1 million years ago.
> >
> > The Red Sea and the Mediterranean were flooded again by marine waters at the
beginning of the Pliocene, 5.3 million years ago. The Red Sea  became dessicated
again around 2.4 million years ago after sea levels began to fall after 2.7
million years ago.
> >
> > The Red Sea was dessicated and reflooded several times after wards until
recently.
> >
> > Marcel F. Williams
> >
>
>
>
> Thanks, Marcel.
>
>
> Those dates are more in line with those of Lumiere ...
>
> Evolution of Human bipedalism: A hypotheses about where it happened.
> by L.P.La Lumiere [1981]
>
> Which would mean if the ancestors of Homo were on Danakil island
> they were on the island for the duration of the Pliocene.
> (5.332 million to 2.588 million years ago)
>
> At the end of the Pliocene, they could have dispersed
> along the coasts.
>
>
> ---m3d

I think both are part of the mix. There was a obviously lot of wierd stuff going
around the coasts of NE Africa throughout the Miocene.

Algis

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Renato" <bender_renato@...> wrote:
>
> It took some time, but now... congratulations for the publication of your
paper!
>
> I was talking some minutes ago with one of my supervisors (I am at the moment
at the Wits University, Johannesburg) about the journal Homo. He told me that
the editors of this journal are known to publish papers that they like, even if
the reviewers do not agre with the work. This makes this journal important for
the divulgation of new ideas. Good to know!
>
> But it seems that some more traditional journals are given some space for
aquatic ideas (even if the authors have to use the expression like "wet savanna"
to make the ideas more digestable for traditional paleoanthropologists (see my
post "Congratulation Marc").
> Renato
>


Thanks Renato!

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "newpapyrus" <newpapyrus@...> wrote:
>
> The proto-Red Sea was fed by the Mediterranean which became isolated from its
feed waters from the Atlantic around 6.1 million years ago after global sea
levels began to fall after 7.2 million years ago, so the Red Sea also became
dessicated after 6.1 million years ago.
>
> The Red Sea and the Mediterranean were flooded again by marine waters at the
beginning of the Pliocene, 5.3 million years ago. The Red Sea  became dessicated
again around 2.4 million years ago after sea levels began to fall after 2.7
million years ago.
>
> The Red Sea was dessicated and reflooded several times after wards until
recently.
>
> Marcel F. Williams

Thanks Marcel,

As Derek Ellis has pointed out a few times, the Red Sea rifting is another
wetland/coastal factor that was almost certain to have had a big effect in our
evolution.

I think this just adds to the Danakil idea. The compelling thing about Danakil
for me is the chronology of the dessication - just at around the time of the H
sapiens speciation and the Out of Africa II diaspora.

Algis Kuliukas

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Dudman" <ausell@...> wrote:

Hi Rob

> > .....The Danakil population would have been isolated from the
> > mainland (thereby explaining the retrovirus evidence).......
> >
> Well.......maybe not. There were two of these RVs - one a
> baboon type C virus reported by George Todaro, referenced
> on your riverapes site and cited by Elaine in one of her books
> (my apologies - I don't  remember which one, but she sent me
> a copy of Todaro's paper.) The title of Todaro's paper leaves
> no doubt about his preferred explanation for the absence of the
> markers in H.ss.
>
> The second reported by Yohn et al, was the PTERV1.....a
> much more widely discussed pandemic that seems to be the
> one that most refer to when they write of the 'retrovirus evidence'.
> You don't mention which of these two you mean when you use
> the phrase here....did you mean both?

Thanks for the 'heads up'. I actually was thinking of both.

> Either way, the crux of the matter is the vector. Here we have
> two pandemics that affected Africa's primates before the
> climate changes c.2-3 Mya which established the zonal
> climatic regime that we know today. At the times of these
> RVs, Africa was a tropical area from the Med. Sea to the
> Cape (at one stage there were even plants growing as far
> south as Antarctica). Given the widespread nature of the
> diseases, the hybridisation of the diseases to cross to
> different primate species and no climatic zonal barriers to
> wind patterns, I think that the most parsimonious and
> plausible vector for both diseases would be as wind-
> transported aerosols.
>
> If this was the case, then there is surely no reason to think
> that a close offshore island would be unaffected by winds
> coming from mainland Africa? Why do you think another
> vector is more likely?

It's a fair objection I suppose but there are ways round it. I am ignorant of
virologist but is it a fair assumption that these viruses could have spread by
wind across several kilometres of open water?
Even if it could, perhaps H danakilnesis? was shielded from the effects because
they lived on the ocean-side of the island. It surely would depend on the
prevailing winds at the time of the epidemic.

> Mohr's 'compelling hunch' about hybridisation requires that
> the markers for both infections have been 'bred out', yet
> couldn't we expect that at least one of the two markers
> would remain?

It's my hunch, not Mohr's. I'm sure he wouldn't want to be associated with such
a crazy idea! :-)

Whatever happenned, our ancestors must have been isolated from the epidemic
somehow. It's the old parsimony thing again. One hominid evolving bipedalism
from a knuckle walking LCA leaving two knuckle-walkers is more parsimonious than
Two knuckle-walkers evolving from a bipedal LCA leaving one biped - but not much
more parsimonious.

Assuming there were two markers on the mainland hominin, and none on the Danakil
hominin then, if H sapiens were the result of a hybridisation, yes, the
probability would be that we'd have one of the markers - but it's not that much
more likely than having both, or none. It's like flipping a coin twice.

I must say, I just like the hybridisation idea - I think it explains more (e.g.
karyotype change) questions than it raises.

Algis

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@...> wrote:

>
> Algis,
>
> If I understand you correctly, I am not sure hybridisation would
> be possible after a period of more than 4 million years.
>
> Would not for example the descendants of a'pith-like common ancestor
> separately accumulate a number genetic mutations/changes over a
> period of 4 million years, a period during which they would
> effectively be two distinct species?
>
> There is also the question of shared ancestry, of H.sapiens having
> a common ancestor with Homo neanderthal, a common ancestor in
> Iberia from whom H.sapiens inherited the ability to hear the
> spoken word. (a change to the bones of the inner ear)
>
> So I would suggest, either a much shorter period of isolation
> on Danakil island(ending before the start of the Pliestocene),
> or that our ancestors were never on Danakil island, but were
> somewhere else, perhaps in SE.Asia.
>
>
>
> Remembrance Sunday 2009
> We shall remember them.
>
> ---m3d

  Hi m3d,

4 My is not necessarily sufficient to cause a speciation. There are examples of
much more distant inter-breedings than that. Chimps/bonobos apparently are
seperated by 3.5 My and still interbreed with viable ofspring that is fertile as
far as I rememeber.

In this model, early Homo would have evolved on Africa as is the curent model.
The only additional aspect I'm proposing is a new, as yet undiscovered
sub-species of Homo living on Danakil (H danakilensis? :-) ) so this would not
have been ancestral to H neanderthalensis or the other Homos.

Algis

Of course, the Danakil Peninsula was too high ever to become an island during
the flooding of the Red Sea. But their were areas just north of the Danakil Alps
that apparently did become islands during the early Pliocene possibly large
enough to accommodate several thousand hominins.

Marcel F. Williams

>
>
> Thanks, Marcel.
>
>
> Those dates are more in line with those of Lumiere ...
>
> Evolution of Human bipedalism: A hypotheses about where it happened.
> by L.P.La Lumiere [1981]
>
> Which would mean if the ancestors of Homo were on Danakil island
> they were on the island for the duration of the Pliocene.
> (5.332 million to 2.588 million years ago)
>
> At the end of the Pliocene, they could have dispersed
> along the coasts.
>
>
> ---m3d
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > The Afar evidence is very compelling. It seems likely that it played
a part in the story somewhere.
> > > >
> > > > > > The flooding apparently started 4mya and the dessication ende only
very recently, around 80,000 years ago.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Think Lumiere - speculated that the island would have
> > > > > formed some time in the Pliocene, and re-connected
> > > > > with the mainland at around 2.6 Mya ...
> > > > >
> > > > > The 2.6 Mya date could be relevant (as a number of gene
> > > > > mutations, like the one that reduced the jaw and jaw
> > > > > muscles, seemed to have occurred around 2.5 Mya) ...
> > > > >
> > > > > If as Elaine suggests - it was a large island, possibly
> > > > > it had sufficient surviving forest to last, an maintain
> > > > > a refugee population. As it would have taken more than
> > > > > a few generations for a mainly frugivore hominid to
> > > > > replace and increase the meat component in its diet, by
> > > > > one sourced on the shore an foreshore. A component that
> > > > > played a crucial role as Dr.Cunnane says in evolution
> > > > > of the human brain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once the island re-connected at around 2.5 Mya, its
> > > > > inhabitants could have dispersed north and along
> > > > > the coasts.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---m3d
> > > >
> > > > That's not my understanding m3d.
> > > >
> > > > I wrote to Paul Mohr, a geologist who has worked on the Afar traingle
and written several papers about this. He told me the timescale was more along
the lines above.
> > > >
> > > > Mohr, Paul A (1978). Afar. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol:6 Pages:145-172
> > > >
> > > > My own view is that this evidence indicates that one lineage of hominids
became isolated on Danakil for about 4 million years and diverged from the
australopithecine-like hominids living in the rift valley. The Danakil
population would have been isolated from the mainland (thereby explaining the
retrovirus evidence) and much more swimming/diving adapted than the mainland
clade.
> > > >
> > > > Then, when the dessication process began, the two populations formed a
hybrid zone between the two populations and from that I still have this
compelling hunch that the Homo sapines speciation event arose out of a
hybridisation event of these two hominin subspecies.
> > > >
> > > > Algis
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Algis,
> > >
> > > If I understand you correctly, I am not sure hybridisation would
> > > be possible after a period of more than 4 million years.
> > >
> > > Would not for example the descendants of a'pith-like common ancestor
> > > separately accumulate a number genetic mutations/changes over a
> > > period of 4 million years, a period during which they would
> > > effectively be two distinct species?
> > >
> > > There is also the question of shared ancestry, of H.sapiens having
> > > a common ancestor with Homo neanderthal, a common ancestor in
> > > Iberia from whom H.sapiens inherited the ability to hear the
> > > spoken word. (a change to the bones of the inner ear)
> > >
> > > So I would suggest, either a much shorter period of isolation
> > > on Danakil island(ending before the start of the Pliestocene),
> > > or that our ancestors were never on Danakil island, but were
> > > somewhere else, perhaps in SE.Asia.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Remembrance Sunday 2009
> > > We shall remember them.
> > >
> > > ---m3d
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Algis, for the Paul Mohr ref:
> > >
> > >
> > > Evolution of Human bipedalism: A hypotheses about where it happened.
> > > by L.P.La Lumiere [1981]
> > >
> > > http://www.jstor.org/pss/2398648
> > >
> >
>

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Elaine Morgan" <elaine@...> wrote:
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: m3dodds
>   To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:32 PM
>   Subject: [AAT] Inefficient Selection: Prevails over Darwinian selection in
Humans
>
>
>
>
>
>   "This supports the case for evolution because it shows that
>   you can drive complexity with random mutations in duplicate
>   genes," Fernandez said. "But this also implies that random
>   drift must prevail over Darwinian selection. In other
>   words, if Darwinian selection were ruthlessly efficient in
>   humans -- as it is in bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes
>   -- then our level of complexity would not be possible."
>   [QUOTE]
>
>   ---m3d
>
>   Inefficient Selection: New Evolutionary Mechanism Accounts
>   For Some Of Human Biological Complexity
>
>   A painstaking analysis of thousands of genes and the proteins
>   they encode shows that human beings are biologically complex,
>   at least in part, because of the way humans evolved to cope
>   with redundancies arising from duplicate genes.
>
>   "We have found a specific evolutionary mechanism to account for
>   a portion of the intricate biological complexity of our species,"
>   said Ariel Fernandez, professor of bioengineering at Rice
>   University. "It is a coping mechanism, a process that enables
>   us to deal with the fitness consequences of inefficient selection.
>   It enables some of our proteins to become more specialized over
>   time, and in turn makes us more complex." [QUOTE]
>
>
>   When he says "a specific mechanism", does he mean that is
>   in unique in humans?
>
>   Also, does he mean that we are more biologically complex
>
>   than other species?
>
>   Elaine
>



Elaine,

I would say neither, think he is simply saying complexity arises
from inefficient selection, that more complex organisms rely
on inefficient selection.


These two quotes may summarise it ...


"The more simple a creature is, the fewer specialized proteins
it possesses. Humans and other higher-order mammals need many
specialized proteins to build the specialized tissues in their
skin, skeleton and organs. Even more specialized proteins are
needed to maintain and regulate them. This complexity requires
that the duplicates of the original jack-of-all-trades gene be
retained, but this does not happen unless selection is
inefficient. This is frequently a point of contention between
proponents of evolution and intelligent design. [QUOTE]

(selection is inefficient, there is no 'designer')


"This observation fits with the general theory that large
organisms with relatively small population sizes -- compared
to microbes -- are subject to the vagaries of random genetic
drift and hence the accumulation of very mildly deleterious
mutations," Lynch said. [QUOTE]

Both the above quotes, are from  the Rice University
news release.


There is something reassuring in the notion of inefficient
selection, random selection ...

---m3d




Rice University
_________________
Study sheds light on evolution of human complexity
Scientists find new evolutionary mechanism that takes
advantage of inefficient selection

http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=13314

Op 09-11-2009 11:34, Renato <bender_renato@...> schreef:

> Do you know about a new paper on the role of an aquatic environment in the
> evolution of early hominins recently published?
> "Shallow-water habitats as sources of fallback foods for hominins".
> by Richard Wrangham et al., American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Richard W.Wrangham 2005
The Delta Hypothesis:
Hominoid Ecology and Hominin Origins
pp.231?242 in
D.E.Lieberman, R.J.Smith & J.Kelley eds
Interpreting the Past:
Essays on Human, Primate and Mammal Evolution in Honor of David Pilbeam
Brill Ac.Publ.Inc., Boston MA
...
Significantly, it is also a carbon-13-enriched species that could account
for isotopic signals in australopithecines (Sponheimer and Lee-Thorp 1999,
2003; see discussion by Verhaegen et al.2002 arguing that sedges such as
Cyperus are likely to have been important foods for early hominins).
(we didn't say "for early hominins", of course, but for (some) apiths --MV)
...
Previous authors have sometimes felt less constrained when considering what
early hominins might have eaten (eg, Kingdon 2003). For example Verhaegen et
al.(2002) suggested that hominin ancestors "fed partly on hard-shelled
fruits and molluscs", on the basis of evidence such as dental similarities
to mollusc-eating sea otters (Enhydra lutra), the human capacity for
voluntary breath control, and the expectation that bipedalism would be
associated with wading. They considered that the ancestor of australopiths
could have come from a Miocene ape ancestral to chimpanzees and gorillas, so
they did not expect the LCA to be chimpanzee-like. Even so, such proposals
are incomplete unless they can explain how the posited foods can be found in
sufficient abundance all year.
...
As noted by Verhaegen et al.(2002) and many other authors, fossil hominins
are frequently associated with wet habitats, doubtless partly a taphonomic
bias. These are often regarded as being lakes. Evidence on the fruit-bearing
capacity of woodlands supported by savanna lakes is therefore desirable. In
my own experience, savanna lakes sustain few or no trees that produce
year-round fruits edible by primates (eg, Rift Valley lakes in Kenya and
Tanzania). This raises the possibility that for fruit-eating hominins lake
margins would normally have been impoverished habitats unless they included
deltaic areas receiving year-round water.
...


> The authors use the term "savanna" to describe all habitats other than
> rainforests (not just canapoy woodlands, bush, grassland, but also
> shallow-water habitats). They do not mention Hardy or Morgan, but there is a
> reference to your aquarboreal paper (2002) (congratulation for this
> quotation!).
>
> I once saw that you spent some time discussing the aquarboreal idea with
> Elaine, but I did not follow the discussion. What is from your point of view
> the main output of this discussion?

Truce...

> By the way, you certainly know already about the paper by Joordens et al.
> "Relevance of aquatic environments for hominins: a case study from Trinil
> (Java, Indonesia)" published in Journal of Human Evolution 2009.
> Renato

--marc

Special Issue:
The Importance of Fallback Foods in Primate Ecology and Evolution


Shallow-water habitats as sources of fallback foods for hominins
R Wrangham, D Cheney, R Seyfarth & E Sarmiento 2009 AJPA 140:630-642

Underground storage organs (USOs) have been proposed as critical fallback
foods for early hominins in savanna, but there has been little discussion as
to which habitats would have been important sources of USOs. USOs consumed
by hominins could have included both underwater and underground storage
organs, ie, from both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Shallow aquatic
habitats tend to offer high plant growth rates, high USO densities, and
relatively continuous USO availability throughout the year. Baboons in the
Okavango delta use aquatic USOs as a fallback food, and aquatic or
semiaquatic USOs support high-density human populations in various parts of
the world. As expected given fossilization requisites, the African early- to
mid-Pleistocene shows an association of Homo and Paranthropus fossils with
shallow-water and flooded habitats where high densities of plant-bearing
USOs are likely to have occurred. Given that early hominins in the tropics
lived in relatively dry habitats, while others occupied temperate latitudes,
ripe, fleshy fruits of the type preferred by African apes would not normally
have been available year round. We therefore suggest that water-associated
USOs were likely to have been key fallback foods, and that dry-season access
to aquatic habitats would have been an important predictor of hominin home
range quality. This study differs from traditional savanna chimpanzee models
of hominin origins by proposing that access to aquatic habitats was a
necessary condition for adaptation to savanna habitats. It also raises the
possibility that harvesting efficiency in shallow water promoted adaptations
for habitual bipedality in early hominins.




Tubers as fallback foods and their impact on Hadza hunter-gatherers
FW Marlowe & JC Berbesque 2009 AJPA 140:751-8

The Hadza are hunter-gatherers in Tanzania. Their diet can be conveniently
categorized into five main categories: tubers, berries, meat, baobab, and
honey. We showed the Hadza photos of these foods and asked them to rank them
in order of preference. Honey was ranked the highest. Tubers, as expected
from their low caloric value, were ranked lowest. Given that tubers are
least preferred, we used kilograms of tubers arriving in camp across the
year as a minimum estimate of their availability. Tubers fit the definition
of fallback foods because they are the most continuously available but least
preferred foods. Tubers are more often taken when berries are least
available. We examined the impact of all foods by assessing variation in
adult body mass index (BMI) and percent body fat (%BF) in relation to amount
of foods arriving in camp. We found, controlling for region and season,
women of reproductive age had a higher %BF in camps where more meat was
acquired and a lower %BF where more tubers were taken. We discuss the
implications of these results for the Hadza. We also discuss the importance
of tubers in human evolution.




> Do you know about a new paper on the role of an aquatic environment in the
> evolution of early hominins recently published?
>
> "Shallow-water habitats as sources of fallback foods for hominins".
>
> by Richard Wrangham et al., American Journal of Physical Anthropology
>
> The authors use the term "savanna" to describe all habitats other than
> rainforests (not just canapoy woodlands, bush, grassland, but also
> shallow-water habitats). They do not mention Hardy or Morgan, but there is a
> reference to your aquarboreal paper (2002) (congratulation for this
> quotation!).
>
> I once saw that you spent some time discussing the aquarboreal idea with
> Elaine, but I did not follow the discussion. What is from your point of view
> the main output of this discussion?
>
> By the way, you certainly know already about the paper by Joordens et al.
> "Relevance of aquatic environments for hominins: a case study from Trinil
> (Java, Indonesia)" published in Journal of Human Evolution 2009.
> Renato

----- Original Message -----
   From: m3dodds
   To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:32 PM
   Subject: [AAT] Inefficient Selection: Prevails over Darwinian selection in
Humans





   "This supports the case for evolution because it shows that
   you can drive complexity with random mutations in duplicate
   genes," Fernandez said. "But this also implies that random
   drift must prevail over Darwinian selection. In other
   words, if Darwinian selection were ruthlessly efficient in
   humans -- as it is in bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes
   -- then our level of complexity would not be possible."
   [QUOTE]

   ---m3d

   Inefficient Selection: New Evolutionary Mechanism Accounts
   For Some Of Human Biological Complexity

   A painstaking analysis of thousands of genes and the proteins
   they encode shows that human beings are biologically complex,
   at least in part, because of the way humans evolved to cope
   with redundancies arising from duplicate genes.

   "We have found a specific evolutionary mechanism to account for
   a portion of the intricate biological complexity of our species,"
   said Ariel Fernandez, professor of bioengineering at Rice
   University. "It is a coping mechanism, a process that enables
   us to deal with the fitness consequences of inefficient selection.
   It enables some of our proteins to become more specialized over
   time, and in turn makes us more complex." [QUOTE]


   When he says "a specific mechanism", does he mean that is in unique in humans?

   Also, does he mean that we are more biologically complex

   than other species?

   Elaine




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

"This supports the case for evolution because it shows that
you can drive complexity with random mutations in duplicate
genes," Fernandez said. "But this also implies that random
drift must prevail over Darwinian selection. In other
words, if Darwinian selection were ruthlessly efficient in
humans -- as it is in bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes
-- then our level of complexity would not be possible."
[QUOTE]


---m3d


Inefficient Selection: New Evolutionary Mechanism Accounts
For Some Of Human Biological Complexity

A painstaking analysis of thousands of genes and the proteins
they encode shows that human beings are biologically complex,
at least in part, because of the way humans evolved to cope
with redundancies arising from duplicate genes.

"We have found a specific evolutionary mechanism to account for
a portion of the intricate biological complexity of our species,"
said Ariel Fernandez, professor of bioengineering at Rice
University. "It is a coping mechanism, a process that enables
us to deal with the fitness consequences of inefficient selection.
It enables some of our proteins to become more specialized over
time, and in turn makes us more complex." [QUOTE]

ScienceDaily (Nov. 4, 2009)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091103145603.htm

It took some time, but now... congratulations for the publication of your paper!

I was talking some minutes ago with one of my supervisors (I am at the moment at
the Wits University, Johannesburg) about the journal Homo. He told me that the
editors of this journal are known to publish papers that they like, even if the
reviewers do not agre with the work. This makes this journal important for the
divulgation of new ideas. Good to know!

But it seems that some more traditional journals are given some space for
aquatic ideas (even if the authors have to use the expression like "wet savanna"
to make the ideas more digestable for traditional paleoanthropologists (see my
post "Congratulation Marc").
Renato

Do you know about a new paper on the role of an aquatic environment in the
evolution of early hominins recently published?

"Shallow-water habitats as sources of fallback foods for hominins".

by Richard Wrangham et al., American Journal of Physical Anthropology

The authors use the term "savanna" to describe all habitats other than
rainforests (not just canapoy woodlands, bush, grassland, but also shallow-water
habitats). They do not mention Hardy or Morgan, but there is a reference to your
aquarboreal paper (2002) (congratulation for this quotation!).

I once saw that you spent some time discussing the aquarboreal idea with Elaine,
but I did not follow the discussion. What is from your point of view the main
output of this discussion?

By the way, you certainly know already about the paper by Joordens et al.
"Relevance of aquatic environments for hominins: a case study from Trinil (Java,
Indonesia)" published in Journal of Human Evolution 2009.
Renato

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "newpapyrus" <newpapyrus@...> wrote:
>
> The proto-Red Sea was fed by the Mediterranean which became isolated from its
feed waters from the Atlantic around 6.1 million years ago after global sea
levels began to fall after 7.2 million years ago, so the Red Sea also became
dessicated after 6.1 million years ago.
>
> The Red Sea and the Mediterranean were flooded again by marine waters at the
beginning of the Pliocene, 5.3 million years ago. The Red Sea  became dessicated
again around 2.4 million years ago after sea levels began to fall after 2.7
million years ago.
>
> The Red Sea was dessicated and reflooded several times after wards until
recently.
>
> Marcel F. Williams
>



Thanks, Marcel.


Those dates are more in line with those of Lumiere ...

Evolution of Human bipedalism: A hypotheses about where it happened.
by L.P.La Lumiere [1981]

Which would mean if the ancestors of Homo were on Danakil island
they were on the island for the duration of the Pliocene.
(5.332 million to 2.588 million years ago)

At the end of the Pliocene, they could have dispersed
along the coasts.


---m3d








> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The Afar evidence is very compelling. It seems likely that it played a
part in the story somewhere.
> > >
> > > > > The flooding apparently started 4mya and the dessication ende only
very recently, around 80,000 years ago.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Think Lumiere - speculated that the island would have
> > > > formed some time in the Pliocene, and re-connected
> > > > with the mainland at around 2.6 Mya ...
> > > >
> > > > The 2.6 Mya date could be relevant (as a number of gene
> > > > mutations, like the one that reduced the jaw and jaw
> > > > muscles, seemed to have occurred around 2.5 Mya) ...
> > > >
> > > > If as Elaine suggests - it was a large island, possibly
> > > > it had sufficient surviving forest to last, an maintain
> > > > a refugee population. As it would have taken more than
> > > > a few generations for a mainly frugivore hominid to
> > > > replace and increase the meat component in its diet, by
> > > > one sourced on the shore an foreshore. A component that
> > > > played a crucial role as Dr.Cunnane says in evolution
> > > > of the human brain.
> > > >
> > > > Once the island re-connected at around 2.5 Mya, its
> > > > inhabitants could have dispersed north and along
> > > > the coasts.
> > > >
> > > > ---m3d
> > >
> > > That's not my understanding m3d.
> > >
> > > I wrote to Paul Mohr, a geologist who has worked on the Afar traingle and
written several papers about this. He told me the timescale was more along the
lines above.
> > >
> > > Mohr, Paul A (1978). Afar. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol:6 Pages:145-172
> > >
> > > My own view is that this evidence indicates that one lineage of hominids
became isolated on Danakil for about 4 million years and diverged from the
australopithecine-like hominids living in the rift valley. The Danakil
population would have been isolated from the mainland (thereby explaining the
retrovirus evidence) and much more swimming/diving adapted than the mainland
clade.
> > >
> > > Then, when the dessication process began, the two populations formed a
hybrid zone between the two populations and from that I still have this
compelling hunch that the Homo sapines speciation event arose out of a
hybridisation event of these two hominin subspecies.
> > >
> > > Algis
> > >
> >
> >
> > Algis,
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, I am not sure hybridisation would
> > be possible after a period of more than 4 million years.
> >
> > Would not for example the descendants of a'pith-like common ancestor
> > separately accumulate a number genetic mutations/changes over a
> > period of 4 million years, a period during which they would
> > effectively be two distinct species?
> >
> > There is also the question of shared ancestry, of H.sapiens having
> > a common ancestor with Homo neanderthal, a common ancestor in
> > Iberia from whom H.sapiens inherited the ability to hear the
> > spoken word. (a change to the bones of the inner ear)
> >
> > So I would suggest, either a much shorter period of isolation
> > on Danakil island(ending before the start of the Pliestocene),
> > or that our ancestors were never on Danakil island, but were
> > somewhere else, perhaps in SE.Asia.
> >
> >
> >
> > Remembrance Sunday 2009
> > We shall remember them.
> >
> > ---m3d
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Algis, for the Paul Mohr ref:
> >
> >
> > Evolution of Human bipedalism: A hypotheses about where it happened.
> > by L.P.La Lumiere [1981]
> >
> > http://www.jstor.org/pss/2398648
> >
>

The proto-Red Sea was fed by the Mediterranean which became isolated from its
feed waters from the Atlantic around 6.1 million years ago after global sea
levels began to fall after 7.2 million years ago, so the Red Sea also became
dessicated after 6.1 million years ago.

The Red Sea and the Mediterranean were flooded again by marine waters at the
beginning of the Pliocene, 5.3 million years ago. The Red Sea  became dessicated
again around 2.4 million years ago after sea levels began to fall after 2.7
million years ago.

The Red Sea was dessicated and reflooded several times after wards until
recently.

Marcel F. Williams

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "m3dodds" <dons3148@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Algis" <algis@> wrote:
> >
> > > > The Afar evidence is very compelling. It seems likely that it played a
part in the story somewhere.
> >
> > > > The flooding apparently started 4mya and the dessication ende only very
recently, around 80,000 years ago.
> >
> >
> > > Think Lumiere - speculated that the island would have
> > > formed some time in the Pliocene, and re-connected
> > > with the mainland at around 2.6 Mya ...
> > >
> > > The 2.6 Mya date could be relevant (as a number of gene
> > > mutations, like the one that reduced the jaw and jaw
> > > muscles, seemed to have occurred around 2.5 Mya) ...
> > >
> > > If as Elaine suggests - it was a large island, possibly
> > > it had sufficient surviving forest to last, an maintain
> > > a refugee population. As it would have taken more than
> > > a few generations for a mainly frugivore hominid to
> > > replace and increase the meat component in its diet, by
> > > one sourced on the shore an foreshore. A component that
> > > played a crucial role as Dr.Cunnane says in evolution
> > > of the human brain.
> > >
> > > Once the island re-connected at around 2.5 Mya, its
> > > inhabitants could have dispersed north and along
> > > the coasts.
> > >
> > > ---m3d
> >
> > That's not my understanding m3d.
> >
> > I wrote to Paul Mohr, a geologist who has worked on the Afar traingle and
written several papers about this. He told me the timescale was more along the
lines above.
> >
> > Mohr, Paul A (1978). Afar. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol:6 Pages:145-172
> >
> > My own view is that this evidence indicates that one lineage of hominids
became isolated on Danakil for about 4 million years and diverged from the
australopithecine-like hominids living in the rift valley. The Danakil
population would have been isolated from the mainland (thereby explaining the
retrovirus evidence) and much more swimming/diving adapted than the mainland
clade.
> >
> > Then, when the dessication process began, the two populations formed a
hybrid zone between the two populations and from that I still have this
compelling hunch that the Homo sapines speciation event arose out of a
hybridisation event of these two hominin subspecies.
> >
> > Algis
> >
>
>
> Algis,
>
> If I understand you correctly, I am not sure hybridisation would
> be possible after a period of more than 4 million years.
>
> Would not for example the descendants of a'pith-like common ancestor
> separately accumulate a number genetic mutations/changes over a
> period of 4 million years, a period during which they would
> effectively be two distinct species?
>
> There is also the question of shared ancestry, of H.sapiens having
> a common ancestor with Homo neanderthal, a common ancestor in
> Iberia from whom H.sapiens inherited the ability to hear the
> spoken word. (a change to the bones of the inner ear)
>
> So I would suggest, either a much shorter period of isolation
> on Danakil island(ending before the start of the Pliestocene),
> or that our ancestors were never on Danakil island, but were
> somewhere else, perhaps in SE.Asia.
>
>
>
> Remembrance Sunday 2009
> We shall remember them.
>
> ---m3d
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Algis, for the Paul Mohr ref:
>
>
> Evolution of Human bipedalism: A hypotheses about where it happened.
> by L.P.La Lumiere [1981]
>
> http://www.jstor.org/pss/2398648
>